HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. :� o AGENDA ITEM: J iU
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works DEF T. HEAD: r6 �L
4
SUBJECT: Award of construction contract for fueling facility
upgrades
Recommended Motions
1. Move to declare Petrotek, Inc. of San Jose to be the lowest
responsible bidder for the work.
2. Move to award a construction contract to Petrotek, Inc. in the amount
of $68,264.08 to design and install necessary upgrades to the
Corporation Yard fueling facility.
3. Move to authorize staff to issue change orders to the contract up to
an amount of $5,000.
Report Summary:
The adopted budget contains $75,000 in Activity 28 (Storm Water
Management), Account 6715 (Land Improvements), for replacement and
upgrade of the City's fueling facility at the Corporation Yard. This
work is necessary to bring the facility into compliance with regulations
which will go into effect on December 22, 1998. While this date may
seem like a ways off, it is better to accomplish this work now, well in
advance of the deadline, to avoid competing for contractors, materials
and supplies which may become limited and thus, more expensive as the
deadline draws near.
In general, the work at the Corp. Yard involves installation of spill
and overflow prevention devices on both the 2,000 gallon underground
fuel and 500 gallon above ground diesel fuel tanks; installation of new
piping, venting and dispensing systems for both tanks; relocation of the
fuel dispensing island to a safer and more convenient location;
installation of a canopy over the above ground tank and relocated fuel
island; installation of a new fuel monitoring and tracking system; and
assistance with all plan and permitting requirements.
Because of the relatively specialized nature of this work, staff
solicited proposals from three pre - qualified vendors utilizing the
informal bidding procedures prescribed in the Municipal Code. A summary
of the three proposals received is as follows:
Petrotek, Inc. $68,264.08
Leak Alert Service Co., Inc. $74,900.00
Alpha Geo Services, Inc. $75,000.00
Staff was very impressed with the thoroughness and content of Petrotek's
proposal (copy attached) and a background check of this firm reveals
that they have performed satisfactorily for many other public agencies
on similar projects. Consequently, it is recommended that the Council
declare Petrotek, Inc. of San Jose to be the lowest responsible bidder
for this work and that a construction contract in the amount of their
proposal be awarded to them. Further, it is recommended that Council
authorize staff to issue change orders to the contract up to an amount
of $5,000 to cover any unforeseen circumstances which may arise during
the course of the work.
Fiscal Impacts:
As stated, the adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover the
recommended contract award and change order amounts.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Petrotek, Inc. will not be declared
the work and a construction contract
Council may make specific findings to
to be the lowest responsible bidder,
and direct staff to obtain new bids.
the three bids are so close, it is
obtained.
Follow Up Actions:
the lowest responsible bidder for
will not be awarded to them. The
declare one of the other two firms
or it may reject all of the bids
However, because the amounts of
doubtful that lower bids would be
A standard construction contract will be signed with Petrotek, Inc. and
they will be issued a Notice to Proceed.
Attachments:
1. Proposal from Petrotek, Inc.
2. Memo from Street maintenance Superintendent dated April 30.
04,,23/97 07: 25 FAX 408 453 1897
PETROTEK INC. 0 001
Petrotek
F.O. Box 612317
San lose, CA 95161
Tel:408 -453 -1888 Fax:408 =453 -1897
C.L. #1590295
A Division of Dale McAnally, Inc.
Date: L4 I o?� g 9
Number o pages including cover sheet: 1
Please deliver the following message to:
?dame: C ARH
Company: C F rLA O A
Phone:
Fax:
Remarks: j\) p�j 4v1 Ccr'5 ;
Qo X ao' x /C9 ' •pu trw
10 x ) 6' x 1 L' rr'y um ► i-j sj-A L&* ;a Lo � w b aTS 4' jq' � 6� ► W '�—'
Sent by: �c
. r
04/04/97 08:14 FAX 408 453 1897 PETROTEK INC.
ems,
City of Saratoga
19700 Allendale
Saratoga, Ca.
PETROTEK
P.0- Box 612317 • San Jose, California 95161
Phone (408) 453 -1888 - FAX (408) 453 -1897
Contractors license #590295
Attn: Gary Enriques
Re: Upgrade fueling system
We propose to provide labor and materials to complete the following for the amount of
$29,990.00
Proposal includes the following:
1. Plans and permits to do the job.
2. Remove the concrete over the existing fuel tank.
3. Remove the existing fuel island.
Z002
4. Trench to the new fuel island location and to the office for the electrical monitoring and fuel
management system, owner supplied, o /s.
5. Dig down to tank top and remove the old tank trim.
6. install all new tank trim, owner supplied, o /s.
7. Install new island form, o/s
8. Run new double wall product and vapor return lines from the piping sump to the
containment box.
9. Run new single wall vent line to the island from the fuel tank.
10. Install new electrical conduit for the fuel pump, fuel monitoring system, and gasboy 1000,
o /s.
11. After passing all underground inspections, backf`ill and concrete and or asphalt over all
excavations,
S ARATOGA.497 1 4/4/97
. 04/04/97 08:14 FAX 408 453 1897 PETROTEK INC.
**BID PROPOSAL. **
Petrotek CL# 590295
Proposal for City of Satatoga
Page 2 of 2
12. Set the new fuel pump, fuel monitoring, and gasboy 1000 equipment, o /s.
13. Pull all new wire for the equipment supplied by the City of Saratoga.
14. Pass final inspection after " Service Stations Systems " programs and fires off the
monitoring and management fuel systems.
OTHER INFORMATION AND EXCLUSION
16003
CONTAMTNATION: There may be hazardous contamination of the surrounding soil from the
existing installation. Remediation of these contaminants can be provided on a Time -and-
Material basis because the extent of the contamination plume is unknown. We can advise you
as to the most cost effective procedure to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements.
SOIL EXCAVATION: Excavation quotations are based on common site conditions. In the
event that unstable soil, unforeseen structure, cables, conduits, debris, rock or high water table
are encountered, the contractor shall not be held responsible and corrective measures can
proceed on a Time and Material basis until the abnormal conditions are corrected.
REGULATIONS: Our work is performed to currently accepted standards and regulation. We
cannot be responsible for any future regulation applied retroactively or any future
interpretation of existing regulations. By definition, all plans, drawing, permits and other
details approved by the regulatory agency shall determine the materials, equipment and design
appropriate to accomplish the body of work contracted.
"PROPOSAL QUOTES ARE GOOD FOR 30 DAYS **
TERMS: S00.00 with acceptance and balance at job completion. Progress billings will be made
should job be delayed by contamination or at customer request.
Sinc
F red Natt er,
Construction Manager
SARATOGA.497 2 4/4/97
QUOTATION
CATCommercial Petroleum Equipment
DATE: MARCH 5, 1997
TO: CITY OF SARATOGA
ATTN: GARY ENRIQUES
REFERENCE: MAINT. YARD
1-100 Wt)1j)p1E' Hd
Union City. CA
(, (o) ,481, J ",.
FAX (510) -189 4,1,,
QUOTE NO.: 0006 -1
PAGE: 1 OF 3
We are pleased to offer the following quotation with pricing good for 60 days. Thank you for the opportunity to quote.
ITEM
QTY. /EA
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
TOTAL
TANK TRIM
1
CNI # 36" multi port manhole
$ 817.60
$ 817.60
1
CNI # 214R12SG 12" watertite monitor manhole
67.20
67.20
1
Western Fiberglass 42" piping sump & bond kit
420.00
420.00
1
OPW 61 SOP overfill valve coax
480.40
480.40
1
OPW 634TT fill cap
16.00
16.00
1
OPW 233VM 4x2x2 extractor
65.00
65.00
1
OPW 53VM ball float
29.80
29.80
1
OPW 116 pipe cap
18.35
18.35
1
OPW 233E check valve extractor
180.49
180.49
1
OPW 85 single poppet foot valve
53.71
53.71
1
OPW 523LPS pressure vent cap
56.40
56.40
1
CNI 218R12SG watertite monitor manhole
97.60
97.60
1
Titeflex 2" x 24" flex hose MxMS vent
86.00
86.00
FUEL ISLAND
1
Riverside 4' x 9' x 13" island form w/ HC ends
125.00
125.00
1
Total Containment # DU2614 containment box
324.00
324.00
1
OPW 10BHMP double poppet shear valve
82.00
82.00
2
Titeflex 1 1/2" x 18" flex hoses MxMS
66.00
132.00
1
Gasboy # 9152CF single product single hose suction pump
2,290.00
2,290.00
includes:
Internal filter kit, vapor recovery hood kit, 10:1 pulsar
Less hose & nozzle
1
Goodyear 5/8" x 24" jumper hose
13.00
13.00
Phoenix, AZ Union City, CA Orange. CA Sun Valley, CA W Sacramento, CA
{ - ?.
QUOTATION
REFERENCE: MAINT. YARD
QUOTE NO.: 0006 -1
PAGE: 2 OF 3
We are pleased to offer the following quotation with pricing good for 60 days. Thank you for the opportunity to quote.
ITEM
QTY. /EA
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
TOTAL
HOSES, NOZZLES, BREAKAWAYS
1
Pomeco 100AG hose retractor
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
2
Goodyear Premier 6' coax hoses
53.00
106.00
1
Goodyear Premier hose clamp
12.00
12.00
1
OPW 11 VF47 coax nozle need core
90.00
90.00
1
OPW 66CL coax breakaway
84.00
84.00
1
OPW 38CS s litter valve
42.00
42.00
FUEL MANAGEMENT
2
Gasbo 1000 -2 two hose terminal fuel management system
4,600.00
9,200.00
includes:
1 Controller with terminal
1 C03813 CRT Terminal with keyboard
1 C03814 Printer only, 1200 Baud
1 C05618 Short Haul Modem
2 C04549 Cable Ass 8'
C08757 Mag Cleaning Cards
Open
Gasboy start up & training fee for above
Service Station System will provide start up & training at
their rate which is based upon time & material
TANK MONITOR
1
Emco Wheaton Ecco # 1500 UST tank monitor includes:
2,520.00
2,520.00
1 Console with printer
1 In tank probe
1 Probe install kit
1 Tank sensor
1 Sensor cap & ring kit
1 Sump sensor
Start up & training included
QUOTATION
REFERENCE: MAINT. YARD QUOTE NO.: 0006 -1
PAGE: 3 OF 3
We are pleased to offer the following quotation with pricing good for 60 days. Thank you for the opportunity to quote.
ITEM I QTY. DESCRIPTION PRICE TOTAL
FUEL PIPING
" Estimated cost on piping is at $ 4,000.00 based upon no site
plan.
SUB - TOTAL: $ 17,503.55
SALES TAX: 7.75% 1,356.53
FREIGHT: 150.00
TOTAL PRICE: 19,010.08
TERMS: Net 30 days BY: Erick Delte
DELIVERY: 3 -4 weeks
FOB: CPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 30,1997
TO: Larry Perlin
FROM: Gary Enriquez
Subject: Award Bid for Fuel Island Relocation
ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to award low bidder to upgrade
and relocate existing fuel island and installation of a canopy
cover over the new fueling station.
BACKGROUND: The FY 96/97 Environmental Services Budget (2028-
6715) includes $75,000.00 to replace the Corporation Yard fuel
island to comply with NSPS requirements.
Bids were solicited from companies that could provide the services
and comply with all regulations associated with the installation.
Three bids were received for consideration, with Petrotek Inc.
submitting the lowest.
BID SUMMARY:
1. Petrotek Inc.
P.O. Box 612317
San Jose, CA. 95161 $68.264.08
2. Leak Alert Service Co.Inc.
1210 E. Sixth Street
Concord, CA. 91119 $74,900.00
3. Alpha Geo Services Inc.
1716 Junction Ave.
San Jose, CA. 95112 $75,000.00
4.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: MAY 21, 1997 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEF T. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Saratoga Avenue Median Landscaping - Phase I (Fruitvale
Avenue to Cox Avenue)
Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to accept the project as complete and authorize staff to
record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
Report Summary:
All work on the Saratoga Avenue Median Landscaping - Phase I
project has been completed by the City's contractor, B &B Landscape
Contractors, Inc., and inspected by Public Works staff. The final
construction contract amount was $56,566, which is 14% above the
awarded contract amount of $49,486. The increased cost was due
mainly to unanticipated underground improvements required to
connect two median islands with conduit for irrigation control
wires.
In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one
year maintenance /warranty period, it is recommended that the
Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended
that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of
Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30
day Stop Notice period for the filing of claims by subcontractors
or material providers may commence.
Fiscal Impacts:
The ten percent retention withheld from previous payments to the
contractor will be released 30 days after recordation of the Notice
of Completion assuming no Stop Notices are filed with the City.
The adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover the entire
cost of the construction contract.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction
contract and release the contract sureties and retention thirty
days thereafter.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would
notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City
Council before the project would be accepted as complete.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Attachments:
1. Contract Summary.
2. Notice of Completion.
CONTRACT SUMMARY
PROJECT: Saratoga Avenue Median Landscaping - Phase I
CONTRACTOR: B &B Landscape Contractors, Inc.
CONTRACT DATE: 01/29/97
CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: 03/18/97
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $49,486.00
CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT: $7,080.00
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $56,566.00
PERCENT +/- FROM ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: +14%
^ �f
G�� 1
IE' Ci
a�Ic
Recording requested by,
and to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
Department of Public Works
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed to be performed under
the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a
municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and
the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was
accepted as complete by the Owner on the 21st day of May, 1997.
Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: January 29, 1997
Contractor's Name: B &B Landscape Contractors, Inc.
Contractor's Address: 312 Brokaw Road, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Description of Work: Saratoga Avenue Median Landscaping - Phase I
This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section
3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California.
The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of
Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of
Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is
true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are
therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters
that he believes to be true.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara,
State of California on , 19
CITY OF SARATOGA
17-}16
ATTEST:
Grace E. Cory, Deputy City Clerk
Gov. Code 40814
PriNed on rru >ycied paper.
Larry I. Perlin
Director of Public Works
I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. _ 8( ,-)I
AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager
DEPT. HEA
SUBJECT: Resolution approving updated Master Agreement for
administration of federal -aid projects
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to adopt the Resolution.
Report Summary:
Attached is an updated Master Agreement #04 -5332 between the City and
Caltrans for the administration of federal -aid transportation projects.
The new agreement reflects the provisions of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and Caltrans' new Local Assistance
procedures. As it is anticipated that the City will continue to
administer local transportation projects which utilize federal funding
sources (Quito Road Bridge Replacements, Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Enhancements, etc.) it is recommended that the City Council approve the
new Master Agreement by adopting the attached Resolution.
Fiscal Impacts•
None as a result of approving the Agreement. However the Agreement will
allow the City to obtain federal funding for local projects in the
future.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Resolution will not be adopted and the Agreement will not be
approved. Unless and until the Agreement is approved, the City will be
ineligible to obtain federal -aid funding for local projects.
Follow Up Actions:
The Agreement will be signed and will be returned to Caltrans with the
Resolution.
Attachments:
1. Resolution with Agreement attached.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 'OG 6
AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager
DEPT. HEA
SUBJECT: Resolution establishing majority protest procedures for
Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to adopt the Resolution.
Report Summary:
The City Attorney has drafted the attached Resolution which, if adopted,
would establish procedures for administering the majority protest
provisions of the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District renewal
process. It is recommended that these procedures be established to
comply not only with the new requirements of Proposition 218, but also
with the existing requirements embodied in the State Constitution, the
Government Code and the Streets & Highways Code. Without such
procedures, there is a greater possibility that the determinations made
by the City Council at the Protest Hearing could be subject to legal
challenge, thus casting doubt on the City's ability to continue to
administer the district in the future.
Fiscal Impacts•
1►G'TiL-27
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The procedures would not be adopted and the Council would have no
guidelines by which to conduct the majority protest proceedings.
Follow Up Actions:
The procedures will be utilized at the June 4 Protest Hearing.
Attachments:
1. Resolution with procedures attached.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager
AGENDA ITEM: v rT
CITY MGR:
DEF T . HEAD:
SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Article 9 -55 of the City Code relating
to abandoned vehicles
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to introduce the Ordinance by title only, waiving further reading.
Report Summary:
The attached Ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney to amend Article
9 -55 of the City Code which pertains to abandoned, wrecked, dismantled
or inoperative vehicles. The Ordinance amendment specifies that the
Nuisance Abatement Board of Appeals rather than the City Council is the
designated body to hear appeals of abatement orders issued under the
provisions of the Article. Staff believes that the Board is the more
appropriate forum for hearing such appeals, since it is more easily
convened, and since its meetings are more conducive to this type of
appeal hearing. Further, having the Board hear these appeals will more
efficiently resolve abandoned vehicle abatement orders, and will save
staff and the Council considerable time.
Fiscal Impacts•
Administrative costs will be slightly reduced under the proposed
Ordinance.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The Ordinance would not be introduced.
Follow Up Actions:
The Ordinance will be scheduled for second reading and adoption on
June 4.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Ordinance.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MGR:
DEF T . HEAD:
SUBJECT: Resolutions in connection with proposed Vessing Road
Assessment District
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intent to reimburse expenditures.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution approving the Boundary Map of the
Vessing Road Assessment District.
3. Move to adopt the Resolution approving the agreement for legal
services.
4. Move to adopt the Resolution approving the agreement for consulting
services.
5. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention to order improvements.
Report Summary:
Attached is a series of five Resolutions in connection with the
formation of an assessment district by property owners on Vessing Road.
These property owners desire to improve the road to minimum public
street standards so that the road can be accepted by the City into the
system of publicly maintained streets. The proposed assessment district
would be formed under the provisions of the Municipal Improvement Act of
1913, with financing for the project arranged through the issuance of
bonds under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The five Resolutions
which would initiate the formation of the assessment district are as
follows:
1. Resolution of Intent to reimburse expenses - This Resolution states
that if the City were to advance any funds for any purpose in connection
with the assessment district proceedings or the improvement work, it is
the City's intent to reimburse itself out of the proceeds from the sale
of the improvement bonds. Although there is no intent or expectation to
advance any City funds for these efforts, adoption of the Resolution is
a prudent measure to ensure that the City does not end up paying for any
of the costs associated with the project.
2. Resolution approving Boundary Map - This Resolution approves the
proposed boundaries of the assessment district. Only those properties
within the proposed boundaries of the district would be subject to any
assessment for the cost of the project since they are the only
properties which would derive benefits from the project. A schematic of
the boundary map is attached to the Resolution. The actual map will be
available at your meeting.
3. Resolution approving agreement for legal services - This Resolution
appoints the firm of Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Assaf of Emeryville as
bond counsel and attorneys for the district, and approves the agreement
for these services which is attached to the Resolution. The expected
legal fees for this district is between $15,000 and $25,000, and is due
only if the district is formed and bonds are sold.
4. Resolution approving agreement for consulting services - This
Resolution approves an agreement (attached to the Resolution) with the
firm of Civil Consultants Group of Scotts Valley for assessment
engineering services in connection with the district. The fixed fee for
this work as set forth in the agreement is $9,810, and is due only if
the district is formed and bonds are sold.
5. Resolution of Intention to order improvements - This Resolution
makes various declarations about the proposed assessment district, and
initiates the proceedings by appointing Civil Consultants Group as the
Engineer of Work for the project and calling for the preparation of the
Engineer's Report.
The Vessing Road property owners began the effort to form the proposed
assessment district over a year ago. Signed petitions from 16 of the 20
property owners in the proposed district, representing just under 80% of
the land area subject to be assessed, are attached to this report. The
petitions request that the Council initiate special assessment
proceedings to carry out the project, the cost of which is currently
estimated at $568,880. This figure however assumes a "worst case"
estimate for land acquisition and very likely is more than double what
the actual cost of the project will be.
As there is little risk involved with the City moving the process
forward at this time, it is recommended that all five of the above
Resolutions be passed. If this happens, it will then take several
months for the Engineer's Report to be prepared, construction bids to be
received, and for the public meeting and protest hearing to be held.
If, after all this, the district is formed and assessments are levied,
one can reasonably expect bonds to be sold later this summer, and for
construction to be complete in the fall.
Lastly, the City Attorney advises it is not necessary to postpone action
on the above Resolutions as a result of the Quiet Title action filed
against the City and all of the Vessing Road property owners by Mr.
Hinz, the owner of the property located at 14521 Quito Road (APN 397 -05-
028). The Quiet Title action will simply resolve the issue of whether
an easement for ingress and egress of vehicles and pedestrians granted
in 1913 across the southerly 17 feet of Mr. Hinz's property can be
improved as part of this project without additional compensation being
paid to Mr. Hinz. This issue will be resolved independent of the City's
involvement prior to final approval of the Engineer's Report. Depending
on the outcome of the Quiet Title action, any acquisition costs which
may be necessary in order to improve the easement would become a cost of
the District and would be paid through the assessments.
Fiscal Impacts:
None at this time. The work of both the attorney and the engineer is
being performed on a contingency fee basis. If the assessment district
is formed, the entire cost of the project will be paid by the property
owners in the district via the assessments levied against their
properties.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
The property owners have all been informed of this meeting.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Depends on what Resolutions are not passed. However unless all five
Resolutions are passed, the assessment district proceedings cannot
advance forward.
Follow Up Actions:
The agreements for legal and engineering services will be signed, the
Boundary Map will be recorded, and the Engineer's Report will be
prepared.
Attachments:
1. Resolutions (5) with attachments.
2. Petitions with attachments.
3. Original letter to City with petition dated January 16, 1996.
J
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� AGENDA ITEM: U
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997 CITY MGR:
JoeORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager DEF T. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Renewal of Law Enforcement contract with the County of
Santa Clara for the five year period 1997 - 2002
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to approve the contract renewal and authorize the City Manager to
execute the contract on behalf of the City.
Report Summar
Attached is the proposed contract renewal between the City of Saratoga
and the County of Santa Clara for general law enforcement and emergency
communication services. The term of the contract renewal is for five
years through FY 2001 -02, with an option to renew for an additional
three years beyond then.
The proposed contract is the result of negotiations between the three
contract law enforcement cities (Cupertino, Los Altos Hills and
Saratoga) and the County over the past six months. The contract allows
for annual increases in law enforcement costs equal to the percentage
increase in total compensation provided to patrol deputies or the
consumer price index for urban wage earners (CPI /W) plus 2 %, whichever
is less. For comparison, the current contract allows for annual
increases of up to 10 %. Other contract changes include streamlining the
activity reporting and invoicing processes which will make
administration of the contract much less cumbersome than what is
currently required. Lastly, annual Westside Substation cost increases
are capped at CPI /W plus 2 %.
As in previous years, the Sheriff's Department and City staff will
develop a Service Delivery Plan which sets forth the level of law
enforcement services and associated costs for those services each year.
This provides the City with the option of modifying its law enforcement
goals and objectives based on changing community needs. The Public
Safety Commission reviewed a draft of the Service Delivery Plan for next
year at its meeting this past Monday and will recommend a final plan to
the City Council in June.
Fiscal Impacts:
Based on the terms of the proposed contract, the projected law
enforcement costs for the City in FY 97 -98 and FY 98 -99 are $2,357,730
and $2,452,000 respectively. These amounts are included in the proposed
two year budget for this period which you reviewed on Tuesday.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The contract renewal will not be approved and the current contract will
lapse on June 30. The County will not be obligated to continue
providing law enforcement services for the City beyond that date unless
some other arrangement is worked out.
Follow Up Actions:
The contract will be signed and returned to the County. The County
Board is scheduled to approve the contract renewal with all three cities
on May 27.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Law Enforcement Contract.
A
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z, -7 G AGENDA ITEM 8�
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997 CITY MGR. '
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Finance
SUBJECT: 1996/97 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1996/97 Revenue and
Appropriations Budget.
Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1996/97 Revenue and Appropriations
Budget for the following items: 1) contingency transfer for labor negotiations, 2) contingency
transfer for reorganization consulting services, 3) revenue recognition and related appropriation for
distribution of CATV Restitution Trust funds to KSAR, 4) revenue recognition and related
appropriation for reimbursed KSAR payrolls and stipulated grants, and 5) miscellaneous
supplemental appropriations relative to debt servicing of bonds. Also included with the resolution
are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule.
On May 7, 1997, City Council approved two agreements with Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson to
perform professional services in connection with labor negotiations and implementing the
reorganization plan. Each agreement called for $20,000 in compensation to the consultant.
Authorization of this resolution would transfer a total of $40,000 from Program 7070 - Contingency
to Program 7077 - Personnel Management for purposes of paying invoices relative to these
services. Since contingency funds have been previously appropriated, this action does not result in
any additional reduction to budgeted General Fund balance.
The third item, revenue recognition and related appropriation for distribution of CATV Restitution
Trust funds to KSAR, will authorize recognition in revenue of a $61,274 late fee settlement deposit
the City is currently holding from South Bay CableVision. This action will also appropriate a like
sum in Program 6067 - Community Access TV to KSAR for providing various cable related
services. This item is discussed in greater detail in a companion report prepared by the Interim City
Manager.
The fourth item, revenue recognition and related appropriation for reimbursed KSAR payrolls and
stipulated grants, will authorize recognition of $11,400 in additional reimbursements and wage
expense associated with processing the stations' payroll, and $1,600 in additional cable TV
franchise fees for purposes of remitting to KSAR's it's 40% Stipulated Community Access
Programming Grant in Program 6067 - Community Access TV. Since both of these expenditures
1
have offsetting revenue, approval of this action results in no additional impact to budgeted General
Fund balance.
The fifth and final item, miscellaneous supplemental appropriations relative to debt servicing of
bonds, authorizes additional funds necessary to pay costs associated with servicing various City
obligations. More specifically, approval of this action would appropriate: a) $150 for payment of
increased trustees /administration fees relative to Program 5052 - Parking District 92, b) $210 for
payment of increased trustees /administration fees relative to Program 5053 - Parking District #3, c)
$1,730 for payment of a delinquent/unscheduled interest coupon submitted by a bond holder
relative to Program 5055 - Library Bonds, d) $1,000 for payment of construction improvements and
$450 in increased trustees /administration fees relative to Program 5057 - Leonard Road, and e)
$100 for payment of increased trustees /administration fees relative to Program 5058 - Civic Center
Bonds. With the noted exception of item e), the City will recover the additional costs through
future assessments. Funding for these appropriations comes from the unappropriated fund balance
of the respective debt service (bond) funds and there are sufficient balances available to cover the
requests.
Fiscal Impacts: Overall revenues increase by $74,274. Overall expenditures increase by $77,914.
Specific changes by Fund are as follows:
Fund Revenues
Expenditures
Transfers
O1- General $74,274.00
$74,274.00
$0.00
21- Library Bond Debt Service $0.00
$1,730.00
$0.00
24 -Civic Center C.O.P. $0.00
$100.00
$0.00
63- Parking Dist #2 Debt Sry $0.00
$150.00
$0.00
64- Parking Dist #3 Debt Sry $0.00
$210.00
$0.00
76- Leonard Rd Bond Debt Sv $0.00
$1,450.00
$0.00
The unaudited fund balances as of 4/30/97 were:
01- General Fund
$3,722,863
21- Library Bond Debt Service
$11,815
24 -Civic Center C.O.P.
$1,050,502
63- Parking Dist 42 Debt Sry
$6,031
64- Parking Dist #3 Debt Sry
($86,343)
76- Leonard Rd Bond Debt Sry
$37,844
*Estimated to be zero at fiscal year end.
Follow Up Actions: Post entries to system.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: No funding to pay'costs associated
with the labor negotiations and reorganization consulting services. Transfer of restitution funds to
2
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: No funding to pay costs associated
with the labor negotiations and reorganization consulting services. Transfer of restitution funds to
KSAR will not be made. Payments for KSAR payrolls and Stipulated Community Access
Programming Grant will be underbudgeted. Payments for bond trustee /administration fees, interest
and construction improvements will be underbudgeted.
Attachments
cAexecsumm \exsm0516.97
:3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2�
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager
AGENDA ITEM: -7A
CITY MGR:
DEFT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Transfer of CATV Restitution Trust Fund to KSAR Board
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to reconsider Council's action of March 5 authorizing use of the
CATV Restitution Trust Fund proceeds.
2. Move to authorize transfer of the CATV Restitution Trust Fund
proceeds to the KSAR Board in exchange for certain considerations.
Report Summary:
This matter was tabled at your April 16 meeting pending a more
definitive statement from the KSAR Board about its commitment to 1)
outfit the Adult Day Care Center to broadcast adjourned Council
meetings, 2) provide staffing to televise adjourned Council meetings and
regular Planning Commission meetings, and 3) equip the EOC for emergency
broadcast purposes.
On May 8, the KSAR Board met and developed the attached policy statement
intended to address the Council's concerns about transferring the CATV
Restitution Trust Fund proceeds to KSAR. The policy states that KSAR
will commit to provide staffing for four Council meetings each month and
two additional regularly scheduled meetings each month at an installed
facility. What this means is that both regular and adjourned Council
meetings will be covered, and that two additional regularly scheduled
meetings will be covered so long as they are held in either the Theatre
or the Adult Day Care Center, for a total of six meetings each month.
The two additional meetings may be regular Planning Commission meetings,
however to maintain as much flexibility as possible, the Planning
Commission was not specified. From time to time, the City may decide
that it would be beneficial to televise a meeting of some other
commission if an item of community wide interest were on the agenda, for
example if the Parks & Rec. Commission were discussing development of a
community park site. So long as the meeting could be held in either the
Theatre or Adult Day Care Center, KSAR would provide staffing to
televise the meeting.
The policy further states that KSAR will purchase and maintain the
necessary equipment to broadcast from the Adult Day Care Center, that
KSAR will commit to broadcast up to two additional City meetings (up to
eight total) each month upon City request (subject to their ability to
maintain a fair division of resources among PE &G access and -to fund the
staffing costs of the two additional meetings) , and that KSAR will place
sufficient funds from the Restitution Trust Fund in reserve to fund the
future purchase of emergency broadcast system equipment for the EOC.
Lastly, the policy states that the above understandings are contingent
upon the City's continued pass- through of 40% of CATV franchise fees at
the current level of $54,000, the CATV Trust Fund proceeds of $61,000,
and the two future scheduled payments of $25,000 by TCI in April, 1998
and in April, 2003 to KSAR.
All in all, I believe that the policy addresses the concerns stated by
the Council on April 16 in a very satisfactory manner, and I would
recommend that the Council now reconsider its action of March 5 and
authorize release of the Trust Fund proceeds to KSAR. The policy
supports everything the Council intended to accomplish with the Trust
Fund proceeds, relieves the City of the future burden of funding
staffing for the broadcasting of adjourned Council meetings and at least
two additional City meetings, and consolidates all CATV operations with
KSAR, the Board of which is comprised of two members from the City. If
the Council adopts this recommendation, the policy language will then be
incorporated into the agreement between KSAR and the City through an
amendment to the agreement which would come back to the Council later
this summer. In the interim however, both KSAR and the City would agree
to abide by the policy.
Fiscal Impacts:
The Trust Fund proceeds would be taken out of trust and would be
recorded as revenue to the City before they are passed on to KSAR as an
expenditure item. Though there is no net effect on the City's budget,
it is necessary to amend the budget first to accomplish this. The
necessary budget amendment to do this is contained in the Budget
Amendment Resolution at the end of the New Business section of this
meeting's agenda. The proposed FY 97 -98 budget also contains the 40%
franchise fee payment to KSAR as well as the transfer to KSAR of the
first of the $25,000 payments from TCI to the City next April.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
I.).
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City will retain control over the Trust Fund and the Council's
decision of March 5 will stand. KSAR will not equip the Adult Day Care
Center nor will they provide staffing for cablecasting of City meetings
beyond regular City Council meetings. Presumably, staff would then
pursue installing equipment in the Adult Day Care Center and arrange
separately for broadcasting adjourned Council meetings and any other
meetings the Council may desire with KSAR.
Follow Up Actions:
The Trust Fund proceeds will be transferred to KSAR and the City will
begin to identify those meetings which it will want KSAR to broadcast.
Attachments:
1. Policy adopted by KSAR Board on May 8.
2. Minutes from April 16 City Council meeting.
3. Staff report from April 16 City Council meeting.
SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS CABLE TELEVISION FOUNDATION (SCATVF)
POLICY STATEMENT, MAY 1997
BACKGROUND
The Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation (SCATVF) was
established to manage, for the City and for West Valley College, the resources
available for public, educational, and government (PEG) access programming in Saratoga.
The Foundation Board, consisting of two members from the City government, two
members from West Valley College, and three members from the public has been
an exemplar of the advantages of working together to balance the overall
interests of the community.
DISCUSSION
The clarity of this joint management concept, over time, has become clouded
by the City's role in payment arrangements for SCATVF personnel who televise
City Council meetings, and, by a City Council resolution to fund future
adjourned City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings from the
Cable Restitution Trust Fund of $61,000.
The Foundation has proposed to the City Council a return to the concept of
autonomous SCATVF Board management of the available financial resources in
establishing fair and equitable PEG programming; and, the City Council has given
tentative approval subject to clarifying the policy under which the Foundation
would operate.
SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS
1. SCATVF will pay the costs of ongoing staffing support for cablecasting
four City Council meetings and two additional regularly scheduled meetings per
month at an installed facility; and, will maintain the video equipment currently installed
in the Civic Auditorium for that purpose.
The Agreement of September 17, 1991 between the SCATVF and the City will
be amended to reflect this policy of understanding.
2. SCATVF will purchase and maintain a two camera (one camera with tilt, -
swivel, and zoom capability) video system to be installed in the Adult Care Facility
for televising adjourned City Council meetings, at a cost limited to $12,000 for the
system equipment.
3. SCATVF, if requested by the City, will arrange to cablecast up to two
additional City meetings each month at an installed facility, if cablecasting of these
additional meetings can be accomplished with a fair division of resources among Public,
Educational, and Government access. SCATVF would explain and justify any need for
additional City funds to cablecast these additional meetings.
4. SCATVF notes that purchase of Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)
equipment for the City Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is currently on hold
pending development of regulations at the federal level. The City had planned to authorize
purchase of the EBS from the Cable Restitution Trust Fund (budgetary estimate $15,530).
If the Cable Restitution Trust Fund amount of $61,000 is transferred to the Foundation,
the Foundation will hold $15,530 in reserve for this purchase. Should the City at some
point determine the EBS equipment is not needed, the funds reserved will be
released to SCATVF for unrestricted use.
5 . Understandings 1 through 4 apply if SCATVF continues to receive from
the City annual funding of 40% of franchise fee revenues paid by the cable franchisee
to the City; that these franchise revenues equal, at minimum, revenues consistent with FY
`96 -'97 levels ($54,000); if Cable Restitution Trust Funds totaling $61,000 are transferred
from the City to SCATVF; and, if scheduled payments from the Franchisee of $25,000 in
April 1998 and in April 2003 for communications facilities and equipment needs are passed
through from the City to SCATVF.
GENERAL POLICY
With the foregoing specific understandings in effect, the Saratoga Community
Access Cable Television Foundation Board will continue to discharge its responsibilities
to ensure that the interests of the City of Saratoga, West Valley College, and the residents
of Saratoga are equitably considered in promoting the goals of community television.
Board members are expected to participate with a dual objective of advocacy
for the community segment represented, while at the same time fostering
balanced and equitable programming for Public, Educational, and Government
Access.
Board Policy will be to make every effort to accommodate the expressed wishes
of the City, the College, and the Public.
Adopted by the SCATVF Board on 518197
. .... ,.•.�.,., .. xti .. i. ...a ...ir...tes^.r_:Y.u..:... .a.. -..-._ .,�.:.e� „r.: _.�siyi�i —.,-t l6 ^..��;cw:a6i �x ..
City Council Minutes 3 April 16, 1997
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
1) Tom Moran, Saratoga Community Access Cable TV
Foundation, requesting reconsideration of decision
on use of Cable TV restitution funds.
Acting City Manager Perlin presented the staff report noting that
staff supports the request.
WOLFE /SHAW TO RECONSIDER COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTIONS AUTHORIZING USE
OF THE CATV REFUND TRUST ACCOUNT. PASSED 5 -0.
WOLFE /SHAW TO AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF THE ENTIRE CATV REFUND TRUST
ACCOUNT TO KSAR IN EXCHANGE FOR OUTFITTING THE ADULT DAY CARE
CENTER FOR BROADCASTING ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND FOR
PROVIDING FUTURE STAFFING TO BROADCAST BOTH ADJOURNED COUNCIL
MEETINGS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WHEN REQUESTED BY THE
CITY. (FOLLOWING DISCUSSION LATER IN THE MEETING, THE MOTION WAS
WITHDRAWN.)
Councilmember Bogosian stated he would like additional information
such as what guarantee exists that the operating costs would be
covered and that the funds would not be going toward equipment. He
questioned how the City would address the issue of KSAR exhausting
the funds and coming back to the City for additional monies. He
said the Council has a fiduciary responsibility in this matter and
he would require more specific information before considering
transferring the funds to KSAR.
Vice Mayor Wolfe asked whether there would be reports from KSAR on
a regular basis.
Acting Manager Perlin responded there would be periodic reports
from the KSAR Board. However, he suggested that perhaps it would
be best to put the specifics in writing and bring it back to the
Council.
Councilmember Bogosian requested a procedure for KSAR reporting to
the Council and also a commitment in writing as to where the money
would be spent. Considering the City's budgetary circumstances, he
said he would want to make sure that this is the most cost
efficient method for the City to achieve its objectives.
Mayor Moran conveyed that although the City has two representatives
on the KSAR Board and the Council basically supports KSAR's
proposal, the Council would also like to have an outline of KSAR's
plans regarding the Emergency Operations Center equipment.
Councilmember Jacobs expressed that he was not opposed to the
concept, however the proposal needed something more concrete.
Responding to Councilmember Bogosian's question regarding KSAR's
funding, Councilmember Shaw stated that most funding came from the
television cable franchise. Forty percent of annual fees are given
to the Board to operate KSAR. He noted that the KSAR Board is
comprised of 2 members from West Valley College, 2 members from the
community, and two members from city government (Saratoga's City
Manager and a member of the City Council.)
FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, WOLFE /SHAW-WITHDREW MOTION.
CONSENSUS WAS TO TABLE THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS
UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT KSAR BOARD MEETING.
S. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Previously - Discussed Items
1. Resolution 96 -65.1 appointing Library Expansion
Committee Member and Changing valley Transportation
Authority PAC Representative.
fk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. - AGENDA ITEM:
w
MEETING DATE: April 161 1997 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Manager DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Letter from KSAR requesting Council's reconsideration for
use of the CATV Refund Trust Account
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to reconsider Council's previous actions authorizing use of the
CATV Refund Trust Account.
2. Move to authorize transfer of the entire CATV Refund Trust Account to
KSAR in exchange for outfitting the Adult Day Care Center for
broadcasting Adjourned City Council meetings, and for providing future
staffing to broadcast both Adjourned Council Meetings and Planning
Commission meetings when requested by the City.
Report Summary:
The attached letter, unanimously approved by the KSAR Board, requests
Council to reconsider its actions taken on March 5 with respect to the
use of the CATV Refund Trust Account. KSAR's proposal is that the
proceeds of the Trust Account be turned over to them, in exchange for a
commitment to outfit the Adult Day Care Center slightly better than what
the Council voted to do so that Adjourned Council meetings can be
televised, and to provide future staffing for televising both the
Adjourned Meetings and Planning Commission meetings when requested by
the City.
From staff's perspective, KSAR's proposal has merits for three reasons.
First, it accomplishes everything the Council wanted to accomplish when
it took its action on March 5. Second, there will no longer be a
concern in the future about how staff costs associated with televising
both the Adjourned Meetings and Planning Commission Meetings will be
covered when the Trust Fund is exhausted, because KSAR is agreeing it
will cover these costs. Third, it consolidates all CATV operations with
KSAR where they belong, rather than leaving the City responsible for
some of the governmental programming functions, and KSAR responsible for
everything else.
If the Council is inclined to agree with KSAR's proposal and staff, then
a motion to reconsider the actions taken on March 5 is in order. A
subsequent motion to approve KSAR's proposal would then be appropriate
to authorize the transfer of the Trust Fund to the KSAR Board in
exchange for the considerations discussed above.
V
Fiscal Impacts:
There would be none. The Trust Fund would simply be passed through to
KSAR much in the same way the portion of the CATV franchise fee is
turned over to them. KSAR would then assume responsibility for all of
the costs of equipment and staff to broadcast Adjourned Council Meetings
and Planning Commission Meetings. In the future, roughly four years
from now, the City will not incur any costs for broadcasting these
meetings as it otherwise would if it retains control of the Trust Fund
and uses it as decided on March 5.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City will retain control over the Trust Fund and the decisions made
on March 5 will remain as the Council's decision.
Follow Up Actions:
The Trust Fund proceeds will be transferred to KSAR.
Attachments:
1. Letter from KSAR.
2. Minutes from March 5 Council meeting.
3. Staff report from March 5 Council meeting.
Madame Mayor and members of the City Council:
1-(:� (1)
April 10, 1997
The board of KSAR would like to propose a simplification in televising City Council,
Planning Commission, etc. meetings.
The original reason for KSAR. was to manage, for the City and West Valley College,
cable channel 6. KSAR has a budget, staff, and facilities specifically for that purpose.
i infnrhmately, City Council meetings, unlik:; atli; r_GovFrn:rent pregtamm.iqg (Toxvn Hall
meetings, Candidate Forums, etc.) have been dandled outside that framework in the
sense that the City has had a separate budget item to directly pay the wages of the operators
in the TV booth. Now that the Council has decided it would like to cablecast the Tuesday
meetings, it probably seemed logical to also handle those separately from KSAR. We
propose instead, going back to the original intent of having KSAR manage all
channel 6 Public Access, Education, and Government programming, including both
Tuesday and Wednesday Council meetings. The KSAR organization has worked well for
a decade. Considering the substantial and synergistic contributions of both the City and
West Valley College, KSAR has been an exemplar of the advantages of working together.
It would be a great loss to divide channel 6 into separate organizations with separate
funding and management.
We propose that the City Council reconsider its decision to separately fund and telecast
Council meetings for the next several years using the Cable Restitution lump sum. Instead
we propose that KSAR both staff and operate cablecasting of both Tuesday and
Wednesday City Council meetings, and that the Council integrate the Cable Restitution
- funds into KSAR's regular, continuing, budget.
In order to help avoid such communication lapses in the future, we urge the City Council,
in particular through its two representatives on the KSAR board, to apprise the KSAR
board of the wishes of the Council regarding any other programming, including both single
shows and ongoing Council or commission meetings. KSAR certainly attempts to do its
best to allocate budget, facilities, and'start to aii three of its Public Access, Education, and
Government goals, and we need to know the Council's ideas on what would best serve
Saratoga's citizens.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Moran, Chair
for the Saratoga Community Access Cable Television Foundation (KSAR)
SARATOGA CONNUNITY AuESS TELEVISION
West Valley College 14000 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408/741 -2108 FAX 408/867 -9207
City Council Minutes
7
March 51 1997
D. Report on Possibility of Televising Adjourned Regular City
Council Meetings
City Manager Peacock reviewed staff's recommendations. He said the
funds must be used for television- oriented activities because the money
came from subscribers. For example, it can be used to fund televising
of future meetings.
Mayor Moran said she would like to set some funds set aside to televise
future meetings so there would be less impact on the general fund. She
said perhaps Planning Commission meetings could also be televised.
In answer to Council's questions, City Manager Peacock said they have
used the EOC for an emergency four times in 11 years, and in every case
a large part of the City was without electricity. In regard to
spending $15,000 to update the EOC, City Manager Peacock said FEMA and
the FCC are supposed to come up with required standards for emergency
broadcasts on cable TV by the summer of 1998. He said emergency
information is available on AM radio. He suggested that perhaps the
EOC update is something the City Council may want to consider putting
on the back burner until they see what the federal agencies come up
with. The cable company might be required to pay for EOC broadcasting
improvements.
City Manager Peacock said KSAR has blocked out Wednesday evening for
government access. Under the franchise agreement, the City has access
to three channels on a tiered priority basis.
Councilmember Jacobs said he was not in favor of the proposal for
either the senior center or the EOC. He said there is a finite amount
of money and when that is gone they will be paying for televising
meetings out of the general fund. He thought they would be better
served to televise regular meetings as far into the future as possible,
perhaps including Planning Commission meetings, instead of televising
Tuesday night City Council meetings.
Councilmember Bogosian supported having adjourned meeting broadcast as
he believed significant issues are considered during those meetings.
He said if Council is serious about getting public participation in the
government process, this is a small price for a wealth of involvement.
He agreed with holding off on EOC changes.
Councilmember Wolfe said he thought being an open community is being
face to face, and they have done that by opening up a larger room for
the adjourned meetings. He thought televising was a remote way to
communicate. He did not agree that Planning Commission meetings should
be televised.
Councilmember Shaw said he thought it was important to have open
meetings and take advantage of technology. He thought the changes
should be made so that the meetings at the senior center can be
televised. He also thought they should televise Planning Commission
meetings but agreed regarding deferring changes to the EOC.
Mayor Moran said she was happy to have the equipment installed at the
senior center and it was fine if they televise Planning Commission
meetings. She stated that she believed the $8,500 should be set aside
City Council Minutes 8 March 5, 1997
to pay for salaries for televising meetings.
City Manager Peacock said staff will come back with the final proposal
and an agreement with the engineer.
Councilmember Jacobs clarified that he is not opposed to televising
adjourned meetings but the issue is taking a finite sum and
prioritizing its use. The money will last less than five years if all
meetings are televised and he thought it would be better to make the
money stretch longer.
Councilmember Wolfe repeated that they encourage communication and want
people to be here and participate. They need to be as cost effective
as possible. He suggested not including Planning Commission meetings
until they know more about the costs. Mayor Moran said they probably
need to discuss it with the Commission as well before that decision is
made.
SHAW /BOGOSIAN TO EQUIP THE SENIOR CARE FACILITY FOR TUESDAY NIGHT CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS, TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR STAFFING FOR
BROADCASTING ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEN THAT FACILITY IS SET UP, TO
NOT TELEVISE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS UNTIL MORE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE
COSTS, AND TO SET ASIDE THE REST OF THE $61,000 FOR BROADCASTING OF
MEETINGS. PASSED 4 -1, JACOBS VOTING NO.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Landscape and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Renewal of
Assessments for FY 97 -98
Public Works Director presented the staff report and explained the
process. Discussion followed regarding what a "no" vote would mean.
City Attorney Riback stated this is a problem with Prop. 218. The
proposition is unclear and there are many different interpretations of
what would happen. He said he believes that if the increase is voted
down the assessment is gone. The League of California Cities is
attempting to get clarifying legislation passed but this is not likely
to occur prior to July 1.
City Manager Peacock said maybe there is a way to structure the
question in a way that people understand what they are voting for.
Public Works Director Perlin said he hoped they could avoid having to
go through the balloting every year because there is a cost associated
with it that is passed on to the district.
Mr. Ken Wilton, 20405 Cox Avenue, said he monitors the costs for
plantings along Cox. Last year the assessment dropped materially. He
stated he was a representative of Saratoga Creek Homeowners Association
and asked if they could be provided with a breakdown of costs. He said
information he received from the Howard Jarvis organization which
sponsored Prop. 218 states that LLA organization are exempt from the
provisions of the law. The City Attorney will look into that
statement.
WOLFE /SHAW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, 97 -11 DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: March 5, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
AGENDA ITEM 1/
CITY MGR.
SUBJECT: Design, Purchase and Installation of Television Equipment
for Emergency Broadcast Purposes and to Televise
Adjourned City Council Meetings.
Recommended Motion(s): Approve expenditures not to exceed $25,000
from the CATV Refund Trust Account for the purpose of designing,
constructing, installing and training staff in the use of video
broadcast capability for the EOC and the Senior Care Center.
Direct that the appropriate amending resolution to the 1996 -97
budget be presented for formal approval on the consent calendar for
the March 19th meeting.
Report Summary: As directed by Council staff has worked with
technical staff at KSAR and a volunteer video engineer to develop
a project for installing video equipment for live telecast of
Adjourned Regular City Council meetings being held in the Senior
Care Center room and in the EOC for live telecast of emergency
information during major emergency operations events. Two
proposals are presented, one with a cost of $21,200 and another for
a cost of $25,000. Staff recommends the second proposal which
provides for greater capability and flexibility in terms of EOC
generated information even though it is the somewhat more expensive
proposal.
Funding for this project would come from the $61,000+ currently
available in the CATV Refund Trust Account. This money can only be
used for Public, Educational, or Government community access
purposes, either in terms of operational costs or capital costs.
Fiscal Impacts: Purchase and installation of the equipment
would reduce the Trust Fund balance by $25,000 leaving more than
$36,000 available for future support of PEG community access
activities and equipment, including payment of the expanded future
costs of telecasting city council meetings live. This cost is
currently about $3,000 a year and would increase by about another
$1,500 a year since one technician would be required to operate the
system for the city council meetings.
Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: These proposals have
been discussed extensively at the KSAR Board meetings.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
will not have emergency telecast capability during times of major
emergencies nor will it be able to telecast adjourned city council
meetings.
Follow Up Actions: Prepare a letter. agreement with the video
engineer to do the design and construction work indicated and to
purchase and stall the equipment and train assigned staff in the
use of the EOC telecast system.
Attachments: Staff Report with Attachments
E_� i ` - b i-
DATE: March 5, 1997
TO: City Council
FROM: Harry Peacock, City Manager
n
SUBJECT: Design, Purchase -and Installation of Television
Equipment for Emergency Broadcast Purposes and to
Televise Adjourned City Council Meetings
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Approve expenditures not to exceed $25,000 from the CATV Refund
Trust Account for the purpose of designing, constructing installing
and training staff in the use of video broadcast capability for the
EOC and the Senior Care Center. Direct that the appropriate
amending resolution to the 1996 -97 budget be presented for formal
approval on the consent calendar for the March 19th meeting.
BACKGROUND
Last December the City Council determined that the public would be
better served if adjourned sessions were held in a larger room than
the administrative conference room and if those meetings could be
televised live as are regular sessions. Staff was instructed to
1)determine which room in the community/ senior center complex could
be made available with least disruption to evening classes and
recreation programs and 2) once a location was determined to
prepare a proposal for equipping the room for live television
broadcast. Discussion also took place at that time about going
forward with the plan to equip the Emergency Operations Center for
live broadcast during emergencies as a par to the City's overall
Emergency Preparedness Effort. It was noted that the cable
franchisee had been required to wire the EOC for such direct
broadcast and that had now been completed and what remained was to
design a system, purchase the equipment, have it installed and
train the appropriate staff in its use.
Staff did survey the availability of room space and subsequently
the City Council chose the Senior Care Center as the location for
future regular adjourned meetings. With that decision staff was
able to proceeded, with the assistance and cooperation of the KSAR
staff and the KSAR Board, to develop-the attached list of equipment
and its costs to equip the EOC and the Senior Care Center for
telecast. Work on these proposals was completed on February 27th
and it presented to the Council at this time for action.
On the funding side of the equation, Council will recall that last
fall, through a court settlement with the previous cable operator
the City received some $60,000 in funds to be used for PEG
purposes. These funds may be used for operational purposes, to
purchase new equipment or to replace existing equipment used in the
operation of KSAR or City telecast facilities.
DISCUSSION
The attached proposals provide two options for the EOC, a bare
bones approach at a cost of $12,055 or $15,530 for the preferred
option. The proposal for the Care Center is $7,930.
The EOC bare bones proposal would allow the City to go on Channel
6 and using a small video camera mounted on a copy stand to show
graphics or text over KSAR with audio of what is being shown. This
would not allow for a preview of what is to be shown, allow for a
crawl message approach to providing information nor allow for the
viewer to see the face of the person talking. The preferred option
would provide for these added features by providing for a second
camera, a second monitor for previewing and a character generator
with roll, crawl and key insert. In the opinion of staff and the
technical people who have worked on this project, the preferred
option is the one Council should authorize.
The equipping of the Care Center Room would require an operator to
run the equipment during meetings. The current cost for this is
about $12 an hour for staff, provided through KSAR but paid for by
the City. Assuming that about 20 meetings a year would be
televised this way with an average length of 4 hours including set
up and close up time this translates into an additional operation
cost to the City of about $1,000 a year. Initial equipment costs of
$5,500 would require that about 15% of that initial cost be set
aside each year for maintenance. So the increased operational costs
would be about $1,,500 a year.
The proposal for the Care Center Room includes two video cameras,
a camera head and tripod with mounting hardware, color monitors for
the program and preview function and audio mixers and microphones.
The detailed costs for Design, Construction, Audio /Visual Equipment
and Supplies for each of the three proposals is attached.
The equipment costs do not include sales tax so that would have to
be included in any authorization to expend the funds for these
projects.
Overall the bare bones plus Care Center proposal would cost about
$21,200. The preferred plus Care Center proposal would cost about
$24,950.
Attachments (3) Saratoga EBS Podium (preferred)
Saragoga EBS Podium #2 (bare bones)
Saratoga Senior Center
I Sheetl
,e/27/97 Saratoga EBS Podium
A
B
c
D
DESIGN
IFMFt&:.-.
RATE
EXTEND
Podium Audio and Video _Design layout
8
Design reviews/ Pre Post designs meetings
4
Equipment Supplies requisition
10
'22
$ :A5.00
990.00
CONSTRUCTION
Modify podium
8
Install equipment into podium
8
Build Audio / Video and Control panels
4
Wire all Audio / Video and Control Systems
8
Time all systems together and confirm operation.
4
Final Documentation
4
Instruct end user on proper operation of system
4
SUbtotal:
40
45 00
$ 1, 800:00
LABOR COST TOTAL.
2,790.00
AUDIO/ VIDEO EQUIPMENT
Podium
1,500.00
Small Video Camera
$ 2,500.00
Camera on Copy Stand
$ 3,000.00
Character Generator with roll, crawl and key insert
$ 2,500.00
Dual 8" color monitors (P gm and Pvw)
$ 1,200.00
Dual 4x1 video switches
$ 650.00
Podium with pre amp mixer
1,000.00
Subtotal:':
12:1 50.00
SUPPLIES .-
. ..... .
70.-00
Video Cable Belden - 8241
$ 55.00
Audio Cable Belden - 8451
$ 45.00
Video BNC Connectors
$ 45.00
Audio XLR, 1/4", Connectors
175.00
Electrical and Rack Hardware
390.00:
MATERIALS:
IROJECT. TOTALS
F,
$ 15:530:00 0
'
Page 1
2127/97 Saratoga EBS Podlum :"�z
Page 1
q B
C
D
2
Podium Audio and Video design layout 8 I
_
3
Design reviews /Pre and Post design meetings 4 '•
4
Equipment / supplies requeStition 10 _
6
_.
_..
7
$ 0
Subtotal: 22 $4 5 990 0
........ .......... e::...., ... • .'.. •..: a•:R:r.:a::::,:)::ff s:a:a:iF) > i:::k:x::;L::;:•:,
,.:>... .. .... . a .):e:k:::::L:ri;t:,:o:<::i:i:;;: :::):•) >;:f;x:, ,.' Ff:• ::....t.x.x.):er::o:C:::::::.al ^.; i:.;<. x. cx . >:.x..;..:.:....::::::: ":':f:'
::k:t•p•,:r.: :.;x < <:>.;.. %.xn:e:wx•:ae:o;... ).:., x.,;;::;::; :: <;:�:�:i::i:i:::�:�::,..:.,.. ,.
Modify podium 8 _
9
10
Install equipment into podium 6 _
11
Build Audio / Video and Control panels 4 _
12
Wire all Audio / Video and Control systems 7
13
Time all systems together and confirm operation. 2-
14
Final Documentation 4
1s
instruct end user on proper operation of system 4
17
_ ^— Subtotal: 35 545 $1,575.00
19
�..
y:K1:1:):tAO);). .
. f.
............... ..... . .. Y.<.%•%..:,: n: e: w: t• x,: e: w:..: w: i.: w:4:wM:<.x.:.. %.: <..I.::.x.R.): A.:...:.).:., ;:j::.i::'
i
•: ..; .: .: . :. :. :. :. :.: .. .... :...:. ..:.:.: .: ::..:.:........ ::: ..:.: ..:.:.: <. ...:..:. ...;•..: o: w ::,:..:e:Y):•yaSY % +.;•);•a:•:p: k.):••w:l': N:e;..
y� i•'':
_ Podiu_m w....... w .......................: r:,.. w............................................ .........t`$1,500.00':.........
20
22
3
24
25
Small Video Camera $2,500.00
26
Camera on Copy Stand
$3,000.00
27
1- 8" color monitor (Pgm and Pvw)
$700.00
28
Dual 4x1 video switches
$400.00
29
Podium with pre amp mixer
$1,000.00
30
32
— Subtotal:
$9,100.00
33
34
- - --
35
I
�
w )st:4 r.• x. x. r. i..:4a<: }: %:k:xsii %: %ki:r:k: %r• ):e:.
:.. .. s.,. •:;.. ;.: e>:.). p. irsr ..<t• >:o: :<.: <.fa.:wrs <•i:.i: 21.x..;.:... w.: f.•: ..:ra+.w:4. <e:e:..:ox•xe:w.t... o4:t x..: e. •x..:. >:e:)a>mw:o:o,: >;••ev.:.. .p,,i
U. ,, ... ..... :.. ..: ....... f.. v..... ,. D +:o:<•. .,,.,,e<4i...t . wfr.:+ f.. tRf. q::::::):.{::'!•! e: e: v.•• x;,: e:•.:...%•: Yk. r:.::. x9• k:<:, er.,`»: ,:4:o:e >: >.) »;aw:o:ox.::.x.x.R. ...,:
::;......,....:.:.....::::.:.:: :..:..:.:..::.)... :.:,.>•,ea<e:,.:efn4•,i:..:•)!: .. <•: »;• >: ,:h:..:o:o:ex•Y...:......:..: <:
Video Cable Belden - 8241 %x ........ R•.:: 4:,):,,.: e:) : >....:w:w;;.:.s.,:x:..:.!,:,:•
$70.00
37
38
Audio Cable Belden - 8451
$55.00
39
_Video BNC Connectors $45.00
40
Audio XLR, 1/4 ", RCA Connectors 1 $45.00
41
Electrical and Rack Hardware.
i I $175.00
42
-
43
t
44
Subtotal:
$390.00
45
46
;or..e: 4/:4.t: < xr: w <pke;):;L:<:x.x:::::;1)::Ye:3:: s;;: �: S: isxa:{::;: i:;: a: RS::{ i:::+: e:{: k:♦ x. �:;}: r•« eMx :x..:..:wx<ex.x•.:•.;..;w :.:.: .:....:.: .............
�a� •:W: .'.lei :w:w::Jn:.: w• : ...'.,.. .). I.h.w:a.::.:. >:,: S: ):.>: .•;< ::.,:e;•1:•;w:Y.w:}.:4: : <,a!:e•!Yx.f:.r:.fi K:� i:;::iR:::: }:k::.:.i :::: }::i:k:{
��• ; '4',' . >t•wJl :Iiw:o>:d:e• •n � :w;It4:1 :a•a•; '�t0[e;, >,:..:.:
... ..., �.. .<,. !, .w.4n .,.....k.<: <: .pt.. ?:c4: <.:e):%w:.:o!ek•w5. Y .. .. �t . <;p:::
����. i% i:: �k�: fl'>:/?;,: 4: 1: ; >:ox;: <•xo:.::•:R:k:::i,..:e:t uix:):;.: yw:..;..: of1f ::. +..:..f.):ri: +:•;:i %i:.A %... +:RA....f J ►.. : }::i :Li .
... .... •, :.:.. ..nn...••: .:::::er>:•:•%.:ef•.f : e. .< A .. Y. �:If4k:r': r:er>:•;a::i:;•:5:;
l�
.,......,•, ...............' w. w,.:..........,.:, w...._:..,,.......;,,. u.<.a.:: e:.:..: w: 4:. a :.«a.: <.x.R,:.,;,.k.A.k:�x. }!:I �;:,. k. f. x..:..:..... Yt<.:,.. .,;4::.w.,a: }:<:.:...�1d'�,�r<Q .::- :;-::�:
;/: ::: •.,.: :.:.: a::.::.:••:., %..,.;...;......:. w�::: ,.....:w..::...r:v ^ :•:•:• :.:::: :.. .. ....... ........ .. ,.......e.v.w........ r..w.w.,. .. Y..lv. ne...J...Y x.......t.ae.
... :.... ,:e:•;:,. %;.:.a.�:;.,,;t,.a. <•. n; >. e < Ir. w. n. 4..:: b.:•.... w9.! of: w:..: L!: o<.. t:. �nw. a;. 4.: xe: e.:..:<. x4,. x4 ;...•„ :,......:w...w..:....:.: .: .:,
�]�•a(� . . 1::::: i, }• {;::a; >:R:t••<;):; >:•W: }.k0:• ;h:Y.,}.k.1::..:.::):O.A:f::<:: ... {i .):: r.: an;•f:::. S:,: Y. w: Y% •,:,;r.:tee•x•);•i:h;w;l.Jtl.;l �I: e:/, ::.Y.1:.1:.1:. >`..f:.f:.4..;:4• ;: ;, •:::4::;:
:- :,:,:t ".e. .:4:::tey5•:1tw %,a..: i. . :4 {.:>' .:4:• <.>:.x,:4:a. %e.JwA.x. <•.4::•.: f:1i):Y.w.4 :w %.1 .<• ::,:j;: .i::.:.::,::
.��.. �/•LrV�:,.���� .: ,:>v .. f.... .t. x .i:w :'`kr;% •. : <.: }.k. n;dt:::> �.y/. [�
... ......:...::. :........: •.: a •: <.,:):n•,.;}.R:: }:ii sy:: ln: f:: t;:t:: kY»: t:: 19): h:'.: 4! ek. a;.:: YR: k. nx; r%; n;: qxy) Y.{:%: isY: 4:►: q: <;:a;,::f:4,_.:�.R::};k:k,f.�i: e:::wvr ; >ai'OO:ea.:w <4: >/::nx.::.
47
48
49
Page 1
2/27197
Saratoga Senior Center
Page 1
A
e
C
D
1
DES: LIG�:::.: �.:.:• �::. �,;...:..:;.:,. N.. a.:: aa.,..,:..,;.,;.t Jt....,:....,. x..:,,. ..;tN,.,.Rf:.:,:<:;:YFRO
9N,..
2
Senior Center Audio and Video design layout 4
3
Design reviews / Pre and Post design meetings 4 -
_
4
Equipment / supplies requestition 8
S
7
Subtotal:
16 $45 $720-00
4::•: ,.r• %nx..t...r:J..,• .. N:,::i:R:,� .� i:t;:J:t� `:::. �,:�; �<x:�t �: �:::.. .
6 i
$
. ..:...: rt•x;•::IJ:,•[• •. :.. t V .: 1, t,...N,.:o.t.,.n..:.t. ;ex.,:J:e::... . ;.t;xJ:;
9
Build up Production Cart
10
Setup Cameras and Equipment in Room —�—
6
11
Wire all Audio/ Video and Control systems 6 _
12
Time all systems together and confirm operation. I 2-
I
13
_
Final Documentation , 4
14
_
Instruct end user on proper operation of system 4
15
-
-T7---*
IT
rw Subtotal: I 28 $45 $1,260.00
'![1.A4:^: } {;. .:t: >: ?.I.n:.:4:y1, x,.
i::t•,: 00 6': u:..A..;
C . k•.. %� x n, ntoK
:LAB T�: :: << ":
.... :. :..: .:'.: .::.... :........ .... .t 1 ...:...:.: ...: ..... .... .A.;:.: .:t.x.,:..:......: t.[x..Y:
. .e r. .t. ,. .wN.vn; J:..:x....
_
R. .: >....e.x.,:nJ:,.4xN.:t•:e::x: ::I:n:�.4.a.:•R.<::<
e~�•� %yy� �1�
%..:..: <.x.t. >. i:.:..N.>:.x .. ... ..: •:.. ... ...�.
20
21
22
-
A>
. ...................... .r.. n... .. r . >.4.:: :).:f•:•M +t�•�• ,.t....TY:.:,.:..:t.Y. >'n•t., .i. x :'.4.t
........... ..........:.................. f .. ).4.0::,.4:r...�>.....:.::; , . . t. >'p:r.:t.x.,i1: : ::!: a.c.:.o,. .Y• cNn •)
♦.:' .:..:........•. kf> t•:[•:t.;..: 4: 4: 4:: J. �: J: 4: �::.: r. rn. w... �: �:....'. ...:.::,:1: %.:<:x:::::t::t.:l:: �::.:
12 Small Video Cameras ? $2,000.00
Camera Head and Tripod, Mounting Hardware ^_ $1,000.00
23
24
25
26
Color monitor (Pgm and Pvw)
$700. 00`
27
Audio Mixer and Mics
$1,800.00
28
- r
30
32
Subtotal: $5,500.00
_
33
34
35
i
. �: �;::;::.:::: I: �:; J:. SasYA :i::;::: }:�::a<:i::i::::i::::: ":'•i''i'':'•i:'•:^ .a•::e e::::
YMJ:;
,. ::......... ...r.:ln:..;..1..oNn »:•.:t: •:'. :..:.:.n:Y.r..:.:t: )[e <e;t,�, �n:t :.
.............. ... ..t l..... ,.n1.:...r:,; ............ •. .oxn; :•..to: ,... <.. sr.•..o.:.. .... .. Y..x:..r:it:N:,::::a:N::t: :':�i:in »» ';::t::i :<:::: : :.:
........,..t ........:.: ...:.:...:..:.....•,.., :,••:::. �.:,:.�...... ...a.1;.:). R:,:• i•,: 4,:•,:.:^:: n ;•::;'....;.�,R:.:.::..:.nn.,., R; �:, .:,::r..:::N..:�:y. «..:r:.:1.4; ..•,.; ..1. �:;':':''i::';.
1.4...t xn. x•)., .�, :.r.. <J.n.e.t.c) :> ,:..'.i:ou.N.>:n:4: � '
Video Cable Belden - 8241 $70.00
Audio Cable Belden - 8451 - $115 -00
37
38
39
Video BNC Connectors i
$45.00
40
Audio XLR, 1/4 ", RCA Connectors
$45._00
41
Electrical and Rack Hardware. w
S175.00
42
_
43
_
44
Subtotal:
$450.00
45
46
t :: >•;b >:r:4NO;4NJ: . f:i::}:.; f::: 4N: isa :q:,.;;::;):a:x....:•.kn:n::., . xn:�:.:�;:::n:,::b'1::;•:::Y
'nl E j� !� j� ��'�!�
1`1':1.: ���ALt7�'�••' :1 <' '{r::i:��:).. R. ....:iN:S +,:re.[.I:::,.R...:... :� s k, :i:F:f:::4k•i:•N4: [k,.....i.};::'!..li:l:C /;.
.:.: ,:::.: ... ........... ..n...v�:.: �1 .. �,.... A f ....oRn:..:e:o,:.: <.. <;.:.....i . ;4,:......: �:: . f... �u.okJa: ;. <,;..k.x. >.:k.xn .Y.A: ,:1:N� •..:{:ryi
n .... ... ..... ..,.4..'..N.14N .JY N,. .♦ I k w:f..w,. ,. �.. ,.. oN _ N lN� �6).. .jr] ... . . . .......r.L
ni A� I ,
w iR >, s A:�;.4 t.t Nf• :yT: ^:n::" fr•f -}�
O' ...I..tr..,.[ :4,4�o•k..:. ^. .A.�.•;nYJ; :!.s.,'•,:q:.!.1:1.!,:4:f..: / >. }1 F7�.�4.w.f; ; >:..kk /. .S.t 1: x..f. :1:•):.j >,y .n..�.;r.:::::ii.:;
a aef;x ^ • 9.i•x i..e.xeq.w.t•u:N9:1.x.A. >:. AOti>
r <. ..R:k::;v.R:k.,:
�:;t:x�: <:Y:�td'O.t• r.4., Ji : q:tiX��R;:1... .!�..'.�a. �;�'�(ii
47
48
49
Page 1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 20 07plo'
MEETING DATE: May 21, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community De
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
lopmentO .
Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a Design Review
approval request by Mr. & Mrs. Wong; 21252 Chadwick Ct.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the appellants' request and uphold the Planning Commission's
denial of the Design Review request.
Report Summary:
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,141 sq. ft.
deck. Design Review is required to allow the under -story of the
deck to be 13 feet, requiring an exception to the five foot
clearance regulation. The residence was approved by the Planning
Commission in June 1996, and is currently under construction. The
subject property is approximately 2.8 acres and is located within
a Hillside Residential zoning district.
Summary of Planning Commission Action:
This application was heard by the Planning Commission at the
meeting of April 9, 1997.
As the attached minutes reflect, the Commission differed with
staff's determination that the findings could be made to recommend
approval of the under floor exception. The application was denied
by a vote of 7 -0.
Appeal:
In his grounds for appeal, Mr. & Mrs. Wong's representative
requests that the City Council consider that the deck was shown in
a preliminary landscape plan for the residence which was approved,
that the proposal meets all zoning regulations with the exception
for underfloor area only, that the terrace aesthetically improves
the rear elevation, and that the terrace is necessary for safety as
an exit from the rear of the residence.
For clarification, a preliminary landscape plan was submitted and
approved with the residence that included a footprint of the
proposed deck, but did not include an elevation or cross section
which would have indicated height from grade level. In fact the
exterior grades shown on this plan would not have caused the deck
to exceed the five foot underfloor limit. To ensure this, staff
included a condition in the original Resolution that limited
exterior decking underfloor areas to five feet from natural grade.
If the designers had known at that time that the deck plans would
have exceeded the five foot height limit they could have asked for
an exception at the time of Design Review for the residence. As it
turned out, the preliminary plans did not accurately reflect the
exterior grades, so the applicants had to submit this separate
application for the deck exception.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission gave the request careful consideration at
the public hearing meeting. They visited the subject property
prior to the meeting date and assessed existing site conditions.
Ultimately they found that the required findings could not be made
to approve the Design Review request for an exception to the height
requirement, and that the deck could be redesigned so as not to
require the height exception. Staff is recommending that the
Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the Design
Review request.
Public Notice:
A public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot
radius of the subject parcel and published in the Saratoga News.
Follow Up Actions:
A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action
which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council
meeting.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission minutes dated April 9, 1997
2. Resolution DR -97 -015
3. Applicant's letter of grounds for appeal dated April 24, 1997
4. Staff Report dated April 9, 1997 (with Resolution only)
5. Plans, Exhibit "A"
PLANNING COMMISS' T MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1997
PAGE - 2 -
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
1. SD -96 -005, UP -96 -004 & V -97 -003 - EITZEN, END OF OLD OAK WAY OFF
PIERCE RD.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 31.1 acre
hillside parcel into four individual lots of .5.6, 2.6, 2.4 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately
17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow
the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Variance
approval is also requested to allow a potential future Lot 3 structure to be located on a
City identified Major Ridgeline - more restrictive building height limits are applied to
Rdgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district
(cont. to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant. Notices will be published and
mailed to neighbors announcing a new hearing date; City review deadline is 8/5/97).
Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she was going to recommend that this item be tabled and that the
applicant be required to resubmit an application. City Attorney Fabian said that either action
would be acceptable under the Permit Streamlining Act (either table the item indefinitely or table
and require the resubmittal of an application).
Interim Planning Director Walgren informed the Commission that this item would be scheduled
for a determination before the August 5, 1997 Permit Streamlining Act deadline.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
City Attorney Fabian was excused from the remainder of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. DR -97 -015 - WONG; 21252 CHADWICK CT.; Request for Design Review approval
to construct a new 2,141 sq. ft. deck pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Design
Review is required to allow the under -story of the deck to be 13 feet above grade where
5 feet is the maximum permitted. The subject property is 2.8 acres, located in an HR
zoning district.
Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report. He said that staff could make the
necessary findings to recommend approval of the deck and the five foot under floor exception.
He informed the Commission that correspondence was received from Alexander E. Barkas,
13245 Padero Court, expressing concern that the deck would be encroaching on the use of his
rear property. He said that this concern was taken into consideration at Tuesday's site visit.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1997
PAGE - 3 -
Commissioner Abshire asked if the deck was reduced to the five -foot maximum allowed, what
would be the total area of deck remaining? Planner Walgren responded that there are portions
of the deck at the comer where it is highest off the natural grade where it could not meet the five
foot underfloor standards. This deck area would have to be to eliminated, resulting in
approximately 50% of the deck being eliminated. The area exceeding the five feet underfloor
standard was identified as being the deck area located on the right corner of the residence.
Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Jason Bowman, landscape architect, requested Commission approval of the deck as designed as
it meets setback and lot coverage requirements. He said that the height exception is proposed to
the northeast corner of the master bedroom area, family room and kitchen area.
Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the northeast section of the property is flat. She asked if the
property owner considered opening out onto the garden area rather than to have a deck between
the home and the garden area? Mr. Bowman responded that the way the home is oriented, it is
sitting on the building setback line.
Commissioner Murakami asked if the deck could be designed to be tiered? Mr. Bowman
responded that the house steps down and then wraps around the fireplace area. From the edge
of the fireplace, the deck drops down to grade.
David Leitzer, 21000 Comer Drive, informed the Commission that he resides to the north of this
property. He requested that the Commission enforce the current codes as the request would
impede his view and privacy. He felt that the house should have been sited to satisfy the height
requirements of the terrain.
Carl Barnes, general contractor, said that the deck would be nestled among the trees and that it
would be difficult to see from down the hillside. He said that the house was sited on the lot to
accommodate the other neighbors on the hillside.
Mr. Bowman said that at time of design submittal, the preliminary landscape plans were not
completed in time to include the structural drawings. At the time of approval of the home, the
deck was shown but that it was not considered as part of the residence. As the deck was not
approved at time of home approval, the deck was required. to go through the design review
process. He said that the north side of the home is heavily .wooded with existing coast live and
blue oak trees. As the trees mature, the deck will be further screened. He said that the deck was
designed to include open balusters as well as solid balusters so that the deck would not look so
big (minimize the effect of the deck).
In response to Commissioner Bernald's question, Mr. Bowman said that discussions have not
occurred with his clients regarding the possibility of eliminating the deck area that wraps around
the master bedroom where its height is the greatest. His client's intentions were to have the deck
looking out and to walk around it to service their property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 9, 1997
PAGE - 4 -
Commissioner Bemald asked if the deck could be cut back and designed structurally to have it
attached to the house, eliminating the piers (cantilever the deck out)? Mr. Barnes responded that
piers would be required due to the height of the deck.
Chairwoman Kaplan said that at the site visit, the Commission informed the applicant's
representatives that plantings could not occur under the deck because it is an area located in a
fire zone. Also, there would have to be elimination of some existing brush around the home.
COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE .THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
7:50 P.M.
Commissioner Abshire said that the home is located in a sensitive area from the stand point of
the ground below. Therefore, he could not support a 13 -foot deck.. He said that he could support
a deck of a maximum of five feet.
Commissioner Patrick said that she could not support the request for the following reasons: she
could not make the findings to approve the deck; one is not supposed to use plantings to obscure
an architectural feature that is not liked; the fact that 16,000 square foot lot coverage is being
proposed; and the fact that the deck has both open and closed areas.
Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments as stated by Commissioner Patrick. He
said that he could not support the 13 -foot height deck because it would stand out from the valley
below.
Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners.
Interim Planning Director Walgren informed the Commission that should the applicant redesign
the deck to eliminate the northeast corner and scale it back to a deck of a height of no more than
five feet, it would not have to return to the Commission for approval.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR -97 -015. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0).
3. DR -96 -069 - PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; 20865 SARATOGA
HILLS ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 3,876 sq. ft. one-
story home on a vacant lot. The property is Lot 7 of the Trinity Place Subdivision, and
is 13,417 square feet. The subject property is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district.
Interim Planning Director Walgren presented the staff report.
Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Chuck Bommarito, Pinn Brothers Construction, provided the Commission with a colored
rendering of the proposed home. He stated his concurrence with the staff report.
RESOLUTION NO. DR -97 -015
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING-COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Wong; 21252 Chadwick Court
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for design review approval to construct a 2,141
square foot deck;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof
required to support said application, and the following findings
have been determined:
The proposed deck in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and
to the surrounding region, does not minimize the perception of
excessive bulk and is not integrated into the natural environment,
in that the deck is not designed to follow the natural slope of the
site and could be design to have a height of no more than five feet
above the natural grade.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Wong for design
review approval be and the'` "same is hereby denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the 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 9th day of April 1997 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairperson, P1 ing ission
ATTEST:
S c etary, anning Commission
B&C -27 641851
carifornia
�fortgocufture'
Landscape Construction Inc.
753 Camden Ave.
Campbell, Ca. 95008
(408) 364 -3190
Fax: (408) 364 -3199
Council Members of the City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Honorable Council Members,
We ask for your consideration to overturn the denial of
our request to construct a 2,141 square foot terrace off of
the rear of the residence at 21252 Chadwick Court. We ask
for your granting of the exemption of the height limitation on
many grounds. These grounds are as follows:
1) During the initial Design Review Process for the
residence, a proposed Preliminary Landscape Plan was
submitted at the request of the Planning Department. This
plan clearly showed the proposed terrace off of the rear of
the residence. Many comments were made as to views from
the terrace at an on -site meeting. Since the terrace was
public knowledge and commented upon, we find that the
denial of it now to be baffling. We were led to believe that
the separate Design Review for the Terrace was a mere
formality since prior knowledge, discussion, and unofficial
acceptance had been entertained. The residence was approved
with full knowledge of the terrace.
2. The residence was approved knowing that portions of
it exceeded the under -floor clearance, and that the terrace
would follow suit. The height exception is the only exception
that we are asking for. We meet all setback and impervious
coverage requirements, and were granted full approval from
the Planning Department. The design of the terrace is one
that as it wraps around the Master Bedroom (NE corner), it
starts to step down thus further minimizing the desired
Wong 4/24/1997 1
f
height exception.
3. The Wong's, upon purchasing the property with
existing, approved plans, decided to redesign the residence to
its current single story design to conform to the site, and
lessen the impact that any structure would have on a site of
this character. The residence was initially designed and
approved by the previous owners of the site as a two story,
bulky structure that traversed the ridge. The redesigned
residence runs with the ridge and is nestled in amongst
established vegetation. As the house sits now, there would be
an exposed, unscreened, vertical plane of over 23 feet from
grade to eve at the master bedroom NE corner. The terrace
and landscape was designed to give a relief to this elevation
reducing it to an elevation of 11 feet from terrace to eve.
Screen plantings were requested as an addition to the terrace
in helping minimize the impact this elevation would have on
the community.
4. Public safety and maintenance is also an issue in
granting an approval for the terrace. Without the terrace,
there is virtually no exit off the back half (N elevation) of
the residence. The only two exits are at opposite ends of the
residence. Doorways that were approved with intent on
exiting out onto the terrace that primarily provided access
around the residence would have to be converted thus
eliminating any emergency access to the back half of the
residence.
We wish to thank you for your time in considering our
request to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. We
look forward to presenting our case to you at the scheduled
City Council meeting.
Submitted on behalf of Dr's Harry and Rosemary Wong. See
attached "Letter of Authorization."
Wong
4/24/1997
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. /Location: DR -97 -015; 21252 Chadwick Ct.
Applicant/ Owner: WONG
Staff Planner: Heather Bradley
Date: April 9, 1997
APN: 503-15-041 Director Approval:
File No. DR -97 -015; 21252 Chadwick Court
EXECUTIVE SUMIARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
2/12/97
Application complete:
3/17/97
Notice published:
3/26/97
Mailing completed:
3/27/97
Posting completed:
3/20/97
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,141 sq. ft.
deck pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Design Review is
required to allow the under -story of the deck to be 13 feet. The
residence, approved in June 1996, is currently under construction.
The subject property is approximately 2.8 acres and is located
within a Hillside Residential zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review request by adopting Resolution DR -97 -015.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution DR -97 -015
3. Arborist Report dated 2/25/97
4. Correspondence from applicant
S. Plans, Exhibit "A"
File No. DR -97 -015; 21252 Chadwick Court
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: Hillside Residential (HR)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Hillside Conservation (RHC)
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 2.78 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3306
GRADING REQUIRED: Approved with residence application.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Pre -cast balustrades and tiled
surface to match colors approved for the residence.
PROPOSAL
LOT COVERAGE:
14,787
sq.
ft.
HEIGHT:
12 ft.
- 9
in.
SIZE OF
STRUCTURE:
Deck: 2,141
sq. ft.
SETBACKS:
Front:
170
ft.
Rear:
50
ft.
Right Side:
135
ft.
Left Side:
20
ft.
CODE REOUIREMENT
PA0016]ah`k, L44 ;I
15,000 sq. ft.
5 ft.1
N/A'
Front: 30 ft.
Rear: 50 ft.
Right Side: 20 ft.
Left Side: 20 ft.
1 City Code section 15- 45.050 requires that structures be designed
to follow the natural topography and keep a maximum of a five foot
clearance between grade and floor level. However, the Planning
Commission can grant exceptions to this requirement if all of the
design review findings can be made.
2 The only limiting factor on the size of the deck would be the
amount of impervious coverage allowed on the lot.
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicants are requesting Design Review approval to construct
a new 2,141 square foot deck. The deck is proposed off the rear of
the house an varies in height from grade level to a maximum of 12
feet 9 inches. The subject property is approximately 2.8 acres and
is Lot 6 of the Chiquita Way /Old Oak Way subdivision which was
approved in 1980. The residence was approved in June 1996 and
under construction.
File No. DR -97 -015; 21252 Chadwick Court
DESIGN REVIEW
Backaround
The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Design Review
application for the residence on this lot in June 1996. At that
time the deck was shown only as a feature of the preliminary
landscape plan. Because the plans did not contain details of the
deck, staff included a condition in the Resolution which required
that it not exceed a five foot underfloor clearance. As it turned
out the underfloor clearance varied in height from grade level to
nearly 13 feet, thus requiring further Design Review approval.
Trees
There are two ordinance size Coast Live Oak trees that could
possibly be affected by deck construction. The Arborist report
dated February 25, 1997 assessed potential damage to trees during
deck construction. The report also provided an update on the
condition of all trees on the property while construction of the
residence is underway. The Arborist has brought up several
concerns regarding damage to trees which have occurred on site.
Therefore his recommendations reflect much more than the protection
of trees during deck construction. All of these new
recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of approval in
the attached Resolution. The applicants have also submitted a
letter which addresses the Arborist's concerns.
The Arborist who conducted the first review and report of the site
is not the.same one who conducted this current report. Therefore,
there may be some confusions as to the site conditions prior to
construction activity, primarily having to do with the old access
road and soil compaction between the Oaks referred to as trees #1,
#2, and #11. Staff has included a condition in the Resolution
which requires that any damage that was genuinely done during
construction be repaired prior to Zone Clearance for the deck.
Staff will work with the applicant and Arborist to clarify these
issues and will handle necessary mitigation administratively.
The City is currently holding a bond for $9,350 to guarantee
maintenance and preservation of trees on site. We are requesting
an additional $3,565 bond (25o value of three newly assessed trees)
to meet the protection needs of trees potentially impacted by deck
construction as well as trees already stressed by construction
activity. Upon completion of all construction on site, the
Arborist will make a final site visit to verify that these measures
have been satisfied. If he finds that significant damage has
occurred to any of the trees then we will. require replacement trees
be planted and will continue to hold the bond until that has been
done.
File No. DR -97 -015; 21252 Chadwick Court
Landscape Plan
The applicants have proposed a landscape plan which incorporates
requirements of the approval Resolution for the residence as well
as screening of the deck. Screen plantings include native toyon
and other evergreen shrubs as well as drought tolerant ground cover
for erosion control.
Conclusion
Staff believes the proposed 1,241 square foot deck is consistent
with the City Code requirements and that the Design Review findings
can be made to support the proposed structure height pursuant to
Section 15 -45 of the City Code. The project satisfies all Zoning
Ordinance regulations in terms of impervious coverage, and minimum
setbacks.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the applicant's request for Design Review approval by
adopting Resolution DR -97 -015.
RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -003
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WONG; 21252 Chadwick Court
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Design Review approval to construct a 6,133
square foot single -story residence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public
Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the necessary
findings could be made to support the grading quantities exception
request pursuant to Article 15- 13.050 (f) of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, and the following findings have been
determined:
-The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed
residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and
location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the
neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreason-
able interference with views and privacy, in that structure is
single -story with a maximum height of 22 feet and follows the
natural topography which minimizes the prominence on the site. The
structure also meets or exceeds all setback requirements.
-The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by
designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and
minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized
and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring
developed areas and.undeveloped areas, in that only two ordinance
size trees would be removed and grading is limited to the amount
necessary to construct the access drive, driveways and the
structure's foundation.
-The proposed residence in relation to structures on adjacent lots,
and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of
excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment,
in that the proposed residence is single- story, similar in scale
and size to other approved residences within the neighborhood.
-The proposed residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and
height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots
and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same
zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not
(i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties
nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to
utilize solar energy, in that the maximum building height will not
(DI
File No. DR -96 -003; 21252 Chadwick Court
exceed 22 feet, the residence is setback in compliance with the
minimum required setbacks and the design is compatible with other
homes in the neighborhood.
-The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current
grading and erosion control standards used by the City.
-The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable
design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design
Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan,
architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in
connection with this matter, the application of Wong for Design
Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on
Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference.
2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permits, the
following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in
order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporat-
ing this Resolution as a separate plan page.
b. Four (4) set of engineered grading and drainage plans,
also incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan
page.
C. All applicable requirements /conditions of the Resolution
(e.g. modifications to plans) and requirements /conditions
of the City Arborist shall be noted on the plans.
d. Revised landscape plan incorporating the City Arborist's
tree replacement recommendations and providing large -box
size native screening trees closer to the residence
rather than down the slope. This shall apply to all four
building elevations, with emphasis on the southern
elevation, and the driveway with emphasis on that portion
around the port - chochere and garage.
e. Revised material board indicating a medium -dark green or
brown tone roofing material to better blend in with the
hillsides. The structure will be required to be finished
per this approved material board.
File No. DR -96 -003; 21252 Chadwick Court
3. The maximum height of all building and exterior decking under-
floor areas shall not exceed five feet from natural grade.
4. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds
five feet. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six
feet in height and no fence or wall located within any
required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.
5. Fences and walls shall comply with the hillside district
fencing requirements contained in Article 15- 29.020 of 'the
City Code.
6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
7. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain-
ing a Tree Removal Permit with the exception of trees #4 and
#6 of the Arborist reports of January 26, 1996 and June 18,
1996.
8. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded.
9. All requirements of the City Arborist's Reports dated January
26, 1996, and June 18, 1996 shall be met. This includes, but
is not limited to:
a. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance the site and
grading plans shall be revised to indicate the following:
• Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing
shown as recommended by the Arborist with a note
"to remain in place throughout construction."
• A note shall be included on the site plan stating
that no construction equipment or private vehicles
shall park or be stored within the dripline of any
ordinance protected trees on site.
• Aeration tubes shall be installed beneath the
canopy of tree #1 per the City Arborist Spoke and
Wheel Aeration System guidelines.
• The applicant shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Community Development Director,
security in an amount of $9,350 (equalling 200 of
the value of trees remaining on site) pursuant to
the report and recommendation by the City Arborist
to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of
trees on the subject site.
File No. DR -96 -003; 21252 Chadwick Court
b. Prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits:
• Tree protective fencing shall be installed and
inspected by staff.
• Three inches of bark chips shall be placed inside
the protective fencing under the canopy of each
tree. A 12 inch area around the root collar of
each tree shall be left bare and dry.
C. Prior to Final Occupancy approval:
• Applicant shall plant five 36 -inch box native Oak
trees, per the Arborist's report as replacement for
the removal of trees #4 and #6. They should be
placed so as to provide screening along the
southern property line.
• The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify
compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a
favorable site inspection by the Arborist and
approval by the Community Development Director the
bond shall be released.
10. All landscaping per the revised landscape plan as modified by
condition 2d and the five 36 -inch box replacement trees shall
be planted prior to Final Occupancy approval.
11. Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the
canopy of an ordinance protected oak tree shall comply with
the "Planting under O1.d Oaks" guidelines prepared by the City
Arborist. No irrigation or associated trenching shall
encroach into the driplines of any existing oak trees unless
approved by the City Arborist.
12. In accordance with the Tentative Map conditions of approval
the applicant shall prepare an improvement plan for the
pedestrian /equestrian trail easement to the standards
prescribed by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. Such improvements shall be
installed prior to final inspection, unless otherwise waived
by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
13. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60
City of Saratoga.
14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted
to the Fire District for approval.
15. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage.
File No. DR -96 -003; 21252 Chadwick Court
16. A 13R automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in the
residence.
17. The 13R automatic sprinkler system shall have documentation
relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted
to the Fire District for approval.
18. All driveways shall have a 14 foot minimum width plus one foot
shoulders and shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet.
19. Applicant shall provide a turn - around with a 33 foot outside
radius for approval by the Fire District with details shown on
building plans.
20. Applicant shall provide parking for two emergency vehicles as
required by the Fire District.
21. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development
plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for foundations, driveway
and retaining walls to ensure that his recommendations have
been properly incorporated. Methods for mitigating expansive
soil and bedrock materials shall be provided and proposed fill
slope heights and midslope benches shall be addressed in the
plan review letter(s).
The results of the plan review(s) shall be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter(s) and submitted to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
22. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed),
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction: The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading-, site
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of
steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions
of the project shall be described by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for
review prior to finalization of the grading permit.
23. The applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with
the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior
to issuance of a Zoning Clearance.
24. All building and construction related activities shall adhere
to New Development and Construction - Best Management Practic-
File No. DR -96 -003; 21252 Chadwick Court
es as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm
water pollution.
25. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State
or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect
to the applicant's project.
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 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced 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 of the 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 26th day of June 1996 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce & Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Asour & Murakami
C w
L
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secret ry, Planning Commission
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR ITEM 6.A.
Dr. Rosemary T. Wong
1536- Queenstown Court Sunnyvale, CA 94087 TEL: 408 - 245 -5673 FAX: 408 - 736 -7099
May 13, 1997
Dear Honorable Members of the Saratoga City Council,
Re: Approval of a deck design for 21252 Chadwick Ct.
History: In July, 1995, my husband and I purchased this lot that included an approved house
plan. This was a partial two -story home that sat prominently across the ridge at the front of
the property. It would have provided bulk for all to see no matter the viewing angle. On the
north side of the home, the same side as our proposed deck, there would have been a two -
story structure to accommodate a garage. For those neighbors on this side of the house
(Comer Rd. vista) there would have been an unattractive, flat wall structure to view.
Neighborhood: Our property is 2.7 acres with half of that designated as open -space land.
The deck for which we are seeking approval faces this large tract of open -space land which is
our property. Also, the corner of our home with the 12' 9" understory is the only piece of
our property that is minimally seen beyond the growth from any angle below the hillside.
Background: With the kind cooperation of the Saratoga Planning Department, we had a
new home design approved in 1996. This redesign took into consideration the neighbors,
neighborhood, and the environment.
Rather than build the approved house, we incurred great cost to redesign the house. Most
importantly, we oriented our home to run parallel with the hillside, along the side of the lot
away from public's view and nestled it among the existing trees. We also made it an
unpretentious, single level home compatible with the architectural style of the surrounding
homes. The home and its placement, thus blended with the neighborhood and the hillside.
The home was approved with the preliminary drawing for landscape attached. This plan
showed a deck located in the same area of the home. As the construction moratorium date
was fast approaching, we wanted to get our project underway. We knew that the deck needed
more detail and engineering work and would require further review by the Planning
Department. During the rainy season, we worked closely with James Walgren (in Heather's
absence) in preparing a deck plan that met all codes, required no variances, and was not
intrusive. After each meeting more redesign was done until we reached a point of acceptable
limits.
Again, we thank the Planning Department for their help and appreciate that on their report to
the planning Commission of April 9, 1997, they "recommended approval of the applicant's
request for design review approval by adopting resolution DR -97- 015."
Deck Design: We are aware of the 5 -feet maximum permitted for the understory of the deck
the Planning Department has the authorization to approve. As we looked at the understories
of our immediate neighbors' homes and the challenges of a hillside home, we, in concert with
the Planning Department, came up with a design that necessitated one end of the deck to be
12', 9" inches above the ground. We knew that the Planning Commission would have to
grant final approval. To our tremendous disappointment, our request to build the deck was
denied by the Commission.
We are asking the City Council to approve our deck design for the following reasons:
1. Our two immediate neighbors, who are very nice people, have homes with understories
that push the 5 -feet limit. We accept their home design and can understand why building
on a hillside necessitated this cumbersome skirt wall construction. We are in the same
situation.
2. We designed a one level, slim deck as this would have a minimum impact to the
neighbors.
Two other options were available:
• If no deck was built, the neighbors would have looked at a plain skirt wall that
would have been unattractive bulk, but would have met the city code.
• We could have tiered and terraced a series of decks to never exceed a 5 -feet
understory and keep the entire process in the Planning Department. This would
have resulted in an unattractive, bulky home. In addition, our contractor,
landscaper, and geologist have told us that a legal terraced design would
necessitate digging away at the hillside for each terrace and this would be a
serious disturbance to the integrity of the hillside's geology.
We want to make a minimum impact on the geology of the hillside, thus, a few simple
pilings to support the deck would not only be the wisest, geologically, but esthetically, would
create the least impact.
Safety: We ask the City Council to understand and respect our concern for the safety of the
occupants. A one -level deck is much safer than a multi -level deck, especially to a mother in
her late 70s. To eliminate the deck portion that exceeds the 5 foot clearance, means there
would be no escape route from that area should a disaster occur.
Environmental Commitment: Ecologically, our business was the only small business
awarded the Sunnyvale recycling award in 1996. We recently returned from a three week
ecological tour of Costa Rica, living most of the time in the "jungle." My husband is a
former biology teacher and we are very environmentally conscious people. Our home and
deck reflects our commitment to treating the environment with great care and respect.
N
Our Civic and Social Commitment: We are committed to a life of service. Rosemary is on
the board of directors of the Self -Help for the Elderly Foundation, a three county support
group for the elderly. We believe in helping the elderly.
We are the founders of The First Days of School Project. We financially support a
foundation whose purpose is to provide school materials to needy children so that they will
have school supplies on their first day of school. We believe in helping children.
Our home would be an asset to the neighborhood and the City of Saratoga. We seek the kind
approval of the City Council for our deck design.
Most sincerely,
ZHaarry K. Won d.D. Rosemary T. Wong, Ed-D.
riAY 15 197 14:54 FR IBM —ISSC 415 855 3227 TO 98681280 P.01
MR. & MRS. JOHN CLARK 13333 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: 21252 Chadwick Court
Appeal of Denial for zoning Exception
May 14, 1997
Dear City Council Members:
Business travel will prevent us from attending the public hearing on this subject scheduled for May
21, 1997. We are submitting our comments and concerns via this letter.
We were gated to learn that the original request was denied, and hope that the Council will affirm
that decision.
Our home is directly below and in the line of site of the proposed oversized deck. This means that
if this exception is allowed, we would look up from our deck, back yard, and windows of 6 roams
to see the underside of this structure. This is unacceptable to us, as we believe it would:
1. Detract from the esthetics of the view that we
have enjoyed for 15 years
2. Detract from the current value of our home
3. Serve as a constant minder of Saratoga's lack of
commitment to protecting legacy homes
4. Have no compelling need. There is no necessity
for this deck on the Wong home to be larger than
the code allows -- LARGER THAN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
OF OUR ENTIRE HOME.
Because we are located close to and directly below the Wong site, there is virtually nowhere eke to
look from our rear yard and rear - facing windows but UP at the site in question. Thin, this decision
will have a direct affect on our family's continueed enjoyment of our home. We do not want to
look at the underbelly of someone's oversized deck structure.
We believe the denial of the Wong exception would be a reasonable action on the part of the
Council because it's important for Saratoga homeowners (current and future) to be confident that
codes in effect at the time we purchase our homes will be fairly enforced. These codes are one of
the basic factors on which we decided to purchase in Saratoga, and it's reasonable for us to expect
that they be applied to all, not just some, homeowners.
'lharnk you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
'o')
hn and Barbara Clark
** TOTAL PAGE.01 **