Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 11-080 RESOLUTION NO. 11 -080 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING ANNEXATION OF 19351 REDBERRY DRIVE (APN 510 -25 -062) WHEREAS, at the request of the property owner, the City Council is considering the annexation of an approximately 1.39 acre property commonly known as 19351 Redberry Drive, APN 510 -25 -062, hereinafter referred to as "the parcel," and the adjacent portion of Redberry Drive, all of which is collectively referred to as "the territory," and described in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is the conducting authority for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is in the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence and is prezoned as Hillside Residential (HR); and WHEREAS, the territory is considered uninhabited for the purposes of annexation proceedings because there are fewer than twelve registered voters and there is one hundred percent (100 owner consent for the annexation proceedings, no notice, public hearing or election will be required for annexation approval by the City; and WHEREAS, the City and the owners of the parcel have entered a Preannexation Agreement concerning the territory whereby the City agrees to process and the owners agree to support the annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby makes the following findings based on the information presented in the staff report attached to this resolution as Attachment B: A. That the annexation is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines; B. That the unincorporated territory to be annexed is within the urban service area of the city as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. C. That the Santa Clara County Surveyor has determined that the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed are definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies. D. That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership and that this fact has been confirmed by the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office. E. That the proposal does not create islands in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. F. That the proposal is consistent with the adopted general plan of the City and that the property has been prezoned with the designation Hillside Residential. G. That the territory is contiguous to the existing City limits. H. That the city has complied with all conditions imposed by the LAFCO for inclusion of the territory in the urban service area of the City. I. That there are no agencies that would lose or gain territory as a result of the annexation. J. That all property owners within the annexation area have been informed of these proceedings and no opposition has been received. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the annexation of the territory is hereby ordered without any further protest proceedings and that upon completion of these proceedings the territory will be annexed to the City of Saratoga which the City will receive taxes upon in accordance with the previously approved tax exchange agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby amends the City boundary to include the territory in the City of Saratoga effective upon the completion of these proceedings. Attachments A Legal description of the territory to be annexed B Annexation staff report for meeting dated December 21, 2011 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of December 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Council Member Manny Cappello, Emily Lo, Howard Miller, Vice Mayor Jill Hunter, Mayor Chuck Page NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None huck Page, Mayor ATTEST: L DATE: kii2 /70PZ Cry a Morrow, City erk t EXHIBIT A ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 19351 REDBERRY DRIVE GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO RINCONADA DE LOS GATOS AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT LOCATED AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THAT 1.00 ACRE PARCEL SHOWN UPON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 69 AT PAGE 44, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHWEST END OF THE LINE SHOWN UPON SAID MAP TO BE S 43 °12'30" E 311.30' AND BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF REDBERRY DRIVE AND A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMITS AS DESCRIBED ON THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA "REDBERRY DRIVE 2003 -1" AND SHOWN THEREON TO BE AT THE NORTH END OF COURSE BEARING N 43 12' 30" W 311.30 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT 1) N 41 °43' 15' W 54.87 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REBERRY DRIVE AND A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 130.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08 40' 37" AND A RADIAL BEARING OF S 47° 23' 23" E AND THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING NINE COURSES; 2) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 19.69 FEET; 3) N 51° 17' 14" E 76.30 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 170.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 01' 00 4) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 3.02 FEET; 5) N 52° 18' 14" E 26.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 39' 00"; 6) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 39.78 FEET; 7) N 01° 39' 14" E 20.53 FEET; 8) N 59° 53' 50" E 64.67 FEET; 9) N 01° 34' 58" E 14.72 FEET; 10) N 42° 39' 55" E 15.29 FEET TO THE TO A 1 INCH IRON PIPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT A AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 95 AT PAGE 9 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG THE LINES OF SAID LOT A THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: 11) N 44° 22' 00" W 97.37 FEET TO A STAKE; 12) N 36° 42' 30" W 101.86 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; Page 1 of 3 13) N 54° 43' 30" E 293.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; 14) S 42° 03' 00" E 248.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP; THENCE LEAVING SAID LOT A AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE 15) N 86° 23' 00" E 58.17 FEET; THENCE 16) N 75° 12' 00" E 80.81 FEET; THENCE 17) N 62° 32' 00" E 130.35 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BAINTER DRIVE AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 32 AT PAGE 40 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY 18) S 52° 29' 00" E 108.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMIT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA BAINTER AVENUE NO. 1-79"; THENCE ALONG THE LINE OF THE "BAINTER AVENUE ANNEXATION 1 -79" THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 19) N 77° 30' 58" W 3.32 FEET; 20) N 81° 34' 58" W 79.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING TEN COURSES: 21) S 62° 32' 00" W 115.09 FEET; 22) S 75° 12' 00" W 90.70 FEET; 23) S 86° 23' 00" W 61.55 FEET; 24) S 67° 38' 59" W 82.68 FEET; 25) S 71 47' 46" W 130.82 FEET; 26) S 42° 39' 15" W 138.08 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMIT AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID ANNEXATION "REDBERRY DRIVE 2003-1"; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE AND EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: 27) S 01° 39' 14" W 40.40 FEET; 28) S 52° 19' 15" W 74.93 FEET; 29) S 51° 18' 14" W 90.36 FEET; 30) S 31° 35' 33" W 4.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (CONTAINING 2.47 ACRES MORE OR LESS) Page 2 of 3 DISCLAIMER:FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DESCRIPTION OF LAND IS NOT A LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS DEFINED IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR AN OFFER FOR SALE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED. cm, AND i t ►t4) N No. 5528 Exi ,9 -2t- o�+ O CALIF 1 Page 3 of 3 1 i r/4 SEC COR. ilk N LEGEND T.8 S W EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMITS PROPOSED BOUNDARY TO BE ANNEXED DISCLAIM €R: 1 I I FOR A SSESSM E NT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DESCRIPTION' OF LAND IS J NOT A LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS DEFINED IN THE iiilloh I�: SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE USED AS 7HE BASIS FOR •4 a AN OFFER FOR SALE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED' fte 9i0 '1' 9iO �L 4 1 S> 0\ `S, VICINITY MAP ms s' 5,. N. T. S. �`s6 068, BEING A PORTION OF NCHO RINCONADA DE LOS OF, -4 APN 510 -25 -046 9,0 J N. ,t1 t ©0 i 'N 510 25 062 s IF 0 ®W ���Ia► O sp P.O.B. t 1 �F c v� t ■.e `rem"' z N 1,, IF z (n c o f r� -:1,:t AI 1/4 EXHIBIT "B" N 'I a� A P S E 4 lil IA° c' BEARING DISTANCE C' BEARI DISTANCE N 41 15' W 54. 87' S 75.12' 00' W 90. 70' N 51' 17' 14' E 76. 30' S 86 00' W 61. 55' N 52' 18' 14' E 26. 68' i S 67 59' W 82. 68' N 01 14' E 20. 53' S 71' 47' 46' W 130. 82' N 59 50' E 64. 67' S 42. 39' 15' W 138. 08' N 01' 34' 58' E 14. 72' S 01 14' W 40. 40' N 42 55' E 15. 29' ;t S 52' 19' 15' W 74. 93' N 44' 22' 00' W 97. 37' it.) S 51'18' 14' W 90. 36' N 36 30' W 101. 86' S 31' 35' 15' W 4. 00' N 54' 43' 30' E 293, 00' N 42 00' W 248. 30' C E DELT RADIUS LENGTH N 86' 23' 00' E 58, 17' a 08 3 7' 130. 00' 19. 69' N 75 12' 00' E 80. 81 N 62. 32' 00' E 130. 35' 4 00 170. 00' 3. 02' S 52' 29' 00' E 108. 86' 6 5 00' 45. 00' 39, 78' N 77 58' W 3. 32' r, N 81' 34' 58' W 79. 36' Y3! S 62. 32' 00' W 115. 09' 2. 47 ACRES MORE OR LESS) [1 111114 Ci M. J. Walters 3'� d Surve g r yo' Michael J. Walters ma y Professional Land Surv 3424 Marlee Way, Roddin, Ca. 95577 Da*e .11-21 918- 813 -5528 e Drawn By: MAY al O Om of 1 Sheets Job No: MON -01-084 -6754 a SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL mom MEETING DATE: December 21, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Catherine Engberg, Interim City Attorney DIRECTOR: James Lindsay SUBJECT: Annexation of 19351 Redberry Drive (APN 510 -25 -062) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve annexation of 19351 Redberry Drive (APN 510 -25- 062), an approximately 1.39 (gross) acre parcel and an adjacent portion of Redberry Drive, all of which is contiguous with the limits of the City of Saratoga and within the City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Boundaries. REPORT SUMMARY: At its meeting of July 6, 2011 the City approved initiation of annexation proceedings for 19351 Redberry Drive together with a preannexation agreement with the owners of that parcel and two neighboring landowners. The preannexation agreement originally contemplated completion of the annexation proceedings within four months but the applicants requested an extension to February 2, 2012 and that extension was approved by the City Council on November 2, 2011. The City and the applicants have completed the work necessary to complete the annexation as contemplated by the attached resolution. The parcel conforms to the applicable land use and density criteria contained in the City Code and the General Plan. The parcel has a General Plan designation of Hillside Open Space (OS -H) and is located in the Hillside Residential (HR) Prezone area. BACKGROUND: The staff report for the initiation of annexation proceedings is attached and describes the history and context of the annexation. In summary, the annexation would occur subject to existing County approvals of a major remodel of the main house on the parcel and a new second unit, which complies with the County Code but not certain portions of the Saratoga Code; the City would accept the County approvals as legal non conforming structures and be responsible for issuing and administering grading, building, and other permits consistent with the County approvals and subject to certain modifications described in the Preannexation Agreement. Pursuant to a request by the County and agreement by the parties, the City would also annex the adjacent portion of Redberry Drive, which Public Works has inspected and determined to be in acceptable condition. ANNEXATION FINDINGS: The Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the Act) requires the City Council to make findings pursuant to Government Code Section 56757 prior to adopting the resolution approving the annexation. The attached resolution makes the following findings based on the information presented in italics following each finding. 319 The unincorporated territory is within the urban service area of the city as adopted by Commission. Staff has confirmed that the property to be annexed is within the City's Urban Service Area. The County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposal to be definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies. A map of the annexation was approved and has been approved by the County Surveyor. A copy of the letter from the County Surveyor is attached. The proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership. Staff has determined that the property to be annexed does not split lines of assessment or ownership. The proposal does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. Staff has reviewed the geography of the proposed annexation and concluded that it would not create an island that presents difficulties in providing municipal services since the majority of the services will remain unchanged. The proposal is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. The land use designation for the annexation parcel is OS -H (Hillside Open Space). The land has been pre -zoned HR (Hillside Residential) which is consistent with the General Plan Designation and the nearby zoning. The General Plan provides that lands in the hillsides should be considered for annexation if they meet the following Policy: Policy LU 14 Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless it is contiguous to the existing city limits, within the Sphere of Influence, and it is determined by the city that public services can be provided without unreasonable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. The annexation parcel is contiguous to the existing city limits, is within the Sphere of Influence, and has existing public services that would not unreasonably change the cost to the City or dilute services to existing residents. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: This annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 Cal Code §15319). The Category 19 Exemption includes annexations of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Section 15303 which exempts up to three single family residences. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This annexation would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment because the area contains existing public utilities. FISCAL IMPACTS: No impact. The applicant is responsible for all City review fees and County of Santa Clara processing fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: 320 Future development of the parcel would be subject to requirements of Santa Clara County in lieu of City of Saratoga development standards. FOLLOW UP ACTION: File final resolution with County and proceed with issuance of building permits and other action contemplated by the preannexation agreement. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This item was posted as a City Council agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City's web site in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the Council meeting and residents may subscribe to the agenda on -line by opting in at www.saratoga.ca.us. Noticing is not required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving Annexation 2. Legal Description of the Territory to be Annexed 3. Map of Approved Annexation 4. Staff Report for Initiation of Annexation (July 6, 2011) 5. Letter from County Surveyor dated December 1, 2011 321 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING ANNEXATION OF 19351 REDBERRY DRIVE (APN 510 -25 -062) WHEREAS, at the request of the property owner, the City Council is considering the annexation of an approximately 1.39 acre property commonly known as 19351 Redberry Drive, APN 510 -25 -062, hereinafter referred to as "the parcel," and the adjacent portion of Redberry Drive, all of which is collectively referred to as "the territory," and described in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is the conducting authority for the annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is in the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence and is prezoned as Hillside Residential (HR); and WHEREAS, the territory is considered uninhabited for the purposes of annexation proceedings because there are fewer than twelve registered voters and there is one hundred percent (100 owner consent for the annexation proceedings, no notice, public hearing or election will be required for annexation approval by the City; and WHEREAS, the City and the owners of the parcel have entered a Preannexation Agreement concerning the territory whereby the City agrees to process and the owners agree to support the annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby makes the following findings based on the information presented in the staff report attached to this resolution as Attachment B: A. That the annexation is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA pursuant to section 15319 of the CEQA Guidelines; B. That the unincorporated territory to be annexed is within the urban service area of the city as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. C. That the Santa Clara County Surveyor has determined that the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed are definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies. D. That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership and that this fact has been confirmed by the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office. E. That the proposal does not create islands in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. F. That the proposal is consistent with the adopted general plan of the City and that the property has been prezoned with the designation Hillside Residential. G. That the territory is contiguous to the existing City limits. 322 H. That the city has complied with all conditions imposed by the LAFCO for inclusion of the territory in the urban service area of the City. I. That there are no agencies that would lose or gain territory as a result of the annexation. J. That all property owners within the annexation area have been informed of these proceedings and no opposition has been received. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the annexation of the territory is hereby ordered without any further protest proceedings and that upon completion of these proceedings the territory will be annexed to the City of Saratoga which the City will receive taxes upon in accordance with the previously approved tax exchange agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby amends the City boundary to include the territory in the City of Saratoga effective upon the completion of these proceedings. Attachments A Legal description of the territory to be annexed B Annexation staff report for meeting dated December 21, 2011 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of December 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Morrow, City Clerk 323 EXHIBIT A ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 19351 REDBERRY DRIVE GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO RINCONADA DE LOS GATOS AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT LOCATED AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THAT 1.00 ACRE PARCEL SHOWN UPON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 69 AT PAGE 44, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHWEST END OF THE LINE SHOWN UPON SAID MAP TO BE S 43 °1730" E 311.30' AND BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF REDBERRY DRIVE AND A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMITS AS DESCRIBED ON THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA "REDBERRY DRIVE 2003 -1" AND SHOWN THEREON TO BE AT THE NORTH END OF COURSE BEARING N 43 12" 30" W 311.30 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT 1) N 41 °43' 15" W 54.87 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY UNE OF REBERRY DRIVE AND A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 130.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08° 40" 37" AND A RADIAL BEARING OF S 47° 23' 23" E AND THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING NINE COURSES; 2) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 19.69 FEET; 3) N 61° 17' 14" E 76.30 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 170.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 °'01' 00 4) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 3.02 FEET; 5) N 52° 18' 14" E 26.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50° 39' 00"; 6) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 39,78 FEET; 7) N 01° 39' 14" E 20.53 FEET: 8) N 59° 53' 50" E 64.67 FEET; 9) N 01° 34' 58" E 14.72 FEET; 10) N 42° 39' 55" E 15.29 FEET TO THE TO A 1 INCH IRON PIPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT A AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 95 AT PAGE 9 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG THE LINES OF SAID LOT A THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: 11) N 44° 22' 00" W 97.37 FEET TO A STAKE; 12) N 36° 42' 30" W 101.86 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; Page 1 of 3 324 13) N 54° 43' 30" E 293.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; 14) S 42° 03' 00" E 248.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP; THENCE LEAVING SAID LOT A AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE 15) N 86° 23' 00" E 58.17 FEET; THENCE 16) N 75 12' 00" E 80.81 FEET; THENCE 17) N 62° 32' 00" E 130.35 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BAINTER DRIVE AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 32 AT PAGE 40 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY 18) 5 52° 29' 00" E 108.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMIT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA "BAINTER AVENUE NO. 1-79"; THENCE ALONG THE LINE OF THE "BAINTER AVENUE ANNEXATION 1-79" THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 19) N 77° 30' 58" W 3.32 FEET; 20) N 81" 34' 58" W 79.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF REDBERRY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING TEN COURSES: 21) 5 62° 32' 00" W 115.09 FEET; 22) S 75° 12' 00" W 90.70 FEET; 23) S' 86° 23' 00" W 61.55 FEET; 24) S 67° 38' 59" W 82.68 FEET; 26) S 71° 47' 46" W 130.82 FEET; 26) S 42" 39' 15" W 138.08 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMIT AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID ANNEXATION REDBERRY DRIVE 2003 -1"; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF REDBERRY DRIVE AND EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: 27) S 01° 39' 14" W 40.40 FEET; 28) S 52" 19' 15" W 74.93 FEET; 29)S51 °18'14 "W90.36FEET; 30) S 31° 35' 33" W 4.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (CONTAINING 2.47 ACRES MORE OR LESS) Page 2 of 325 DISCLAIMERFOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY, THIS DESCRIPTION OF LAND IS NOT A LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS DEFINED IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE I USED AS A BASIS FOR AN OFFER FOR SALE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED f t,XND tN, 0 iir' 4, No. OF Glo►t Page 3 of 3 326 1 1/4 SEA. G EEND o. T$ S-I 1 Ml 'f' EXISTING CITY O SARATi?G11 BOUNDARY t UMITS iiir t?151 LAIMER: PROPOSED BOUNDARY TIC ANNEXED FoR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY THIS DESCRIP'RON `G LAND IS 1P' NOT A f.EGAL PROPERTY DES i"�'7TOpf DEFINED dV THE I 1/ 1 ►,o SUBD/NStON MAP A CT AND •tA1' NOT ME UM-AS 7tIE FOR d o h AN OFFER FOR SA or THE L AND 0E'SC`R BAST$ i „Ti i .4, .1;0 o VICINITY MAP Isl. T. S. 43\ s,o_ WP BEING A PORTION OF cHO RINCONADA DE LOS b TOS LPN 510-25-046 ^o I ND ,E '9 7 f i f 310- -25-!" 2 0 :1)- re. Is °"14 4, asita .9 I" At .0 6) Wal/11404. '4.4, i 0 IV 5/ Ta N, I g 02 3 gocol "k EXHIBIT B 10 v ,1. Q N 41.43' 15' W 54. 87' In S 7r12' 00' W 90. 70' N 51' 17' 14' E 76. 30' S 86* 2 00' V 61. 55' 00' N 01'39' 14' E 20. 53' P S 71' 47' 46 W 130. 82' N 59''53' 50' E 64. 67' iii S 42' 39' 15' W 138. 08' N 01•34' 58' E 14. 72' S 01 14' 40. 40' N 42' 39' 55' E 15. 29' fit S 52' 19' 15' 'W 74. 93' N 44' 22' 00• W 97. 37' i S 51•18' 14' W 90. 36' N 36' 42' 30' W 101. 86' K'' S 31 `35' 15' W 4. 00' N 54.43' E 293.. 00' N 42' 0 0 3 0 0 W 2248. 30' E DELTA RADIUS LENGTH s,' m 08' 40 37' 130. 00' 1 69' N 62' 00' 1 35' 4 01 Q0' 170.00' 3. 02' N 62 3 00' 130. 86' 35 5Q' 39' 00* 45. 00' 39. 78' S 52` 29' 00' E 108 i N 77'30' 58' W 3. 32' N 81 58' W 79. 36' S 62.32' 00' W 115., 09' 2. 47 ACRES MORE OR LESS) Sheet r M �I Walters d Survey s s 1 Drawn Ely: NM J. Walters Professional Land S 3424 Mode. Radcliff, C a 55 D 11�' .Sr31 Ad ilk 9f 135628 5 Sheets a 4,,,,,, o f Job No: MOK- 01-0848754 327 19361 Redberry Drive Annexation II IIIIII 4 AF'N:610.25-062 A li), iiiiiri l ititit ile. /1°111 aii IIIII 1 o'`''' 4 q� o� Ma iiiiihilii. Ezi Proposed Annexation Area City of Saratoga o eo ,zo ts o� 328 ot 84 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 6, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor, City Attorney DIRECTOR: Chris Riordan SUBJECT: Preannexation Agreement and Initiation of Annexation for 19351 Redberry Drive (APN 510 -25 -062) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve attached Preannexation Agreement and resolution initiating annexation of 19351 Redberry Drive (APN 510 -25 -062), an approximately 1.39 (gross) acre parcel contiguous with the limits of the City of Saratoga and within the City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Boundaries. REPORT SUMMARY: The City has received a request from the owners of 19351 Redberry Drive "Applicants that their property be annexed into the City of Saratoga. The request is supported by nearby landowners at 19403 and 19370 Redberry Drive and 19280 Bainter Avenue "Neighbors The annexation would occur subject to existing County approvals of a major remodel of the main house and a new second unit that comply with the County Code but not certain portions of the Saratoga Code; the City would accept the County approvals as legal non- conforming structures and be responsible for issuing and administering grading, building, and other permits consistent with the County approvals and subject to certain modifications described in the Preannexation Agreement. The parcel conforms to the applicable land use and density criteria contained in the City Code and the General Plan. The parcel has a General Plan designation of Hillside Open Space (OS -H) and is located in the Hillside Residential (HR) Prezone area. PROPOSED PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT: In 2010 the Applicants applied for and received County approvals for a major remodel of the existing main house and for construction of a second unit. The Neighbors challenged those approvals and the parties explored opportunities for resolving their differences outside of court and the County appeals process. The parties have reached a settlement calling for certain modifications to the project as approved by the County, annexation to the City, and City administration and oversight of the building process. (Details on the history of the process are included in the recitals to the Preannexation Agreement included as Attachment 1.) The attached Preannexation Agreement sets forth the terms under which the City would annex the property and process permits for the remodel and second unit to be located as described in Exhibit B to the agreement. The agreement was prepared by the Owner and the Neighbors and modified somewhat by staff. The Owner and the Neighbors have agreed to all staff's changes. 209 The Preannexation Agreement provides that the City would annex the property subject to the existing County approvals (and modifications agreed to by the Owners and Neighbors described in Exhibit B) such that the building plans and a future swimming pool /deck application would not be subject to compliance with the City's zoning regulations. The project was designed to comply with County development standards and does not comply with several City standards (e.g., height, floor area (due to basement floor area), graded material volume, impervious surface, and possibly setbacks). As with annexations of existing structures built to conform to County but not City standards, the proposed structures on the annexed property would be considered as legal non conforming structures in accordance with section 15- 65.035(a) of the City Code. A copy of the County approvals will be available for review in the Community Development Department beginning Tuesday, July 5. The Preannexation Agreement provides that the City would be responsible for issuing, administering, monitoring and enforcing all permits required to move forward with the County approvals as modified by the Preannexation Agreement. Because the County approvals were issued in 2010 the City would apply the Building Regulations from Chapter 16 of the City Code that were in effect in 2010. The applicants would pay all applicable City fees for the requested permits. The applicants could apply for necessary permits any time after approval of the Preannexation Agreement but the City may not issue any permits until the annexation has been completed. ANNEXATION PROCEDURES: The Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the Act) provides that cities in Santa Clara County may proceed independently of LAFCO in processing annexation applications within the City's Urban Service Area (Government Code Section 56757). A public meeting and noticing is not necessary and the City Council may consider the Initiation of Annexation as a routine agenda item at a regular meeting and may waive protest proceedings because the annexation is being made by a petition with 100 percent consent of the property owner. The Act requires that cities follow the procedures used by LAFCO to the extent practicable. The Act establishes a three -part process for annexations: (1) Initiation of Annexation; (2) Protest Proceedings which may be waived by the City Council; and (3) Approval of Annexation. Furthermore, the City Council is required to make findings pursuant to Government Code Section 56757 prior to adopting the resolution approving the annexation. After the resolution is adopted, a certified copy of the resolution and paperwork is submitted to LAFCO. The Act and other state laws require the preparation of a number of documents as part of the annexation process. These documents fall into three categories: a service plan, LAFCO materials, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) materials. These are described below: Service Plan All annexations are to begin with a proposed service plan for the area to be annexed. This plan includes a description of the parcel to be annexed; the reasons for the proposal; and a listing and description including the level, range, any change to, and financing of services to be provided to the annexed parcel (see attachment 2). The service plan should also include an indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions that the City would impose or require on the annexed lands. No improvements or upgrades are recommended as part of this proposal and all services will be consistent with the current conditions. 230 LAFCO Materials Cities in Santa Clara County proceeding independently of LAFCO are required to make the findings listed below before approving an annexation. The formal findings need not be made until the adoption of the final annexation resolution. Each finding is followed by a brief description of Staff's review. That the unincorporated territory is within the urban service area of the city as adopted by Commission. Staff had confirmed that the property to be annexed is within the City's Urban Service Area. That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposal to be definite and certain, and in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies. A map will be prepared and provided to the County Surveyor once initiation of annexation has been approved by the City Council. That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership. Staff has determined that the property to be annexed does not split lines of assessment or ownership. That the proposal does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. Staff has reviewed the geography of the proposed annexation and concluded that it would not create an island or present difficulties in providing municipal services since the majority of the services will remain unchanged. That the proposal is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. The land use designation for the annexation parcel is OS -H (Hillside Open Space). The land has been pre -zoned HR (Hillside Residential) which is consistent with the General Plan Designation and the nearby zoning. The General Plan provides that lands in the hillsides should be considered for annexation if they meet the following Policy: Policy LU 14 Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless it is contiguous to the existing city limits, within the Sphere of Influence, and it is determined by the city that public services can be provided without unreasonable cost to the City and dilution of services to existing residents. As discussed throughout this document, the annexation parcel is contiguous to the existing city limits, is within the Sphere of Influence, and has existing public services that would not unreasonably change the cost to the City or dilute services to existing residents. California Environmental Quality Act Annexations are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (14 Cal Code §15319). The Category 19 Exemption includes annexations of individual small parcels of the minimum size for facilities exempted by Section 15303 which exempts up to three single family residences. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question 231 may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. This annexation would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment because the area contains existing public utilities. FISCAL IMPACTS: No impact. The applicant is responsible for all City review fees and County of Santa Clara processing fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Future development of the parcel would be subject to requirements of Santa Clara County in lieu of City of Saratoga development standards. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny the proposed resolution initiating annexation and provide Staff with direction. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Work with the applicant to have the annexation map prepared for review by the County Surveyor and return to the City Council for final annexation approval upon completion of that review. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This item was posted as a City Council agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City's web site in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the Council meeting and residents may subscribe to the agenda on -line by opting in at www.saratoga.ca.us. Noticing is not required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Pre annexation Agreement showing staff recommended revisions 2. Resolution approving Initiation of the Annexation 3. List of Services Report 232 FARAHANCHI MOKHLESI /HOLTON /KOWNACKI /PFEIFFER PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT "Agreement is made and entered into this day of 2011 by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA "City a municipal corporation of the State of California, Fariba Farahanchi and Nima Mokhlesi (collectively "the Farahanchi /Mokhlesis John Holton and Wanda Kownacki "the Holton /Kownackis and Jim Pfeiffer "Pfeiffer and collectively with the Holton/Kownackis, "the Neighbors The Farahanchi/Mokhlesis are sometimes referred to herein as "the Owners" and the Owners, City and Neighbors are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties." RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the Farahanchi/Mokhlesis are the owners of a certain parcel of real property located at 19351 Redberry Drive in the County of Santa Clara and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein "Property B. WHEREAS, Pfeiffer is the owner of a certain parcel of real property located in the unincorporated County of Santa Clara at 19403 Redberry Drive, Los Gatos, California; C. WHEREAS, the Holton/Kownackis are the owners of certain parcels of real property located in the County of Santa Clara at 19280 Bainter Ave, Los Gatos (though within the city limits of Saratoga), California and 19370 Redberry Drive, Los Gatos (though within the city limits of Saratoga), California; D. WHEREAS, the Farahanchi/Mokhlesis Property is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County adjacent to the city limits of Saratoga, is within the Saratoga Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area and is developed with a single family dwelling; E. WHEREAS, in 2010, the Farahanchi/Mokhlesis applied to the County of Santa Clara for approvals necessary to remodel /add to the existing main house and to construct a secondary house more than 50 feet from the main house on the Property (collectively, the "Farahanchi/Mokhlesi Applications F. WHEREAS, in 2010, the County approved the Farahanchi/Mokhlesi's Applications relating to the main house and driveway, consisting of: 1) a grading permit; 2) design review exemption; 3) exemption from environmental review; 4) issuance of a tree removal permit for two oak trees; and 5) issuance of a building permit (collectively the "County Main House Approvals G. WHEREAS, in 2010, the County Zoning Administrator approved the Farahanchi/Mokhlesi's Application related to the location of the secondary unit "County Secondary House Approval the County Main House Approvals and County Secondary House Approval are sometimes collectively referred to as the "County Approvals H. WHEREAS, on December 15, 2010, the Neighbors appealed the County Secondary House Approval to the County Planning Commission; 333 I. WHEREAS, on January 18, 2011, the Neighbors initiated a lawsuit against the County and the Owners regarding the County Approvals, as Action No. 111 -CV- 192055, Santa Clara County Superior Court; J. WHEREAS, on April 7, 2011, the County Planning Commission denied the Neighbors' appeal of the County Secondary House Approval; K. WHEREAS, on or about April 25, 2011, the Neighbors appealed the County Secondary House Approval to the County Board of Supervisors; L. WHEREAS, the Owners and Neighbors are willing to agree to modification of the County Approvals to include a number of modified and additional conditions, attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Modifying /Additional Conditions M. WHEREAS, as provided herein, the Parties intend and agree that the Property be annexed to the City; N. WHEREAS, annexation of the Property to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement will result in rational comprehensive planning and foster predictability, certainty, economy and efficiency in future land use planning and will establish a permanent and definable border between the City and the County of Santa Clara in furtherance of State, County and City policies and consistent with West Valley Hillsides Preservation Strategies, Strategy #2, Action 1 and Action 2; O. WHEREAS, as provided herein, the Parties intend and agree that the City shall be the entity responsible for issuing, administering, monitoring and enforcing all permits approved as part of the County Approvals and issuing, administering, monitoring and enforcing all building permit and all other necessary permits and approvals pursuant to the terms of the County Approvals, as modified and amended by the Modifying/Additional Conditions (collectively the "Modified Approvals to allow for the remodel /addition to the primary dwelling and construction of the secondary dwelling unit on the Property; P. WHEREAS. Owners and Neighbors have jointly submitted to City the documents comprising the County Approvals by letter dated July 2011 with the understanding that the Secondary House Approval is the subject of a pending appeal to the County which will be moot if the Property is annexed to the City. Q. WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the City's and Farahanchi/Mokhlesi's respective responsibilities in pursuing annexation of the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Annexation. The Parties agree that in order to provide for rational long -term land use planning and to establish a permanent and definable border between the City and County of Santa Clara, the Property should be annexed to the City. City agrees to take the steps necessary to achieve annexation of the Property at the soonest possible opportunity. Owners hereby consent to annexation of the Property and agree to support said annexation. 2. City Processing of Modified Approvals. 234 a. The City agrees to accept the Modified Approvals and to be the entity responsible for issuing, administering, monitoring and enforcing all permits necessary for development of the improvements contemplated by the Modified Approvals, including the grading permit and building permits, and the Farahanchi/Mokhlesis agree to accept the Modified Approvals and to construct their main house remodel /addition and secondary unit in accordance with the Modified Approvals and to pay all fees and submit all materials required for the City to process the annexation, issue, administer, monitor and enforce the Modified Approvals and all necessary permits and approvals. To the extent practicable without prejudicing previously submitted requests for City approvals, the City further agrees to expedite processing of all applications submitted by the Farahanchi/Mokhlesis for the Modified Approvals and to expedite issuance of all necessary permits and approvals. b. All Parties recognize that the development described by the Modified Approvals may be inconsistent in certain respects with otherwise applicable City standards set forth in certain regulations contained in the City Code that regulate the topics identified in Exhibit C attached hereto. Nevertheless, the Parties agree that in processing and approving the permits for the project the City will not require compliance with the City Code provisions that would be inconsistent with the development of the Modified Approvals, including but not limited to those regulations that regulate the topics identified in Exhibit C, but only to the extent necessary to allow Owners to build the development described by the Modified Approvals. The main house, secondary house, pool and related hardscape built as contemplated in Exhibit B to this Agreement shall be treated as though constructed prior to annexation, and therefore as legal nonconforming structures pursuant to Section 15- 65.035(a) of the City Code. c. The Parties agree that the City will require compliance with the City building standards set forth in Chapter 16 of the Saratoga City Code that may not apply to development within the County; for example inclusion of an Early Warning Alarm System. Because the City grading, building, and other permits will be replacing building, grading, and other permits issued by the County in 2010, the standards set forth in Chapter 16 of the Saratoga City Code as of December 31, 2010 shall be the standards applied in connection with the Modified Approvals. d. With respect to Exhibit B hereto, the Parties agree that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in that exhibit: (i) all references to "Plans" refer to the development plans approved by the County Building Department as part of building permit No. 46049 issued on 12/15/10; (ii) all references to "the City's consulting arborist" refer to the arborist on staff in the Community Development Department or, at City's sole discretion, a consulting arborist to be selected by the City; (iii) if called upon to make determinations pursuant to sections 2.d or 4b the arborist shall apply only the standards set forth in Exhibit B in those paragraphs and those decisions shall not be construed as decisions pursuant to the Saratoga City Code. 3. Timing of Annexation. The City shall consider initiating annexation of the Property at its July 6, 2011 City Council Meeting. Should the City approve the initiation of annexation of the Property at that meeting, then City shall expeditiously process the annexation through the 235 necessary activities of the County surveyor and LAFCO, and upon completion of all necessary processes, the annexation shall be brought to the Saratoga City Council for its final decision. 4. Construction Limitations. Prior to annexation of the Property, no construction of improvements on the Property shall occur; however, should the City approve initiation of annexation of the Property, City staff shall thereafter accept and process grading and building permit applications for the Property, but shall not issue permits until annexation of the Property is completed. In any event, all construction of the improvements on the Property shall be subject to the City's tree protection requirements under City Code Article 15 -50, and to City's construction rules under Chapter 16 of the Saratoga City Code as that Chapter existed on December 31, 2010. 5. Swimming Pool/Deck. In the City's processing of an application by Owners for a swimming pool and associated patio /deck on the Property, the site coverage limitations of City Code Section 15- 13.080, shall not apply. Owners shall submit their application for the swimming pool and associated patio /deck no later than August 31, 2013. 6. Survival of Rights and Obligations. The rights and obligations of the Parties as set forth in this Agreement shall survive annexation of the Property to the City. 7. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall have no further force and effect and each Party shall be released from the obligations set forth herein in the event that annexation of the Property to the City has not occurred within four (4) months after the date of City's approval of this Agreement. 8. Legal Action. Any party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies herein provided, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto or obtain any other remedy consistent with this Agreement. In no event shall any Party be entitled hereunder to monetary damages for any action or inaction of another Party hereunder, including breach of contract. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to limit any Party's rights under the Tort Claims Act or the City's right to collect fees allowable and otherwise due and payable or to impose penalties for violations of City ordinances. 9. Attorneys Fees and Costs. If legal action by any party is brought because of a breach of this Agreement, or to enforce a provision of this Agreement, each party shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs. 10. Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accord with the laws of the State of California. 11. No Joint Venture or Partnership. The Parties to this Agreement hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between any or all of the Parties and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document Executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making any or all of the Parties joint venturers or partners. Further, neither the Neighbors nor the Owners are agents of the City. 236 12. Indemnification. Owners hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers (collectively "City harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action by City on the subject Annexation, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to or concurrently with said Annexation; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of the construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owners, or by Owners' successor(s), or by any person acting on their behalf, authorized by any City action described in subsection 12.a. above. Owner's obligations under this section shall prevail over any other provision in this Preannexation Agreement. 13. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by a third party, governmental agency or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement of the annexation proceedings described herein, the Parties shall cooperate in defending the action or proceeding. 14. Notices. All notices or communications required hereunder between the Parties shall be in writing and may be given either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered in person or the date upon which the postal authority indicates that the mailing was delivered to the address of the receiving party. Any Party hereto, by given ten (10) days written notice to the other, may designate any other address as substitution of the address to which the notice or communication shall be given. Notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at the addresses set forth below until specified otherwise in writing. City of Saratoga: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Copy to: Richard S. Taylor City Attorney City of Saratoga The Farahanchi/Mokhlesis: Barton Hechtman Matteoni O'Laughlin Hechtman 848 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 bgh @matteoni.com 237 The Neighbors Thomas Lippe Lippe Gaffney Wagner LLP 329 Bryant Street, Suite 3D San Francisco, CA 94107 tlippe@lgwlawyers.com 15. Successor and Assigns. The covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions of this Agreement shall apply to, bind and inure to the benefit of successors in interest of the Parties hereto, including heirs, assigns, representatives, executors, administrators and all other parties, whether they succeed by operation of law or voluntary acts of the City or Owners. All such heirs, representatives, successors, executors, or assigns shall be bound to every provision in this Agreement, whether or not this Agreement is referred to in the instrument by which such heirs, representatives, successors, executors, or assigns acquire an interest in the Property. 16. Parties in Interest. This Agreement is entered only for the benefit of the Parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person. 17. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended in writing by the original Parties or their successors in interest. 18. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 19. Change in Law. If a subsequent change occurs in federal or state laws or the regulations of a federal or state agency which prevents or precludes compliance with a provision of this Agreement, that provision shall be modified or suspended only to the extent necessary to comply with the federal or state law or regulation. 20. Enforceability. Unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any Party hereto notwithstanding any change hereinafter enacted or adopted in any applicable General Plan or Specific Plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance or any other land use or building ordinance. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and the conditions referred to herein, and the exhibits attached hereto, constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersede all negotiations or previous agreement of the Parties with respect to all or party of the subject matter hereof. No alteration or variation of this instrument shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment to this Agreement. 22. Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience or reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. 23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall be effective as of the date hereof. 238 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective representatives as follows: CITY OF SARATOGA City of Saratoga, A Municipal Corporation By: Howard A. Miller, Mayor Date ATTEST: By: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Date Approved as to Form: City Attorney, Richard Taylor Date OWNERS By: Nima Mokhlesi Date By: Fariba Farahanchi Date NEIGHBORS By: Wanda Kownacki Date By: James W. Pfeiffer Date By: John Holton Date 239 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY mat ffi g y b °47' o felt `tM�s Mon E �Y t E 2934 (vet l tt r �9' tr t E a f s P ,s; tE !.,p t o f f E t q ..1 J cal u 7, try; 9 A:5�' 220 Exhibit B MODIFYING /ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS The following conditions (the "Modifying /Additional Conditions modify the County Approvals as described in the Agreement to which this Exhibit is attached and in paragraph 1 below. To the extent that any conflict exists between the Modifying /Additional Conditions and the County Approvals, the Modifying /Additional Conditions shall supersede and control: 1. Changes to the Main House. The following changes to the main house are made relative to the development plans approved by the County Building Department as part of building permit No. 46049 issued on 12/15/10. The location of the main house and its building "footprint" on the Property relative to the Property boundaries shall not be altered from the location shown on these plans, except that the main house's "footprint" may be made smaller so long as it is located within the perimeter of the "footprint" approved in said plans. The dimensions of the main house shall not be altered from the dimensions of the main house shown on these plans except as described in this Exhibit B. a. The existing primary house rests on a slab foundation. The Plans show the elevation of this slab foundation to be 581'9" above mean sea level (msl), measured from a local manhole cover to which an elevation of 533.75' msl is ascribed. The Plans show the elevation of the roof of the proposed remodeled primary house to be 22'6" higher than the slab foundation, at 604'3" msl. b. Without determining the accuracy of the msl elevations referenced in subparagraph a of this paragraph 1, the Parties agree that (1) the elevation of the roof of the main house shall be no higher than 21'6" above the existing slab foundation (the elevation of the slab foundation is believed to be 581'9" as shown on the Plans; therefore the maximum roof elevation is believed to be 603'3" msl); (2) the three architectural articulations shown on the Plans as extending above the roof shall be no higher than 24'3" above the existing slab foundation (believed to be 606'0" msl); and (3) no part of the main house, including parapets, solar panels, antennas, or anything else that might be attached to the roof other than the chimney will extend higher than 27'3" above the existing slab foundation (believed to be 609'0" msl); (4) the msl elevations provided in this paragraph are for reference purposes only, and the operative height limits are based on elevation above the existing slab foundation; and (5) Owners will leave the existing slab foundation or a visible and accessible portion thereof in place or will install a visible and accessible permanent monument at the same elevation as the existing slab foundation to permanently establish the elevation of the existing slab foundation. c. Neighbors reserve the right to request validation of these height restrictions during and after construction by a licensed surveyor, at Neighbors' expense, and Owners agree to allow the surveyor access to the Property for this limited purpose at a time that is mutually convenient for the surveyor and the Owners. 221 d. Owners may elect to reduce the depth of the basement by raising the bottom of the basement, and may make other de minimis changes that do not alter the building envelope or location of the main house on the lot or constitute a "rebuild" under County zoning rules or conflict with any specific provisions of the Agreement. e. All surfaces of the main house including walls, trim, and roofing material and stone but excluding solar panels will meet an LRV (as defined in the Santa Clara County Code) of 45 or less. 2. Changes to the Secondary House. a. The secondary house shall be located such that no part of the structure other than the 30" extension of any bay window (as long as the bay window meets the County's definition of a bay window in terms of size and location with respect to the structure) is located within 35 feet of the Property's property line abutting Redberry Drive. b. The garage shown attached to the rear (relative to Redberry Drive) of the secondary house will be relocated to the front side (relative to Redberry Drive) of the secondary house. This change reduces the height of the retaining wall at the Redberry side of the secondary house, resulting in a smaller facade facing Redberry Drive. c. All surfaces of the secondary house including walls, trim, and roofing material and stone will meet an LRV (as defined in the Santa Clara County Code) of 45 or less in shades of natural earth tones (browns, beiges). d. The secondary house will have a landscape plan that calls for an earth "berm" on the Redberry Drive side of the structure (to the extent allowed by the City in light of drainage requirements associated with the nearby creek) and low shrubs and trees to generally, but not entirely screen the facade from street view. This landscape plan will be a condition of the building permit for the secondary house. Pursuant to the landscape plan, utilizing some of the new trees described in Sections 4.a. and 4.b. below, and other vegetation as necessary, Owners shall landscape the Property so that the front facade (being the facade closest to and running parallel to Redberry Drive) of the secondary dwelling is generally, though not entirely screened, from Redberry Drive, given a reasonable time for the vegetation planted to grow and mature. Owners will submit a draft of the landscape plan to Neighbors prior to submission to the City; promptly thereafter, the Owners and Neighbors shall meet and confer, and attempt to reach agreement as to whether the landscape plan will result in the level of screening described in the preceding sentence. In the event the parties cannot agree on the landscape plan, the City's consulting arborist (or an arborist selected by the City's consulting arborist should the City's consulting arborist be unavailable for the task) shall be retained to make a final, unappealable decision on the landscape plan. All costs of the arborist shall be shared 50% by Owners and 50% by Neighbors. 222 3. Swimming Pool. The Owners will apply for and obtain a permit from the City for and before installing a swimming pool and associated patio /deck. The site coverage limitations provided in Section 15- 13.080 of the City Code shall not apply to such application. 4. Trees. a. The following trees can be removed without the further consent of the Neighbors: i) the two necessary to build the main house (which are the subject of an existing County Approval, ii) the small oak not requiring a permit for removal located where the secondary house will be constructed, and iii) the two pine trees marked with blue ribbon and located near the first curve of the driveway. These two pine trees must remain marked with blue ribbon until removed and must be replaced with native species such as oaks. In removing the trees described in this Section 4.a., Owners shall comply with City Code Article 15 -50; any replacement trees required by City Code Article 15 -50 shall apply toward satisfying the replacement requirements of this Section 4.a. b. The Parties acknowledge that there are many trees on the Property and that their mutual intent is to preserve trees on the Property, but recognize that trees other than the five described in Section 4.a. will need to be removed in order to accommodate the construction contemplated by this Agreement (the "Construction Trees Owners have marked with a red ribbon every Construction Tree to the best of their knowledge. The Neighbors have viewed all such marked Construction Trees. The parties agree that certain of the Construction Trees provide visual screening of the main house from off the property. To mitigate the Toss of this visual screening and anticipated visual impacts from the new secondary dwelling, Owners agree to plant ten (10) new trees of native species such as oaks, of the following sizes: two 20 gallon trees, four 15 gallon trees and four 10 gallon trees. At least seven of these trees must be planted above the secondary house, to provide screening of the main house from Redberry Drive. Upon completion of the framing of the main house, the Owners and Neighbors shall meet and confer at the Property, and attempt to reach agreement as to where each of the ten (10) trees is to be planted, provided, however, that no new trees are to be planted in the level area to the west of the main house, being the anticipated location of the pool and patio /deck described in Section 3. In the event the parties cannot agree on the locations for each of the trees, the City's consulting arborist (or an arborist selected by the City's consulting arborist should the City's consulting arborist be unavailable for the task) shall be retained to make a final, unappealable decision on the location of each of the trees. All costs of the arborist shall be shared 50% by Owners and 50% by Neighbors. The ten trees shall be planted by Owners within (60) days after the main house Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the City, to avoid interference with construction and damage to the new trees from construction activities. In the event it is determined during construction that a Construction Tree which was not marked with a red ribbon must be removed, then the Owners 243 and Neighbors shall meet and confer to determine, in the Neighbors' reasonable discretion, whether the tree provides substantial visual screening of the main house from off the property, and if so, Owners shall replace the tree with a native species tree of similar size such as an oak, to be located in a manner that reasonably enhances this visual screening from off the Property. In removing Construction Trees, Owners shall comply with City Code Article 15 -50; any replacement trees required by City Code Article 15- 50 shall apply toward satisfying the replacement requirements of this Section 4.b. c. As to all trees on the Property which are not among the five trees described in Section 4.a. and not Construction Trees described in Section 4.b., and which are of a size not requiring a permit from the City of Saratoga, for a period of ten years from the date of this Agreement Owners shall not remove more than two trees per year except that (i) any removal of a tree that is ordered by a governmental agency having jurisdiction, or (ii) any removal of a tree that is certified by a licensed arborist to be dying or to be necessary to abate an imminent hazard to personal safety or personal property, shall not be subject to this numerical limitation. Owners shall replace any tree removed pursuant to this paragraph with a native species tree of similar size such as an oak, to be located in a manner that reasonably enhances the visual screening from off the property. 224 Exhibit C Subjects of Inapplicable Zoning and Grading Regulations of the City of Saratoga Grading quantities Height of Main House Square Footage of Main House Impervious surface coverage limits applied to the pool, pool deck, driveway, main house and walkways around it, secondary unit and its deck, driveway, and walking paths surrounding it, existing parking spaces at the top of the driveway, and retaining walls across the entire property Location of the Main House and Secondary House, including but not limited to setbacks from property lines Discretionary design review pursuant to Article 15 -45 of the Saratoga Code of the improvements contemplated in this Agreement, including but not limited to design/architecture of the Main House or Secondary House Height of the basement Basement not qualifying as basement (based on too much of its perimeter being above grade, too much of its floor areas receiving daylight, certain significant areas of the basement not being directly situated under first or second floors, or any other reason), resulting in home being considered as having 3 stories Maximum height limits of retaining walls In application of the City's tree protection regulations, requiring redesign/relocation of the improvements contemplated in this Agreement to avoid (a) tree removal (i.e., the agreed remedy is tree replacement pursuant to the City's tree protection regulations) or (b) placing a structure within five feet of the dripline of a protected tree (in such event the structure must nonetheless comply with any dripline avoidance requirements of the County and the Owners shall consult with the city arborist and comply with the protection and mitigation (including but not limited to tree replacement) recommendations of the city arborist addressing the absence of the five foot buffer normally required by the City). 225 County of Santa Clara Planning and Development Office Of The County Surveyor's County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, E. Wing, 7 'Floor San lose, California 95110 l`it two (408) 299-5730 December 01, 2011 Michael Fossati Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: 19351 Redberry Drive Annexation (APN: 510 -25 -062) Dear Mr. Fossati: The attached revised map and description dated November 21, 2011 of territory proposed for annexation to the City of Saratoga entitled 19351 Redberry Drive is in accordance with Government Code Section 56757 (c) (2). The boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Local Agency Formation Commission's road annexation policies. Sincerely, Gwendolyn Gee, PLS County Surveyor Exp. cw 0 Attachment cc: LAFCO Executive Officer (w /attachment) Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager,. Liz Koss County Executive: Jeffrey Y. Smith 346 EXHIBIT A ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 19351 REDBERRY DRIVE GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE RANCHO RINCONADA DE LOS GATOS AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT LOCATED AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THAT 1.00 ACRE PARCEL SHOWN UPON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 69 AT PAGE 44, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHWEST END OF THE LINE SHOWN UPON SAID MAP TO BE S 43 °12'30" E 311.30' AND BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF REDBERRY DRIVE AND A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMITS AS DESCRIBED ON THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA REDBERRY DRIVE 2003-1" AND SHOWN THEREON TO BE AT THE NORTH END OF COURSE BEARING N 43 °12' 30" W 311.30 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT 1) N 41°43' 15" W 54.87 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REBERRY DRIVE AND A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 130.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08° 40' 37° AND A RADIAL BEARING OF S 47° 23' 23" E AND THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING NINE COURSES; 2) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 19.69 FEET; 3) N 51° 17' 14" E 76.30 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 170.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 01' 00"; 4) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 3.02 FEET; 5) N 52° 18' 14" E 26.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50° 39' 00' 6) NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 39.78 FEET; 7)N01 °39'14 "E20.53FEET; 8)N59 "53'50"E64.67FEET; 9)N01 °34'58 "E14.72FEET; 10) N 42° 39' 55" E 15.29 FEET TO THE TO A 1 INCH IRON PIPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF LOT A AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 95 AT PAGE 9 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG THE LINES OF SAID LOT A THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES. 11) N 44° 22' 00" W 97.37 FEET TO A STAKE 12) N 36° 42' 30" W 101.86 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; Page 1 of3 347 13) N 54° 43' 30" E 293.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE; 14) S 42° 03' 00" E 248.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE AS SHOWN UPON SAID MAP; THENCE LEAVING SAID LOT A AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE 15) N 86° 23' 00" E 58.17 FEET; THENCE 16) N 75 12' 00' E 80.81 FEET; THENCE 17) N 62° 32' 00" E 130.35 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RAINIER DRIVE AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 32 AT PAGE 40 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY 18) S 52° 29' 00" E 108.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMIT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA "BAINTER AVENUE NO. 1-79"; THENCE ALONG THE LINE OF THE "BANTER AVENUE ANNEXATION 1-79" THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: 19) N 77° 30' 58" W 3.32 FEET; 20) N 81° 34' 58" W 79,36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE; THENCE LEAVING THE EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES: 21) S 62° 32' 00" W 115.09 FEET; 22) S 75° 12' 00" W 90,70 FEET; 23) S 86° 23' 00" W 61,55 FEET; 24) 8 67° 38' 59" W 82.68 FEET; 25) S 71° 47" 46" W 130.82 FEET; 26) S 42° 39' 15" W 138,08 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMIT AS ESTABLISHED BY SAID ANNEXATION "REDBERRY DRIVE 2003-1"; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF REDBERRY DRIVE AND EXISTING CITY BOUNDARY LIMIT THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES; 27) S 01° 39' 14" W 4040 FEET; 28) S 52' 19' 15" W 74,93 FEET; 29) S 51* 18' 14" W 90.36 FEET; 30) S 3r 35' 33" W 4.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (CONTAINING 2,47 ACRES MORE OR LESS) Page 2 of 3 348 DiscLAimER:FoR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DESCRIPTION OF LAND IS NOT A LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS DEFINED IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR AN OFFER FOR SALE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED. ‘-a 4 At e t No. L 5D ji. 1 'I It' REV. DATE: 11121/11 ):It 4;7 cN‘ Page 3 of 3 349 ik- 1/4 sEC c EXltliON LEGEND T.8 5-11°1 w EXISTING CITY OF SARATOGA BOUNDARY LIMNS ei f PROPOSED BOUNDARY 17 3E ANNEXED DISCLAIMER: i 4 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DESCRIPTION OF LAND IS NOT r LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AS DEFINE!? IN THE If 1OP. 4 1106 /Ii.: r. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND MAY NOT BE USEDD AS THE BASS 'FOR A N OFFER FOR SALE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED t If 4 i 1�✓ VICINITY MAP `$6 `4"5� 615apr N, T, S, BEING A PORTION OF RNC1IO RINCONADA DE LOS GA S x ...1.. LAND ilik 6 +3 p iol (.3 p 1 ‘e26 ',0 l Z: 1 0 WIIIIIINAW' 1 4 I. 0)/ r r .X.,„t 1,.... *Jr to ,s, t 4.11 i ts' c' 0 11 4 AA z r, i e NI 2 1 ~474.„021 3 SI 11111,\ s E BEARING F DISTANCE CO R DEAR' DISTANCE I 1 N 41 43' 15' W 54. 87' S 75 12' 00' W 90, 70' 3 N 51' 17' 14' E 76. 30' -3 S 86 23' 00' W 61, 55' 5 2. 18' x f r 8' 0. N 01 14' E 20. ,53' S 71 46' W 130. 82' N 59' 53' 50' E 64. 67' -i S 42. 39' 15' W 138. 08' N 01 58' E 14. 72' 01 14' W 40, 40' N 42. 39' 55' E 1 2 S 5_ 1 15' W 74. 93' N 44' 22' 00' W 8107.1!.8761 S 51 14' W 90. 36' N 36" 42' 30' W 101. 876' i S 3. 1 .35 18 15' W 4. 00' N 54. 43` 30' E 293. 00' S 42• 03' 00' W 248 30' RYE DELTA R ENGTH N 7 00' E 8 0. 81 2 08 40' 37' 130. 00' 19. 69' N 62. 32' 00' E 130, 35' 01 00' 170. 00 3. 02' S 52' 29' 00' E 108.. 86' 6 50 39' 00 45. OCN 39, 78' N 77.30' 58' W 3, 32' N 81.34' 58' W 79. 36' r S 62' 32' 00' W 115, 09' 2. 47 ACRES MORE E1R LESS) M.J. Walters .hand Su3�ve Scale. Drawn B> Aim. ,t ichael J Walters Profe anal Land S ume ar 3424 Manes Way, Rocklin, Ca. 9� 910- 813 -55528 of 1 she+ Job NM MOK- L- 084 -6754 350 19351 Redberry Drive Annexation iiii 1/-°?. '71,, tit. 4 APN•610.26 062 A i* alifillailiff 1. 7/ Air A _...---/-7'-7r—ii/t1/ i l V q aratoga I/1 k_LJ Proposed Annexation Area ..t City of Saratoga 0 3G1 +20 100 351 'he Last Dinner on the Titanic http: gbacg. org /current/titanic- dinner.html Saturday, April 14th, 2012 6pm to 11 pm The Bellevue Club, Oakland, CA Enjoy an extraordinary, once in a lifetime event, as we recreate the elegance of the diamond in the White Star Line's ship "RMS Titanic" as she begins her maiden voyage on the Atlantic. April 14, 2012 is the 100th anniversary of the last dinner on the 4 Titanic, and we will celebrate in style! We will start at with a social hour in the luxurious surroundings of the Bellevue Club whose ambiance beautifully evokes yesteryear. Once dinner is ready, we will convene in the main dining room, surrounded by gilded moldings, crystal chandeliers, a marble fireplace and beautiful views. Music will play through dinner. A copy of the first class menu survived, and our dinner for this evening is derived from it, adapted slightly to fit modern tastes. We will finish our evening with dancing to a live band playing music specifically selected from that which would have played onboard, and a card room for those who would prefer their coffee or after dinner drinks in the lounge area. The evening will end at 11:00 PM, prior to encountering any large, cold obstacles! Menu: Because of the complexity of the meal and sheer volume being served, we are unable to provide exceptions to the menu w other than a vegetarian option for the 4th course. Please revie the menu carefully and be aware if you have food allergies. Note that there will be modifications to the original recipes due to availability of some ingredients (for example truffle will not be included in the Filet Mignons Lili). If there are several dishes that you can not eat, please eat lightly prior to arrival. Due to the club rules, guests are not permitted to bring in outside food or beverage. 1st course Hors D'oeuvres 2nd course Consomme Olga 3rd course Poached Salmon with Mousseline Sauce 4th course Filet Mignons Lili Vegetarian Vegetable Marrow Farci 5th course Punch Romaine 6th course Cold Asparagus Vinaigrette 7th course Chocolate Eclairs with Creme Patissiere Optional Wine Flight: 1st course Champagne 3rd course Chardonnay 4th course Cabernet 6th course Rose 7th course Muscat 1 of 3 1/17/2012 8:24 AM The Last Dinner on the Titanic http: gbacg. org /current/titanic- dinner.html A cash bar will be available during the social hour with champagne and for those wanting just one or two glasses of wine during dinner. i Costume: Costumes are required for this event. Please select what a 1st Class Passenger would wear to dinner 1908 -1918. Evening gowns or a dressier form of a tea gown would be appropriate for women and a formal dinner jacket or tux for men (For examples of appropriate costume please see the dinner scene in James Cameron's Titanic.) For those who would like to dance after dinner, remember to bustle up any train, or be prepared to 1 hold it in your hand as you waltz around the floor; sadness could result should someone inadvertently step on it. This era is before the flapper, so �a Y P Ply please, no fringe dresses. s GBAC:Cr Costume Guidelines Links: Ladies' 1 enme. Dress, the Ragtime Era 1910-192.0 An Overview by Katy Bishop, Vintage Victorian The Costumer's Guide to Movie Costumes Maggie's costume research and photos from the Titanic movie. 3oNw Fashion Trends for Winto New trends mentioned in Vogue for 1912. Article by Kendra Van Cleave 1913 Eaton's Catalogues Spring'Summer and I all/W`inter Sewing Dresses from the Teens Era Article by Bridget Conlogue Diary of MantuaMaker;_ Lots of good pictures of 1912 14 evening gowns. Blog by CoIeV. I .lair. lessons .and advice frm Girls Own Paper and Worn "s._ magazine 19 1 Patterns: Laughing Moon Mercantile 1.04.._ Day or Eyeni nt Dress Past Patterns 1900 1919s Patterns Sense Sensibility Patterns 1910s Tea Gown Pattern and 1912 Kimono Dress Pattern Vintage Pattern Lending Library 1 910 _1.9.1.9 patterns and 'the.._ 1912 Project Reconstructing History t 8111. 0 ..57 Ageless Patterns 41522 1910 Corset Nouveau Ready to Wean (Add an underskirt or add to hem if short.) Premier Designs Historic Clothing Rosette_ lea GolAn, 131ossom Lace Tea Gown and Elegant Gown Nataya Dresses 'titanic Dress 40007. Best prices and more colors with Nataya 'filmic on L bay. Practicalities: No need to bring anything, except perhaps a camera to take pits and cash if you wish drinks from the bar. Children: This event is appropriate for teens (13 who will appreciate a leisurely meal and dancing. There is no children's pricing for this event and just like adults, costumes are required. Location, Directions Parking: The Bellev ueClub DrivinbDirections 525 Bellevue Avenue, Oakland, CA 94610 There is limited garage parking at the Bellevue Club, more available parking is free street parking surrounding Lake Merritt. Tickets: Advance tickets are required for this event. Ticket price includes dinner, music and dancing. Tiered Ticket Pricing: $95 Members until January 31st $100 Members until February 29th $105 Members until March 30th $120 Non Members Buy a C:,BAC( Membership (purchase separately first) and save on ticket costs by getting the member price!!! 2 of3 1/17/2012 8:24 AM I'he Last Dinner on the Titanic http: gbacg. org /current/titanic- dinner.html MEMBERS $95.00 Vegetarian Option? No No WINE FLIGHT: $45.00 MUST be age 21+ to order ;r *If you prefer to mail in your payment, please use this fbmi.. .F;. You must be a GBACG member* to receive the member x price. (*Or a member of one or our Sister Organizations: Costumer's Guild West. Art Deco Society of California or Somewhere in Time, Unlimited.} 1f you are a member and are purchasing several tickets for yourself and friends who are not members. then only you are entitled to the member price. You must pay the non member price for your friends. Tickets to GBACG activities ARE NOT REFUNDABLE, but are transferable. Purchasing tickets to a GBACG activity is the same as buying tickets to the Symphony, Ballet. or Theatre. If you have purchased tickets to a G13AEG activity and are unable to attend, you may sell your tickets 10 someone else, but ta13ACCi does not make refunds. The deadline to purchase tickets is Friday, March 30, 2012. Questions? Email Event Coordinator, Sahrye Cohen at eventsri gbac Back to GBACG 1 -tome 3 of 3 1/17/2012 8:24 AM