The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-15-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. e� '� 13 AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: MAY 15, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase Airless Paint Sprayer Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the purchase of a Graco Line Lazer 5000 2 -Gun airless paint sprayer from Dispensing Technology Corp. of Moorpark, CA in the amount of $5,315.98. Report Summary: Funds are programmed in the adopted budget to purchase a new airless paint sprayer for use by the Public Works Street Maintenance crew to install traffic striping and pavement markings. The Street Maintenance Superintendent has solicited quotes from three suppliers of the recommended unit, a Line Lazer 5000 2 -Gun machine manufactured by Graco Inc., and a summary of the quotes received is contained in his attached memo to me dated May 6. The lowest quote received is for $5,315.98 and was submitted by Dispensing Technology Corp. of Moorpark, CA, an authorized distributor for the unit. As the budget contains sufficient funds for this purchase, it is recommended that the Council approve the acquisition of the sprayer from Dispensing Technology Corp. and authorize issuance of a purchase order in the amount of $5,315.98. Fiscal Impacts: The adopted budget contains $7,500 for this purchase in Activity 33 (Traffic Control), Account 6740 (Machinery /Special Equipment). Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The purchase will not be approved. Follow Up Actions: A purchase order for the unit in the amount of $5,315.98 will be issued to Dispensing Technology Corp. Attachments: 1. Memo from Street Maintenance Sup't. dated May 6. 2. Equipment specifications. 3. Quotations (3). 4. Excerpt from adopted budget. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 1996 TO: Larry Perlin FROM: Gary Enriquez / SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase New Airless Paint Striper ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to purchase (1) New Airless Traffic Paint Striper BACKGROUND: The FY 1995/96 Traffic Control Budget (3033 -6740) includes $7,500.00 for the purchase of a new airless paint striper. Bids were solicited via phone to area companies that could provide this type of equipment. Three (3) bids were received via fax. Dispensing Technology Corporation submitted the lowest bid. Bid Summary: Dispensing Morton Spray Technology Traffic Mart Corporation Marking Store Line Lazer $4910.00 $5311.80 $5371.80 231 -141 2 -Gun Tax $355.98 $411.66 $416.31 Freight $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 Total Cost $5315.98 $5773.46 $5838.11 To City a UmeLazer 3500 Part No. ..._ ._ 231 -132 (complete striper with 1 gun & 2 tips) 231 -140 (complete striper with 2 guns & 4 tips) Max. Output ............ 1 gpm (400 linear feet /min. /4' line) Max. Tip 1 gun at .031 tip or 2 guns at .021 tips Engine .. ............ 4 hp Honda overhead valve with oil alert and .66 gallon tank (3 -5 hours running); residential rated muffler 75 bBA Weight . 2121bs. �V UneWer 5000 Part No. ...... 231 -133 (complete striper with 1 gun & 2 tips) 231 -141 (complete striper with 2 guns & 4 tips) Max. Output ._ __ ._ .. 1.25 gpm (500 linear feet /min. /4' line) Max. Tip 1 gun at .035 tip or 2 guns at .025 tips Engine ..._ _....... 5.5 hp Honda overhead valve with oil alert and .75 gallon tank (3 -5 hours running); residential rated muffler 77 bBA Weight 251 lbs. Specifications Pertaining to Both Units Size: 40" H x 37" W x 56" L Fluid Pump: Severe Duty Piston Pump (hard chrome over stainless steel, stainless steel, leather, UHMWPE, zinc - plated carbon steel, special wiper packing design) Paint Filter and Inlet Strainer: 18 sq. in. with 60 mesh reusable screen (zinc - plated carbon steel bowl, stainless steel screen), 16 mesh stainless steel inlet paint strainer Clutch: Heavy -duty, electromagnetic, self- adjusting clutch Frame and Control Specifications Frame: Heavy -duty 1" x 2" x 'b" rectangular steel frame, welded, zinc and chrome - plated, ni -lock nuts Engine and Pump Mounting: Isolated rubber shock mounting Rear Tires: 16" x 4 ply heavy -duty pneumatic tires with roller bearings Front Tires: 9" x 4 ply heavy -duty pneumatic tires with roller bearings Front Castor: Patent pending Accu -Track System includes forged steel castor with adjustable roller bearings, 2 zerk fittings, adjustable wheel bearings, release lever, ' /I" x 1/2" steel lock pin, adjustable tracking bracket Gun Activator: Patent pending Dual Gun Selector System includes forged aluminum lever with left, right and dual gun pin selector, spring - loaded stops, zerk fitting Spray Gun: Graco FlexTm Gun with stainless steel fluid passage and .90" carbide ball and seat ORDER ENTRY and CUSTOMER SERVICE Toll Free 800 -328 -0211 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Toll Free 800 -543 -0339 For small jobs and turf applications LineLazer LD Spray Tips: LineLazer Reverse- A- Clean T^" Striping tips (carbide), one 219 tip for lines, one standard R.A.C. 517 tip for curbs and stencils, adjustable line with 2" to 12" per gun Gun Cables: Heavy -duty, pre- stressed, color -coded cables without springs Gun Carriage: 1" x 1" x ' /N" wall square steel tubing, 'h" round steel gun posts, zinc - plated; accessory 2nd gun kit is telescoping, maxi- mum 33" between guns Gun Mount: 1/2" round solid steel, zing- plated, telescoping up to 13.5" front or back, quick disconnect gun mount and adjustments Hose: ' /." x 50' airless, 3300 working pressure Warranty: 2 year on clutch and gear box; 1 year on remaining unit including parts and labor Accessories: Order Part No.: 224 -097 2nd Gun Striper Kit (complete kit for 2 gun striping) 221 -XXX Reverse -A -Clean IV Spray Tips; designate tip size 222 -588 GM 3500 Pump Repair Kit 220 -877 GM 5000 Pump Repair Kit 214 -975 Flex Gun Repair Kit 236 -456 Parking Brake; Dual Wheel lock, foot activated striping LLT -XXX LineLazer Reverse -A -Clean IV Striping Tips; designate Tip Size General Spray Tip Recommendations (See Reference Manual for complete chart) Order Part No.: LLT -219 Parking Lot Lines 4" to 6" 221 -517 General Painting (standard with unit) (standard with unit) LLT -323 Long Lines 4" to 6" 221 -203 Sport Court 2" Line 221 -517 1 Gun for Curb (use 100 mesh filter) (standard with unit) LLT -623 Crosswalk 12" Line LLT -317 2 Guns for Curb LLT -621 Airport or Crosswalk LLT -317 Narrow Stencil 24" Line with 2 guns 221 -517 Wide Stencil (standard with unit) V7Minneapolis, ®1991, 1994 Greco Inc. Form No. 3110 -273 Rev. 4/94 018 Printed in U.S.A. GRACO INC. P.O. Box 1441 MN 55440 -1441 ORACO i� APR: --s'4' 96 (WED) 08 ; 24 DISPENSING TECNNOLOG TEL : 805 5297 732 P. 001 QUOTE )ispensing Technology Corporation 1345 N. Commerce Ave., Unit 1 Moorpark, CA 93021 305/529-7733. FAX; 8051529 -7732 l QUOTE # 960071 o: ip 0: CTTY OF SARATOGA CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUTTVALE AAVF_ CORPORATION YARD /GARY ENRIQUEZ SARA -TOGA, CA 95070 19700 ALLENDALE SARATOGA, CA 95070 _x Account # Sold By Reference # Ship Via Terms pate II C001280 CHARLOTTE REST WAY NET70 4/24/96 i Qty Qty Qty Back Ite,:n # Description Unit Disc_ Ext. Price Ordered Shipped Ordered Price % 1.00 6231 -141 STRIPER,LINE LAZER 5000 -2 GUN 4910.00 0 .00 4910.00 Sale Amount -,3 • Sales Tax : - 3ss_9 Freight 50.0 408 - 867 -3438 FAX 741 -1049 Trrtul ...APR 23 '96 02:58PM MORTON TRF MARKINGS *W-10W 't on ,Vorton Traffic Markings Norris/TtVITIRuijer April 23, 1996 Mr. Gary Enriquez CITY OF SARATOGA Fax: 408741-1049 Subj: Graco LineLazer Pricing Dear Mr. Enriquez: In follow up to our telephone conversation pricing for the Grata LineLazer 5000 is as follows: 1 231-141 LineLazer 5000, 2 gun 1 010-0126 Dual 4" bead dispenser 815.00 FOB: Saratoga CA Lead time: 7-10 days after receipt of order No sales tax is included. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, TRAFFIC MARKINGS Anthony J. Becker Sales Representative cc: John Lester Morton 1murnational, Tne. �Ierri;, ibis (:unnnc:cial St. \.L' Salem, pR 41731)3 (503)-IC4-2277 Rx(503).364-1029 i-800-835,:'57 TmT. 2490 Fw.,dd Ave. S.F-.*., Salem. Oft 97303 (50.i)3(A2(X)9 1*-ax(501)370-4389 1•-1;0()-253-219()9 (2i3)225-4154 Fax(213)227-5170 P.2 /2 04126/1996 07:19 408-275-0922 Opray Mal t. Sal, "1 ( J.Z., u 1** ".k L.1 C it.'.'/ (..-) V :3 du ri;4 I ell 10"ll.) C Us. L No_ -* i► I / SPRAY MART PAGE 01 u lovc)ICU, No (: U u 1 I , I - L) a to 0 4 2 6 ()4 No. . ... .... ... ... f-, t; y U I L Item NuIllber L) e I-) rl . . .... ... Pricc,- Wdt: I. I.-ICI I ul�' 2 j Q'M 50 00 ',)ZA 7 1. El 0 EAC il 5Z 71 gunz; Qood SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . '�3 L r 11. ul,w:; li U r NUL 8: 1.2 3;.t 1 u Ian 416 :5 1.- To 1. oA TOTAL $137,348 $175,682 $168,898 121 BUDGET BACKUP MATERIAL PROGRAM: PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT: ACTIVITY: Traffic Control PROGRAM CODE: OBJECT CODE/NAME EST CURRENT APPROVED EXPENSE 95 -96 PUBLIC WORKS 3033 APPROVED 96 -97 3010 WAGES, FULL -TIME $36,569 $59, -713 $61,222 Street Maint Sup't - 0.10 5 Sr. Engineering Tech. - 0.15 6'q 9qq Street Maint Leadworker - 0.05 Street Maint Specialist - 0.80 Street Maint Worker II - 0.20 Sr. Clerk- Typist - 0.10 IN 3011 WAGES, OVERTIME $400 5ATq $0 $0 3020 WAGES, PART -TIME $60 $0 $0 3030 BENEFITS $13,319 $20,359 $20,876 3040 LEAVE PAYOUT $0 $3,810 $0 Estimated payout for 1 employee. 4120 DEPT SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT $17,500 $24,000 $24,480 $7,000 - traffic signs $6,000 - traffic paint $3,500 - pavement markers $2,750 - traffic sign blanks $2,500 - posts & hardware $2,250 - misc. supplies, concrete, etc. Increase 2% for FY 96 -97. 4510 CONTRACT SERVICES $12,000 $15,000 $15,450 Re- stripe 50% of streets through County contract 4530 REPAIR SERVICES $0 $1,800 $1,860 $150 ($155)/mo. for traffic signal repairs. 4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $43,500 $29100+ $30,190 Traffic signal maintenance: $1,250 ($1,300) /mo. - Caftrans 31• ^�� $575 ($600) /mo. - City contractor $525 ($540) /mo. - City of San Jose $75 /mo. - City of Cupertino 5352 POWER $14,000 $14,400 $14,820 $1,200 ($1,235)/mo. for signal electricity. 6740 MACH /SPECIAL EQUIPMENT $0 $7,500 $0 New airless paint sprayer. TOTAL $137,348 $175,682 $168,898 121 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. o- �� MEETING DATE: May 15, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM S� CITY MGR. APPROVAL 1/2� Resolution Declaring Weeds and Brush Growing on Certain Described Property to be a Public Nuisance Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution declaring weeds and brush growing on certain described property to be a public nuisance. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's brush abatement program administered by the County Fire Marshal. The County has determined that the parcels in Saratoga on the attached list have brush growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious or dangerous. The Council should pass the resolution setting the public hearing for brush abatement for June 5. Fiscal Impacts• None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to property owners. Follow Up Actions: The County sends the property owners notices informing them that the brush must be abated, either by the owners or by the County; when County abatement will commence; and how they may present any objections at the public hearing. The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well. After the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the Council felt were invalid. The final steps take place later, when the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abatement bills have not been paid, and the Council, after hearing any objections, passes a resolution declaring liens on those properties. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Brush abatement could not be performed by the County. It would be necessary to depend upon property owners to take care of their own abatement. Attachments: 1. Resolution SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL // EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. L,)-) AGENDA ITEM: ( 8 MEETING DATE: May 15, 1996 CITY MGR: ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development w P I SUBJECT: AZO -96 -002; Amendment to Zoning Ordinance establishing Use Permit review in all zoning districts for Communication Antenna Facilities. Recommended Motion: Accept the Planning Commission recommendations by taking the following actions: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration finding that no significant, .adverse environmental impacts will result from amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance establishing Use Permit review in all zoning districts for Communication Antenna Facilities. Report Summary: On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended (6 -0 -1) that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to require Use Permit approval to locate antenna facilities in any zoning district. The Commission's recommendation was a result of several months review and discussion of alternatives regarding appropriate locations for wireless communication antenna sites which would be consistent with the City's land use and neighborhood protection goals and policies. There was discussion regarding alternatives including approving "pre - designated" sites which would encourage co- location and discourage individual applications and maintaining the current requirements of administrative approval in Commercial and Professional Office Zoning Districts and prohibiting sites in Residential Districts. The Commission concluded that the best alternative was to provide for the maximum number of potential sites while requiring detailed review on a case by case basis with the ability to impose conditions necessary to provide compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, whether it be commercial or residential. Residential Districts should be included as potentially appropriate sites because many "large land uses" (e.g. churches, parks, public facilities, etc.) are located in Residential Zoning Districts. Environmental Determination: An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project finding that no significant, adverse environmental impacts will result from this project - an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Additional environmental analysis will be required as Use Permit applications are reviewed for specific sites: Fiscal Impacts: None. Application fees will be required for future Use Permit applications. AZO -96 -002 Communication Antenna Facilities City Council, May 15, 1996 Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A notice was published in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Review of all new antenna facility sites will be completed per current regulations; that is, administrative approval in Commercial and Professional - Office Zoning Districts and not allowed in all other districts. Follow Up Actions: The Ordinance will be placed on the next City Council agenda for adoption and will become effective 30 days thereafter. The Urgency Ordinance (i.e. moratorium) will be rescinded to allow processing of Use Permit applications per the new Ordinance provisions. Attachments: 1. Recommended Ordinance. 2. Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 4. Initial Study and Negative Declaration. p: \... \p1dir \execsum \antord.515 10, 1996. April 10, 1996. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE REQUIREMENT OF A USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO LOCATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNA FACILITIES IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains to amend Chapter 15 of the City Code as follows: A - Agricultural District: Add Section 15- 11.030 (k) : Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. R -1 - Single- Family Residential Districts: Add Section 15- 12.030 (n) : Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. HR - Hillside Residential District: Add Section 15- 13.040 (p): Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications. PA - Professional and Administrative Office District: ....... ............................... Amend Section 15-18.030 (j) : Antenna-ff 3s? operated by a public for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone c ommun i c a t i on s''> tiirei`e -5aez -antennas - a z 2-zia s-E �IfPYti1�NYYRi }19fIFlR�Ii�iRTiii�F C - Commercial Districts: ...... ............................... Amend Section 15- 19.020 (b) (14) Antennas l? operated by apublic utility for transmitting and receiving cAYular telephone #4� COmmun1Cat1OriS « ; where smeh antennas— ar�nvs Miscellaneous Regulations and Exceptions: Delete Section 15- 80.010 (e) . "'etw the be— laea'Ced least five K_,.•t T?Y'(lTlPmy feet Kam line, at twenty a = ar least ten feet frem any side preperty line, and at least twenty fi-efn !!fie, emeep =that if five feet a rear p- rapert alt— piceperty l i ae :�s -- Qdjaeentt e—a r e s-i deftti-a t�rEt, feet f e ftn a —shall be art least €erty r =--- - _e p repent SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1996 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk p: \ ... \pldir \memo.cc Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Mr. Gurnee stated that it was his belief that the neighbors' privacy would be preserved as it would be difficult to look out of the proposed windows. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that at his site visit, he could not see an impact of the addition to any of the neighbors. Commissioner Patrick and Chairwoman Kaplan concurred that there would not be an invasion nor impact to the neighbors' privacy. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -011 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Commissioner Siegfried stepped down from discussion of agenda item 6. 6. AZO -96 -002 - CITY OF SARATOGA; Amend Chapter 15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) requiring Use Permit review and approval for cellular and wireless communication antenna facilities in all zoning districts. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this Ordinance Amendment finding that no significant adverse environmental impact will result from the project (i.e. requirement of the Use Permit process). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that a letter was distributed this evening to the Commission from Suzanne Hook, JM Consulting Group, Inc., representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, requesting that the City of Saratoga maintain its current Ordinance provision which allows administrative review of wireless facilities in commercially designated parcels. Staff felt that the proposed use permit procedure would provide proper review of the proposed site and provide adequate public notification to the neighbors. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward its recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the Negative Declaration and that the Council amend the Municipal Code to require use permit approval for communication antenna facilities in all zoning districts. Commissioner Asfour indicated that this proposed zoning ordinance amendment was a different process than previously discussed. It was his believe that the City would be simplifying the process by reviewing and approving pre - designated sites that would be appropriate for antenna facilities. Community Development Director Curtis stated that it was his belief that designating pre - approved sites would allow too many providers to locate on one site and that this may not be a desirable situation. Allowing the providers to locate on different sites as single users PLANNING COMMISSiuN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 5 - would allow the facilities to be screened to mitigate any potential visual impacts. Commissioner Asfour asked why it was being proposed to complicate the process as it appears that the ordinance amendment would be making it more difficult. Community Development Director Curtis stated that this amendment would allow for public hearing notification process to occur concurrently with the review of the application, allowing for adequate review. He indicated that other larger cities allow antennas to locate within commercial districts, noting that those cities have taller buildings, allowing the antennas to be better screened than those in Saratoga. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he has seen three antennas approved administratively but due to the possible proliferations of antennas, it has become more complicated. He felt that locating additional antennas in areas that already have existing antennas would be appropriate to consider. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if a public hearing would be conducted when there is a request to share an existing, approved antenna site. Community Development Director Curtis responded that an initial applicant/provider may not wish to have a use permit approved for a multi -user site as the initial applicant applied and paid the fees associated with a use permit. He clarified that the previous procedure for administrative approval of a commercial designated site has not been a problem. However, he felt that future requests in certain areas should be reviewed by the Commission as there was concern with the proliferation of antennae. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Derek Empey, Mathews Land Company, GTE MobileNet, stated his appreciation for the efforts made on this issue and indicated that he has followed the work sessions relating to this item. He agreed that there should be a mechanism for the review of antenna requests in place. He felt that it would be beneficial to the community to build the infrastructures in the community. He suggested that the process address concerns either at the administrative level or the public hearing process. He felt that the best means to achieve goals is to review each request on a site -by -site basis. He felt that residential areas can be reviewed based on its sensitivity and that the community development director could review the uses at an administrative level to determine if the antennas have been designed to mitigate any potential visual impacts. If there are no visual impacts associated with the use, the community development director can approve the project. If there is a concern, at his discretion, the community development director could refer the request to the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the adjacent property owners. Regarding pre - approved sites, he felt that there are both pros and cons to shared pole issues. He felt that mechanisms were in place to alleviate the public's concern of visual impacts. It was his PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 6 - belief that the industry was responding to alternative designs to address community concerns. He requested that the Commission consider his alternative as an option. Commissioner Abshire asked if agriculture and open space zoning districts were included in the "non- residential" areas? Mr. Empey responded that alternative sites can be of a benefit to the City (generate revenue to the general fund). Commissioner Pierce asked if the antenna industry would require additional sites in this community. Mr. Empey indicated that modifications of the site may be necessary in the future to improve the quality of service to the site and as improvements to technology occurs. He stated that he did not want to go through the public hearing process and requested that this be reviewed and approved at an administrative level. He did not anticipate that an additional site would be needed in this community by his company. Betty Jo Stuart inquired if any of the Commissioners have seen the lit bill board located on El Camino as it was located in a commercial area? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the bill board was lit up but that the existing antenna was not. He informed the Commission that staff has contacted the business owner and requested that the lighting be modified. Sandra Smith, JM Consulting Group, South San Francisco, felt that the installation of antennas can be sensitively installed within commercial zones and concurred with the comments as expressed by Mr. Empey. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked if a public hearing would be required if a modification for an approved site was requested? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a minor modification would be handled administratively (modifications that do not intensify the power or size). He indicated that future use permits could include a condition that would allow minor modifications to be approved administratively. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support the zoning ordinance amendment which would require approval of a use permit for antenna facilities in all zoning districts. She stated that she could not support only requiring the approval of antennas in residential zones. She also indicated that she was concerned with intensification of the use. Commissioner Murakami asked if there were several applications in the process? Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that there were no applications on file for antennas, but that he was aware of potential applications and proposed sites. He stated that he was not comfortable indicating the appropriate sites for antennas, noting that there were not many commercial zoned districts to locate these facilities in Saratoga. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE 7 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he was impressed with the last paragraph of the staff report, noting that there were not a lot of industrial areas in Saratoga and that the commercial districts were in close proximity to residential areas. He felt that requests would be received in the future to locate antenna facilities within residential zoned areas. Commissioner Abshire stated his support of staff's recommendation. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she would prefer to have selected sites so as to generate revenues for the city (i.e.,public lands). She informed the Commission and staff that at the League of California Cities - Planning Commissioners Institute work sessions, it was suggested that cities take the initiative and direct applicants to the locations that have been designated as appropriate sites to locate antenna facilities. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he would be meeting with representatives from PacBell. He indicated that he needs to be cautious in encouraging individuals to locate on city or public owned properties. He stated that his objective would be to find the best site whether it is a city, school, or fire district site that meets the needs of the antenna provider. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REQUIRING USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR COMMUNICATION ANTENNA FACILITIES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING. Commissioner Siegfried resumed his seat on the Commission. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the following Planning Commission actions have been appealed to the City Council: - SD- 95- 009/V -95 -014 - Nagpal; 19010 Via Tesoro (to be reviewed by the City Council May 1, 1996). - UP -95 -008 - Kolotouros; 20201 Merida Drive (continued to the Council's April 17 meeting at the applicant's request) DR -94 -042 - Skov; 14970 Sobey Road (continued to the Council's April 17 meeting to allow the presence of all Councilmembers as there was a 2 -2 vote taken on the appeal). COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR -94 -050; Lewis, 18581 McCoy Ave. U oguw oa §&MZUQ)(5,& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran M E M O R A N D U M Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe TO: Saratoga Planning Commission FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: April 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Communications Antenna Facilities Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring Use Permit approval for communication antenna facilities in all zoning districts. Background A new wireless communication system has been recently introduced as the "next technology" in personal communications. This new system (PCS) requires line =of -sight antenna relay facilities to provide service to users. This is a new source of antenna facilities in addition to the existing cellular facilities. There are three cellular facilities presently located in Saratoga - in the Village atop the International Coffee Exchange, at the rear of the Public Storage Facility on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway. At a recent conference, information was given that while there are approximately 25,000 antenna sites in the United States, there will be an additional 100,000 sites identified for the PCS facilities. Currently, one PCS site has been approved in Saratoga - atop the liquor store in the Village. Attached as part of this report is information obtained from the Planners Institute recently sponsored by the League of California Cities. Printed on recycled paper. Planning Commission April 10, 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Antenna Facilities Page 2 On January 3, 1996, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on the acceptance, approval. and permit issuance for all antenna facilities until further study was completed to evaluate the potential number of facilities and their impact on Saratoga neighborhoods. The Urgency Ordinance was subsequently extended providing additional time for completion of the study and adoption of appropriate policies and /or ordinances. Staff has received telephone inquires from various agencies throughout the area (including Honolulu) regarding what Saratoga is doing with PCS review. It seems that the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance "hit the network." As the Planning Commission and staff experienced at the Commission retreat (discussed later in this report),.there are many ways to deal with antenna facilities. It seemed that more discussion of alternatives just led to more complicated solutions. It would now seem to be appropriate to look for the simplest solution to provide the maximum benefit of review and evaluation. Planning Commission Review: At its annual retreat on January 19, the Planning Commission discussed various ways to adequately evaluate antenna facilities. Among the alternatives considered were: • Require a Use Permit for all antenna facilities in all zoning districts. This would require public hearings on all sites under consideration. The current Zoning Ordinance is unclear on whether antenna sites are allowed in residential zones. Public Utility sites are permitted with a Use Permit, but it is not generally accepted that antenna sites meet the intent of this provision. Therefore, the current ordinance is being interpreted that sites are not permitted in residential zones. • Maintain the current Ordinance provision that allows antenna facilities as a right in Commercial Districts subject to administrative approval while requiring Use Permits for Residential Districts. • "Pre- approve" designated sites which would encourage co- location of service providers. It is anticipated that as many as 6 providers will be searching for locations throughout the City (Pac Bell and Sprint are now actively seeking locations and are ready to submit applications when the moratorium is rescinded). • If the above "pre- approved" siting process is used, all other locations would be subject to a Use Permit process. Planning Commission April 10, 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Antenna Facilities Page 3 The Commission felt that by pre- approving designated sites, co- location would be encourage because of an easier review process while additional public hearings for other locations would serve as a dis- incentive. Planning Commission /City Council Review: At the February 13 Planning Commission /City Council joint work session, the Commission presented its conclusions to the Council. Following discussion, the Use Permit process for all zoning districts was considered as the best alternative in that it would not encourage an over - concentration of "antenna farms" if co- location was made too easy.. There was general consensus that many sites existed in the City that could more easily "hide" a singular antenna facility subject to specific site review. Examples of sites would be schools, churches, etc. Typically, larger sites that offered distance /separation and physical screening of facilities -would be more appropriate than concentrations of facilities. Additional Planning Commission Discussion: At its March 5 study session, the Planning Commission further discussed alternatives that offered the best placement opportunities and review procedures and directed staff to set a public hearing for consideration of Zoning Ordinance amendments. Environmental Determination: An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The project .in this case is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing review and approval procedures for communication antenna facilities. The establishment of a Use Permit procedure does not, in and of itself, create any significant, adverse environmental impacts. As individual projects (i.e. antenna locations) are considered under any new procedures, an environmental analysis will be prepared for each location and will be "site specific." No significant environmental impacts were identified by the adoption of review procedures. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared for this project. Planning Commission Alternatives: The Planning Commission should consider the following alternatives in establishing review procedures: Planning Commission April 10, 1996 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Antenna Facilities Page 4 • Require Use Permits in all zoning districts: This provides the maximum review process involving public hearing review. This will also provide the maximum number of potential locations. • Require Use Permits in Residential Districts while maintaining the current ordinance provisions that allow sites in Commercial Districts subject to administrative approval (i.e. no public hearings): This would provide public hearing review in residential areas, but would serve as an incentive to applicants to seek locations in Commercial Districts where no "lengthy" public hearing process would be required. Staff Recommendation: Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council an amendment to require Use Permits in all zoning districts. Based on discussions with both cellular and PCS providers, commercial locations are usually sought out first in any event because of easier antenna rooftop mounting and to avoid conflict with neighborhood residents. With Saratoga's "smaller" commercial centers located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, there would seem to always exist a potential of aesthetic impact on residential areas that should be reviewed at public hearings. p: \... \pldir \memo.pc \antordpc.apr LEa�;iiE OF CAI.TF(�RTvIA CITIES 1\.1r�k�H �_, lyyo ti.� \i }:�� =_ Planners Shoind Prepare for Wireless Invasion hl• Gregory Sweet 0 n N1arch 13, 1995. the Clinton Administration. through the Federal Communications Commission. com- pleted the bidding process on the long - awaited airwaves auction for a new generation of wireless communi- cations called PCN /PCS of "Personal Communications Nerwork/Personal Communications Services ". Although most planning and zoning officials are currently handling applications from existing wireless carriers for cellular telephone and paging services. few municipalities are prepared for what is facing them as a result of these auctions. At least two and possibly as many as eight new wireless carriers will be racing to acquire, permit and build new wireless communications facilities in every major city in the United States. With the staggering sums of money most of these companies have paid the US Government for licenses to operate, there is enormous pressure to build these sires so that thew are quickly producing revenue. The exist- ing cellular and paging companies have a 5 -10 year head start in building and operaring their networks, and the new carriers will attempt to play "catch up" as quickly as possible. The existing cellular and paging companies are not going to sit still while this "new wave" of start -ups come on line to compete with them. The existing carriers are proliferating their networks at a breakneck pace to prepare for the competition. What this means for municipal governments and planning and zoning agencies in every medium and large city in the United States is an inunda- tion of new applications that many municipalities will experience difficul- ties in understanding and processing. The sheer load of these applications (2,000 -2,500 new sites in each metro- politan area) will overload many juris- dictions. Furthermore, with the grow- ing opposition to wireless sites from both a visual aspect and the perceived threat of biological effects to the body from radio frequency radiation, the backlash could turn to outrage. Due to competitive or radio CALIFORNIA PLANNER engineering objections, many of the wireless carriers are opposed to co- locations with competitors. As a mat- ter of conscience. there is little desire by the carriers to screen or hide these facilities from the outset. They are usually forced to do so by public or municipal pressure rather than by tak- ing their best shot up front. The time to prepare for the wire- less invasion is immediate. Applica- tions for many PCN /PCS Planning and Building permits are currently being filed by contractors for these new wireless carriers. By this fall, the activity to build these sites will be in full swing. Unless our nation's planners prepare now for this wireless invasion, everyone will suffer. APA members must learn about the technology, design and use of these wireless sites quickly. The telecommu- nications industry must help local communities understand what is hap- pening so that these communities will choose to embrace rather than to oppose this new generation of wireless technology along with the antenna sites. Because of current problems in obtaining zoning and building permits nationwide for wireless sites and to clear the way for a quick build of these wireless networks, there is pressure on the federal government to pass legislation through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to override state and municipal con- trol, i.e.. State Public Utility Commissions and local zoning and permitting agencies. Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota introduced a bill that is cur- rently before Congress to deregulate the telecommunications industry. It contains a provision that would allow wireless carriers to supersede states' rights in order to expedite the comple- tion of these wireless networks. The Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) and most of the wireless carriers who would benefit from the passage of the bill support it. With over 20 years of experience —13— nr._ and permitting_ \\'Ireless IL..- ommunicitions sites in -io states and -1 countries. I gee chaoN in the near future resulting in absolute - ridlock for all parties involved. The only way to avoid a standoff situation in which everyone will lose is for the wireless carriers to adopt a "win-win" philoso- phy toward dealing with the citizens and the municipalities in which they wish to place their wireless facilities. Planners and citizens alike \\•ill need to learn the benefits of these wireless sites, especially in the area of public safety. The wireless carriers \\•ill have to take steps to co- locate and screen their facilities ac first rather than wair for public outcry. A proactive rather than reactive position must be taken in many municipalities. Empathy for visual and health concerns of people who live and work near these antenna facilities will be primary. Unless our nations planners pre- pare now for this wireless invasion. everyone will suffer. \lunicipalities will be involved in controversial appli- cations by .wireless carriers that will drain scarce human, legal and financial resources. Wireless carriers will become embroiled in controversial and lengthy zoning battles that will often lead to appeals and perhaps lawsuits. Permanent damage will be done to relationships between the wireless car- riers and local municipalities. Moreover. America will lose. America needs this wireless technology to give its citizens the finest and least expen- sive telecommunications service possi- ble and keep the country at the fore- front of global leadership in the telecommunications field. It will be the telecommunications industn s responsibility to help plan- ners understand this complex problem. You may not be able to count on it being brought to your door. Planners must take steps to educate themselves and their constituents, where neces- sary, by seeking information from telecommunications trade magazines such as RCR, Cellular Business, Cellular Marketing and Telephony. In addition. planners should take classes and seek education from the wireless carriers themselves. The more you know about the technology and plans for these wireless sites the better you will be prepared to handle the enormous challenge that lies ahead. Gregory E. Swat is owner of Acquire Telecom Services in San Francisco. SEPTEMBERIOCTOBER 199 5 TI :_ _r • . _ y_r_ • _ TO 82-84 -- S.652 -- S.652 One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety -six An Act To promote competition and reduce regulation'in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Be Jt enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Onited States of America In Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES. (a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the 'Telecommunications Act of 19961. (b) REFERENCES- Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 at seq.). SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. T e table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; references. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. Definitions. TITLE I-- TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES SUBTITLE A-- TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES Sec. 101. Establishment of part II of title II. 'PART II-- DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE MARKETS Sec. 102. Eligible telecommunications carriers. Sec. 103. Exempt telecommunications companies. Sec. 104. Nondiscrimination principle. SUBTITLE B -- SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING BELL OPERATING COMPANIES Sec. 151. Bell operating company provisions. 'PART III-- SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TITLE II-- BROADCAST SERVICES Sec. 201. Broadcast spectrum flexibility. Sec. 202. Broadcast ownership. Sec. 203. Term of licenses. Sec. 204. Broadcast license renewal procedures. Sec. 205. Direct broadcast satellite service. Sec. 206. Automated ship distress and safety systems. Sec. 207. Restrictions on over - the -air reception devices. TITLE III - -CABLE SERVICES Sec. 301. Cable Act reform. Sec. 302. Cable service provided by telephone companies. 'PART V- -VIDEO PROGRAMMING SERVICES PROVIDED BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES Sec. 303. Preemption of franchising authority regulation of telecommunications services. Sec. 304. Competitive availability of navigation devices. Sec. 305. Video programming accessibility. 1 000201 Sec. 401. TITLE IV -- REGULATORY REFORM Regulatory forbearance. Sec. Sec. 402. 403. Biennial review of regulations; regulatory relief. Elimination of functions. unnecessary Commission regulations and TITLE V-- OBSCENITY AND VIOLENCE SUBTITLE A-- OBSCENE, HARASSING, AND WRONGFUL UTILIZATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Sec. 501. Short title. Sec. 502. under Obscene or harassing use of telecommunications facilities the Communications Act Sec. 503. of 1934. Obscene programming on cable television. Sec. Sec. 504. 505. Scrambling of cable channels for nonsubscribers. Scrambling of sexually explicit adult video service programming. Sec. Sec. 506. 507. Cable operator refusal to carry certain programs. Clarification of current laws regarding communication of obscene materials through the, use of Sec. 508. computers. Coercion and enticement of minors. Sec. 509. Online family empowerment. Sec. 551. SUBTITLE in tlevision rog Parental choice g programming. Sec. 552. Technology fund. Sec. 561. SUBTITLE C-- JUDICIAL REVIEW Expedited review. LAWS Sec. Sec. 601. 602. ApplicabilittyofIconssentTdecree�� d other law. Preemption of local taxation with respect to direct -to -home services. Sec. 701. TITLE VII -- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Prevention of unfair billing practices for information or services provided over toll -free telephone calls. Sec. 702. Privacy of customer information. Sec. 703. Pole attachments. Sec. 704. Facilities sitin • radio frequency emission standards, ec. Sec. 70S. 706. Mobile services direct access to long distance carriers. Advanced telecommunications incentives. Sec. 707. Telecommunications Development Fund. Sec. Sec. 708. 709. National Education Technology Funding Corporation. Report on the use of advanced telecommunications services for medical purposes. Sec. 710. Authorization of appropriations. 2 000202 party to a pole attachment agreement) to provide any telecommunications service.9j and (7) by adding at the end thereof the following: '(e)(1) The Commission shall, no later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, prescribe regulations in accordance with this subsection to govern the charges for pole attachments used by telecommunications carriers to provide telecommunications services, when the parties fail to resolve a dispute over such charges. Such regulations shall ensure that a utility charges just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates for pole attachments. '(2) A utility shall apportion the cost of providing space on a Pole, duct, conduit, or right- of-way other than the usable space among entities so that such apportionment equals two - thirds of the costs of providing space other than the usable space that would be allocated to such entity under an equal apportionment of such costs among all attaching entities. '(3) A utility shall apportion the cost of providing usable space among all entities according to the percentage of usable space required for each entity. '(4) The regulations required under paragraph (1) shall become effective 5 years after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Any increase in the rates for pole. attachments that result from the adoption of the regulations required by this subsection shall be phased in equal annual increments over a period of 5 years beginning on the effective date of such regulations. '(f)(1) A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right- of-way owned or controlled by it. '(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a utility providing electric service may deny a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights -of -way, on a non - discriminatory basis where there is Insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes. '(g) A utility that engages in the provision of telecommunications services or cable services shall impute to its costs of providing such services (and charge any affiliate, subsidiary, or associate company engaged in the provision of such services) an equal amount to the pole attachment rate for which such company would be liable under this section. '(h) Whenever the owner of a pole, duct, conduit, or right -of -way intends to modify or alter such pole, duct, conduit, or right -of -way, the owner shall provide written notification of such action to any entity that has obtained an attachment to such conduit or right- of-way so that such entity may have a reasonable opportunity to add to or modify its existing attachment. Any entity that adds to or modifies its existing attachment after receiving such notification shall bear a proportionate share of the costs incurred by the owner in making such pole, duct, conduit, or right- of-way accessible. '(i) An entity that obtains an attachment to a pole, conduit, or right- of-way shall not be required to bear any of the costs of rearranging or replacing its attachment, if such rearrangement or replacement is required as a result of an additional attachment or the modification of an existing attachment sought by any other entity (including the owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way). 1. '(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- . 82 000203 '(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) LIMITATIONS - '(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and codification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof- - '(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent servicesj and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. '(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. '(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. '(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may Petition the Commission for relief. '(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph - - '(i) the term 'personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services] '(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and '(iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct -to -home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).'. enactm (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the ent of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93 -62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITT OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of 83 000201 this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights -of -way, and easements of new telecommunications ser under their control for the placement vices that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights -of -way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the de agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the p property, or rights -of -way, and easements in question. Reasonable feees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of Property, rights -of -way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights -of -way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such ses. SEC. 705. MOBILE SERVICES DIRECT Se ACCESS TO LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS. ction 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the and the following new paragraph: ,(8) MOBILE SERVICES ACCESS- A person engaged in the provision of commercial mobile services, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not be required to provide equal access to common carriers for the provision of telephone toll services. If the Commission determines that subscribers to such services are denied access to the provider of telephone toll services of the subscribers' choice, and that such denial is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity, then the Commission shall prescribe regulations to afford subscribers unblocked access to the provider of telephone toll services of the subscribers' choice through the use of a carrier identification code assigned to such provider or other mechanism. The requirements for unblocking shall not apply to mobile satellite services unless the Commission finds it to be in the public interest to apply such requirements to such services.'. SEC. 706. ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INCENTIVES. (a) IN GENERAL- The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary utilizing, in a manner consistent with the hpublicninterest, by convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance,. measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment. (b) INQUIRY- The Commission shall, within 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and regularly thereafter, initiate a notice of inquiry concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) and shall complete the inquiry within 180 days after its initiation. In the inquiry, the Commission shall determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. If the Commission's determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. (c) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection: (1) ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY- The term 'advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high - speed, 84 000205 1) At a minimum, request the wireless carriers to hold workshops and community meetings to inform the planners and members of the community on the benefits these wireless facilities will bring . Especially in the area of public safety. This is a topic that is near and dear to all of our hearts. 2) Read industry publications such as RCR, Wireless Week and Telephony as well as USA Today and the Wall Street Journal to keep you posted on all the developments that are happening at a staggering pace. 3) Require the wireless carriers to inform you of their short and long range plans to the best of their ability. This should include the numbers, types and heights of their facilities. 4) Ask the wireless carriers to have empathy of your community before they file their zoning applications. This would include consideration of joint applications with other carriers for new sites as well as looking at existing facilities for collocation opportunities where feasible. 5) Instruct the wireless carriers to take their best shot up front when siting facilities in your community when you know it is needed. This would include screening and painting of towers and rooftop facilities in such a manner as to reduce their visual impact on the community where needed. Consideration of the wireless carrier's costs to perform this screening should be made when making your requests and efforts made to keep these costs reasonable. 6) Consider establishing one or more parcels of community or county owned property to offer to the wireless carriers as locations for new joint facilities of their wireless sites. Hire a consultant or get educated on just what the wireless carriers can and can not live with in your community. Perhaps it is better for the community to be a landlord and receive the rental income from these facilities. If you have to live with them in your community anyway you might just as well receive the rental money to support sagging budgets and have a say in where these facilities are-located? An added bonus is a possible deferment of new taxes or fees in your community due to the revenue received in long term rent from these wireless carriers.l "e ultimate in win -win situations. 7) See if the wireless carrier will allow community or county communications facilities on their tower at no cost to the community. This. could benefit public safety and communications for fire, police and emergency services. Also ask if the wireless carrier will allow attachments of community equipment to emergency power generators owned by the wireless carriers, or if free telephones or fax machines could be given to the community as a public service? 111 1 Consulting Group, Inc. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES April 10, 1996 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Planning Commission: As a representative of Pacific Bell Mobile Services (PBMS) and a land use planner, I request that the City of Saratoga maintain their current Ordinance provision which allows wireless facilities in commercially designated parcels through an administrative planning approval process. I think we should keep in mind that an administrative approval process does not mean the process is made too easy. Let's use PBMS' Personal Communications Services (PCS) site in the Village as an example of a common administrative review process for a telecommunications facility in a commercial zone. The planning staff thoroughly reviewed the project design, notified adjacent parcels and allowed time for neighbor opposition or appeal. The total planning process time for the project, from the land use application filing to the issuance of the building permit was over six (6) months in length. In my opinion, an administrative review does not mean the planning approval process is made too easy. The current Ordinance provision which allows for facilities in commercial zones gives carriers an incentive to locate in commercial zones at the same time as it allows for an extensive and thorough review by the planning department. As you are aware, PBMS is mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide PCS in the San Francisco and South Bay area within a strict timeframe. I appreciate your sensitivity to our network deployment schedule. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to our future involvement in the City of Saratoga. , Sincerely, JK CONSULTIN G GR UP, INC. Su n rePlanner ok Lad 844 Dubuque Avenue • South San Francisco, California 94080 • Telephone: (415) 737 -5338 Fax: (415) 737 -5301 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 AZO -96 -002 The undersigned, Director of Community Development 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, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent judgment, 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 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to communication antenna facilities i ordinance allows antenna facilities commercial zones with administrative provisions for antenna facilities in NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga Community Development Department Paul L. Curtis, Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION require a Use Permit procedure to review n all zoning districts. The current with a maximum height of 40 ft. in approval. There are no zoning ordinance residential zoning districts. It is staff's determination that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will have no environmental impact. Establishment of review procedures does not, in and of itself, create negative environmental impacts. If the are implemented, environmental evaluation will be provided on an site analysis basis. Executed at Saratoga, California this 2'Sr day of p: \... \pldir \antord.nd mGra DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r'e,t procedures individual 1996. Saratoga Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establish Use Permit Procedure for Communication Antenna Facilities March 1996 Applicant: City of Saratoga Project Location: General Applicability - City-wide Project Description: Zoning Ordinance Amendment re: Antenna Facilities City of Saratoga Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTALISSUES (see attachments for information sources) a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low - income or minority community)? a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? PoteMfially sinicant Potentially unless Less Than stnfcm Mitigation Significant Impaa Inwmora w Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ City of Saratoga l Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTALISSUES (see attachments for information sources) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? City of Saratoga Ootentially Significant Potentially Unless Lest loan Signfficaat M�n Signifc= Impact Iworporated IMP= No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 2 Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 2 Environmental Evaluation/Checklist a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? City of Saratoga 3 Environmental Evaluation/Checklist 2owntially ENVIRONMENTALISSUES s'&nt unto see ( attachments or information sources f f 1 S *nffiauy scent Mmigation S*n cm S;gnis� ant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V AiR QUALITY . Would the proposal; a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ VI .......... _ ........ _ .....__ _ _ ............. ...... _._ TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATIOhi Would _ ........... _ the proposal _....... ............................... result in __ ............................... ............................... ... . .11.1 a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? City of Saratoga 3 Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ?ownr aft ENVIRONMENTALISSUES s*nmcnt (see attachments for information sources) i'tenaa>ly IInkss Less Than Signifuxnt Mitigation Significant Impact Ineotporated Impact No Impact d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ .................... ........ .... _ ......... ......... ......... ......... ....... .... VIII ;ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES __ __ _ __ _ ... Would the proposal: _ ..... a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ plans? b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? City of Saratoga ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 4 Environmental Evaluation /Checklist •bey ENVIRONMENTALISSUES ftrifficant Potentially unless Less Than (see attar wwas for information sources) significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ roads? d) e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ distribution facilities? d) Sewer, septic systems, or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ treatment and disposal facilities? e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Solid waste materials recovery or disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ effect? c) Create adverse light or glare effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ City of Saratoga 5 Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTALISSUES (see attachments for information sources) c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational . opportunities? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) City of Saratoga Significant Potentially unless stniScant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Las Than significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ 6 Environmental Evaluation/Checklist ENVIRONMENTALISSUES (see auadwwus for information sources) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? None. ?ownfally Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 31083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). p: \... \pld it \anto rd. env City of Saratoga Environmental Evaluation /Checklist SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. -1 /() AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: MAY 15, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Public Meeting on Reauthorization of Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 96 -97 Recommended Motion(s): Conduct the Public Meeting and provide any additional direction to staff as may be deemed appropriate. Retort Summar At your meeting, you will conduct the Public Meeting required by Gov't. Code Section 54954.6(a)(1) when considering new or increased assessment proposals. In hindsight, the Public Meeting could have been avoided this year since no increased assessments are proposed for next year. However, this was not known at the time the Meeting and Hearing dates were scheduled, and it is probably good practice to hold the Public Meeting each year anyway regardless of the preliminary assessment proposal. The meeting affords property owners within the District the opportunity to comment on the assessment proposal for the coming year. Since your April 17 meeting, I have met with Mrs. Heintz and Mr. Wilton to review the proposed assessments for Zone 2, the Fredericksburg Landscape District. I believe they now have a much better understanding of how the proposed assessment was calculated and are satisfied with the assessment amount. We discussed ways to further reduce the assessment, one of which is to again solicit competitive bids, and this is currently underway for all of the landscape districts. The bids will be opened on May 29 in time to make any reductions to the preliminary assessments by June 5, the date of the Protest Hearing. No Council action is necessary at the Public Meeting. Further direction to staff can be given, and any questions can be referred to staff for replies. Fiscal Impacts: None. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The Public Meeting was noticed in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. Follow Up Actions: Depends on Council's instructions. The Protest Hearing will be held on June S. Attachments: 1. Preliminary Assessment Schedule. 2. History of LLA -1 assessments. 3. Activities within each Zone. 4. Saratoga News article. CITY OF SARATOGA LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 96 -97 ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 ZONE 6 ZONE 7A ZONE 7B # OF PARCELS 29 85 176 784 113 64 470 292 FACTOR 0.0080 0.0233 0.0483 0.2153 0.0310 0.0176 0.1290 0.0802 EXPENDITURES 3010 WAGES $164.90 $483.33 $1,000.78 $2,031.25 $292.77 $165.82 $1,217.72 $756.54 Public Works Dir. 32.11 94.10 194.85 867.95 125.10 70.85 520.33 323.27 Parks Maint. Sup't. 89.77 263.11 544.78 Admin. Sec'y. 16.51 48.38 100.18 446.25 64.32 36.43 267.52 166.20 Sr. Clerk - Typist 26.52 77.74 160.97 717.05 103.35 58.53 429.87 267.07 Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker 11 3030 BENEFITS $55.19 $161.75 $334.92 $609.85 $87.90 $49.78 $365.60 $227.14 Public Works Dir. 10.22 29.97 62.05 276.40 39.84 22.56 165.70 102.95 Parks Maint. Sup't. 32.63 95.63 198.01 Admin. Sec'y. 4.46 13.07 27.06 120.55 17.38 9.84 72.27 44.90 Sr. Clerk- Typist 7.88 23.08 47.79 212.90 30.69 17.38 127.63 79.29 Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker II 4510 CONTRACT SERVICES 4515 LEGAL SERVICES $3.98 $11.67 $24.16 $107.63 $15.51 $8.79 $64.52 $40.09 4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES $46.18 $135.37 $280.29 $1,873.64 $179.96 $101.92 $748.49 $465.02 Engineer's Report 46.18 135.37 280.29 1,248.54 179.96 101.92 748.49 465.02 New Parcel Charge 625.10 4530 REPAIR SERVICES $200.00 $366.30 4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $2,310.00 $3,498.00 $2,442.00 5312 POSTAGE 5320 ADVERTISING $9.56 $28.01 $57.99 $258.32 $37.23 $21.09 $154.86 $96.21 5351 WATER $290.00 $120.00 $375.00 5352 POWER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,200.00 $2,100.00 $2,400.00 $5,820.00 $0.00 Controllers Streetlights 10,200.00 2,100.00 2,400.00 5,820.00 8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE $31.43 $92.13 $190.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Vehicles 31.43 92.13 190.77 Tools & Equipment SUB -TOTAL $2,911.24 $4,730.25 $5,072.20 $15,080.70 $2,713.37 $2,747.40 $8,371.19 $1,584.99 5700 GEN. GOV'T. SUPPORT $436.69 $709.54 $760.83 $2,262.11 $407.01 $412.11. $1,255.68 $237.75 TOTAL- EXPENDITURES $3,347.93 $5,439.79 $5,833.03 $17,342.81 $3,120.38 $3,159.51 $9,626.87 $1,822.74 (- )ESTIMATEDPROPERTYTAXES $1,395.00 $270.00 $1,950.00 $18,200.00 $6,220.00 $9,626.87 $6,373.13 ( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 95 -96 $975.00 $1,785.00 ($1,825.00) $67,590.00 $18,365.00 $3,175.00 $30,407.99 (_) TOTAL TO ASSESS $977.93 $3,384.79 $5,708.03 ($68,447.19) ($21,464.62) ($15.49) ($0.00) ($34,958.38) ( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($1,368.75) ( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 97 -98 $68,447.19 $21,464.62 $15.49 $34,958.38 (_) NET TO ASSESS $977.93 $3,384.79 $4,339.28 ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) $0.00 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $33.72 $39.82 $24.66 ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) ($0.00) $0.00 C:\WK\LLA9697 CITY OF SARATOGA • LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 96 -97 ZONE 9 ZONE 10 ZONE 11 ZONE 12 ZONE 14 ZONE 15 ZONE 16 ZONE 17 # OF PARCELS 48 9 250 9 20 41 55 200 FACTOR 0.0132 0.0025 0.0686 0.0025 0.0055 0.0113 0.0151 0.0549 EXPENDITURES 3010 WAGES $272.94 $51.18 $1,421.56 $51.18 $113.72 $233.14 $312.74 $1,137.25 Public Works Dir. 53.14 9.96 276.77 9.96 22.14 45.39 60.89 221.42 Parks Maint. Sup't. 148.58 27.86 773.84 27.86 61.91 126.91 170.24 619.07 Admin. Sec'y. 27.32 5.12 142.30 5.12 11.38 23.34 31.31 113.84 Sr. Clerk- Typist 43.90 8.23 228.65 8.23 18.29 37.50 50.30 182.92 Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker II 3030 BENEFITS $91.34 $17.13 $475.73 $17.13 $38.06 $78.02 $104.66 $380.59 Public Works Dir. 16.92 3.17 88.14 3.17 7.05 14.45 19.39 70.51 Parks Maint. Sup't. 54.00 10.13 281.27 10.13 22.50 46.13 61.88 225.01 Admin. Sec'y. 7.38 1.38 38.44 1.38 3.08 6.30 8.46 30.75 Sr. Clerk- Typist 13.03 2.44 67.89 2.44 5.43 11.13 14.94 54.31 Park Maint. Leadworker Park Maint. Worker II 4510 CONTRACT SERVICES 4515 LEGAL SERVICES $6.59 $1.24 $34.32 $1.24 $2.75 $5.63 $7.55 $27.46 4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES $76.44 $14.33 $398.13 $14.33 $31.85 $65.29 $87.59 $318.51 Engineer's Report 76.44 14.33 398.13 14.33 31.85 65.29 87.59 318.51 New Parcel Charge 4530 REPAIR SERVICES $643.50 $198.00 $371.25 $435.60 $217.80 4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $4,290.00 $1,113.82 $1,320.00 $1,584.00 $2,475.00 $2,904.00 $1,452.00 $3,300.00 5312 POSTAGE 5320 ADVERTISING $15.82 $2.97 $82.37 $2.97 $6.59 $13.51 $18.12 $65.90 5351 WATER $1,525.00 $700.00 $690.00 $275.00 $450.00 $575.00 $1,000.00 5352 POWER $194.40 $43.80 $0.00 $0.00 $97.20 $0.00 $325.00 $97.20 Controllers 194.40 43.80 97.20 325.00 97.20 Streetlights 8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE $52.03 $9.76 $270.97 $9.76 $21.68 $44.44 $59.61 $216.78 Vehicles 52.03 9.76 270.97 9.76 21.68 44.44 59.61 216.78 Tools & Equipment SUB -TOTAL $7,168.05 $1,954.21 $4,891.10 $1,955.59 $3,608.10 $4,354.63 $2,585.08 $6,543.68 5700 GEN. GOV'T. SUPPORT $1,075.21 $293.13 $733.66 $293.34 $541.21 $653.19 $387.76 $981.55 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $8,243.26 $2,247.34 $5,624.76 $2,248.93 $4,149.31 $5,007.82 $2,972.84 $7,525.23 ( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES ( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 95 -96 ($3,575.00) ($5,555.00) $3,280.00 ($1,300.00) $1,040.00 ($3,770.00) $1,300.00 ($34,575.00) (_) TOTAL TO ASSESS $11,818.26 $7,802.34 $2,344.76 $3,548.93 $3,109.31 $8,777.82 $1,672.84 $42,100.23 ( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($2,681.25) ($4,765.00) ($975.00) ($2,827.50) ( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 97 -98 (_) NET TO ASSESS $9,137.01 $3,037.34 $2,344.76 $2,573.93 $3,109.31 $5,950.32 $1,672.84 $42,100.23 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $190.35 $337.48 $9.38 $285.99 $155.47 $145.13 $30.42 $210.50 C:\WK\LLA9697 CITY OF SARATOGA • LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FY 96 -97 ZONE 18 ZONE 22 ZONE 24 TOTAL # OF PARCELS 11 862 124 3642 FACTOR 0.0030 0.2367 0.0340 1.0000 EXPENDITURES 3010 WAGES $62.55 $4,901.54 $13,264.09 $27,935.00 Public Works Dir. 12.18 954.31 137.28 $4,032.00 Parks Maint. Sup't. 34.05 2,668.20 383.82 $5,940.00 Admin. Sec'y. 6.26 490.64 70.58 $2,073.00 Sr. Clerk- Typist 10.06 788.39 113.41 $3,331.00 Park Maint. Leadworker 6,669.00 $6,669.00 Park Maint. Worker II 5,890.00 $5,890.00 3030 BENEFITS $20.93 $1,640.33 $5,560.96 $10,317.00 Public Works Dir. 3.88 303.90 43.72 $1,284.00 Parks Maint. Supt. 12.38 969.81 139.51 $2,159.00 Admin. Sec'y. 1.69 132.54 19.07 $560.00 Sr. Clerk- Typist 2.99 234.08 33.67 $989.00 Park Maint. Leadworker 2,943.00 $2,943.00 Park Maint. Worker II 2,382.00 $2,382.00 4510 CONTRACT SERVICES $0.00 4515 LEGAL SERVICES $1.51 $118.34 $17.02 $500.00 4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES $17.52 $1,372.76 $230.72 $6,458.35 Engineer's Report 17.52 1,372.76 197.47 $5,800.00 New Parcel Charge 33.25 $658.35 4530 REPAIR SERVICES $1,623.60 $7,500.00 $11,556.05 4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES $1,361.18 $10,824.00 $9,800.00 $48,674.00 5312 POSTAGE 5320 ADVERTISING $3.62 $284.02 $40.86 $1,200.00 5351 WATER $250.00 $775.00 $1,925.00 $8,950.00 5352 POWER $53.40 $180.00 $14,497.20 $36,008.20 Controllers 53.40 180.00 97.20 $1,088.20 Streetlights 14,400.00 $34,920.00 8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE $11.92 $934.32 $3,722.40 $5,668.00 Vehicles 11.92 934.32 3,254.40 $5,200.00 Tools &.Equipment 468.00 $468.00 SUB -TOTAL $1,782.64 $22,653.92 $56,558.27 $157,266.60 5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT $267.40 $3,398.09 $8,483.74 $23,589.99 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,050.04 $26,052.00 $65,042.01 $180,856.59 ( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTYTAXES $11,470.00 $55,505.00 ( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 95 -96 $910.00 $17,465.00 $53,572.01 $149,265.00 (_) TOTAL TO ASSESS $1,140.04 $8,587.00 ($0.00) ($23,913.41) ( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED ($12,617.50) ( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 97 -98 $124,885.68 ( =)NET TO ASSESS $1,140.04 $8,587.00 ($0.00) $88,354.77 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT $103.64 $9.96 N/A C:\WK\LLA9697 SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 (1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20192. (3) - Zone to be dissolved in FY 96 -97. C: \WK\LLA- SUM.WK1 A N N U A L A S S E S S I V I E N T S ZONE DATE 80 -81 81 -82 82 -83 83 -84 84 -85 85 -86 86 -87 87 -88 88 -89 89 -90 90 -91 91 -92 92 -93 93 -94 94 -95 95 -96 96 -97 CREATED 0 (7C) 4/16/80 $10201 $92.50 $92.58 $56.80 $21.02 $34.56 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- $35.38 $21.60 $21.66 $21.66 $14.64 $73.56 $49.72 $72.64 (1) 1 4/16/80 $34.26 $10.54 $0.00 $10.90 $6.80 $203.76 $207.82 $113.70 $113.54 $105.94 $95.12 $101.54 $62.20 $90.32 $77.68 $33.88 $33.72 2 4/16/80 $11.30 $5.62 $6.16 $6.62 $7.86 $8.86 $35.14 $27.40 $29.66 $32.00 $34.62 $36.50 $5.98 $18.15 $118.68 $40.04 $39.82 3 4/16/80 $4.76 $4.46 $0.00 $0.00 $4.20 $11.60 $8.70 $20.50 $23.06 $46.82 $13.14 $15.36 $25.80 $45.21 $25.26 $32.52 $24.66 4 4/16/80 $20.95 $18.54 $0.00 $2.06 $2.30 $5.86 $6.70 $2.26 $1.86 $1.86 $1.60 $2.10 $23.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 4/16/80 $23.52 $21.28 $2.12 $0.84 $1.24 $5.00 $6.56 $5.14 $4.98 $4.98 $6.24 $6.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 4116/80 $42.03 $36.68 $0.00 $15.68 $11.32 $14.78 $16.94 $10.54 $10.60 $10.60 $8.62 $8.58 $0.00 $0.00 $25.40 $52.50 $0.00 7 (7R) 4116/80 $10.41 $8.90 $6.68 $5.78 $2.54 $2.50 $3.32 $3.14 $2.84 $2.64 $3.78 $4.26 $6.88 $0.00 $10.88 $0.00 $0.00 8 (VPD #1) 4/16/80 $ 269.07 $48.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $213.80 $341.32 $330.36 $117.20 $0.00 $133.36 $0.00 $0.00 (1) 9 5/4/83 $65.00 $84.86 $83.52 $90.82 $87.40 $113.74 $157.20 $138.74 $144.82 $138.82 $161.30 $169.92 $201.02 $190.35 10 4/18/84 $1,416.00 $0.00 $167.34 $188.26 $234.70 $435.80 $348.74 $385.38 $371.12 $32617 $442.58 $337.98 $337.48 11 4/18/84 $14.32 $5.66 $8.38 $7.70 $8.04 $8.76 $9.58 $10.72 $11.32 $15.48 $19.02 $13.86 $9.38 12 4/17/85 $17200 $153.02 $154.16 $168.04 $188.04 $209.84 $22260 $24242 $203.01 $380.00 $307.22 $285.99 13 4/17/85 $18.00 $5.24 $3.04 $3.60 $3.60 $3.70 $3.16 $0.00 $0.00 $3.46 $11.24 (3) 14 4/17/85 $14210 $121.30 $107.04 $114.48 $15248 $137.56 $14 8.72 $19274 $110.10 $264.58 $193.40 $15547 15 4/17/85 $222.00 $170.76 $87.44 $83.76 $126.18 $102.60 $100.72 $98.90 $227.39 $202.04 $146.92 $14513 16 4/16/86 $2,37644 $3.04 $3.22 $3.22 $59.88 $40.56 $45.16 $42.58 $54.40 $40.80 $30.42 17 4/15/87 $10.00 $7.70 $7.70 $8.72 $8.66 $0.00 $5.06 $25.20 $213.18 $210.50 18 4/15/87 $50.00 $6.08 $13518 $154.56 $164.94 $88.10 $0.00 $0.00 $104.50 $103.64 19 (VPD #2) 4/19/89 $1,851.00 $1,520.30 $5,243.00 $6,969.76 $13,620.00 (1) 20 (VPD #3) 4/19/89 $6,41200 $6,414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.82 $21,252.35 (1) 21 (VPD #4) 4/19/89 $0.00 $977.78 $2,933.00 $5,406.00 $14,385.56 (1) 22 4/17/91 $36.00 $0.00 $13.21 $22.58 $21.68 $9.96 23 5/1/91 $110.00 (2) 24 8/3/94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 (1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24. (2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20192. (3) - Zone to be dissolved in FY 96 -97. C: \WK\LLA- SUM.WK1 Supplement to Exhibit A City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Benefits Provided Within Each Zone Zone 1 - (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive medians and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road frontage along Tract 3822. Zone 2 - (Fredericksburg Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777, 4041, and 4042. Zone .3 - (Greenbriar Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tract 4628, 4725 and 4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court. Zone 4 - (Quito Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the E1 Quito Park residential neighborhoods; Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700. Zone 5 - ( Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, 787, 1111 and 1800. Zone 6 - (Sarahills Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood; Tracts 3392 and 3439. Zone 7 - (Village Residential Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2, McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams and Tracts 270, 336, 416, 2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419 and 6731. Zone 9 - (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944. Zone 10 - (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zones 14 and 18. Zone 11 - (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Via Monte entrances to all or a portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 2844, 3036 and 4344. Supplement to Exhibit A Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Benefits Provided Within Each Zone Page 2 Zone 12 ( Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996. Zone 13 - (Cabernet Landscape District) - Created to provide for periodic landscape maintenance and improvements along the Obrad Drive entrance and the San Palo Court border areas adjacent to Tract 7655. To be detached in FY 96 -97. Zone 14 - (Cunningham Place Landscape District) - See Zone 10. Zone 15 - (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - Provides for monthly landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way; Tract 5462. Zone 16 - (Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision; Tract 7763. Zone 17 - (Sunland Park Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of Tracts 976 and 977. Zone 18 - (Glasgow Court Landscape District) - See Zone 10. Zone 22 - (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for periodic. landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing and Saratoga Creek. Includes all properties bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek with the exception of the Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493, 1644, 1695, 1727, 1938 and 1996). Zone 24 - (Village Commercial Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4, Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting. SA�ATOGA ME05 - MAY 8, Jqq(,o Assessment districts become topic of coming town meeting Some lighting, landscaping rates to drop By JULIE MEHTA More than a third of Saratoga homeowners pay an assessment to the city for landscaping and lighting maintenance, and thisyear, that pay- ment will go down across the board. Since 1980, the city has been charging various city subdivisions for landscaping and streetlight maintenance. The rates vary from $9.38 for the Arroyo de Saratoga landscape district to $337.48 for the Tricia Woods landscape district, depending on the work required and the number of homes in the development. The rates ebb and flow from year to year, but the city is only required to give notice of hearings on the assessments when they go up. Some city street lighting is paid for out of the the city's regular operat- ing.budget, but the cost of residen- tial amenities is charged as an assessment on homeowners' prop- erty tax bills. "There are very few street lights in Saratoga. This is a community that's decided to maintain a very rural atmosphere,." says Public Works Director Larry Perlin. "Saratoga is a basic - service city. We have a minimal tax base, and these types of activities go beyond basic services. They benefit small pockets of the community." The bulk of the roughly 10,000 parcels in the city don't need land- scaping and streetlighting, says Perlin, and some areas manage their own. When Saratoga was a younger community, all areas managed this work privately through homeown- ers' associations, many of which later became defunct. As they did, the city took up the responsibility. This is how the assessment district, created with nine zones, grew to include 24 zones and 3,642 parcels. Some of the zones have been com- bined for the purposes of assess- ment, and the Cabernet Landscape district is to be removed from the district this year, since its residents are already managing their own landscaping needs. Perlin says since the City Coun- cil began charging not only direct service costs but also overhead for these services a few years ago, some residents have asserted that they could do the work at a lower cost. But to detach from the dis- trict, a subdivision must demon- strate that a clear majority of its homeowners are in favor of and capable of taking over manage- ment of their particular needs, says Perlin. Residents will have the opportu- nity to ask questions and voice con- cerns at a public meeting on the assessment issue on May 15. If they wish to make a formal objection, they must submit a written protest to the city by June 5, when the City Council will hold a public hearing on the matter. Those who want to know the proposed assessment for their district or get other informa- tion can call Perlin at 867 -3438. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. P109 AGENDA MEETING DATE: May 15, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Commun,ty Development CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: ITEM: A -95 -001, Petition of Annexation, Peach Hill Road, Wilson /Davison, APN# 517 -23 -026. Recommended Motion: Approve the petition of annexation by adopting Resolution A -95 -001. Report Summary: Background: On December 6, 1995, the City Council voted unanimously to deny the requested waiver of annexation of the subject site. This action effectively directed the applicant to apply for annexation in order to further develop the property. The petition before the City Council is required by the Government Code in order to complete the City conducted annexation. Once the Council approves the annexation, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will be notified of the change and the City boundaries will be officially modified. Project Summary: The annexation request relates to a vacant, 1.014 acre parcel on Peach Hill Road which is contiguous to the current City boundary and is located within the City's Urban Service Area (USA) as depicted on the attached Annexation Map, Exhibit "A ". The property has direct access to the County maintained portion of Peach Hill Road. This portion of roadway is required to be annexed along with the subject parcel in accordance with LAFCO road annexation policies. All needed services are available to the property as indicated in the attached Municipal Plan for Services. The property has been prezoned Hillside Residential (HR) . Once the property is annexed it will be subject to the development regulations of the HR zoning district. The applicant is currently working with Planning staff to develop a single family home on the site. Fiscal Impacts: A small potential increase in road maintenance costs offset by increases in property taxes and utility user fees. Follow -uo Action: Work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to finalize the boundary adjustment process. Amend City Base, General Plan and Zoning Maps accordingly. Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion: The property will not be annexed to the City and applicant will develop the site under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Petition for Annexation. 3. Municipal Plan for Services. 4. Exhibit "A ", Legal Description and Annexation Map Certified by the County Surveyor. Motion and Vote: TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SARATOGA The undersigned, constituting all of the owners of certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof, commonly known as Peach Hill Road, Wilson /Davison, APN# 517 -23 -026 do hereby represent, request and petition as follows: (a) The petition is submitted pursuant to the Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code. (b) The nature of the proposed change of organization is the annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the City of Saratoga. (c) The territory to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and located within the urban service area of the City, as adopted by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission. (d) The territory to be annexed is uninhabited, as defined in Section 56046 of the Government Code. (e) This petition is required by reason of the policy of the County of Santa Clara that owners of property within the urban service area of a city who wish to develop such property, must first request annexation to the city and such request must be rejected before the County will process a development proposal. (f) The undersigned collectively hold one hundred percent (100%) of the ownership interest in the territory to be annexed. (g) It is hereby requested that proceedings be taken for annexation of said property pursuant to Section 56826 and Title 5, Division 3, Part 4 (commencing with Section 57000) of the Government Code. Dated: Municipal Plan for Services - Wilson /Davison, Peach Hill Road Sewerage: West Valley Sanitation District Water: San Jose Water Fire Protection: Central Fire District Storm Drainage: Santa Clara Valley Water District Street: Annexed portion of Peach Hill Road to be City maintained. Sheriff: Santa Clara County County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Building I11specti01VLand Development Engineering and Surveying Counly Government Center. East Wing 70 West I- ledding Street. 71h Floor San Jose. California 951 10 Bldg. Inspcc. 14081 299 -2351 Land Devel. 299 -2571 FAX 279 -8537 April 24, 1996 Harry Peacock, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVF-p APR 2 61996 PLANNING P -� , , The attached map and description dated April 23, 1996 of territory proposed to be annexed to the City of Saratoga entitled PEACH HILL ROAD - WILSON /DAVISON is in accordance with Government Code Section 56826. The boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Local Agency Formation Commission's road annexation policies. Very truly yours, w 5�� MARTIN D. MARCOTT County Surveyor Enclosures cc: LAFCO Executive Officer (w /attachment) tGeorge White Duryea /Carroll Wilson /Davison Board of Supervisors: Michael M. Honda. Blanca Alvarado. Ron Gonzales. James -1-. Beall .1r.. Dianne° kft-K °nna � county Executive: Richard Wittenl)e-rg 4) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. De AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: MAY 15, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for 2 lots at 20140 Mendelsohn Lane SD 91 -004 (Owner: Husain) Recommended Motion(s): Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 91 -004 granting final map approval of Tentative Map Application No. SD 91 -004 for two lots at 20140 Mendelsohn Lane. Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 91 -004 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for two lots located at 20140 Mendelsohn Lane. I have examined the final map and related documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 91 -004, have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of the two lots. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $5,751.89 in Engineering fees and $8,160 in Park Development fees required for this subdivision. Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 91 -004 granting final map approval. 2. Location map. 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 91 -004 approving the tentative map with conditions. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: SD -91 -004; 20140 Mendelson Lane Applicant/ Owner: Wirnowski Staff Planner: Susan Riggs Date: 12 /11/91 APN: 517 -20 -008 Director Approval: 7, 41 27 I 4). • - 3E 14 r7 2 0017 3!7.20 -74 NJ Zv 14u Mendelsohn Lane r2. 1507-20. 90 Sls te-ey l3 2017 0 . p 11�4777 •1�-41 •.7.20• !o 7-o1 L G 1 7•Zo -!1 517 -20.4 2 20022 3�7.2C• CI)O 14 Boo 2011.1 517- ZO.06 917 - 20•;•7 . ' `� •.t,�0•.,', ?'.'L, °,r�:''..;.: ::: X13. ('41 1182.1 •F;' i ...rp,� f{ ?:,:::• .� ��,p:1 O 20'11 sn -2°o� i� �_ 20. t1 Sn -.�•z� 14840 Z ;z. 517.2c -2) ql zp3o� zo1 zc RANCHO �1 �/• 917.11 -1, 1b,7.70•to i� e5G r • r 717. 20. ZS N �• :.=:qJ 2007.1 !: 517 -11-1: Ift = 20110 = '10 e: �� )04 0 W 7 -10 -11 t •w�,� 9 2o29t (111 �I 7.11 -✓'s 7/ 20211 20111 20171 0041 201145 ` JDt� N ip1• ' 0 107•?O• 117.20 517-20- S17•?0-24 617.20•• Sf7 -20.12 "��.. 517- 1-2{ 27 i4 23 L! 70~ • •>t D �.�`• BONNIE BRAE �Q11C 20TOO 202!0 20170 20130 20010 •17.10 117 -Za. y17- ie - LI b17 -24fb'. 517.20 JA�7 11 2G 22 1s zr.�o 7,o:u ' Iy NJ Zv 14u Mendelsohn Lane RESOLUTION NO. OD-21 -004 RESOLUTION APPROVING TENT]►TIVE NAP OF RIRNOWSKX; 20140 NENDELSOEN LN. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval for 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -91 -004, City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 12/11/91 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated August, 1991, and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: Completed by Surveyor. 1. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be accurately surveyed and shall cause monuments to be set at all exterior boundary corners, angle points and as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. Completed. 2. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some late date to be specified on the Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified late date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval. SD -91 -0041 20140 Mendelsohn Ln. N/A 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time Improve- ment Plans are submitted to the City Engineer for checking. Fees paid. 4. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time the Final Map is submitted to the City Engineer for checking. F e e s Paid. 5. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Park and Recreation fee, as determined by the Planning Direct, prior to Final Map approv- al. N/A 6. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal code, prior to Final Map approval. N/A 7. Engineered improvement plans, in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, shall be approved by the City Engineer and /or the appropriate officials from other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to Final Map approval. N/A 8. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and /or rights of way either on Final Map or via separate written instruments prior to Final Map approval as determined by the City Engineer. Completed. 9. The owner (applicant) shall submit a Final Map in substantial compliance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required in Section 14- 40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14- 40.030 of the Municipal Code and any additional information that may be required by the City Engineer. N/A 10. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agree- ment with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. N/A 11. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. Completed. 12. The owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County Recorder the requisite statement indicating that there are no liens against the subdivision or any part thereof for any SD -91 -004; 20140 Mendelsohn Ln. unpaid taxes or special assessments prior to Final Map approval. N/A 13. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commit- ments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements. Acknowledged. 14. Future development shall comply with the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code as amended by the State of California. Acknowledged. 15. Sanitary sewer connections shall be provided to each lot. Acknowledged. 16. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company. Condition revised and 17. A Fire hydrant shall be installed per the Fire District's completed. standards prior to Final Map approval. Comp 1 eted. 1s. Subdividers shall remove all existing structures on property prior to Final Map approval. Acknowledged. 19. Future develop ent of parcels A and B shall require design review approvad shall initially be limited to single story structures not to exceed 18 ft. in height. This restriction hall expirg at the time final occupancy approval is granted. pf,, LFL f ax_x V.I G le"_A%J, '; "g— Acknowledged. . 20. Future development of parcels A and B shall maintain 25 ft. sideyard setbacks. Front and rear setbacks shall be deter- ' mined based on current City Code requirements. Acknowledged. 21. Landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's Xeriscape Guidelines. . Acknowledged. 22. All requirements of the City Arborist's Report dated 11/15/91, incorporated by reference, shall be met. Acknowledged. 23. Landscape plans shall be required at the time design review applications are made including, but not limited to the following tree replacement: Tree # 8 - replace with 36" box, or three 24" box. Tree #10 - replace with 15 gal. Tree #11 - replace with 36" box and a 24" box, or four 24" boxes. These replacement trees shall be evenly distributed between parcels A and B. For maximum screening purposes, they might be placed next to the western boundary (rear of the lot), the 7 OD-91-004; 20140 Hsndslsohn Ln. eastern boundary (street), or the western-most 100' of the northern boundary. Acknowledged. 24. All paving -for the access corridor within 20 ft. of tree 112 (26 in. redwood), and within 8 ft. of tree 1 9 (6 in. oak), Shall be pervious material, as detailed in the Arborist report. Acknowledged. 25. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses including attorneys fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City,s defence of its actions in any proceedings brought in any State or Federal Court challenging the Cityls action with respect to the applicant's project. Acknowledged. 26. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these condition: within 30 days of the passage of this resolution.or said resolution shall be void. Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, ' City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 the of Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 8th day of January, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, DURKET, FORBES, MORAN NOES: FAVERO, TUCKER ABSENT: CALDWELL ATTEST: Chairman, Planning CbtWission 8 OD-91-004; 20140 Nendelsohn La. Secretary, Plannino commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted: Signature of applicant Date RESOLUTION NO. SD 91 -004 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD 91 -004 20140 MENDELSOHN LANE (HUSAIN & KAHN) The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Parcels A & B as shown on that certain Parcel Map prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated Januiary, 1996, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on May 15, 1996, are approved as TWO (2) individual parcels. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: CauncilmEmbers Burger, Moran, nicker, Wolfe and Mayor Burger NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: May 15, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: 1995/96 BUDGET AMENDMENTS AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. Recommended Motion(s) : Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1995/96 Budget. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1995/96 Budget for the following four items: 1) increase planning fee revenue and appropriation budget for Program 2023 - Zoning Administration for environmental impact report (EIR) work performed on the Nelson Gardens and Odd Fellows projects, 2) a supplemental appropriation to augment three debt service funds for minor differences associated with servicing long term debt 3) a supplemental appropriation from the Hillside Repair Fund unreserved fund balance to cover $20 in additional costs associated with Project 8506 - Tract 6701 Repairs and 4) authorize the refunding of assessment fees paid by a property owner in the Leonard Road Assessment District. Also included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule for your consideration. The first item, amending the General Fund revenue and appropriations budget for additional planning fee revenues and Program 2023 - Zoning Administration contract services for Nelson Garden and Odd Fellows EIR work performed, is discussed by the Community Development Director in the attached memorandum. There is no impact to fund balance as a result of this amendment. The second item, requires three minor supplemental appropriations. The first amendment adjusts the Civic Center Certificates of Participation Debt Service Fund for $418 to cover bond trustee fees. The second and third amendments adjust the Library Bond Debt Service Fund and Parking District #2 Trust Fund for $18 and $763, respectively, to cover interest expenses on related debt. The third item, a supplemental appropriation of $20 from the Hillside Repair Fund, cleans up a small cost overrun on nearly $34 thousand in repairs completed on Project 8506 - Tract 6701. 1 ti The fourth and final item, authorizes an appropriation for refunding an overpayment of assessment fees paid by a property owner in the Leonard Road Assessment District. An explanatory memorandum in support of the amendment has been prepared by the Public Works Director. There are sufficient balances available in the Civic Center Certificates of Participation, Parking District #2 Trust Fund, Hillside Repair Fund and Leonard Road Debt Service Fund to cover these appropriation requests. Fiscal Impacts: Overall revenues increase by $39,291. Overall expenditures increase by $41,056. As indicated previously, $39,291 in General Fund costs associated with the EIR project will be recovered by a like amount in revenue paid by the developers of the projects. Accordingly, there is no overall impact to the General Fund. Specific changes by Fund are as follows: Fund Revenues Expenditures Transfers O1- General Fund $39,291 $39,291 $0 16- Hillside Repair $0 $20 $0 21- Library Debt $0 $18 $0 24 -Civic Center COP $0 $418 $0 63 -Park Dist #2 $0 $763 $0 76- Leonard Road $0 $546 $0 The unaudited fund balances as of 3131196 were: O1- General Fund $2,896,313 16- Hillside Repair $110,639 21- Library Debt $15,705 24 -Civic Center COP $147,094 63 -Park Dist #2 $6,102 76- Leonard Road $38,243 Follow Up Actions: None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: EIR consultant fees will not be paid, minor budget variances will remain and the refund for overpayment of assessment fees will not be made. Attachments c: \execsumm \exsm0508.96 2 C o� MD ° HOC 13777 1, RLT1'I'VALE AVID NUIF • SARA'1'0GA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Made Burger Paul E A lcnbs Gillrli� mw, it? MEMORANDUM Pol),pol TO: Thomas Fil, Finance Director 14-10 FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment DATE: May 6, 1996 Two projects (Nelson Gardens and Odd Fellows) processed by the Community Development Department required the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports. EIR's are prepared by a consultant hired by the City and paid for by the project applicant. Both of these project EIR's were prepared by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA). The applicant pays a deposit in the form of a "Planning Fee" and the City pays the consultant from the Zoning Administration Consultant activity account (2023- 4510). In both projects, the EIR preparation costs exceeded the initial deposits. Additional deposits were paid by the applicants to cover the revised costs. Therefore, it will be necessary to transfer funds from "Planning Revenues" into the Zoning Administration Consultant activity account. Once the total deposits (i.e. Planning Revenues) of $39,290.61 are "transfered" into activity #2023 -4510, I can pay the consultant. May 3, 1996 Q1 19O0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 Donald Perry 20615 Leonard Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Leonard Road Assessment District - Your Letter dated March 23 Dear Mr. Perry: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Mane Burger Paul Jacobs Gillian Moran Karen Tucker Donald L•I Wolfe Thank you for your recent letter inquiring about a refund to which you believe you are entitled due to a reduction in the length of curb and gutter which was to have been installed in front of your property and for which you were assessed as part of the Leonard Road project. I have finally had the chance to review the records for the construction contract and the assessment district proceedings and believe you are entitled to a refund in the amount of $546.35. I've arrived at this amount as follows: 1. Thirty percent (309k) of the total cost of curb and gutter, including the construction and incidental costs, was spread equally among the seven properties along which curb and gutter was installed. This allocation method was used because each of the seven properties were to receive roughly the same linear footage of curb and gutter.. Of the total curb and gutter cost of $20,128.97, 3011 of this cost, or $6,038.69, was spread equally among the seven benefitting .properties. The cost assigned to your property therefor is $6,038.69/7 = $862.67. 2. Approximately ninety feet (90') of the curb and gutter which was to have been installed in front of your property, and for which you were assessed, was deleted from the construction contract after work began. What was ultimately installed along your property represents only approximately one -third of what was installed along the other six benefitting properties. Had this been known at the time the assessment schedule was proposed, I believe your assessment for this item would have been reduced proportionately, i.e by two - thirds. Therefor, the credit to which you are entitled is $862.67 * (2/3) = $575.11. 3. Lastly, I apply the 5o cash discount which you took advantage of to arrive at a net credit amount of $546.35, i.e. ($575.11 * .95). Pnnteo on recyclea caper By copy of this letter, I ,airi recommending to the City's finance Director, Thomas Fil, that acredit'n rf2ie amount of $546.3 refunded -to. ance °yo`u However, I' am- `unsure --exactly how this can be' accomplished such that i the Leonard Road bond issuet is done in compliance with the terms of . take this matter up with the Finance Director. suggest that you next Director. Please all ow Mr. Fil a couple of weeks from your recei t of P this letter to contact You concerning this. If you coo not hear from him by May 15, Y ou should call him directly at 867 -3438, ext. 236. Please call me at 867 -3438, ext. 241 if there is anythin mor can do to assist you with this, or if You have an g e I how I've calculated the refund amount Y Y questions about Thank you for your patience with this. Sincerely, Larry I. Perlin Director of Public Works cc: Finance Director