Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACI rz or Sl RI 1.IlL AGa'DA BILL NO. 3 Initial: Dept. Fki. DATE: 9/15/82 C. Att, DEPAI =r: Community Development C. Mgr. S=.CT: V -592, A -833 Walter Muir, 14156 Short Hill Court Issue SL--,T ary Applicant has requested variance and design review approval to construct a one story addition to an existing single story structure which exceeds the floor area ratio standards. The Planning Commission denied the variance because of the inability to make all of the findings, and denied the design review without prejudice. Reccmnendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended denial of the variance and approval of the design review, subject to deleting the non - conforming square footage. Fiscal Imaacts None Noted. Exhibits /A ttachmc.n is Letter of Appeal Staff report dated 8/2/82 Planning Commission minutes of 8/11/82 Exhibits B & C Council Action 9/15: ClevengerlCallon moved to grant appeal, making findings and directing staff to prepare resolution. Passed 2 -1 (Mallory opposed). S-A .' 4 r a� > >t Std August 13, 1982 Honorable City Council Saratoga City Hall Saratoga, California Dear Council Members: On Wednesday evening, August 11, 1982, the Sarato a Planning Commission denied our variance request (V -592 because we exceed the maximum allowed floor area and denied the design review (A —$33) without prejudice. We are in the process of remodeling our home and the landscaping. Our home is presently 3)$00 square feet of existing floor space plus a three car garage, with a 4 in 12 pitch shake roof. Our new design calls for removal of the brick facade and bumping out walls in certain areas that pre- sently have large overhangs. The area under the overhangs will become part of an expanded kitchen, dining room and laundry room. The present front porch will be reduced in size and that area will be brought into the house and made part of a larger entry hall. A new wing is planned as the front of the house to match the size of the garage making the house "U" shaped instead of its present "L" shape. The entire roof is to be removed and a new 9 in 12 pitch roof is to be added. New windows throughout most of the house and a new stucco facade will convert the house to a French Provincial elevation. An ancillary benefit to -us of this design is the additional attic space of the high pitch on the roof which will allow us more storage space than we presently have in the attic over our garage. (We are presently bulging at the seams and are finding it difficult to presently store some of the items we wish to keep and pass on to our children.) We have reviewed the plans with our neighbors that are on either side and behind us. They are in accord with the plans and have signed a letter stating that they have no objection to what we desire to accomplish. (A copy of this letter was provided the Planning Commission. The original is attached for your review.) The lot on our south side is owned by us and directly to the west of us are the ilest Valley College hockey and soccer fields. (The proposed addition is on the southwest corner of our house.) -2- There are eight lots on our cul -de -sac, seven have homes on them. Lot 1 has 4100 square feet, lot 2- in excess of 5000 square feet, lot 3- vacant, lot 4 (our home)- 3800 square feet, lot 5 -4200 square feet. lot 6- 5500 square feet, lot 7- 4$00 square feet, and lot 8 has 3000 square feet. All the homes on the street have extra large three car garages. We would appreciate your positive consideration of our request for a variance from the limitation proscribed by Ordinance NS-3, 3.47 and Article 17. all a� G�s'oz0 i` jLf �'1-3 I c+6 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 8/2/82 Commission Meeting: 8/11/82 SUBJECT: A -833 Walter Muir, 14156 Shorthill Court V -592 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Design Review and Variance Approval to construct a single story addition which exceeds the standard floor area by 13% where 5% is allowable. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption See 15103 Class 3 PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this project has bean posted on site, advertised in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 Low Density Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential and West Valley College SITE SIZE: 42,965 square feet SITE SLOPE: 5% HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 25'6" maximum SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing 4,616 square feet Proposed 1,458 square feet Total 6,074 square feet FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,378 square feet allowed + 5% = 5,647 square feet IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 27 %, 37% allowed by ordinance SETBACKS: Front 80' Right side: 20' Left side: 20' Rear: 134' * ' At, a Report to Planning Commission A -833 V -592 STAFF ANALYSIS: Page 2. The applicant is proposing to construct one story additions to the front and rear of their existing dwe'l'ling which will exceed the allowed floor area by greater than 5 %, thereby re- quiring design review and variance approval. The applicant has applied for a building permit for approximately 713 square.feet-of the addition which complies with floor area re= quirements, and is seeking variance and design review approval for remaining 745 square feet. The additions include 190 square feet expansion to the rear, two small expansions to the front, totaling 145 square feet and one large expansion on .the south side of the dwelling totaling 1,123 square feet. The applicant is proposing.to modify the exterior.finish of the structure from brick and stucco painted off -white to all stucco painted dark tan. The structure complies with setbacks and height requirements and will not pose any new privacy impacts. FINDINGS: 1. Physical Hardship: There is no physical hardship associated with the site in terms of site size, shape or topography which would warrant a variance from floor.area requirements. 2. Exceptional Circumstances: Staff noted no exceptional cir- cumstances associated with.the site which do not apply gen- erally to other properties in the same zoning district, warrant the variance. 3. Strict or Literal. Interpretation: The privilege of exceeding the standard floor area has been granted in the same zoning district in three cases: V -562 Mayo, V -568 Elder, V -574 Gera. Therefore, strict interpretation of the floor area requirements could deprive the applicant of a privilege granted to other property owners with similar circumstances. 4. Grant of Special Privilege: Granting of the subject variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege since other such variances have been granted. 5. Health, Safety & Welfare: Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Since Staff cannot make all the required findings staff recommends denial of the variance, but approval of design review subject to deletion of the non - conforming square footage. APPROVED: LJ_ qj'4_��, Sharon Lester Planning Aide SL /bc Agenda: 8/11/82 the nning Commissloll -'eeting Minutes 8/11/82 A -831 and V -589 (cont.) The public hyaring was opened at 9:54 p.m. Page 5 rte+ z .•`tip"- :,:; -:<:.•- The applicant explained the project and referenced the letter from his neighbor egarding rental of the property. He stated that he did not :intend to ent the property after the project is complete. Commissioner Cr wther commented that he was particularly concerned about this application because there are no two -story homes directly adjacent and because of t e opposition of the neighbor. The applicant noted that there were other two -story homes in the area. Commissioner Siegf \ied moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded th A motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consens4 that the necessary five findings for the variance ,.; could not be made. ommissioner Nellis moved to deny V -589, based on the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was car ied unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on the design review application and the ordinance. It was noted to the app icant t}lat there will be a joint meeting of the City Council and Plannin Commission in October, at which time the Design Review Ordinance ill be discussed. It was also noted that there had been a consensus of e Commission at their last study session on the ordinance to increase the range of discretion on Floor Area Ratio to. 20%. Commissioner Siegfried move to deny A -831 without prejudice. Commis- sioner Crowther seconded th motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. It was pointed out to the ap licant that he has the options of appealing to the City Council within 1 days, redesigning and deleting the square footage that is covered by t}le variance,- or reserving the present plan until the ordinance is review4d and revised. 7a. A -832 - Sloboden Galeb, Reque\amily for Variance and Design Review Approval 7b. V -590 - to construct a single dweling which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 143 Via Tesoro in the R -1- 40,000 zon- ing district Staff gave a report on the propo ed project. They stated that they ri could not make all of the necessa y findings and are recommending denial of the variance and approv 1 of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconforming squa e footage. Discussion followed on the site plans under the previous wner. The public hearing was opened at 10.12 p.m. Marty Oakley, representing Galeb Pav ng, appeared to answer any questions. Ron Mancusso, 14330 Chester Avenue, o the Emerald Hills Tesoro Home- owners Association, stated that much p anning had gone into this develop - ment, and he felt that the ordinance, s far as this property is concerned, should be maintained and respected. It was the consensus that a lot of stud had been done on this site in the past, and it should be continued to. study session to consider the size and also the grading, tree remo 1, and amount of impervious coverage. It was directed that this matt r be continued to a study sion n August 17, 1982 and the regular meeting of August 2S, 1982. 8 A -833 - alter Muir, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval ;.. - .:- .s.... >- ,. -... b. V -592 - o construct a one -story addition which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 14156 Short Hill Ct. in the R -1- 40,000 _ zoning, district Staff pointed "out that the plans show that there is a second floor framing plan for- an attic, and this has not been calculated into the figures for floor area. They described the proposal, stating that they could not make all of the findings and were recommending denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconforming square footage. - 5 - anning Commission Page 6 - eeting Minutes 3/1.1182 � S i F. A -833 and V- 512 cont.) The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. Walter Muir, the applicant, referenced a letter from the neighbors in support of the project. He described the proposal and other homes in the area. " Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. " Commissioner Crowther indicated that he believes this is a unique situ- " ation which justifies making the findings. He explained that there are homes in the neighborhood that already exceed the Floor Area Ratio. He added that this home is compatible with the existing neighborhood; s the neighbors have no problem with it, and it meets the criteria of the ordinance. He moved to approve V -592, making the findings, based on the fact that it is a unique site related to the surroundings and particular conditions of the neighborhood. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Commissioners Nellis and Siegfried stated that they had no problem with the design; however, they could not make the necessary findings to grant the variance. Mr. Muir explained that the back part of the house and across the front is already an overhang. He explained that all they were doing, with the exception of 900 sq. ft. .is bumping the wall out and utilizing the existing overhang. Discussion followed on the findings needed for variances. The vote was then taken on the motion to approve V -592, which failed 3 -2, with Commissioners King, Siegfried and Nellis dissenting. ' Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A -833 without prejudice. Commis- sioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. The applicant was advised of the 10 -day appeal period. ' 9. GF -339 - City of Saratoga, Amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding restaurants ail with outdoor din i g to the list of conditional uses allowed in all commercial districts (Section 7.3), delete contrary provi- ``P'' sions of this sect'on and amend Article 11 to provide a means of calculating the pa king required for outdoor dining per Article 18 of Ordinance NS- Staff described the proposed mendment, recommending approval to the fx •`' City Council, per the Staff R port. It was noted that the use permits could be conditioned for speci is uses. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the City is now in the pr cess of changing the ordinance to read that the use permits will run th the land, rather than with the owner. The public hearing was opened a 10:33 p.m. Philip Arst, 12157 Atrium Drive n the Park Saratoga condominium develop- ment, expressed his concern regar ing the preservation of the residential environment in that area. He sug ested that outdoor dining be limited to the Village area and not be all wed in residential areas. jl Bob Pedrick, managing partner of Cr pe Daniel, stated that he was very aware of the need for protection of the residential areas of the City. = He explained their proposed operatio and stated that he felt all of the fine restaurants should be allowed t have outdoor dining. He added that he would not like to be discrim ted against because their restaurant is not in the Village. -. ., Commissioner Siegfried moved to close he public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was arried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther suggested that a �rovision be included in the ordinance which states that outdoor din ng facilities which are adjacent to residential areas shall be enclosed b walls. Commissioner Bolger stated that he was troubled by allowing utdoor dining in P -D areas, -- and he feels it would be more appropriate in the C -C and C -N designa- tions. Staff explained that if the conce n is minimizing impacts on s CITY OF SARATOGA l �, Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 3 Dept. Hd. DATE: September 7, 1982 C. Atty. DEpARTMENr• Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr. --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - •--- - - - - -- SUBJECT: GF -339, Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Allow )Outdoor Dining as a Conditional Use in the C -N, C -V and C -C Districts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Issue Sunmary 1. Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment at its meeting of August 11, 1982. 2. This amendment was initiated by the Commission at the request of a resident and after receiving a petition from the Crepe Daniel Restaurant supporting such use. A study session was conducted by the Commission prior to the public hearing. 3. The purpose of the amendment is to allow a use desired by many people to be legally permitted while ensuring that potential adverse impacts are eliminated through the use permit process. 4. Parking standards are also modified to create parking standards for Recom endation dining areas. 1. Conduct the required public hearing and receive public input for first reading of Ordinance. 2. Make the required findings (;Exhibit D) . --�3. Approve the Negative Declaration. �--- 4. Introduce the Ordinance as proposed for its first reading. 5. Approve the Ordinance at its second reading next meeting. Fiscal Imoacts Possible increase in sales tax - revenue from increased restaurant usage. Exhibits /Attachnnnis Exhibit A - Staff Report dated 7/26/82 Exhibit B - Planning Commission minutes dated 8/11/82 Exhibit C - Resolution GF -339 Exhibit D - Findings Report for GF -339 Exhibit E - Proposed Ordinance Exhibit F - Negative Declaration Council Action 9/15: Clevenger /Callon moved to introduce ordinance, waiving further reading. Passed 3 -0. 10/6: Fanelli /Moyles moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 4 -0. Clevenger moved to approve negative declaration. Passed 4 -0. Clevengerftyles moved to adopt. Passed 3 -1 (Mallory opposed). n A, o1 ° ° =m REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/26/82 Commission Meeting: 8/11/82 SUBJECT- GF -339, Amend zoning ordinance to allow restaurants with outdoor dining as conditional uses in all commercial districts The Planning Commission discussed this item at its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of July 6, 1982. At that time the Commission expressed concerns about limiting hours of operation, limiting amount of outdoor seating, screening, noise and litter. A resident of the Park Saratoga Condominium Development expressed concern about the precedent that could be established if a restaurant with out- door dining were granted a use permit. He gave the example of granting the Crepe Daniel Restaurant a use permit for outdoor dining and wondered if the pizza parlor at the other end of that building in the center could also get a use permit. He felt that the Crepe Daniel might not create any significant adverse impacts but a pizza parlor could create a noise and litter nuisance if allowed outside. i. It was explained that a use permit was a matter of grace and not a matter of right so that the City can deny a use permit. However, similar uses in similar situations should be dealt with in the same manner. In conversation with the City Attorney it was deter- mined that a pizza parlor or similar use can be differentiated from a sit down restaurant and a use permit can be denied based on the nature of the restaurant use and not just the physical cir- cumstances associated with the use. The Commission was shown several options in dealing with this type of use in a Staff Report dated May 26, 1982. At the time`the Commission appeared to favor an option which required use permits for outdoor dining either limiting such uses to special commercial districts or allowing such uses in all commercial districts. (If outdoor dining is to be permitted in the C -V district then the prohibition in Section 7.3(c) must be removed.) The Commission was concerned about allowing outdoor dining in commercial zones near residential areas due to potential noise and nuisance impacts. Staff Report ., .page 2. GF -339 If outdoor dining is to be allowed in Saratoga then some means of calculating parking for outdoor dining, which is a signficant impact created by all restaurant uses, should be addressed. Some Commissioners suggested that parking requirements be based on square footage of the outdoor dining area. The problem arises as to how to determine the perimeter of the outdoo- dining area. Some sort of physical barrier (i.e., landscaping, fencing, etc.) would be desirable. In lieu of that, parking can be determined by the number of tables or seats. Many cities in the Bay Area require 1 parking space per 3 seats for restaurants.. Specific limits on hours of operation, the amount of outdoor seating and noise should be based on individual use permits. Requirements for litter control should be standard conditions although requirements for screening should be optional depending on the nearness of existing residences. The Commission can vary certain provisions of the zoning ordinance through the use permit process if it so desires but it should specify what provisions (i.e., setbacks, parking, etc.) it wishes to vary. In the absence of such a statement in the ordinance any variation in standard must be reviewed through the variance process. FINDINGS: „ 1. The proposed zoning changes are required to ahcieve the objectives of the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of Ordinance NS -3. 2. The amendments would not be detrimental to the public health,. safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the areas affected by the amendment. 3. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The amendments will not adversely affect the development of the City of Saratoga. RECOMMENDATION: The use permit procedure is one of the most powerful and flexible controls the City has in regulating land use. Considering this power and flexibility Staff would recommend that restaurants with outdoor dining be allowed in all commercial districts. Use permits will likely have sufficient conditions to protect adjacent properties. Staff Report page 3. GF -339 To support this change Article 11 should be amended to require 1 parking space per 3 seats for any outdoor dining area. This ratio is used by many cities in the Bay Area and eliminates having to determine the perimeter of an outdoor dining area:,: Use permits can limit the number of chairs allowed. Mf /bc Agenda: 8/11/82 iu P 4",V, - Mi e Flores Assistant Planner -t- ..: � — :l�F.: ° °;:•:,�:` �7, },cam -� ' -'l Via. •f.• � .. ll:..., r.�.�•.F Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3/11/82 A -833 and V -S92 (cont.) Y lipl� Page 6 The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. Walter Muir, the applicant, referenced a letter from the neighbors in support of the project. He described the proposal and other homes in the area. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he believes this is a unique situ- ation which justifies making the findings. He explained that there are homes in the neighborhood that already exceed the Floor Area Ratio. He added that this home is compatible with the existing neighborhood; the neighbors have no problem with it, and it meets the criteria of the ordinance. He moved to approve V -592, making the findings, based on the fact that it is a unique site related to the surroundings and particular conditions of the neighborhood. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Commissioners Nellis and Siegfried stated that they had no problem with the design; however, they could not make the necessary findings to grant the variance. Mr. Muir explained that the back part of the house and across the front is already an overhang. He explained that all they were doing, with the exception of 900 sq. ft., is bumping the wall out and utilizing the existing overhang. Discussion followed on the findings needed for variances.. The vote was then taken on the motion to -approve V -592, which failed 3 -2, with Commissioners King, Siegfried and Nellis dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A -833 without prejudice. Commi ) sioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commission Bolger and Crowther dissenting. The applicant was advised of the 10 -day appeal period. 9. GF -339 - City of Saratoga, Amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding restauran with outdoor dining to the list of conditional uses allowed in all commercial districts (Section 7.3), delete contrary provi- sions of this section and amend Article 11 to provide a means of calculating the parking required for outdoor dining per Article 18 of Ordinance NS -3 Staff described the proposed amendment, recommending approval to the City Council, per the Staff Report. It was noted.that the use permits could be conditioned for specific uses. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the City is now in the process of changing the ordinance to read that the use permits will run with the land, rather than with the owner. The public hearing was opened at 10:33 p.m. Philip Arst, 12157 Atrium Drive in the Park Saratoga condominium develop- ment, expressed his concern regarding the preservation of the residential environment in that area. He suggested that outdoor dining be limited to the Village area and not be allowed in residential areas. Bob Pedrick, managing partner of Crepe Daniel, stated that he was very aware of the need for protection of the residential areas of the City. Ile explained their proposed operation and stated that he felt all of the fine restaurants should be allowed to have outdoor dining. He added that he would not like to be discrimated against because their restaurant is not in the Village. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. l Commissioner Crowther suggested that a provision be included in the(— ordinance which states that outdoor dining facilities which are adjacent to residential areas shall be enclosed by walls. Commissioner Bolger stated that he was troubled by allowing outdoor dining in P -D areas, and he feels it would he more appropriate-in the C -C and C -N designa- tions. Staff explained that if the concern is minimizing impacts on 6 Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 8/11/32 A -831 and V -S89 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 9:54,p.m. The applicant explained the project find `referenced the letter from his neighbor regarding rental of thd� property. He stated that he did not intend to rent the property after the project is complete. Commissioner Crowther commented that he was particularly concerned about this application because there are no two -story homes directly adjacent and because of the opposition of the neighbor. The applicant noted that there were other two -story homes in the area. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the necessary five findings for the variance could not be made. Commissioner Nellis moved to deny V -S89, based on the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on the design review application and the ordinance. It was noted to the applicant that there will be•a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in October, at which time the Design Review Ordinance will be discussed. It was also noted that there had been a consensus of the Commission at their last study session on the ordinance to increase the range of discretion on Floor Area Ratio to 20 %. Staff pointed out that the plans show that there is a second floor framing plan for an attic, and this has not been calculated into the figures for floor area. They described the proposal, stating that they could not make all of the finding, and were recommending denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the -= ' "`�.•.,zi•:: ;; -r' nonconforming square footage. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A -831 without prejudice. Commis- sioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. It was pointed out to the applicant that he has the options of appealing to the City Council within 10 days, redesigning and deleting the square footage that is covered by the variance, or reserving the present plan until the ordinance is reviewed and revised. 7a. A -832 - Sloboden Galeb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval 7b. V -590 - to construct a single family dwelling which exceeds the maximum . allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro in the R -1- 40,000 zon- ing district Staff gave a report on the proposed project. They stated that they could not make all of th'e necessary findings and are recommending denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconforming square footage., Discussion followed on the site plans under the previous owner. - ..... .. ... -••-. The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Marty Oakley, representing Galeb Paving, appeared to answer any questions. Ron Mancusso, 14330 Chester Avenue, of the Emerald Hills Tesoro Home- owners Association, stated that much planning had gone into this develop- ment, and he felt that the ordinance, as far as this property is concerned should be maintained and respected. It was the consensus that a lot of study had been done on this site in the past, and it should be continued to a study session to consider the size and also the grading, tree removal, and amount of impervious coverage. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on August 17, 1932 and the regular meeting of august 25, 1982. 8a. A -833 - Walter Muir, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval 8b. V -592 - to construct a one -story addition which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 14156 Short (fill Ct..in the R- 1- 40,000 zonin, district Staff pointed out that the plans show that there is a second floor framing plan for an attic, and this has not been calculated into the figures for floor area. They described the proposal, stating that they could not make all of the finding, and were recommending denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the -= ' "`�.•.,zi•:: ;; -r' nonconforming square footage. Planning Commission Page 7 ' _ . .. .... ... ...... Meeting Minutes 3/11/82 . GF -3; ^(cont:.). _. residential properties, the restriction would also have to be placed on C-N districts, as well as P -D. '. Commissioner Nellis stated that he:h,,d no problem with the ordinance as proposed. He indicated that he is satisfied that the Commission has .,,�.�,r- ,�,�•.:�,_•,.�:� -�._._ sufficient means to control and regulate the use of any applications that come before it, and the specifics should be taken up at that time. Ile moved to recommend Resolution GF -339, as proposed by Staff, to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned about the ordinance because he feels it is too general. He moved to amend the motion to add the condition that "Outdoor facilities which are adjacent to resi- dential areas shall be enclosed by appropriate walls or shrubbery to minimize noise or other adverse impacts on adjacent neighbors." Commissioner Nellis stated that he could not accept that amendment, since he does not feel it is necessary to have it in this ordinance, and feels that aspect can be controlled when a particular application comes before the Commission. Commissioner Bolger stated that he would not be voting in favor of the ordinance, since he feels it is inappropriate to put outdoor restaurants adjacent to residential facilities. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. l0a.Negative Declaration - GF -340 - City of Saratoga 10b.GF -340 - City of Saratoga,;Amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding Mini- Storage Facilities to the list of conditional uses allowed in the C -V (Visitor - Commercial) District (Section 7.3(c)) '-- The proposed amendment was described by Staff. Discussion followed on the storage of hazardous materials. The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m. John Reinhart, representing Public Storage, Inc., addressed the use of mini- storage and the storing of hazardous materials. The operation and security system were discussed. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the Negative Declaration for GF -340. Commisioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S -0. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt Resolution GF -340, making the findings per the Staff Report dated July 22, 1982. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S -0. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Consideration of 1982 -SS Capital Improvement Program; continued from July 14 1982 Staff indicated that what is before the Commission at this time is the determination that this program is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern that the program shoes that all of the present streets needing repair cannot he taken care of in one year, vet the Gencral Plan shows even more streets being built through high risk areas. Ile questioned if this is consistent with the General Plan in view of the fact that no funds are budgeted for new streets. He added that he was also concerned that repair of Rohlman Road was not mentioned in the program. Staff explained that the program indicates items that had the highest ... priority. It was determined that the projects that arc listed in the _, :,.•.�� ?4�t:�.�Jrs„1,`:.• -., c program should he considered at this time, and :i separate memorandum could he sent to the City Council, indicating that the Commission feels - 7 } .,.. .�.�!"k i f!" i � �,.� l,_•_,: L. X � 1 � � 1, �r . ;.Nny _ - RESOLUTION NO. GF -339 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, an application for kenament to the Zoning Ordinance has been initiated by the Planning'Commission of the City of Saratoga, and ' WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on said proposed amendment, which public hearing was held at the following time and place to -wit: At the hour of 7:30 P.M. on the 11th day of August, ` -•- 1982 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California; and thereafter said hearing was closed, and WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulations and General Plan of the City of Saratoga, and after review of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked NS should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of the City, and that the Report of Findings of this r Commission, a copy of which report is attached hereto and marked - :- - - Exhibit "B ", be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary is directed to send :4w }:.v > =; a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed ' Amendment and Report of Findings and a summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSEb AND ADOPTED BY the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, - State of California, this 11th day of August, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners King, Nellis and Siegfried NOES: Commissioners Bolger and Crowther ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Monia and Schaefer ChairmDLoli_th anning Commission i _.,•:�ris�'�c.�::rw::r.i7is± r: ? <N ATTEST: - Secretary to' the Planning Commission EXHIBIT FINDINGS: 1. The proposed zoning changes are required to achieve the objectives of the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of Ordinance NS -3. 2. The amendments would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the areas affected by the amendment. 3. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. The amendments will not adversely affect the development of the City of Saratoga. M i- MAYOR ATTEST: {� Y CITY CLERK >;[..:.: -: ORDINANCE NO. NS- n :ro;:�. ;:_ ;�_ w•- a.;:a;:. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE.ZONING:ORDINANCE, BY ADDING RESTAURANTS WITH OUTDOOR.DINING TO THE LIST OF _ CONDITIONAL USES IN ALL COM14ERCIAL ZONING DIS- TRICTS, DELETING CONFLICTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS -' AND AMENDING ARTICLE 11 TO PROVIDE PARKING RE- 4'` QUIREMENTS FOR OUTDOOR DINING - The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Subsections 7.3(a),(b) and (c) (Conditional Uses in C -N, C -C, and C -V Districts) are hereby amended by the addition of the following conditional use: Restaurants with outdoor dining Section 2: Subsection 7.3(c) (Conditional Uses in C -V Districts) is hereby amended by deleting the phrase (Conducted completely within a building) after the word restaurants. Section 3: Subsection 11.2(m) (Off- Street parking facilities required) is hereby amended to read as follows: . �. �`:; v:C- 9r.'.Y: I�Pk'�:a' f?'<1 :li:t' :ts ':_y;.4• M. Restaurants, Bars, Soda Fountains and Similar - Establishments. One space for each seventy -five square feet of gross floor area, exclusive of area used for food preparation and storage; and one space for each employee. .•3t',+ty��nn +�.afta•.�� .! sw; Additionally, if a•; restaurant has outdoor dining, one parking space for every three seats contained in an outdoor dining area. -.- -•- - -- Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase -. thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The foregoing Ordinance wa•s introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1982, by the following vote: - AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: t MAYOR ATTEST: {� Y CITY CLERK EIA -4 File No:GF -339 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTALx F IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after''--study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga by adding restaurants with outdoor dining to the list of conditional uses allowed in all commercial districts, delete contrary provisions, and add a means of calculating required parking for outdoor areas. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue`, Saratoga, CA. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment since restaurants with outdoor dining will have similar impacts as those uses already.permitted in commercial districts. All potential impacts from individual restaurants with outdoor dining will have to be examined under separate environmental assessments. Impacts of individual projects will be mitigated by application of existing City codes and ordinances and by conditions attached to individual use permits. Executed at Saratoga, California this 23rd day of July , 1982_ R. S. Robinson, Jr. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND + ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SA�RAATT�OGGAA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER Ap CITY OF SAi2A=C 1 q Initial: �1G Dl IIILL ti0. Dept. I1d. DATE: September 15, 1982 DEPiY'Zn, Ta%T: C. Atty. Community Development C. Mgr. ---- - - ------- SLrEUE. Cr: Final Building Site Approval SDR -1515 Aloha ,AV,enue ------------------------------------------------------------- A------------------ - - - - -- Issue SU -Mary 1. SDR 1515 is ready for conditional approval. 2. All Bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have been met except Encroachment Permit from State Transportation Dept. Recc- *me�ndati on r Adopt Resolution 1515 -2 attached. Approving conditional final map for SDR -1515 a -d authorize execution of contract of Improvement Agreement. Fiscal Imoacts None- E :,1iibi.is /Att,ach -, -nis 1. Copy of Tentative Map Approval 2. Resolution No. 1515 -2 3. Location Map 4. Status report for building site approval. 5. Report to Planning Commission Ccuncil Action 9/15: Approved on Consent Calendar 3 -0. A :E!.4 7i sr A • k 'K O • ft MEMORANDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1515 Manny Gomez ( -i -a-ve) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 2 -18 -82 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all rr ired items: Offer of Dedication None Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes Storm Drainage Fee $1700.00 Date Subm All Required Improvement Bonds $3500 All Required Inspection Fees $420 Building Site Approval Agreement es Park and Recreation Fee $2600.0@X- --- itted Date Date Date Date Date Submitted Date Submitted 7 -8 -82 Receipt Submitted 9 -1 -82 Submitted 9 -1 -82 Signed 9 -1 -82 Submitted 7 -8 -82 9-1-82 # 1068 Receipt# ----- Receipt# 1396 Receipt# 1068 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for Manny Gomez SDR- 1515 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s Reason for Non - Compliance 1. Encroachment Permit from State Transportation Department. Director of Community Development it .1 'S; gi . R, � 11 WMI�T�yl I WE 11115 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of 'Saratoga DATE 2/18/82 a * Amended 5/19/82 APPROVED BY: Commission Meeting: 2/24/82 DATE: O SUBJECT' SDR -1515, Manuel Gomez, Aloha Avenue & Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Tentative Site Approval - 2 Lots ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: To receive Tentative Building Site Approval to split a 1 acre parcel at the corner of Aloha and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, in order to place an additional residence on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration for this project was adopted at the time of the original application (SDR- 1410). PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been readvertised by publishing in the newspaper, posting and by mailings to property owners within 500 feet. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density. ZONING: R -1- 20,000. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential. SITE SIZE: 1 acre. SITE SLOPE: 7.25% STAFF ANALYSIS: This project involves a lot split of a 1 acre parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zoning district on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road at Aloha Avenue. It was approved by the LDC on May 17, 1979, however, this approval has expired. The intersection of Aloha and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road is known to be poor and with the application, the Council was requested to consider abandoning the intersection. The Council modified the intersection as stated on the attached memo dated October 9, 1980. One main residence exists on the site. and a secondary dwelling unit along with a pool, pond and heavy vegetation along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. The Permit Review conditions do require dedication of a 20' scenic easement to insure that the trees and vegetation continue to buffer Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from the residences, proposed and existing. The Commission approved the Design Review of the new structure on July 8, 1981. Report to Planning Commission 2/18/82 SDR -1515, Manuel Gomez Page 2 PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered,,a.nd have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and %'available fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1515 (Exhibit "B" dated 1/5/82) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance,for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval. B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). * C. Subma _ "LrxeuAra_b1�.(lfgx- of -�e�i- caters- "- e- pr�wida -�-- Tam -a�es- tu=a-rcL=d_ Q a _Al.oba_4kLe puo. 4w-a r- _&a- rater -Lo&- Gass. -Ra 4, (Delete) D. Improve Aloha Avenue to City standards including the following: 1. Designed structural section widened from existing edge of pavement to provide 18 ft. between centerline and flowline. 2. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24). 3. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities. * 4. (Delete) J � r- Report to Planning Commission 2/18/82 SDR -1515, Manuel Gomez Page 3 * E. �er�str�et - �tar�dar�i- �r�r�aeed- �a�rig- 32-- t-- waditi�- c�tr�l }el�a- Averxe �e�r- �a�tciga- L�at -c - tea4- -per- 1- 0/�f8{�- mega-- }lfi�rg --al} 9ed44Gati-me - to- -A4sk►a -) (Delete) F. Construct standard driveway approaches. G. No direct access allowed onto Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from lots. H. Obtain Encroachment Permit from CalTrans for work to be done within State right -of -way. I. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: 1. Street Improvements J. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. K. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. L. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements. NOTE: The implementation of these conditions will provide for the termination of Aloha Avenue. The City Council approved such closure per the attached report dated 10/9/80 and modified same on 5/19/82. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Soils 2. Foundation (including subsurface drainage) B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued (if required by 2b or 2c). C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by AIA or RCE for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet numbers, owner's name, etc. Report to Planning Commission SDR -1515, Manuel Gomez 2/18/82 Page 4 D. Bonds required for needed improvements to existing structures. E. Prior to final map approval, determine if private "storm drain easement is needed for rear parcel on front parcel: F. Existing structures to be brought to code or removed. (Only one kitchen facility per lot). IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION! DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letters dated April 24, 1979 and February 11, 1982. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and clarification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Building and grading plans to be approved by Permit Review Division prior to issuance of permits. Individual house designs to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the physical environment. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be included in evaluation. House foundations to be designed to minimize external grading. B. Dedicate a 20' scenic easement along the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road frontage. C. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. Approved: Kat y Ke dus; Associate Planner P.C. AGENDA: 2/24/82 * as modified by City Council 5/19/82 CI'I'1 OF Si+i:NiCaN AGENDA BILL NO. 31 ? DATE: September 15, 1982 DEP.'JZ, =: Community Development S=-CT: VILLAGE LIBRARY RENOVATION - AWARD OF;.'BID Initial: ,nQ Dept. fid. �) C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue SLnary On August 4, 1982 the City Council authorized the advertisement for bids on the above project. Bids were scheduled to be received on September 13, 1982. A summary of bids will be provided prior to the meeting. Recommendation Award contract to lowest qualified bidder. Fiscal Imnacts $19,500 Budgeted, Revenue Sharing Fund. Exhibits /Attachments Council Action 9/15: To be scheduled for study session so that entire issue may be studied. CITY OF SARA -CGA AGENDA BILL NO. Q Initial: � Q Dept. Hd. C. Atty. �= Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr. t SMIECT: Appointment of Planning Commissioner to Heriltage Commission Issue Summary With the resignation of Commissioner Zambetti from the Planning Commission it is necessary that the City Council appoint another Planning Commissioner to the Heritage Commission per the Ordinance. The Planning Commission has selected Commission Ed Bolger to replace Commissioner Zambetti. Recomnendation Appoint Commissioner Bolger to the Heritage Commission effective.immediately. • Fiscal Imoacts None Exhibits /Attachments None Council Action r 9/15: Appointed Bolger on Consent Calendar 3 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE :September 15, 1982 DEpAI: Administrative Services Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. a SUa=: Conceptual Approval of Proposed Green Valley Master Franc Agreement Issue Summary The current franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal Company expires in January;. 1983. A negotiating committee from the cities.of Saratoga, Los Gatos; Campbell and Monte Sereno has been meeting since February of 1982 to develop a consensus on issues to be included.in the new master franchise agreement. The negotiating committee and Green Valley representatives have reached tentative agreement on elements of the franchise agreement and on a new landfill agreement. The major components of these two agreements have been reviewed with Council at several prior study sessions. The tentative agreements are being presented to the respective Councils from the four cities in order to secure conceptual approval of the contents. Formal ap- p r.oval'.of:the franchise agreement will probably occur in November after a legal review and rate structure discussions. Recommendation Review the proposed master franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal and the landfill agreement with Guadalupe Disposal Company and grant conceptual approval,. Fi.scal_.Impacts None at this time Exhibits /Attachments Background memo Franchise Issue Paper Draft Landfill Agreement Council Action 9/15: Approved with change in Section F. such that times of commercial container collection will be worked out with individual cities. �IE�IOR.�NDtI�I 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: Mayor and Council DATE: September 10, 1982 .FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Conceptual Approval of Proposed Green Valley Master Franchise Agreement BACKGROUND The current franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal Company ex- pires in January, 1983. The four cities contracting with. Green Valley, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell and Monte Sereno, decided several years ago that a more uniform approach to negotiating.with Green Valley would be beneficial in the franchise renewal process. Representatives from the four cities have been meeting since February and with Green Valley representatives since May to develop the elements of the new master franchise agreement. You have two documents before you for review and conceptual approval. The first document has been labeled an Issue or position paper for the Master Franchise Agreement with Green Valley. Following conceptual approval by the four City Councils, staff will have the document put into the proper legal language for the final franchise agreement. Dur- ing the next few months, the negotiating committee will.continue meeting to review Green Valley's budget submittals, rate requests, and to develop recommendations for each respective city on rate structures, rates, and special services. We anticipate returning to Council in November for final franchise adoption and rate setting. The second document being presented for conceptual approval is an agree- ment between .the cities and Guadalupe Disposal Company (the landfill.) The agreement with Guadalupe Disposal Company was proposed by the cities to provide an assurance to the four cities that landfill space will con- tinue to be available to the cities whether Green Valley has the garbage franchise or not. Green Valley September 10, 1982 Page two ELEMENTS OF DISPOSAL FRANCHISE Term;- 20 year term, at five year intervals, with.a performance audit to be performed at the end of each five years by a firm selected by the cities. Cost of the performance audit will be borne by-Green Valley as part of their operating expense. The franchise will be extended at the five year interval contingent upon the outcome of the performance audit. Rates._- Rate reviews will be conducted every three years, with provisions for an annual increase if merited. Either party may request a rate re- view during the three year period if economic circumstances merit or if conditions anticipated during budget review do not occur. Rates are anticipated to be based on zone ch, tomers with a .division between level-.terrain or greater. Each city will have a choice of side collection as the basic service level. yard pickup, 100 foot intervals beyond front collecLion option. 3rges for residential cus- and areas with. a 10% slope rate structures with curb - Other alternatives are front yard pickup, and an unlimited The Council is not being asked at this time to select a rate structure for Saratoga.. Staff will he reviwing the budget.to be-submitted by Green Valley later this month and will be reviewing proposed rates for each different type of service option. As soon as.service options and costs are developed, staff will be returning to Council for direction and selection of alternatives. Commercial rates will continue to be based upon the size of.the bin and frequency of collection. The cities will be regulating, for the first time, the rates collected for drop off boxes. Franchise Fee - The cities will continue to collect 10% of gross revenues in the form of franchise fees. This percentage is the same as the current franchise. (In 1981 -82, the City of Saratoga received approximately $100,000 in franchise fees from.Green Valley.) Services - Costs of services provided to each bity for city owned or occupied property will be included in the rate base for each jurisdic- tion. Each city will receive a city -wide "free" pickup twice a year for unlimited collection. An additional possibility for cities selecting the unlimited curbside pickup option for all residential customers will be the option to use plastic bags rather than cans. Green Valley September 10, 1982 Page three Unincorporated Areas Rates for county areas served by Green Valley will e consistent with those.charged`in the cities. There will be no subsidy for the unincorporated areas. Local Options - Local options may be requested by individual cities. T ese proposals will be costed out by Green Valley and reviewed by the city requesting the option. Examples of such options may include curb- side recycling or unlimited collection. If Green Valley decides not to provide a service such as recycling, the cities can provide it themselves. or can contract with another entity. Bad Debts - Cities have agreed to extending the ability of Green Valley to terminate service to both residential and commercial.customers after 120 days and 60 days in arrears, respectively. The cities have reserved the right to withdraw the termination privilege.. If.termination is not permitted, Green Valley will be allowed to include bad debts (with a limit to 1% of gross revenue) as part of the rate base. Green Valley would also be allowed to charge a deposit for new customers and restarts. ELEMENTS OF LANDFILL AGREEMENT The landfill agreement is proposed to.be a 20 year term, with information to be presented annually to the cities on landfill capacity and opera- tional status. The landfill, or Guadalupe Disposal, must also notify the cities of intended or planned major resource recovery activities and allow the cities to comment and /or participate. If Guadalupe Disposal enters into a major resource recovery operation,5% of after tax proceeds from the operation will be transferred to Green Valley specifically to be used as a subsidy for collection rates. Furthermore, the landfill is required to accept the cities' garbage for twenty (20) years whether or not Green Valley continues to be the cities' refuse collector. The tipping fees charged to the cities'-.collector will not be permitted to exceed the average tipping fee for specified bay area landfills by more than 15 %. We are seeking your conceptual approval of the Green Valley Master Franchise and the Guadalupe Disposal agreement. Following approval by all four City Councils, we will be working to develop the appropriate legal wording for the actual franchise document. Later this month. Green Valley will be submitting.the proposed 82 -83 operating budget, and budget projections for 83 -84, and 84 -85. Various Green Valley September 10, 1982 Page four rate structures and costs will also be under review. Staff will be returning to Council in the near future to review rate structure choices for Saratoga prior to finalizing the actual franchise agree - ment document. Patricia M. Mu ens ck POSITION PAPER FOR GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL CO. NEGOTIATION (Master Franchise) SEC. I - TERM OF CONTRACT /FRANCHISE The term of the franchise will be for five (5) years, ending December 31, 1987, provided that a performance audit shall be conducted in the fifth year; and, if the audit shows performance to the good faith satisfaction of the cities, the franchise shall be extended for periods of three additional five - year intervals. The cities may require a performance audit at the end of each five -year period to determine if the franchise will be extended for the next five -year period commencing in December 1992. The performance audit is to be performed by a qualified firm selected by the cities, and the costs of such audit are to be borne wholly by Green Valley Disposal Co. or its successors as part of the operating costs.. Items to be reviewed shall include, but not be limited to the following categories, and shall include specific recommendations regarding opportunities to improve in areas relating to: A. Overall organizational structure and management systems and pro- cedures. B. Efficiency of collection operations, to include an analysis of routes, schedules, and the impact of franchise requirements. C. Staffing practices, including the deployment of management and supervisory personnel. D. Financial management practices, including the contractor's billing and collection system and its policies with regard to uncollected accounts. E. Personnel management practices, including compensation policies and the resolution of employee grievances. Page 2 F. Procedures for receiving and resolving customer complaints and concerns. G. Procedures for the acquisition, maintenance and replacement of equipment; types of equipment; rationale for recent capital investments; and financing options. H. Utilization and management of facilities. SEC. II - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE The franchise will be an exclusive grant to the extent it is determined by the courts that the cities are permitted to issue exclusive franchises. SEC. III - SERVICE RATES AND REVIEW Rate reviews will be conducted once every three years, with rates estab- lished to become effective on February 1 of each year during the term of the agreement. Special interim rate adjustments may be initiated by either party to the agreement should it become apparent that the authorized rates are inappropriate due to current economic conditions or significant error in esti- mates is found subsequent to awarding a rate increase. Requests for rate review must be submitted by Company representatives no later than October 1st and must contain the following information to constitute a completed submittal: - Previous fiscal year certified audit in year.ending prior to rate review; and financial review in the two interim years.. - Actual current and three- year projected revenues. - Organization chart reflecting current staffing, job descriptions, and salary schedules. - Number of customers in each use category by jurisdiction. - Bad debts in each use category by jurisdiction. - Schedule of rates charged at Guadalupe Landfill. Page 3 - Survey of tipping charges of other landfill facilities (cities and company to agree on landfills to be surveyed as agreed to in the Agreement between the cities and Guadalupe Disposal Company. The following financial data on Guadalupe Disposal Co. may be provided in lieu of a certified audit; balance sheet; and related party transactions with Green Valley Disposal Co. Related party transactions on Green Valley Disposal Co. shall be provided in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. - Survey of collection rates of other disposal companies (cities to specify survey companies). - Investment schedule. - Equipment replacement schedule. - Degree to which commercial collection provides subsidy to residen- tial collection by jurisdiction. - Detail of current rates, actual costs for services, and actual revenues in prior three years; projected revenues, expenditures, and proposed rates for three years in the following categories: RESIDENTIAL *Level Terrain: - Alternate I: cost per can for curbside collection (within 5 feet of edge of pavement). - Alternate II: cost per can for front -yard pickup (within 30 feet of edge of pavement). - Additional fee: cost per can in increments of 100 feet beyond that provided in Alternate II. - Unlimited curbside collection option: cost per customer for city -wide unlimited collection in level terrain zones. Page 4 *Hillside Terrain - Alternate I: cost per can for curbside collection (within 5 feet of edge of pavement). Alternate II: cost per can for front -yard pickup (within 30 feet of edge of pavement. - Additional fee: cost per can in increments of 100 feet beyond that provided in Alternate II. - Unlimited curbside collection option: cost per customer for city -wide .unlimited curbside collection in hillside terrain zones. *Zone charges will be calculated in two categories - level and hillside. Cities and Company representatives will mutually agree upon specific boundaries in accordance with the definition of hillside, which is: Routes with street slopes of more than 108. COMMERCIAL - Costs will be reflected by size of bin and frequency of collection. DROP -OFF BOXES - Costs will be reflected by size of box, and will include rental fees as well as cost per dump. RATE BASIS Rate increase requests will be reviewed by a Rate Review Committee to be composed of one staff representative of each of the four participating municipalities. In their review, the Committee will take into consideration acceptability of expenditures, performance incentives and sanctions, rate comparability, and other information as may be appropriate. In determining profit level, the Committee will use the operating ratio method with a 58 after -tax return (excluding tax credits and operating losses) as a guideline. In calculating the revenue side of the operating ratio, the cities will exclude: (1) prior years earnings from short -term investments generated from Page 5 prior profits or retained earnings in each fiscal year; (2) tax credits; (3) prior year net operating losses. SEC. IV - REGULATION OF RATES Cities will regulate rates charged for all services, inclusive of residential, commercial, and drop -off boxes (inclusive of rental fees). SEC. V - PUBLICATION OF RATES The Company will provide written notice to new subscribers of existing rates and of rate changes to all subscribers. The Company will post at the dump site dumping fees charged to other depositors. The Company will put together a public information brochure (to be completed by July 1, 1983) to include a description of all services and is to be sent to all existing and new customers. SEC. VI - FRANCHISE FEE The franchise fee paid to cities will be calculated at 10% of gross amount collected. Each monthly payment is to be paid on the fifteenth (15th) day of the following month; if fee is not received on the 15th day, a sanction of 18 of the amount due will be charged, calculated on a monthly basis. The Company will maintain copies of all billings and collection records in chronological order for three years for inspection and verification by the cities. SEC. VII - RECORDS, REPORTS AND AUDITS In addition to the records, reports and audits required under Sec. III (Service Rates and Review), Green Valley Disposal Co. will be required to submit an annual financial report, and which may include an audit performed and certified to by an independent Certified Public Accountant no later than 90 days after the close of each fiscal year. The Company will bear the cost of the audit, to be included as an operating cost. Page 6 The cities will retain the right to request additional records as deemed necessary to evaluate the performance of the contractor. The cities have the right to inspect the income tax returns, payroll tax report, payroll records, and other records deemed necessary to evaluate the annual financial reports and rate review applications. SEC.VIII - CITIES' RIGHT TO REJECT EXPENSES AS ALLOWABLE FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPANY'S OPERATING EXPENSES. The cities will have sole discretion to determine what they will con- sider as proper expenses for calculation of a rate base for a rate increase after Company is given an opportunity to provide documentation to staff and Council. Inclusion of bad debt as part of the rate base will be allowed only if the Company demonstrates a good faith effort in attempts to collect bad debts. Company may impose a financial charge within the legal limits on any accounts 30 days past due. SEC. IX - PROVISION OF SERVICES TO CITIES Green Valley will collect, haul, and dispose of any municipal garbage, rubbish and other refuse from or on property owned or occupied by the cities without charge to the cities, provided that cost will be calculated with the rate base for that jurisdiction. The jurisdictions will provide listing of such property and locations, and pick -up frequency. SEC. X - SERVICES /STANDARDS A. Curbside Pickup Curbside pickup will be the basic service level. Sideyard pickup will be available to individuals or at a local option at an additional charge, to be approved by the cities. B. City -Wide Pickup, The Company will provide city(ies) -wide pickup twice a year, without limit; dates to be selected by the individual cities. Page 7 C. Equipment The Company shall use in the collection and transportation of refuse modern garbage collection motor vehicles having water -tight bodies. The Company shall maintain an equipment replacement schedule to be provided to the cities upon request. D. Identification and Lettering of Vehicles The Company shall letter each vehicle used in collection activities to include a vehicle identification number, the name of the Company, and the local business telephone number of the Company. The lettering size shall be not less than 2 -1/2" high. E. Local Business Office and Telephone Company shall establish and maintain an office and shall keep said office open for business from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. of each and every day except Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays. F. Time of Collection Begin collection in residential areas after 6 A.M. and conclude by 10 P.M., Monday through Friday, except when earlier collections are necessary on a workday preceding or following a recognized holiday. Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day holidays shall be excluded from this require- ment. If collection is necessary on weekends, it will be done between 8 A.M. and 6 P.M., provided that calls on missed collection on any collection day (including Friday) will be received 24 hours a day, and pick -up will be made within 24 hours of the call. Excluded from preceding time limitations shall be all commercial con- tainers (bins) which will be on a 24 -hour basis, with as much consideration as possible given to areas adjacent to this type of pickup. G. Container Size and Weight Limits The standard size container for residential and commercial service shall not exceed 32 gallons and that weight will not exceed 70 lbs. Individual Page 8 users shall have the option of using plastic bags approved by Green Valley and the cities in lieu of the containers, with curbside unlimited option. H. On -Call Collection of Large Items Green Valley will respond on an on -call basis for the pick up of large items; (size) fee to be charged approved by the cities. Fees will be approved during the rate review process. I. Inspection of Operations Designated representatives of the cities will have the right to inspect, review and observe Company operations and enter Company premises with reasonable notice and reasonable hours. J. Replacement of Containers Green Valley Disposal Co. will replace all garbage and rubbish con- tainers used by its customers in an upright position, recovered, in approxi- mately the same location where the containers were immediately before Green Valley emptied them. Green Valley will return all commercial bins to the location where the containers were immediately before Green Valley emptied them, within any enclosures provided and will close any doors or gates provided for screening the bins. Green Valley will instruct its employees to comply with the provisions of this Section, and will exercise sufficient supervision of its employees to assure that the instructions are followed. K. Compliance with Laws and Regulations The Company will comply with all applicable laws, state and federal, now in force or which hereafter may be enacted. SEC. XI - UNINCORPORATED AREAS Rates charged by the Company to unincorporated areas will be consistent with charges for the cities. Approval of rate adjustments by the cities will Page 9 be contingent upon the approval of the unincorporated areas within three (3) months of the approval of all cities, or the rate for all cities will revert to the rate then in effect in the unincorporated cities, if it is less than the rate for the cities. In the unincorporated mountain areas, the rates charged will not be subsidized by the rates charged other cities. SEC. XII - LOCAL OPTIONS /SERVICES TO JURISDICTIONS Local options may be requested by the individual cities. A. Provision of curbside recycling in the cities to be performed either by the Company or, if jurisdiction decides, by the jurisdiction or another entity. B. Request from cities to provide a specific new service will be costed out by the Company and rate for the service will be set by the cities. If the company decides not to provide the new service, the jurisdiction has the right to perform the service themselves or to contract with another entity for the provision of the service. C. Cities reserve the right to request that rates be calculated on.an unlimited collection basis. SEC. XIII - TERMINATION FOR CAUSE The cities will have a right to terminate this agreement for cause after allowing a 180 -day period for curing . SEC. XIV - DEVELOPMENT PLANS Green Valley shall provide to each city the specific criteria by which development plans for commercial, industrial, and multi- family units may be reviewed with regard to location of refuse containers. Page 10 SEC. XV - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Hold Harmless The Company is an independent contractor for all purposes contem- plated by this agreement, and the Company shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the jurisdiction, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims for damages of any kind whatsoever arising out of operations of the Company pursuant to this agreement. B. Surety Bond The cities will require a surety bond at a level to be specified by the Company simultaneously with the execution of the agreement, the bond to be payable to the cities and conditioned and guaranteed for the faithful performance by the Company. C. Liability Insurance The Company will obtain at its sole cost and expense, and maintain in full force and effect in a form and amount yet to be determined by the City Attorney a comprehensive liability insurance policy. Company agrees to and does hereby indemnify jurisdiction, its Council members, officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, actions, demands, losses, or liability for personal injury or property damage, and from any and against any and all nuisances, as may be caused by Company, or arising out of or resulting from Company operation, its actions or omissions, in connection with this agreement. Company shall take out and at all times keep in full force and effect workers' Compensation Insurance during the term of this agreement. SEC. XVI - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP The Company is prohibited from transfering any rights under this agree- ment unless authorized to do so in writing by the jurisdiction. In the Page 11 process of considering authorization, the jurisdictions may review the competency and financial integrity of the prospective owner; the authoriza- tion will not be unreasonably withheld. SEC. XVII - ANNUAL MEETING In addition to the regular rate review sessions every three years, the City Rate Review Committee and Company representatives will schedule an annual meeting to discuss issues or problems which are of concern to either party. The financial review from the prior year will be submitted and discussed at the annual meeting. SEC. XVIII - DIRECT BILLINGS TO PROPERTY OWNERS At option of the Company, the Company will be entitled to bill property owners directly and hold them responsible for collection services on their property which is used for residential or commercial rental uses; as opposed to contracting for services with the property tenants. SEC. XIX - BAD DEBT - TERMINATION The jurisdictions recognize the potential for bad debts and will offer the Company the privilege of terminating service to both residential and commercial customers after 120 days and 60 days in arrears respectively, with a prior 30 -day notice of cut -off potential. The Company will promptly restore service when debt is satisfied; will notify the jurisdiction of service drop; will monitor situation and notify jurisdiction of problems on the premises, including accumulation of garbage on the premises. Jurisdictions have the discretion to withdraw the termination privilege, exercise of such discretion will involve a 30 -day written notice to and a meeting with the Company. If the termination privilege is withdrawn, the jurisdiction will allow the Company to do the following: - Include bad debt as part of the rate base, limited to 1% of gross revenues; and if the Company demonstrates a good faith effort in Page 12 attempts to collect bad debts as part of the rate base beyond 1% of gross revenue; - Deposit for new customers and restarts. SEC. XX - INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY This agreement will terminate upon the claim of insolvency or declara- tion of bankruptcy by the Company; the agreement will not become an asset of the estate of the Company under these conditions. SEC. XXI - INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE DUE TO LABOR DISPUTES In the event the refuse collection and disposal services of Contractor are interrupted by a labor dispute and scheduled collection and disposal services are discontinued for more than forty -eight (48) hours, City shall have the right to forthwith take temporary possession of all facilities and equipment of Contractor for the purpose of continuing the service which Contractor has agreed to provide to preserve and protect the public health and safety. City shall have the right to retain possession of said facilities and equipment and to render the required service until Contractor can demon- strate to the satisfaction of the City that required services can be resumed by Contractor; provided, however, that such temporary assumption of Contractor's obligations under this agreement shall not be continued by City for more than one hundred twenty (120) days from the date such operations were undertaken. Should Contractor fail to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that required services can be resumed by Contractor prior to the expiration of the aforementioned one hundred twenty (120) days, the agreement will be rendered void and the rights and privileges granted in said agreement shall be cancelled and annulled. During any period in which City has tem- porarily assumed the obligations of Contractor under this agreement, City shall be reimbursed by the Company within 30 days of receiving an invoice from the cities for all costs incurred. Page 13 Employees of Contractor may be employed by City during any period in which City temporarily assumes the obligations of Contractor under this agreement provided, however, the number of employees shall remain the same and the rate of compensation to be paid any employees shall be the rate or rates in effect at the time Contractor's service or such other rate or rates as were agreed upon in the settlement of the labor dispute, whichever rate or rates were applicable. SEC. XXII. OWNERSHIP OF WASTE Cities will retain ownership of waste prior to its disposal in the land- fill. AGREEMENT BETWEEN GUADALUPE DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. (HEREINAFTER CALLED LANDFILL) AND THE CITIES OF CAMPBELL, SARATOGA, MONTE SERENO AND THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS (HEREINAFTER CALLED CITIES) Term of Agreement: 20 years Purpose: To ensure residents of the aforementioned Cities a location for disposal of refuse within the term of this agreement; to enable landfill operations to more accurately predict'demand and capitalize facilities; and to encourage resource recovery efforts at the landfill site which will further extend the availability and disposal capacity of this facility for future use by city residents. Agreed:. 1. Landfill will provide an annual report of landfill capacity and operational status. A summary of tipping fees may be required annually. 2. Major resource recovery operations will not be undertaken by land- fill without knowledge and opportunity for comment or participation by cities. Cities may elect to support such an enterprise but are not obliged to do so. 5% of after -tax net proceeds, based upon the average actual tax rate, derived from any such operation shall be paid to Green Valley Disposal Co. as a subsidy to rate payers, in proportion to the volume of refuse collected from cities. This payment will be included in calculating the gross receipts of Green Valley Disposal. Verification of this relationship will be by a financial review focused on the subject operation to be performed by the landfill's accountant. Should cities provide financial, operation, or other support to a proposed project, a new profit - sharing arrangement will be negotiated. Operations excluded from this provision include methane gas recovery from the initial landfill site and minor material sal- vage. 3. Landfill will accept all refuse brought from cities for the term of this agreement. 4. Tipping fee charged to the collector of refuse from cities shall not exceed rate /ton equal to 15% above the average tipping fee for the landfills selected according to the following guidelines: a. Cities and landfill to provide a list of comparable public and and privately -owned landfills in the three (3) Bay Area counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda. b. Tipping fee charges of the landfills selected for the survey shall include: -2- (1) any surcharge, assessment or fee imposed by the landfill which is computed by the volume (yards or tons) of refuse deposited which is imposed on refuse collection companies or haulers over and above the unit of refuse by volume (yards or tons) charged to the local refuse collection companies or haulers. (2) any surcharge, assessment, inspection fee, or tax which is computed by the volume (yards or tons) of refuse deposited which is imposed by a governmental agency and uniformly applicable to the landfills used in the survey. All other surcharges, taxes, permit fees and licenses shall be included as part of the basic tipping fees of the landfills used in the survey. c. A minimum of six (6) and a maximum of ten (10) landfills will be selected by the cities and landfill, from which the one highest and the one lowest will be eliminated prior to calcu- lating the average. d. If the original list diminishes to four (4) remaining landfills, both parties will meet to establish a new list. If, in the event there are insufficient (comparable) landfills to establish a new list, landfill will provide a ten (10 %) percent discount on tipping fees for the cities refuse below that charged to other Refuse Collection Companies using the landfill. e. In the establishment of a list of comparable landfills, the following factors shall be taken into consideration: (1) Location of landfill. (2) Tipping charges for compacted refuse by the ton. Should landfill use compacted yardage in lieu of tonnage, the unit of yardage shall be converted to tonnage by multiplying one (1) compacted yard by four (4). (3) Estimated capacity of landfill - Time life. (4) Resource Recovery Program at landfill. (5) Ownership. (6) Average volume of refuse per day. (7) Plans for expansion and /or use of transfer stations. (8) Other data which would aid in the selection of comparable landfills. -3- 5. This agreement may be terminated, should County, State, or Federal Governmental sanctions or natural disasters occur which would make the execution of the terms and conditions of this agreement impossible. 6. This agreement shall create property interest on the part of the cities; in the event of being taken by a. governmental entity, the cities will be entitled to appropriate compensation from the entity instituting the action. 7. This agreement shall be binding upon the landfill's heirs and successor in title. CITY or SAR:ly= A=A BILL NO. i' 42 Initial: 4_eo Dept. Hd. DATE: September 15, 1982 C. Atty. DEPAF7n,IE.' . Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Petition re Traffic Control on Sumner Drive Issue S=ary At your Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of September 7, 1982, you reviewed the alternative suggested by the neighborhoods relative to traffic control on Sumner Drive. You determined to approve the installation of two stop signs, one stopping traffic on Blue Meadow Court entering onto Sumner, and one on Sumner stopping traffic entering onto Blue Meadow Court. Resolution No. MV will implement this decision. Reconmendation Adopt Resolution MV- Fiscal Imoacts $150.00 to install the two signs Exhibits /Attachments Resolution No. MV- Council Action 9/15: Callon /Mallory moved to adopt MV 154. Passed 3 -0. 6 M CITY or SAIZIY=*1 A=A BILL NO. iOZ Initial: Dept. Hd. DATE: September 15, 1982 C. Atty DEPAF —(n7=: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECr: Traffic Signal at Lyle and Prospect -66 C/s C Issue S=ary At your Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of September 7, 1982, you reviewed the San Jose request that Saratoga fund_ 250 of the subject signal. The consensus was to approve such funding. Recom;nendation Approve Saratoga's sharing of the cost of a traffic signal at Lyle and Prospect at not greater than 250 of,the contract amount, and that it be funded within the "washed" FAU agreement with -the City of San Jose. Approval subject to information from the School District that Prospect High School would not be closed within the next 5 years. Fiscal Impacts Approximately $25,000 - $30,000 Exhibits /A ttactu -n is Council Action 9/15: Approved on Consent Calendar 3 -0. � F .i' 1+ CITY OF SAI:e'YiMC Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 3� + Dept. Hd. DATE: 9 -15 -82 C. Atty. DEPt'1irI;�I�IT: Comminity Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: FRUITVALE AVENUE BIKE PATH "NOTICE OF COMPLETION" Issue SL=ary City Council of the City of Saratoga at their regular meeting, awarded the contract of "Fruitvale Avenue Bike Path" to Anza Engineering Corporation. Recommendation The work on the subject project has been satisfactorily completed and it is our recommendation that this work be accepted and that the City Council authorize filing the "Notice of Completion ". Fiscal Imaacts Per 1982 -1983 Budget E-hibits /Attachments 1. Notice of Completion 2. Progress Pay Estimate Council Action 9/15: Approved on Consent Calendar 3 -0. i LA -r-:- ,F, 7 7 a., :J6' ei, 43 aWQ' m 4" m 41, Iz Sheet 1 0 PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE ZOJECT: pruityale Avenue Bike Path 'iTE: 8/30/82 EST. NO. 1 CITY OF SARATOGA CONTRACTOR: Anza Engineering 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 5216 ZOM• 8/9/82 TO: R/10/A2 SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 Redwood City, CA. 94063 UNIT WRK,,.DONE WRK. DONE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL %WORK REMARKS BID ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL PREVIOUS THIS EST. WRK.DONE PRICE DUE DONE EST. Clear & Grub L.S. $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0.0 L.S. S1.1;00-00 $1,500.00 100% Construct Asphalt Handicap Ramp 2 each 200.00 400.00 0.0 2 9 4on-nn -Z!o-nstruct Concrete Handicap Ramp '. 1 each 400.00 n-n 400.00 400-no inn% Quantity was Construct Asphalt Bike Path 13,050 S.F 1.45 1 R 1;() n-n 11,085.00 19071 ?q 16,073.25 100% reduced by 15% -929 - Quantity was Remove & Replace Asphalt Curbs 100 L.F. 7.50 750.00 0.0 48.00 48-00 360.00 'AA0-n() inn5k reduced by 52% was Construct wooden Retaining 16.50 193.00 193.00 311-84-50 3,184-50 100% �Quanity reduced by 16% Wall 230 L.F. 3,795.00 0.0 �2iange order 1 Modify existing Drop inlet 1 each ;on-nn 500.00 0.0 1 500.00 500.00 100% Modify Cath Basin 1 each 350.00 350.00 0.0 1 350.00 350.00 Install Curb & Gutter 150.00 150.00 0.0 L.S. ----L.S. 150.00 150.00 100% :�hange order 2_ TOTAL DUE 22,917.75 RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS LESS 10% RETENTION 2291.78 9/15/82 $20,625.97 TOTAL PAYMENT 20625.97 S REVIOUS Made By: A.I. LESS P'- PAYMENTS 0.00 Checked By:-,L'./?.D. PAYMENT DUE THIS EST. 20,625.97 TOTAL ApProVq(1,\,by: -r-:- ,F, 7 7 �� ".- � ` - Tim X11firr is hereby given that ............ .......... the midersigned ........... J Wayne Dernetz S.1.9 Clara Fruitvale Avenue Bike Path upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of c o­i"t'n't' v r'e c* o' rd"e"'i"o"f" Ijr-d* 82 the said contract or.work m0rovemcnt. (is a whole, was actitally completed by the said 14" Corporation That the name and address .................. of all the owner of said property are as f ollows.- City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA. 95070 H -----_____ STATE 0FCALIFORNIA -- o B �O�/mc '-_-'_______. Coomr | �«nu ..................................... .................................................... __________________ �n�«v\'(r�vv,q-_--' --------'---'----'---- / h= --------.-'-------------�--'------------------«�' m"-_----_-'|/ o�'"/^y!^ the oa/',c-v//hvP,nPrrt?�`'�n�n/ix/�r/v/`�^�vv//o//cr. /hore,nd/6cfv,�'oi'yxo/kem/dk//ma'/h,m,�''./a/hcoof,n'ri is/,`,^fx'?'mn »"^-mleo�q'. S/'bscnibm/ ood/c*n' to b,ƒo/rmc /6is ........................ dOY^f ...... .......... ........... ........................ Zv................ �... -----�------'---------- ___.___ -__---___ ............................. ................ ........................ ........................... ___ `°" .~ds i,t^~k,,." jg. Cmdery's Form No. 774—NOTICE OF COMPLETION BY OWNER. (C. C. P. Sw. 1193.1) 20JECT: Fruitvala AVCnue FlikP Path NTE: 8/30/82 EST. NO. 1 30M: 8/9/82 TO: 8, 30/82 i' ,t PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 1 i.. f i f. N Sheet ! of 1_ CONTRACTOR: Anza Engineering ADDRESS: P.O. Box 5216 Redwood City, CA. 94063 WRK. DONE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL %WORK REMARKS UNIT PROGRESS PAY ESTIMATE CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVE. SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070 1 i.. f i f. N Sheet ! of 1_ CONTRACTOR: Anza Engineering ADDRESS: P.O. Box 5216 Redwood City, CA. 94063 F1 ;7�;T•nr n'f ('.'Ym m r ''V 1 WRK. DONE TOTAL UNIT TOTAL %WORK REMARKS UNIT WRKI.DONE BID ITEM QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL PREVIOUS THIS EST. WRK,DONE PRICE DUE DONE EST. Clear & Grub L.S. $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0.0 L.S $1,500.00 100% Construct Asphalt Handicap Ramp 2 each 200.00 400.00 0.0 2 ?49�lJA 4nn nn Construct Concrete Handicap Ramp 1 400.00 Quantity was each .400. Construct Asphalt Bike Path p 13,050 S.F n_n 11 085.00 1 16 073.25 reduced by 15% Quantity was Remove &Replace Asphalt Curs 100 L.F. 7,50 750.00 0.0 48.00 48.00 360. reduced 52% Quanced ed was Construct wooden Retaining 193.00 193.00 3,184.50 3,184.50 100$ reduced by 16% Wall 230 L.F. 16.50 3,795.00 0.0 500.00 500.00 100% Modify existing Drop inlet 1 each 500.00 0.0 1 ge order 1 Modify Cath Basin 1 each 350.00 350.00 0•p 1 1 350.00 350.0 Install Curb & Gutter 150.00 150.00 0.0 L.S. L.S. 150.00 150.00 6mge order 2 TOTAL DUE 22,917.75 RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS LESS 10% RETENTION 2291.78 9/15/82 $20,625.97 TOTAL PAYMENT 20625.97 Made By: A.I. LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS 0.00 Checked By: E. R. D. PAYMENT DUE THIS EST. 20,625.97 TOTAL Appro jrE*Py F1 ;7�;T•nr n'f ('.'Ym m r ''V 1 CITY OF SAI:A== D Initial: A=A BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: September 15, 1982 C. Atty DEPART:IENT: Community Development C. SUBJECT: Exchange of Surety for SDR 1401, Tate, Sobey Road Issue Stemma Mr. Tate wishes to replace the $14,000surety bond with a $7000 cash bond for the remainder of the one-year maintenance period. Standard policy is to release one half the amount of cash bonds after construction acceptance and therefore this request is consistent with policy. Recommendation Authorize release of $14,000 surety bond upon receipt of $7,000 cash bond. Fiscal Imoacts None Exhibits /Attachm-ents 1. Letter from Surety Insurance,Company dated 8/11/82 Council Action 9/15: Approved on Consent Calendar 3 -0. 1 .,1 0 Y^ r 1 A Surety Insurance Company Of California August 11, 1982 City of Saratoga Building Department 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 RE:. Ronald Tate Bond No. 550135 1401 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Gentlemen: +UG 1 1982 We have been advised by the reference principal that the City of Saratoga is willing to release Surety Insurance Company of California from the one year maintenance term if the principal provides the City with a cash de- posit of $7,000. Home Federal Savings and Loan is holding in an offsight set aside account the amount of $14,000 for the benefit of Surety Insurance Company. We are willing to allow Home Federal Savings and Loan to forward to the City $7,000, if the City releases Surety Insurance from the maintenance term for the reference bond. Will you please forward us a copy of the minutes from the meeting of the City Council showing their acceptance to release Surety Insurance Com- pany for the yearly maintenance when they have received the funds in place of the bonds? Upon receipt of the above, we will direct Horne Federal Savings and Loan to forward to the City the funds required. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. e ly yours, Gen anager MG/kj cc: R.G. Speno: Ronald Tate o VIA t L. Lk, Home Federal Savin s and Loan San J6se Branch: P.O. Box 1806, San Jose, CA 95109 777 N. First St., Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 298 -4044 / f Home Office: P.O. Box 2430, Lo Habra, CA 90631 (� (213) 694 -8321 "The Dollars and Sense Surety"