HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAr
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. 16 33
MEETING DATE: June 7, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
AGENDA ITEM
Z CI Y MGR. APPROVAL
i
i
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT 6665 and SDR 1426
Recommended Motion:
"Grant Final Acceptance for Tract 6665 and Release all Bonds"
Report Summary:
City Council at their regular meeting of November 7, 1984 gave
Construction Acceptance. The three (3) year maintenance period has expired
and all deficiencies have been corrected.
Fiscal impacts:
Attachments:
1. Resolution 36B.
2 . • Mara describing bonds.
Motion and Vote:
k,
Reds 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
OW1. (408) 887 -3438
�1 -��1C) ,�ND[i41
TO: City Council
DATE: 5 -12 -89
FROM: city.. ine&
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for TRACT 6665/SDR 1426
Location: Pierce Rd./Saratoga Heights
The three(3) year maintenance period for Tract 6665
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu-
tion 36-B , which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve-
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
.1. Developer: PARNA.S CORPORATICN
Address: 3on_Nmtgmga Street #789 San Francisco, CA 94104
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: Nov. 7, 1984
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety Bond
Amount: 569,020; 6700980; 135,000 - 75% thereof -
Issuing Co: Developers Insurance Co.
Address: Lafayette; Ca. 94549
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: 103341 103333 103335
4. Miles of Public Street: 1.75
5. Special Remarks:
RSS /dsm Robert S. Shbok
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 6 3
MEETING DATE: 6 -7 -89
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT.
AGENDA ITEM -T ;
CITY GR. APPROVAL y
4
SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR "HANDICAP ACCESS FOR GOVERNMENT
BUILDINGS & HANDICAP RAMPS"
Recommended Motion:
Award contract for "Handicap Access for Government Buildings & Handicap
Ramps" for schedule A +B+C.
Report Summary:
The City received two bids on'May 17, 1989 for above project. The lowest
bid was with $22,551.00. This project was approved in the 1988 -1989 Capital
Improvement Budget.
Fiscal Impacts:
$22,551.00 - HUD Grant.
Attachments:
l.. Bid Summary.
Motion and Vote:
3
i )
I)gT M; 5 -]S _,/198 9
TIME- 2 oo P_.M.
_Community Development Devartniient
-B.ID SUMMARY:.. --
•• •
. • • pl'1 i A 1 . 1
Descriptlon
it ,� (�
W w-
ME
\UY'
m
-�
• — _ • —
®��
11
I 111 11
®
i i ♦.
®
-
:. u• ;- 1! .. �e __�-
®�I
1 11
1 1 111 11
®
• i
®
i i ♦
_-
-_
mat
Cac Avenue
_--
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 6
AGENDA ITEM _
MEETING DATE: June 7, 1989 CITY M APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING /�01
i
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR TRACT, 8053
AND RELEASE 50% OF BOND
Recommended Motion:
Grant Construction Acceptance and Release of Cash Bond for Tract 8053.
Report Summary
The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction
Acceptance will begin the (1) one -year maintenance period.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
Memo describing bond.
Motion and Vote:
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDt1M
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for
TRACT 8053
DATE: May. 23,,. 1989 -
Name & Location: Manor Drive /Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Public Improvements required for TRACT 8053
have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the
City Council accept the improvements for construction only..
This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance
period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and
improvement security will remain in full force.
The following information is included for your use:
1. Developer: Debcor Corporation
Address: 21625 Stevens Creek Blvd. .
Cupertino, CA. 95014
2. Improvement Security:
Type:
CASH BAND ..
Amount: -$101000.00
Issuing Company: Debcor Corporation'
Address: 21625 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA. 95014 .... ..
Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 5918
3. Special Remarks:
Release 50% of $10,000.00 - $5,000.00 only.
RSS/dSln n by l S. S -, wol"
DATE INVOICE AMOUNT + II !r
I DEBCOR'C; 'ORATION
I CA LIL. ..5712
+,i 21825 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. PH. 408 -448 -1913
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
nOLLARS.
,...; DATE' j0 THE ORDER OF ,., . , CHECK NO, ., .,, ACCTS, PAYABLE ',DISCOUNT . ; CHECK AMOUNT
ov
} ,.- ' : i • - 1 j -r pp y BOLLINGER ROAD OFFICE
RA UAW-Vat SAN JOSE, CA 95129
.11■0009 1 III' 1: 1 2 1 L00 78 21: 0 3 900 2 7 3 311' 1
----------------
OFFICIAL RECEIPT
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA. CA 95070
PHONE: (408) 867 -3438
DATE
7
RECEIVED FROM IN
ADDRESS AMOUNT:
FOR: AMOUNT: FOR:
REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS 0001 1045 DESIGN REV APPLIC FEES 9000 9514
APPEALS 9000 9545 —
EIR REVIEW FEES 9000 9514
CONSTRUCTION TAX 9000 7540 —
SUBDIVISION REVIEW FEES 9000 9514
CENTRAL PLANREZON FEE 9000 9514 —
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX 9000 7550 - -- VARIANCE APPLIC FEES 9000 9514
BUILDING PERMITS 9000 9511 —
FINAL MAP REVIEW 9000 9514
ELECTRIC PERMITS 9000 9511 SPECIFIC PLAN FEE 9000 9514
GRADING PERMITS 9000 9511 — -- PLAN CHECK FEES 9000 9514
MECHANICAL PERMITS 9000 9511 BLDG SITE REVIEW FEES 9000 9514
PLUMBING PERMITS 9000 9511
9000 9511 XEROXING 9000 9890
.
ROOFING PERMITS 9000 9890
INSP FEES 9000 b512 SALE MANS 8 PUUL —
USE PERMIT FEES 9000 9514 STOFIM DRAIN FEES 9170 9530
ENGR FEES 9000 9513 ----- SUBDIV PARK DED FEES 9310 9550
HILLSIDE DEV FEES 9180 9540
APPLICATION NO. OR TOTAL: $ 1d
ADDRESS OF PROJECT:
DEPT.
5918 RECEIVED BY
N0RMA V J S k %RINT T CAMPt3CLL, CALIF.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECU'= = SUMMARY N0. � 3/
MEETING DATE: 6 -7 -89
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
AGENDA ITEM 4�
CIITTY MG R. APPROVAL _
SUBJECT: Authorize to Advertise for "Slurry Seal and Cape Seal on
Various Streets for 1989- 1990"
Recommended Motion:
Authorize to advertise for Slurry Seal and Cape Seal on various streets for
1989 -1990.
Report Summary
Engineering Department is working on Plans and Specifications for above
project and will be ready on June 16, 1989.
This project is part of the Street Management Program.
Fiscal-Impacts:
$250,000.00 General Rind.
Management Program.
Attachments:
Motion and Vote:
This project for 1989 -1990 is part of the Street
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ,3
MEETING DATE: June 7, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
AGENDA ITEM
CITY APP OVAL
i
i
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE TO ADVERTISE FOR SLIDE REPAIR OF BOHIFAN ROAD
Recommended Motion:
Authorize to advertise for slide repair of Bohlen Road.
Report Summary
Plans and specifications for Slide Repair of Boh]man Road are ready to
advertise. Contractor will close Boh]man Road from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.
for 30 days to complete repair of landslide. There is no through road to
reroute traffic during the construction period. Emergency vehicles will be
delayed due to construction along Bohlman Road. City Staff will hold a meeting
with the people who live there regarding the closing of Boh]man Road.
Fiscal Impacts.
$76,200 is budgeted for this project in the current budget.
Attachments:
1.. Plans.
Motion and Vote:
ASPHALT CONCRETE AND BUEROCK
PER CITY'S STAM]MRDS
SEE DETAIL Q .
Wk 112- - TOP OF PAVEMENT
2%
.�: •a 0. .
- 4'-dr 1MBER (PRESSURE TREATED OF
DENSE NO. I GRADE OR BETTER)
;PANT BEFORE N3T4LLATq//
:R LAGGING 4ND BACKFLL)
VARES -SEE SECTION
OPENOPEN GRADED CRUSrEO ROCK EXISTNG POST -SLOE
RA EDE) o \ GRADE (APPROXIMATE)
0
o
o. o
oo•oa
000.0 0 2%
4 -
A /9, PLACE SYMETRICALLY W 10.33
AT ]" O/C
' , I 2 -IS
W3- MN COVFR
SECTION A —A
. - „ II • . II :• 0TNG YO FM3MED
II II
I II s-o"
A I ml I 1B' 0 (INTO HARD CLAY. SOIL TO BE
04 TES AT 3- CIC FOR TOP DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER
2' AM AT IY CIC FOR REST N FELD)
2 -/S
3-a.
TYP.
24- 0 PER
TYPICAL DETAIL OF PIERS
SCALE: I" = 2' -0"
NOT TO SCALE
r
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
6, B.Sxr -2" STEEL BLOCK (EACH BLOCK .
> BE Al TACHED TO W 10x33 WITH 2.518- BOLTS
HEX. NOTES.
L LIMITS OF WORK AND LOCATION OF STRUCTURES
WILL BE CHANGED AS REQUIRED TO MEET ACTUAL
0'33 SLIDE GEOMETRY.
2. RESTORE /REPAVE DISMANTLED PAVEMENT
TO EXISTING CONDITIONS.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRY TO KEEP BOHLMAN ROAD
OPEN FOR TRAFFIC, THE DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC, IF
UNAVOIDABLE. SHALL NOT EXCEED MORE THAN 4
HOURS PER WORKING DAY.
4. ELEVATIONS BASED ON BENCHMARK SOL. 2 AT
ELEVATKNI100.00.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE CONSTRUCTION
SEOUENCE FOR ENGIfVEERS APPROVAL BEFORE
DETAIL Q STARTING WORK,
METAL BEAM GUARD RAIL WITH W 10x33 STEEL
SCARP POSTS AND W 6x9.5 BLOCKS
(FOR OTHER DETAILS SEE CALTRAN DWG. A77 -c.85)
SCALE: ['=2'-O"
i
i
1
0
----rib
30- ELOC. 62
24' EUC
—
. 24- EUC.
—r3O
_112
a
!� - - - --
--
--
��� 130 - --
—
- - --
/
A/
_ — —
�ZZ -= - - --
RO
AO
L/M AN
CtJR9 AND
LA4
AL A ,47: 0 otc'RET �
�- -�-__
�OH4
1
_ r euc.
1 1
_
124
U
�24r EC. � — —132
�rAEIK
1
1
_
124 �\ --
BERM -SEE SE CTrOM3
�
_ 1 \
� � ELOC 028
�s i FOR worms
1 �
Is- E US.�
�
\ �
\ \ 126
_ �
\
=T Or_ -=
14" OAR
\ —
`
Luc
O
O
u�
—_1jz
LAN
SCALE: P' : 10 - -p°
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. % 3F
MEETING DATE: JIM I 1989
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: W RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STOP INTERSECTION AT
COMER DRIVE AND DIAMOND OAKS COURT
Recommended Notion:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MC,R. APPROVAL
Adopt Resolution No. MV
Resolution establishing a stop intersection at Comer Drive
and Diamond Oaks Court.
Report Summary
At its meeting of April 3, 1989, the Public Safety Commission recommended
that a two -way stop be established at the intersection of Comer Drive
(westbound only) and Diamond Oaks Court.
Fiscal Impacts:
The cost to install the two (2) stop signs a-ong with the pavement
markings and striping is estimated to be $350 and would come from the
Traffic Safety Budget (3033 - 3010).
Attachments:
1. Resolution No..MV
2.. Memo from Public Safety Commission.
3.• Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TV) -TAY STOP
INTERSECTION AT COMER DRIVE AND
DIAMOND OAKS COURT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION I: The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is hereby
designated as a stop intersection.
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION
Carer Drive All vehicles traveling on Ccnnes Drive
westbound shall stop before entering
or crossing the intersection thereof
with Diamond Oaks Court.
Diamond Oaks Court All vehicles traveling on Diamond Oaks
Court sdutbbound shall stop before
entering the intersection thereof with
Comer Drive.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs
are ihstalled.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of
June, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
April 5, 1989
0919W o2 0&i"19(moz
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867.3438
I VN F�)
P.
APR 1989
To: Erman Dorsey
CITY OF SAgATOGA
From: Community ServicesCFIYA� q - `RS
OFFICE
Subject: Proposal for Stop Sign on Diamond Oaks
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
At the April 3, 1989, meeting of the Public Safety Commission,
Your recommendation for a stop sign on Diamond Oaks Court was
considered.
Residents from the Parker Ranch area attended this meeting of the
Commission, and testified to this issue. There was consensus
that a stop sign on Diamond Oaks Way by itself would be of little
value. The residents suggested establishing a 3 -way stop at that
intersection.
Many of the Commissioners had personally visited the site, so
there was a considerable amount of discussion on this issue. The
Commission concluded by recommending that a 2 -way stop be
established at this location. One stop sign should be as you
proposed on Diamond Oaks Court. The other stop sign should be on
Comer Drive for westbound traffic only (going up the hill).
For your information, I have attached a map showing the proposed
locations for the two stop signs which the Commission
recommended.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
a
Todd W. Ar w
3m
Attachment
cc: PSC
Acting City Engineer Peacock
a
f_
Most
RAC 2y�
6CALC
liislo //
/ �ZS
� 6
t
P� •
•
S
J�2 /b/l
.40 a117 �' Oo�c6 /e Yep /o� onc/
/
3
C
w
w• -
t
f•
s
ti
1
W A
r •
�
liislo //
/ �ZS
� 6
t
P� •
•
S
J�2 /b/l
.40 a117 �' Oo�c6 /e Yep /o� onc/
/
3
C
w
w• -
t
f•
s
ti
1
W A
4t N
Q
SCALE:
/ ' = SO '
o,
nti
10G
000A
Tp
n
A RMOSED $MR S /GH
INSrAI.L.A ream
0
0
Ivo
\In
n
I`
4
ti
h
Cam\
'p
O�
__= LOCATION MAJO
- e•. Nor 20 .%CAZ E —
a
h
a
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ,
MEETING DATE: 6/7/89
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVA
ez�—
0
SUBJECT: Request for Proposal - Community Open Space Needs Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion: Approve the attached request for proposals (RFP) and
discuss the need for, and the composition of, a Council subcommittee to
review proposals received and interview consultants.
Report Summary: Staff has prepared a draft RFP for review which seeks
proposals from qualified consulting firms to perform the Community Open
Space Needs Survey. In preparing the draft, staff consulted with several
comparable Bay Area cities who have recently performed similar tasks. The
draft is prepared with the same or greater degree of specificity used by
the cities of Corte Madera, Los Altos Hills and Cupertino. The draft also
attempts to briefly describe the character of the City as well as frame
issues fundamental to the open space topic.
The Council will note that the draft RFP suggests the formation of a
subcommittee to review written proposals as well as conduct personal
interviews with consultants. Staff suggests that the subcommittee be
composed of one Councilperson, one Planning Commissioner, one Parks and
Recreation Commissioner and two staff members. Ultimately, the
subcommittee would recommend a consultant to the Council who will make the
final decision.
Staff has also prepared a critical path diagram showing the steps necessary
once the process is initiated. As the Council will notice, there are
several key points where Council will review information and decide if
greater policy issues need further evaluation.
Fiscal Impacts: Staff's consultation with other Bay Area cities indicates
the average cost of this survey to be $15,000.
Attachments: 1. Draft Request for Proposals -
Community Open Space Survey
2. Critical Path Diagram
Motion and Vote/j_�/
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE NEEDS SURVEY
PURPOSE
The City of Saratoga is requesting proposals for the design and
execution of a community open space needs survey.
The objective of the survey is to identify and" determine the
present and future open space needs of the citizens of Saratoga.
The data will be used as a planning tool for the development of
City policies, programs and services that address the expressed
needs. Additional information to be determined includes whether
or not citizens would be willing to pay for open space properties
and services, how they would like to pay and what they consider a.
resonable rate to pay.
BACKGROUND
The City of Saratoga is situated at the base of the western
foothills of the Santa Clara Valley. The population is
approximately 30,000 and the City limits encompasses 12 square
miles. The City's existing open space includes 80 acres of
developed park land, 150 acres of open land provided by schools,
40 acres of riparian corridors, approximately 1000 acres of
vacant, undeveloped, privately owned land, and 220 acres of
agricultural lands under Williamson Act contract. In addition,
there are three parks in the Santa Clara County foothills which
serve as open space resources for Saratoga: Montalvo Arboretum,
Stevens Creek Park and Sanborn Skyline Park. The Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and Peninsula Open Space
Trust (POST) also own'.approximately 350 acres of land in the
hillsides to the west of Saratoga.
SCOPE OF WORK
The role of the professional
execute the community survey.
address the following tasks:
consultant will be to design and
At a minimum, the proposal shall
Task 1: Survey Issues Identification
The consultant will meet with the review committee to
identify the issues to be covered in the preparation of
the survey instrument.
Task 2: Survey Instrument Design
Based on the results of Task 1, the consultant will
prepare a draft of the survey instrument for approval by
the review committee.
1
Task 3: Survey Implementation
Consultant will administer and manage the survey
instrument, which may be one of the following:
a) door -to -door survey of a statistically significant
sample of community residents;
b) telephone survey to a statistically significant
sample of community residents;
c) statistically significant survey utilizing a mailing
to each household within the community.
Task 4: Survey Analysis and Report
Consultant will perform survey analysis and provide a
final survey report for distribution to the review
committee. Report shall include a summary of major
findings, appropriate graphs and tables, and
recommendations for open space programs and services for
Saratoga, based on the survey results. Consultant will
provide a camera -ready copy of the report for
distribution to the City Council, incorporating any
changes recommended by the review committee.
Implicit in the scope of work is ongoing dialogue and feedback
between the consultant and the City staff and /or review committee
to ensure the survey accurately measures the City's needs. The
proposal shall include a methodology and schedule for how this
dialogue will be accomplished and incorporated into the survey
process.
CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
The City has established the following criteria which all
respondents must address:
1) A general description of the firm, including annual dollar
volumes, and the credentials and background of the principal and
team members who will be responsible for the survey project;
2) A description of the manner, method and means by which the
survey project will be completed;
3) A statement identifying the time required to design, plan,
conduct, and evaluate the survey project;
4) An estimated fee for all phases of the survey project based on
a fixed fee contract; fee should be broken down by labor,
supplies, and equipment;
5) A list of clients for whom similar work has been performed.
0
SUBMITTAL PROCESS
Proposals shall be submitted by to:
Stephen Emslie
Planning Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Five copies of each proposal must be submitted. The City's
review committee is comprised of two staff members, one
Councilmember, one Planning Commissioner and one Parks &
Recreation Commissioner. This committee will review all proposals
and invite selected finalists for personal interviews the week of
Subsequently, committee recommen-
dations will be forwarded to the City Council for final selection.
If you have any questions about the survey or the selection
process, please contact Stephen Emslie, Planning Director, at
(408) 867 -3438.
The City of Saratoga thanks you for your interest in this project.
3
I START
Staff Prepares Cuwncc Reviews City Wide
Open Space Inventory Inventory of Open Space
Prepare Survey I I Review, RFP I� Distdb to
RFP 111_ II With C-9 Proposal
Form
SubCortmittee
subCamrrttee
Reviews Proposals
Council Selects
Consultmt
. SubConrn Meets W/ Curanitsrt
To Identify Survey Issues
Sub Comn MUMS W1 Consubart
To Review Survey Issues
I Perform Suvey
it SubCamn Reviews
Final Survey
Policy Evaluation Critical Path
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
June 1989
Select Consultant
r
Carsultmt Identifies
Issues
Corusuhsnt Prepses Draft Survey
Pedonn Survey
Council Reviews
Survey Results
Cenci Reviews
Open Space Poky
END
NO
Cow Cow
Determines temires
fln#C� end —YES Gen Plan CC—
END
NO
✓YES
Council Nemec Open Space
General Plan Corr -Mee
Council Refers Policy
Direction to Plarring Ctrmission
Council Approves
Charter Statement
P.0 CoMcts Study Sessiorycl
to Review Open Space Needs
P.0 Conduce Study SecdonW
Opm Space Canrittae
Meals to Review 1—
to Review Draft O.S. Elaerrent
Ccrarrn DIMS s Report and
ftacorrmendaNOn to Countl
I
Pderruirp Cormuissbn ftvYes
Draft Open Space Ekment
.
P.0 Pub. Ibsig m
Revised Opm Space Ekrrnent
Plat.' Corrrrasarr Revees
Draft FokmvV Pubic srput
Councl Pubic Fbauirp
On Revsed Open Space Elwement
.
Fuel Revft t FoipwkV
P bic hpud
City Cow Adopts
Wen Space Element
END
4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECU'T'IVE SUMMARY N0. 6 4 AGENDA ITEM 7
MEETING DATE; ,Tune 7, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL��¢ =`%�
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: Village Parking District #3
"Notice of Completion"
Recommended Motion:
The work on V.P.D. #3 has been satisfactorily completed and it is our
recommendation that this work be accepted and "Notice of Completion" filed.
Resort Summary :
The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on September 1988 awarded
the contract for the above project to Gateway Landscape, Inc. The work on the
project has been satisfactorily ccmpleted and it is reccnmended that this work
be accepted.
Fiscal Imnacts:
Total construction cost: $443,472.43.
Attachments:
Notice of Completion.
Progress Payment.
Motion and Vote-
�,
Wr
City Clei*
AND W"E°RECORDED MAIL TO
City ofSaratoga
Add,^ 13777rnidxnnalaAvmemm
c!%� Laazatoga, ca. 95¢70
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR nccqnosn'S usc------'
n0*9' is hereby given that ......... z .............. the undersigned, .
--------------------.----,—.---_—_—.--..
the
vILLUooAR1MGmISTRICI!#3
^
That ----___.____cz�z.op ... ���z�3�...................................................................
-----.---_----'--'_--
as owner .' the
upon the land above described, which contract was filed in the office of the county recorder of the
the sdid contract or work of improvement, as a whole, was actually completed by the said ... ....
............. iWat the name ...... and addres& ..... of all the owner ..... of said property are as follo w*s*:*
czWoF SegxTOGA
13777 rruitvaie Avenm
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
and the nature of ....................................... title mm said property is .......................................................
---.--_--.
STATE {FCALIFORNIA
Cvxn�'of'---''-----__. �-- ' Agent J--��------'
---`--''--~V ,r
being duly s
I am .......... [the agent ofl* the owner ..... of the property described in the foregoing notice. I have
read the foregoing notice and know the contents thereof, and the same is true of my own knowledge.
Subscribed and swom to before me thi
IS
* Delete words in brackets if owner siSnL
=^
PROJECT••• VIUAGE PARKING DISTRICT 43
DATE:- 5-24-R9 EST, NO. 4
1! ROH: Tb :
-
! UNIT
BID ITEM QUAjVriw PRICE
Asphalt Ccncrete Pavement
99 tons 69.33
6 12" x 24" Trpsrh 1500 L.F. 2,20
1,3 Plant establish period L.S.
__3A000_00
•' RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAVmrwre
rayymLob ray ESTIMATE
Sheet 1 of I
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE.
CONTRACTOR: c,ATsq4Y LmDSCAM
SARATOGA, CALIF. 95070
ADDRESS:
46 itickenbacker circle
-- Live Grp CA 94550
WRK:DONE WRK, DONE
-TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
7-WO
TOTAL PREVIOUS THIS EST.
WRK.DONE
PRICE
DUE
DONE -
EST.
69,260.67 1134 toms 164 tons
164 tons
69.33
11 370.12
3,300.00 1500 L.F. 900 L.P.
900 L F
2.20
11980.00
3.000.00 0
L.S.
L.S.
3,000.00
LESS 10% RETENTION
TOTAL PAYMENT_ 16,350 12'
Made By: ;V. s2* \89. LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS -0-
Checked By: B PAYMENT DUE THIS EST._ 16,350.12
Approved by:
:City ngineer
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: 6/7/89
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
MAI
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
1/2��
SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Resolutions to Approve the Mt. Eden
Four -lot Subdivision and to Certify an EIR
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion: Receive and file. The City Council should review
the actions of the Planning Commission regarding approval of SD -87 -008
with conditions and certification of the EIR. No Council action is
required.
Report Summary: The Planning Commission has conducted public hearings to
certify an EIR and to approve a tentative subdivision map for the proposed
four -lot subdivision. This application was referred back to the Planning
Commission when the City Council denied a Negative Declaration last year
after the Planning Commission's initial approval was appealed.
This report and attachments provide both a summary of the Planning
Commission's actions as well as the documentation of discussions and
actions taken to approve the subdivision and complete the environmental
process.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
4At��i ,
1. Planning Commission
2. Final EIR
3. Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission
(to be distributed
Resolutions SD -87 -008 & PC -89 -002
staff report including attachments
minutes of 5/24/89
at Council Meeting)
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report on Mt. Eden Four -Lot Subdivision
Recommended Motion
DATE: June 7, 1989
Receive and file. The City Council should review the Planning
Commission actions regarding approval of SD -87 -008 with conditions
and certification of the EIR. No Council action--- necessary.
Overview
In 1988, the City Council received an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of a Negative Declaration and tentative
Subdivision Map for a four lot subdivision with access from Mt. Eden
Road. The Council acted to deny the Negative Declaration which
remanded the tentative map application to the Planning Commission
pending the completion of an Environmental Impact Report. The
Planning Commission has certified an EIR and approved a tentative
map for the four single family lots. The actions of the Planning
Commission were made on May 24, 1989 and are subject to appeal to
Council. The appeal period will transpire on Monday, June 5, 1989.
Background
In preparing the draft EIR, the consultant identified a variety of
environmental issues which were discussed in detail. Initial
environmental impacts identified included:
A. Geology-
Impacts: Slope stability & seismic safety.
B. Drainage
Impacts: Alteration to drainage pattern, downstream pollutants
and sedimentation.
C. Visual /Aesthetic
Impacts: Adjacent views, light & glare.
D. Noise
Impacts: Construction & future traffic.
E. Public Service
Impacts: Water, fire, policy, wastewater & others.
F. Fiscal Analysis
Imppcts: No impacts were identified.
The Draft EIR was circulated to the public and interested agencies
for the 45 day review period, during which written comments were
received. Additionally, the Planning Commission opened a public
hearing on March 8, 1989 when public and Commission concerns were
raised regarding the Draft EIR. The consultant was directed to
respond to the additional concerns and impacts which included the
following:
A. Drainage
Impacts: Given drainage problems associated
Creek, additional study should occur to examine
between the subdivision and the adjacent creek
The Commission requested further study of the
drainage courses to convey storm water from tho
Quarry Creek drainage facilities.
B. Geology
with the Quarry
the relationship
repair project.
use of natural
project to the
Impacts: More specific information was requested by the
Commission regarding repair of the slopes and roads used during
the creek repair project. Specific concerns involved the
statement used in the Draft EIR which characterized the erosion
on this road as "minor."
C. Cumulative Impacts
Impacts: The Commission requested that the drainage affect of
this project and the adjacent Quarry Creek repair be discussed
in the Final EIR. Specifically, hydrological analysis was needed
so the increased run -off from the subdivision and the adequacy
of this creek repair project could be included in the Final EIR.
Additionally, the Planning Commission noted that the Quarry
Creek repair project included portions of the subdivision in the
area of Lot #4. The Planning Commission requested that
mitigation measures be added to require that property owners of
this lot, (both present and future) be required to participate
in the implementation of the mitigation plan required for the
creek repair.
In addition to the additional impacts identified above, the Planning
Commission requested information related to the CEQA Statutes and
the incorporation of mitigation measures. Staff reported that in
order for the Planning Commission to certify an EIR, it must find
that all mitigation measures must either be incorporated into the
project or required as conditions. CEQA statutes do not prevent the
Planning Commission from requiring additional conditions not
identified as mitigation measures.
The EIR consultant presented the final EIR which included the
information addressing the Commission's concerns. Additional public
and Planning Commission comment was taken and final modifications
were made to the EIR. The Planning Commission then closed the
hearing regarding the EIR and directed staff to advertise a public
hearing to consider the tentative subdivision map.
On May 24, 1989, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
to consider the four lot subdivision. The Planning Commission
reviewed a staff report and draft resolution with conditions to
approve the tentative map. Specific subdivision issues were
discussed with the applicants and interested members of the public
and are summarized as follows:
A. Revisions: The Planning Commission noted that minor alterations
to the proposed subdivision were presented by the applicants. Lot
lines were adjusted slightly to improve lot layout; and the proposed
access roadway was shifted to reduce grading. Additionally, one
foot of fill material is needed from the pad area to complete repair
to property in the vicinity of the creek repair. The Commission and
the EIR consultant found these changes to be consistent with the EIR
and no additional study was required.
B. Circulation and Access: Subdivision conditions recommended by
the City Engineer required widening of the existing access road from
Mt. Eden Road to the subdivision westerly boundary to 26 feet.
The recommended condition is consistent with the City's subdivision
standards which call for 26 foot minimum width in hillside areas for
both public and private streets.
The Planning Commission reviewed the recommended condition and
concluded that a reduced road width would preserve considerable
grading and mature trees, as well as eliminate the possible need for
roadside retaining walls. The Planning Commission concluded by
requiring a specific street improvement plan to be prepared and
reviewed by the Commission which reduces road width to minimize
impact on the natural environment.
The Planning Commission also noted that the EIR identified the
length of the proposed cul -de -sac at 800 feet where the Subdivision
Ordinance limits cul -de -sacs to 500 feet. The Planning Commission
found that there were overriding considerations such as traffic
reduction and minimizing grading and were cited in the Commission's
resolution certifying the EIR.
The Planning Commission discussed the incorporation of the
mitigation measures into the resolution of approval. Staff pointed
out that all-mitigations and subsequent amendments made by the
Planning Commission were incorporated into the resolution.
Additionally, -the Planning Commission minutes from 4/26/89 were
reviewed and incorporated into the final EIR and as conditions of
approval.
Other Concerns
The Planning Commission also requested that staff include in its
report to Council the desirability of adding a condition requiring
liquidated damages of $250.00 per day if any condition of this
approval were violated. Staff has drafted a condition to this effect
and incorporated into the Planning Commission conditions.
Conclusion
The purpose of the report is to inform the Council of Planning
Commission activity on an item previously reviewed by the Council.
Since this report is being prepared during the 10 -day appeal period,
it is not known if this item will return as a Council public
hear4g. Therefore, no Council action is required at this time.
'Planning Wector
SE /dsc
RESOLUTION NO. SD -87 -008
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
22631 MT. EDEN ROAD, COCCIARDI
APN #'s 503 -12 -024 (partial), 503 -12 -025
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the
Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of
4 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File.No. SD -87 -008 of this
City, and .
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans
relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is compatible
with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified
in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 5/24/89 being
hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
EIR prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable
provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through
(g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said
subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with
conditions as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public
hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity
to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 1st day of
April, 1989 and is marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred
file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The
conditions of said approval are as follows:
1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within
30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall
be void.
2. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
3. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation and pay
required checking and recordation fees.
4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20 ft.
ft. Half- Street on Nina Court and improve to minimum access road
standards as prescribed by the City Engineer.
5. Provide evidence of access rights to Mt. Eden Road from the
1
SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road
proposed cul-de-sac.
6. The applicant shall submit road widening, drainage and utility
plans for improvements to the beginning of the subdivision to City
Standards including:
a. Access road from Mt. Eden road to the subdivision's westerly
boundary to the Planning Commission for review and approval
prior to recordation of the final map.
b. Designed Structural Section 26 ft. between flowlines.
C. P.C. concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
d. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
7. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage
Plan" and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey
storm runoff to street, storm sewer or watercourse, including
the following:
a. Storm sewer trunks with necessary manholes.
b. Storm sewer laterals with necessary.manholes.
C. Storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
8. Construct standard driveway approaches.
9. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstruction of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
11. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
12. Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara County for work to be
done within their right -of -way.
13. Engineered improvment plans required for:
a. street improvements
b. storm drain construction
14. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement
plans.
15. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving final approval.
16. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
17. A sanitary sewer connection from Cupertino Sanitary District is
E
SD -89 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD
required. Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Co.
or similar authorized water provider.
18. Seal any well in accordance with County standards.
Submit a geotechnical investigation and report by a licensed
professional for the following:
a. geology
b. soils (for each lot)
C. foundation
19. Submit detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
a. grading (limits of cuts, fills, slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities.
b. drainage details
C. retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls greater than 3 ft. or higher.
d. erosion control measures
20. Prior to final map approval the applicant's geotechnical consultant
should evaluate the potential for slope failure and erosion within
Lot #4 (including all area outside the building area which may
impact adjacent properties or local roadways).
21. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual lots, the
applicant's geotechnical consultant should prepare detailed
geotechnical design recommendations which address, but are not
necessarily limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface
and subsurface drainage improvements, and design parameters for
driveway, residential foundations and retaining walls. The
geotechnical design recommendations shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and Geologist.
22. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve
all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design
parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that
his recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of site
development and building permits.
23. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the long-
term stability of the proposed building site considering: 1) the
proximity of the residence to steep slopes, 2) the site's seismic
setting, 3) apparent dip -slope conditions and 4) the area of
potential slope instability identified by John O'Rourke in the
3
SD -87 -008; 22631 MT. EDEN
reference report. Appropriate geotechnical design should be
proposed (as,-necessary) to ensure the long -term stability of the
proposed development. The evaluation shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a
permit.
24. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the
Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval.
25. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to final map
approval.
26. The developer Tract No. 7761, Mt. Eden Estates, is obligated to
construct sanitary sewers in Quarry Road in accordance with the
plans and specifications approved by the District. These
facilities must be constructed and accepted by the District prior
to being able to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed
development.
27. Fire hydrants shall be located within five hundred feet from all
future residences and deliver no less than one thousand gallons per
minute of water for a sustained period of two hours.
28. The developer shall install fire hydrant(s), the exact number to be
determined by the Fire Chief, that meet Fire District
specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installled and accepted prior
to construction of any building.
29. All future driveways shall be constructed to the following
standards:
a. slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of O & S or
better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the
proposed dwelling.
b. slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2 1/2" of A.C.
or better on 6" aggregate based from a public street to
proposed dwelling.
c. slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC
concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base from a public
street to proposed dwelling.
d. driveways shall have a minimum inside radius of 21 feet.
Construct an emergency access road, as required as part of
Tract 7761, for use in the event of an emergency only.
30. Provide a 10 ft. public utility easement along the edge of the
street right -of -way.
31. Prior to final map approval the applicant shall submit CC &R's to
4
SD -87 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD
the City for review and approval.
32. Dedicate scenic easement as shown on the tentative map.
33. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall enter into a
Scenic Easement Agreement with the City. At a minimum, the
agreement shall prohibit structures within this, easement and
require vegetation and topography to be kept in their natural
states.
34. Tree removal prohibited unless in accordance with the City Code.
35. Future homes on each lot require Planning Commission design review
approval.
36. All applicable requirements of State, County, City or other
governmental entities shall be met
37. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 15 ft.
wide trail and pathway easement as shown on the tentative map
and /or approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
38. The all weather equestrian trail shall be improved to be a minimum
of 8 ft. wide or approved alternate. Trail to be comparatively
level from side to side and unobstructed. All trail and pathway
grading shall be completed prior to final map approval.
39. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit evidence to
the City Engineer indicating that the City's water requirements
including adequate fire flow and domestic water supply, as well as
appropriate system appurtenances will be provided to the site.
40. The applicant shall Kepair and re- vegetate haul road used to export
fill material to this site in accordance with the permits pending
with the Army Corps of Engineers to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director prior to the approval of the final map.
41. The name Nina Court shall be revised on the final map to be
consistent with the access road serving this project and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
42. The mitigation measures contained on the final Environmental Impact
Report prepared for this project are hereby incorporated as
conditions of approval by reference as Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
43. The applicants shall be required to install a gate across the
access road at the subdivision's westerly boundary which shall be
maintained for the duration of the construction of the subdivision.
44. In addition to the mitigation measures incorporated in Exhibit "B"
the following conditions are added:
a. both the current and future owners of Lot #4 shall be
5
SD -87 -008, 22631 MT. EDEN ROAD
required to participate in the landscaping and re-
vegetation of the Quarry Creek project.
b. to the extent this project including Lot #4 is found to
require modification of the Quarry Creek Repair project the
proponents and there successors in interest shall be
required to participate their proportionate share in the
implementation of necessary alteration to the project.
C. the applicants shall submit a detailed drainage and
erosion control plan prior to the recordation of a final
map to the City Engineer and City Geologist for review and
approval.
45. Noncompliance with any conditions stated herein or required by
City Ordinance shall constitute violation of this permit and
shall be subject to liquidated damages of $250.00 per day- the
violation exists.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions
within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall
be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or approval
will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State_, County, City and
other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article
15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten
(10) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State
of California, this 24th day of May, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Harris, Burger, Siegfried, and Tappan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Tucker, Kolstad
ATTEST:
Chairman, Plann' ommissi
ecrptary,/Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Applicant Signature Date
RESOLUTION NO. PC -89 -002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE FOUR LOT MT. EDEN SUBDIVISION
22631 MT. EDEN ROAD
WHEREAS, on June 15, 1988, the City Council reviewed a
Negative Declaration and Initial Study and determined that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an EIR was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et. seq. and the CEQA Guidelines of the State of
California for a four lot residential subdivision on 21.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
draft EIR on March 8, 1989 which was continued from time to- time
thereafter, to review the adequacy of the document and-to accept
public comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission directed that certain
revisions be made to the draft which were incorporated into the
final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined the following
findings are present:
The the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the
information contained in the final EIR prior to its decision on
the project.
That the final EIR has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
That there is a significant impact related to the 800 foot cul-
de -sac which cannot be avoided or reduced by mitigation measures
contained; in the final EIR and is supported by the following
reasons:
(a) The provisions of through access will create the need
for substantial grading of slopes not disturbed.
(b) The provision of through access would create hardship
on residents served by Quarry Road as the potential for
increased traffic would exist..
(c) The provision of a cul -de -sac which is 500 feet in
length would deprive this property of legal access.
SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Saratoga does hereby certify the EIR pursuant to Section
15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, and finds there are overriding
considerations which cannot be mitigated which are supported for the
reasons contained herein pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING Resolution was regularly adopted by
the Saratoga Planning Commission on the 24th day of May, 1989, by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Siegfried,..:Burger, Tappan.
NOES: Commissioner Harris
ABSENT: Commissioners Kolstad, Tucker
ABSTAIN:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7
FROM: Stephen Emslie /
DATE: 5/24/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
APPLICANT /OWNER: Cocciardi /Harbor Builders
APN: 503 -12 -024 (partial), 503 -12 -025 Q
w cnC.i ; i
%r V/
NHR
p
C~U, '
- CT
SUWGCT
l
NHR
NH
(hT
- 1TTTT� 7,-
i
r,
;r
IE
NHR
%r V/
NHR
p
C~U, '
- CT
SUWGCT
l
NHR
NH
(hT
- 1TTTT� 7,-
i
r,
;r
IE
File No. SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
5/4/87
Application complete:
4/20/88
Notice published:
5/10/89
Mailing completed:
5/11/89
Posting completed:
5/4/89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks tentative map approval
creating four single family parcels from 21.5 acres and a reminder
parcel to remain under Williamson Act Contract of 31 acres. The
total. project area is 52.5 acres. The proposed development is
within the NHR zone and is subject to the Northwest Hillside
Specific Plan.
PROJECT DISCUSSION: The project was approved by the Planning
Commission on May 11, 1988 and appealed to the City Council. On
June 15, 1988, the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's
approval of a Negative Declaration and remanded the subdivision
application to the Planning Commission for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report. The City contracted to prepare an EIR
which was presented in draft form to the Planning Commission on
March 8, 1989 at which time written and oral comments were received.
On April 26, 1989, the consultant presented the final report which
responded to previous concerns. The public hearing on the EIR was
closed.
The public hearing now before the Planning Commission is to receive
comment regarding the tentative map as well as to review draft
conditions. Staff has identified subdivision issues which include:
circulation and access, revised lot lines and grading, required
street improvements and EIR mitigation measures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, adopt the resolutions approving SD -87 -008
and certifying the Environmental Impact Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions SD -87 -008
3. Minutes, resolutions
4. Correspondence
5. Exhibit "A"
SE /dsc
& PC -89 -002
and previous staff reports
SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHC (Hillside
Conservation) within
Northwest Hillside
Specific Plan Area
PARCEL SIZES: Lot 1: 2.0 acres, Lot 2: 2.0 acres
Lot 3: 2.2 acres, Lot 4: 14.3 acres
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 32% (present condition)
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North - Williamson Act Contract lands
South - Mt. Eden Estates, 23 lot subdivision under construction
East - Chadwick Place, 11 lot subdivision under construction and
and Old Oak Way neighborhood.
West - Vacant
EXISTING USE: Vacant site source of fill for Quarry Creek repair.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project creates four single family
residential lots from a parcel partially removed from Williamson Act
contract. The four lots comprise 21.5 acres and the remnant parcel
which comprises 31 acres will remain under a Williamson Act
contract. The projdct is served by a private access road from Mt.
Eden Road which provides a cul -de -sac within the project. An
Environmental Impact Report was prepared and reviewed by the
Commission that discusses the range of environmental concerns
including the relationship of the project with the Quarry Creek
repair where this site served as a source of fill material.
The project area is within the City's
by rolling and steep hillsides as wel:
vegetation. This site had been
substantially to form a level pad.
plateau with moderate to steep slopes
Creek.
BACKGROUND
NHR zone and is characterized
L as a preponderance of natural
a knoll which was lowered
The site now appears as a
extending down to Quarry
The project to subdivide this property has a lengthy history before
the City. The initial actions relative to the project involved the
cancellation of the Williamson Act contract for the 21.5 acre
project area. City Council adopted Resolution 2475, on April 20,
1988 which removed the project area from its Williamson Act
SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
contract. On May 11, 1988, the Planning Commission, reviewed and a
majority approved, both the four lot tentative map and a Negative
Declaration. This decision was appealed to the City Council who
reversed the decision regarding the Negative Declaration. This
action required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
which was recently prepared and reviewed by the Commission. Also,
the application was also referred to the Commission for further
study pending the completion of the EIR.
Previous testimony and concern raised
review for this project have addressed a
the concern was expressed at the time of
regarding the loss of open space and the
project to Quarry Road and the adjacent
Estates.
at the various levels of
number of concerns. First
Williamson Act cancellation
potential connection of the
Cract No. 7761, Mt. Eden
The relationship of this project to Quarry Creek repair was
discussed at previous Commission and Council hearings. Because the
project area constituted the primary source of fill and involved
substantial modification to the previous land form, further analysis
of the impacts related to both this project and the creek repair was
requested. Through review of the draft of the EIR and the Planning
Commission's review of public comment, the document was modified to
address the relationship of the adjacent projects.
Lastly, concerns regarding the services to the project areas,
specifically water and emergency access, were topics previously
presented to the Planning Commission. The water service to the
property must come from San Jose Water Works or from the adjacent
landowner. The project is within the service area of the San Jose
Water Company; however, there are economic factors which make their
service infeasible. The applicants are pursuing water access from
the neighboring property, Garrod Horse Stable, to meet both domestic
and fire flow water requirements. With respect to-emergency access,
concern was raised regarding the length of the proposed cul -de -sac
being 800 feet. City subdivision standards call for the maximum
length of cul -de -sacs to be 500 feet.
ANALYSIS
The background discussed above and the previous reports, actions,
and minutes are provided for the Commission's reference. However,
several issues related to the subdivision approval and the project
design are issues that require Planning Commission review. Staff
has identified the following issues:
Revised lot lines and grading: The Planning Commission will note on
the submitted exhibits the applicants propose a slight modification
to the lot lines and the location of the access road. The proposed
revised lot lines are shown in dashed lines on the attached exhibit.
Specifically, the line between Lot Nos. 2 and 3 was initially
proposed to have a 45 bend near the front yard of Lot 3, which is
currently proposed to be a straight line. Secondly, the access road
SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
shown as Nina- Court, is proposed to be moved north toward Garrod
Farms still within existing right -of -way. Staff views the changes
to be relatively minor and an improvement over the initial
submittal. Primarily, the revised lot line provides more front yard
open space for Lot No. 3 which will improve the appearance of the
future neighborhood when homes are established.
The applicants also propose to remove an additional one foot from
the current level pad elevation. The request is made to provide
fill necessary to complete repair to property within the Quarry
Creek project. The EIR consultant was contacted and verified the
grading will not affect the conclusion of the report. Also the City
Attorney will report on the repair project at the Commission
meeting.
Access: The EIR states that 800 ft. cul -de -sac does not meet with
City standards and will therefore be an unavoidable impact. Because
access from the adjoining subdivision at Quarry Road will result in
additional and substantial grading as well as compound traffic
concerns on Quarry Road, no vehicular or emergency connection to the
project is feasible. Further, the applicants propose that slope
areas not graded be designated as scenic easement to preserve the
natural state of these hillsides. A connection to the project would
disrupt these scenic easements because of grading and retaining
walls necessary to construct a connection.
Street Improvements: The Planning Commission's initial approval
included conditions requiring street improvements to the existing
access road from Mt. Eden Road to the subdivision's westerly
boundary to be 26 ft. wide. The conditions require a minimum
access road serving the four proposed lots extending from the 26 ft.
wide street. The neighbors and the developers have raised two
points of view regarding these improvements.
As the Planning Commission is aware, the City's subdivision
standards for hillside development requires a 26 ft. roadway section
when serving more than four lots. The existing roadway from Mt.
Eden Road will serve more than four lots and requires the
improvement to 26 ft. width. The cul -de -sac within the project
boundaries will serve only the four proposed lots and therefore, can
be developed as a minimum access road at 18 foot minimum. The
conditions recommended by the City Engineer at the initial hearing
are included as conditions in the draft resolution attached to this
report.
The applicants indicate that construction of the 26 ft. roadway from
Mt. Eden to the subdivision will result in substantial increased
grading and be costly to construct. Therefore, the applicant's
request consideration of a 20 ft. roadway from Mt. Eden Road to the
cul -de -sac. In order to grant this request, the Planning Commission
must also grant exception to the standards and find that the
exception will not be detrimental to the vicinity and that there are
SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd.
special physical circumstances which justify the reduced standard.
The Planning :Commission has received correspondence from property
owners which supports the recommendation of the City Engineer. The
correspondence which is attached to this report expresses concern
regarding the narrow width and limited sight distances which
currently exist on the roadway.
Staff feels that the improvements required by the City Engineer are
appropriate. Staff is sensitive to the preservation of a rural
character and preservation of natural landforms and vegetation.
However, in cases where public safety issues are concerns, roadway
improvements should be carefully considered. Because the length of
the cul -de -sac and the sight visibility problems indicated in the
written statement of the neighbor, staff feels the Engineer's
recommendation should be acted on by the Planning Commission and no
subdivision exception should be granted. Further, the NHR Specific
Plan designates the access road which is outside of the subdivision
boundaries as the SW -NE Road connection between Parker Ranch and Mt.
Eden Road. The 26 foot requirement is consistent with the future
improvements for the SW -NE Road.
EIR Mitigation Measures: The Planning Commission is required to
certify the Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the
tentative map. In doing so, the Planning Commission must consider
the information contained in the EIR and ensure that all the
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project as
modifications or as conditions of approval. The Planning Commission
will note that the mitigation measures as amended at the last public
hearing are incorporated as project conditions.
In addition to certifying the EIR, the Planning Commission must also
adopt a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" addressing the 800
ft. long cul -de -sac. As stated, the through access concerns prevent
alternatives that are compatible with City General Plan policies. A
draft resolution certifying the EIR includes findings required to
address the unavoidable impacts has been drafted and is attached for
Planning Commission consideration and action.
Street Name: The tentative map proposes to name its access road,
"Nina Court." The residents currently served by this access road
have addresses using the name Eden Crest Lane. Since this access is
private and partially within Santa Clara County, staff feels the
uses of different names -will be confusing especially to emergency
vehicles. Therefore, staff has added a condition that the final map
name the street within the project area to be consistent with the
street name established in the County.
CONCLUSION
The project was referred to the Planning Commission by the City
Council. Therefore, it will be necessary for the decision of the
Planning Commission to be presented to the Council for review.
SD -87 -008; 22631 Mt. Eden Road
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, consider the draft resolutions certifying the EIR and
approve SD -87 -008.
. .NNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 8, 1989 Page 3
10. -002 Shannon/ Wieser, 12840 Sarato a -Bunn
use permit a g yvale Rd, request for a condidon
Pproval to operate a dog and cat veterinary hospi the
Saratoga Oaks Center in the C -N zoning district per Chapter the City
e. Continued from February 22, 1989 per the reque the the
-- - - - -to be _ —_ before a full Comm sion.
The Public Hearing „vas opened at 8.47 ----------------------- --------------- - - - - --
Mr. Ed Wieser, Applicant, made himself av '
questions.
Dr. Shannon. Applicant, stated th
examples of other o s amoral CI without not
Aerations ' San Jose area without DM
MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
be a problem for the community,
for complaints were cited
u'ff-'Uf AFPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF UP -89-M PER THE
4-2, Commissioners Burger and Harris dissenting.
11. Mt. Eden Rd.
7:52 P.M. Passed 6-0.
A public hearing to consider certifications of an Environmental act
RQport for a Proposed four (4) lot residential subdivision directly north of
Tract 7761 of the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision. The project consists of
52.5 acres located in the NHR zone district and is proposed for the consists of four single family homes and a remainder parcel comprising 31
acres to remain in a Williamson Act Contract. The propose of the hearing is to
the adequacy of an environments) document prepared to identify
impacts which may result from the proposed subdivision.
------------------------------------
Commissioner Kolstad ---------------------------
repoated on the Land use visit.
Plug Director Emslie Presented the Memorandum dated March 8, 1989. --- - - - - --
Mr. Paul Hoffey, Earth Metrics reviewed the
Yount men e � uEIR dated October, 1988. He added that one
issue not ateoussed in the Draft EIR was the archaeolo
Sion indicated the possibility of significant, archaeological aspect; the Native American Commis_
Archaeological Inver ry &scant, cultural and/or ar+chaoological resources. The California
mitigate potential ' would conduct a records search of the area; all recommendations ia
Pacts to cultural resources would be incorporated into the proposed project.
Commissioner Harris questioned whether an EIR was done on the Quarry (seek Repair Project
Planning Director Emslie responded that to his knowledge, there had not been an ERR conducted;
Permits a'� within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps there
Engineer who were handling the
environmental documentation at this time. He confirmed that permits had not been issued
Commissioner Harris noted that the EIR did not consider that the
connected to the project under considerati on despite testimony at thQe Creek Repair Project was
15, 1988, by the Appellant's Attorney, to the contrary. If the Commi nos Hearing of June
the Mt Eden Rd project, what recourse did the City have if e C C approved the EIR on
the two projects were in some way related y tips of Engineers found that
Planning Director Emslie responded that the Mt. Eden Estates EIR was being
advise of the City Attorney, who had indicated that there was a distinction between the per and the Quarry Creek Repair Project the environmental impacts
overlap in the two projects was the fill taken from Borrow Hill tothhee truArson siteein this
aspect the EIR under consideration at this Hearing was germane. Mitigation measures could be
incorporated in any determination trade.
Commissioner Harris added that she was unfamiliar with the time frame of the
consideration; however, it may be appropriate to continue project under
that the two Corps of Engineers on the Quarry Creek Repair reject had been received. ed. S response
be completed to the sat ssfaction of the P an� n �g �� Emslie responded that the EIR must
g Commission before certification could take place.
Commissioner Harris questioned the size of the houses to be allowed on this site.
Planning Director Emslie noted that the consultant had responded to the comment from the public
that a house on this site could be 12,000 sq. ft; Staff would address this item in the Final EIR.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
MARCH 8, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Siegfried was concerned about the connection, if any, between the Quarry Creek
Repair Project and Mt. Eden Rd. project in terms of drainage and the resulting impacts; while there
may not be a linkage between the projects, the EIR did not sufficiently address the question.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:12 P.M.
Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, presented a written statement of her concerns; she added
that the Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association as well as numerous residents throughout the
City shared their concerns expressed about this project
Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canon Homeowners Association, commented as follows:
- Noted that this project was similar to the recent Nelson Gardens Application in that many resi-
dents were concerned about the possibility of cancelling a Williamson Act Contracts
- Noted the concerns of residents over the Quarry Creek Repair Project and added that he felt the
two projects were one and the same
- Cited Pierce Canyon Homeowner, Association Statement, dated December 14, 1988, and added
that some of the issues raised had not been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR
- In addition, he was concerned that a 12,000 sq. ft house could possibly be built
- Asked that a good geological survey of the site be completed
W. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Ave., Saratoga, noted that this development was midway
between Mt Eden Rd project and the Parker Ranch subdivision and provided the connection in
the equestrian trail system; he urged that the City not loose a critical link in the recreational system
and asked that the equestrian trail be maintained.
Mr. William Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, stated that the Quarry Creek Repair drainage
project continued to be under construction in his back yard for the past two years. He concurred
with Commissioner Harris' comments and added that three contiguous developments by the same
individuals were under construction with a drainage project for all three located in his rear yard
W. Vince Garrod felt the Draft EIR was quite comprehensive and accurately represented what he
observed over the years. He felt there was no problem that could not be adequately mitigated with
the current geological and engineering methods. With respect to the provision of water to the site
in question, there was an agreement with the San Jose Water Works that water would be available
to the subdivision and in the amount required
Commissioner Harris requested clarification from Mr. Hoffey that all of the geologic studies re-
ferred to in the EIR had been completed prior to removal of the hill for the Creek Repair Project
Mr. Holley responded that such was correct; the geotechnical studies completed by Nordmo
Associates were conducted prior to the removal of fill. However, there was an understanding
when those reports were being done that 70 ft. at the top of the knoll would be removed.
Excavations were conducted at the point of the hill which would become the level portion; in
addition, a subsequent geotechnical study conducted by O'Rourke specifically on Lot 4, stated that
removal of the top of the knoll , in fact, not only created a level building site but also reduced the
load of the knoll and increased its stability due to the removal of the weight which created pressure
and caused the hill to slide.
Commissioner Harris noted that one of the mitigation measures, suggested required a geological
study of each building site prior to design review; Mr. Hoffey stated that the geological study
would be prior to the design of the foundation by the City Engineer and City Geologist. The
Commissioner suggested that the required geological studies be completed as a Condition of the
Tentative Map; if problems showed up, they could be revealed to the, City Council prior to the Final
Map Approval. W. Hoffey responded that he was not in a position to require further geotechnical
studies; however, he agreed that he was in a position to suggest mitigation measures. He added
that he had been in consultation with the City Engineer and Qty Geologist to his knowledge, they
had not expressed sufficient concern about the geologic conditions; at this point, he would not
recommend additional studies of that magnitude.
Planning Director Emslie advised the Commission that if a desired mitigation measure was not in
the Draft EIR, Conditions could be added to the Tentative Map, based on the information presented
in the Drift EiR, the mitigation measures were the minimum required; the studies referred to by
Commissioner Harris or other conditions deemed necessary could be required by the City.
Commissioner Harris commented that Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association letter noted that
Nordmo Associates were hired by the developer, she wished to verify with Mr. Hoffey that their
reports had been reviewed by the City Geologist he confirmed that such was the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page S
MARCH 8,1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Harris quoted as follows on the Environmenml Impact Rc= (EIR);
3.2 Drainage1Hvd— logyMter pnality Imnactc statement, "The runoff w111 continue along a
natural drainage course." In view of the his of the area (Quarry Creek Repair Project),
she questioned why the natural drainage course would be relied upon.
Mr. Hoffey responded that such would be considered in greater detail in the Final EIR. In some
cases, engineers of projects wished to keep the storm water runoff from flowing as an over -land
flow on natural surfaces; they wished to see the runoff interrupted and enter energy dissipaters or
rip -rap types of structures to slow the flow; when the water reached the natural ravines, it would
either be infiltrated into the soil or held in place by the existing vegetation.
Commissioner Siegfried added that he also had questions about drainage. It was his understanding
that runoff from rooftops, etc. was channeled through the storm drainage system to the energy dis-
sipaters; as the runoff flowed below Lot 4, it reached a natural drainage area. He did not under-
stand how this process increased the flow. Mr. Holley reaffirmed that such would be addressed in
the Final EIR in much greater detail,
Commissioner Harris stated that the above discussion partiall y answered her questions on 3.1
Geology- Slope Stability_ statement, "The stability of this portion of the site, however, has been
increased due to the recent grading by lowering and unloading the slope." Mr. Hoffey confirmed
that this was the opinion of Geotechnical Consultants, who would have to provide any additional
information on this item
Commissioner Kolstad asked that the CEQA Guidelines be addressed. It was his understanding
that in order to certify an EIR, definite answers in respect to mitigation treasures were required and
had to be in place at the time of certification; in addition, it was his understanding that when adjoin -
ing projects impacted each other, CEQA Guidelines required an environmental analysis on the earli-
est possible date rather than reducing the project to parts in order to avoid a comprehensive analysis;
such was referenced in Commissioner Harris' question on the Quarry Creek Repair Project.
Mr. Hoffey responded that with respect to the former question, there was no requirement in the
CEQA Guidelines, insofar as he was aware, which required that mitigation measures be in place at
the time the EIR was certified.
Commissioner Kolstad asked that the CEQA Guidelines be made available for his review.
Planning Director Emslie confirmed that any mitigation measure in a certified EIR was required to
be in place or conditions established to insure that they were in place prior to completion of the
project; such was an integral part of the environmental review process.
Commissioner Kolstad noted that the provision of water service from San Jose Water Company
was not in place; Commissioner Siegfried responded that a Condition requiring such was.
Commissioner Harris cited the Draft EIR, 3.1, jmpa statement, "The haul
roads utilized during grading of the site and transportation of fill to the Quarry Creek repair site are
currently experiencing minor erosion and gullying and should be repaired with site development."
She noted that this repair project occurred during the past three years of drought and she felt that
the statement that the roads were experiencing "minor erosion" was insufficient. During the rainy
years, major erosion may occur, she asked that such be pointed out and added that the Draft EIR
conclusion, "Reparation should consist of restabilization and revegetation." should be more
specific regarding how the reparation would occur.
Commissioner Siegfried asked that the term "minor erosion" be defined; Mr. Hoffey responded
that minor erosion was scattered, with the potential to become major erosion if measures were not
implemented to halt the erosion.
Commissioner Burger asked whether the Draft EIR contained reference to the equestrian trails;
other Commissioners assured her that such was included. She asked that reference to the main-
tenance of the trail system be included in the Final EIR. Finally, she commented that Commis-
sioner Harris' concerns about the Quarry Creek Repair Project were legitimate concerns. It was
her understanding that an EIR was not completed on the Repair Project since it was an emergency,
although the repair was monitored. She questioned where a linkage between the projects occurred.
Commissioner Harris reiterated her concerns•and noted the magnitude of the
gni Quarry Creek Repair
Project; in addition, there was sufficient doubt within the community that the project should not
have been classified as emergency since the condition had existed for three years prior to the repair.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING page 6
MARCH 8, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger questioned how these concerns could be addressed; it was important that the
Commission had assurance before the certification of the EIR before them, that the Mt. Eden Rd.
subdivision would not result in additional problems in the future.
Chairperson Guch noted that there appeared to be some areas of the Mt. Eden Rd. project which
were linked to the Quarry Creek Repair Project, specifically on Lot 4 and the Haul Roads; she
asked that the potential relationships between these projects be addressed.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred and asked that the drainage as it related to the reparation of the
Creek bed be addressed, namely, how would the flow patterns be changed by the new project and
what would the cumulative impacts be?
Commissioner Harris cited the City Attorney's statement as related in the Minutes of the City
Council Meeting of June 15, 1989, that "both the pro�osed subdivision and drainage leading into
the Quarry Creek area would be the subject of an EIR. The Draft EIR under consideration did not
seem to address the issue of the "drainage leading into the Quarry Creek area.." The City
Attorney was quoted as saying, "Drainage from this property was part of hydrology studies done
in connection with the Repair Project"; yet the Draft EIR did not refer to such.
Commissioner Burger asked that the issue be addressed in the Final E 1L
Commissioner Hams concurred and added that testimony of the Appellant's Attorney at the City
Council Hearing had "questioned how anyone could consider these actions separate projects under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); projects in question were closely aligned ".
Commissioner Kolstad that the he had the same basic concerns as Commissioner Harris had raised;
concerns would be alleviated if the Army Corps of Engineers stated that the Quarry Creek Repair
Project was proceeding or that the drainage from the new project would not have an impact.
Chairperson Guch suggested this approach reversed the question; she suggested that the impacts
from the Mt. Eden Rd. project be considered.
Commissioner Siegfried added that a properly engineered drainage system, even for an undevel-
oped site, would mitigate the impacts; the question was the change resulting from development of
the site as opposed to the current drainage patterns; such was independent from the Repair Project.
Commissioner Kolstad felt the Draft EIR did not adequately address the impact of the drainage
from the project; Commissioner Siegfried added that the changed impact from the proposed
development was the question to be addressed.
The Public Hearing remained open.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE DARING ON THE MT. EDEN RD. TO
APRIL 12, 1989, DIRECTING THE CONSULTANT TO INCORPORATE THE CONCERNS
INTO A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). Passed 6-0.
8:50 - 9:05 P.M.
12.. S -024 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Drive, request for tentative map a to
create a three -lot subdivision in the R- 1- 10-000 zorie4mflct per Chapter 14
the City Code. No parcel is proposed to 1 an 11,500 sq. ft.
Commissioners Kolstad and Siioied'i
Planning Director Emslie reviewed the
visit.
Commission, dated March 8, 1989.
Chairperson Guch introduced e�wing letters record
Ms. Patricia Khan roily, 13710 Calle Tacuba, S dated March 1, 1989
Mr. Tho yatt, 13682 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, March 5, 1989
- W. ullan, 13748 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, dated MafdvZ 1989
Richard L Dewell, 13730 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, dated March 2, 1
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M.
PLANNIlvG COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 26,1989
Page 4
HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Mr. pplicant, commented that the intent of the window was to add aru;hitectiral • a
window se ouild act as a buffer, preventing anyone from standing directly in t of it.
elli This room was Na oal of providin and light.
He suggested that fter Point of activity, since there was a family roa4 as on the plans.
the bon B ho use. Staff assess whether opaque be t+equirod in
room; he salted the window be allowed as shown on the to ptwide bode light
and air for the room An al ' location fa the required exit was discusse&
if the Application Burger thst these no room for to �� ��, intrusions;
question that the aped with us room as shown on the plans, there was
no glass would have to be
Commissioner Ouch did not wish to we eitb a of glass Or the placement o! the willow
Open ended; she wished to see an opaque, window vent impacts to djatxac residents.
Consensus reached by the that the window be to be opaque Sian and fixed,
if the Applicant wished a of this Corditioo, application be made at a later date.
BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE DR- 89-001 PER THE M EL RESOLUTION
AMENDING CO ON 7 TO REQUIRE THAT THE BONUS ROOM W BE NON
FUNCTION E OF OPAQUE GLASS AND ADDING A CONDMON WING A .
D OVEMEDTT AGREEMENT. Passed 6.06
MOVED TO APPROVE SD- 89-003 PER THE MODEL
10. Mt. Eden Rd. A public hearing to consider Oftfication of an Environmental for a proposed four (4) lot residential subdivision � of �
7761 of the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivisiom The project consists of 52.3
acres located in the NHR none district and is proposed far the development
of four single family homes in a remainder parcel comprising 31 acres to
remain in a Williamson Act contract The purpose of the bearing is to con -
sider the adequacy of an environmental document prepared to identify
Potential Impacts which may result from the mmosed sWxh imen_
_Meaiag of the Planning Commi»son Would be revised
".,`. spoaate ameriaen to crag °ACOOrdin I to the City of Suatoga (Shook 1989), Qvt
don `Mitigation measures restrict consttuc-
22� arm ided to read, "Although the comment $rata "Off-site' storm drama, it
is believed the commentators meant "on- site" $t - drain or the proposed drainage system•
Since Nina Court is expected to be a private roadway all not be dedicated to the City,
Maintenance and cleaning of the drainage gstuan will be the reapomibility of the Nina Coen
residents.
The City has many exsm�les of pdvate drainage ways that are
�endoould� ProP�Y oa'nas• However+ if drainage becomes problematic, then
.. t �aooeptthe dedication in maintenance:"
amended to read, 'This portion of Mt Eden Rod is outside of the City of
Saratoga ty liar ty
northerly d the project which will FF Nice st amounts of vehicular usage,.
D 27, Response amended to read, oo the Green alley Disp osal (`,ompany, which
provides solid waatoe $ervicea oo tSaratoga, if closure of the Gusdalupe Landfill
occurs, then Grew Valley may choose to transport solid waste from the City, including the
proposed development to alternate landfills including Kerby Canyon in San Joan Four
single family residences an not considered to gtumft a slgdfkm amount of solid waste.
'Racent indications from San Jose are that Guadalupe 12nmIl will not be closed.:"
D 29 Response amaided to read, "Nina Court 'from the project to the the existing 60 R
C 7). This F EAR had been revised to refs t of Sarstogs (see Wan the use to Comment
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIIV(3 pap s
APRIL 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Harris questioned the mitigatm meamr011 for the Quarry Creek Repair Project,
The City Attorney provided a progress report on the Repair Project; in entictipa of additional
q on the intgrtdarionahip of this Project to the four lot subdivislon tmde:� oa, he
added that at least one of the subdivision lots (Lot 4) extended into the Repair area. Future owners
of Lot 4 would be requited to participate in the landscaping used as a mitigation measure, How-
ever the Envia+oenmataI Impact Report (EIR) was not be the time to address the issue,
The Public Hearing was q=W at 8:33 PAL
Mr_ Paul Holley, Earth Metric, reviewed the
Fla in compietim an
Commissioner Harris asked that Mr. George Sicolw be Hued in the Final EIR as a Hydrologist; in
addition, she asked that the contacts with the Army Corps of Engineers, namely. Ms. Joyce
Munjirus and PAL Karen Masson, be refwenced by name m the Report, She noted the comment in
the EIR. that the Army Corps of Engineers considered the Quarry Oak Repair pmject and the ML
Eden Rd. Subdivision related projects,
The City Attorney responded that than would be a plan for the teplamingg the Creek area. He could
not perceive a connection between the Repair Project and the four lot subdivision under co wdera-
lion, with the exception that some of the rill came from the Quarry Credo Repair Project; the area
encompassed by the ML Eden Rd. Subdivision was outside the Creep area. FurthetmoM. there
had been serious questions raised whether the Corps had any 'utrtsdicdon in the
subdivision under � � both the Corp the R; agreed that the
area; time was relatioo:h. betuwea the
two projects to the extent that the subdivision drained imo the Creek area. The eavQOOmatai issue
was whether the infraatr =sum facilities that had been installed in the Creep. were adequate He
cited the wort of the hydrologist and geological eonsuttam; relied upon by the Qty in this matter.
TU other ton; a impact alluded to was the fact that there was a haul road built on one of the subdivision
gation measure as well as a Condition of the Subdivision Approval, had been devised.
These were the areas where the Qty saw an interrelationship between the two projects; any
mitigation measures would be before the Commission when the subdivision was approved.
Commissioner Hants steed that Her main concern was that the Qty not loose the ability to require
necessaryy 109111111011 to restore the Creek to the lovely area it once was•. the Qty Attorney responded
dialogue of thts�F.IIt fair the ML S� pair Project was a sepatase issue and ua part of the
area; to the extort that discussions ML on the vision' however, one lot extended into the Creek
be included in both the discussions and Repay �� in a p�D' this lot may
participation in such a plan.
Commissioner Harris kdmd tot a Condition be imposed . requiring mitigations for Lot 4.
Commisdoow Kolsod also had concerns; he asked that it it were !suer determined that the Quarry
Creek Repair Project and Mt. Eden Rd. Subdivision wore related, due to Lot 4, to the extent this
project was found to acquire a modification of the Quarry Creek Repair Project. proponents should
lobe r e4tm0d oo P ipam their proportional sore in the umpiemeatation of necessary altaations to
1?suj�
W. Tom Burt% Repse11mdng the Property OwWM stated that they had hired the consulting firm
that and So to deago a re" tatiao plan which included a portion of Lot 4; he added
the Corp � of Eaginems bad never asserted that their jurisdiction extended beyond the
high water mark of the Creep and as loch, came no where new Lot 4.
sive yAAttoornneey added that once lots were created. they ot>te sold; the Qty wished gucees-
subjea to the Mitigadoo11 contained in Condition of the subdivision appr vaL
Mr. Willem Kohler. Via Region Sara oga. co®ented as folknm
- Noted that he was encouraged at the previous Meeting, that any relationship between Quarry
Creep Repair Project and the ML Eden Rd. SabdMdm would be explored
- The Army Corlm of Engineers bad informed the Consultant Merit that the two
jects� related, I, he contended that they wpee�re erellated
. An • The Army Corps of Engineers had not � final � on the issue a drainage
green approval of site drainage facilities already
ca utrtwted; in addition, the arc had not expmienc much rain this }
• Urged that the Commission to consider the Army Corps of Enginedsarevaluation on this issue
PLANND•., COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
APRIL 26,1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Kohler continued his comments as follows:
previously requited for the an by the City Council had not been completed
of the water pipes was unknown; pipes for other subdivisions were placed in unstable
areas which resulted in a disruption of service
Asked that the EIR address the location of the water pipes
Chairperson Siegfried responded that the EIR specifically addressed the issue of drainage.
four According to the Consultant, these tots went considered and included in the hydrology wow
the drainage facilities constructed were adequate,
BURGER/I'UCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 833 P.M. Passed 6-0.
BURGERBOLSTAD MOVED TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON
THE MT. EDEN RD. SUBDIVISION, INCORPORATING THE COMMENTS MADE AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING, AND TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT PHASE
WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF THE TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION. Passed 6.0
1 DR- 89-014 Kim, 13333 Fontaine Drive, request for design review approval to con
a 1,303 sq. ft. fast and second story to an existing 1.604 sq. ft. single
-- residence to the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district Per Chapter 13 o the City
The Public Hhing was opened at 9:00 PAL
Cfiaicperaon Sic and Commissioner Burke repoeted on the land use visit
Chairpe=son S' cited the letter jointly a8 by Mr. and Mrs, Richard 13373 Ronnie
Way, and the Property at 13354 Ronnie Way, Saratoga,
that
bors
c�naaaints to eupanding they floor rather than �oons�ttean� Ito m he noted the site
story sdditiao:
Mr. Ralph Sutton, 133% Ronnie . Saratoga, sated that
the past; if one property were an additions were denied in
would be set for the neighboy-
hood. Furthermore, the marine trees to screen the home' portion would eventually die
and the home would be exposed. Owners the size house when tbry purchased it
Mr. Dwight Perkins presented a letter of 19349 Ptartos Ct, Sarato
oPPB this second story addition which waa ble with the neighborhood-, strongly
they did not object to an expansion of the first floor �oo� however,
Chairperson Siegfried reviewed the cower
had fully 000sidered as expansion of the first
Commissioner Ouch commented that dZI
character of the neighborhood; she 9 Staff
r std. by the neighbors and asked whether be
"my Pam the expansion would change the
Cantimre the Item.
Commissioner Kolsad favored c Bnig the neighborhood rig the extent that home im-
prvve is would be oompl He noted the marine area and added that the
in question was at the of the cul- de-sa� bolt of wld privacy impacts.
Other residents of the area raised tbek roof pitch to enhan their home. There
WIN- a evolution in the wherein home improvements were being comp ' nonetheless, the
number of unusable v les parked on the street was not a favorable sign. He ouraged the
creativity resulting allowing same second story additions, as well as other ' is;
however, a plan be in place to prevent every home from adding a second story
Commissioner agreed there was a movement to improve older neighborhoods;
mission to be sensitive to such. Her only concern was the limitd t for
"a. a d one and two-story elements could be considered at a Study Session.
Co Tucker favored improvements to upgrade the arts; she also was eonoeraed about
the lot size and felt a second story addition would result in privacy impacts,
Public Hearing remained open,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 897 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: 3/8/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: An Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Mount Eden Road
Residential Subdivision (SD -87 -008)
Location: 22131 Mt. Eden Rd.
Applicant: Anthony Cocciardi
Recommended Motion: staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) open the publ c hearing, receive the consultant's report and
Public comment; 2) provide Commission comments and concern; 3)
direct the consultant to incorporate concerns into a Final
Environmental Impact Report; 4) continue the public hearing to
4/12/89.
Background
The Planning Commission initially reviewed and approved the
residential development which allowed development of four single
family homes on 21.5 acres and a remainder parcel of 32 +/- acres to
remain in a Williamson Act contract on May 11, 1988. The Planning
Commission decision was appealed to the city Council which was
considersd at the Council's June 13, 1988 meeting. The City Council
affirmed the appesll rescinded the Negative Declaration and directed
that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared on the proposed
application for tentative map approval.
The City requested proposals frca qualified consulting firms to
prepare. an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed development
and selected the fir1,, Earthmetrics to prepare the draft EIR. The
draft EIR was-completed and distributed for a 43 -day public review.
The draft was distributed to State and local agencies who have
provided written- comments as to the adequacy of the draft EIR.
Additionally, correspondence from property owners and homeowners
associations around the proposal was submitted within the review
period.
The consultant has prepared draft responses to comments submitted in
the review period and they are attached to this report. The
consultant will also respond to oral and written comments presented
at the Planning Commission hearing as well as incorporate necessary
changes to the EIR prior to certification and preparation of the
final report.
Memo to planning - Commission
Re EI1tr Cxciardi, Mt. Eden Rd.
The Planning commission is aware that the EIR must reviewed and
certified as adequate prior to action; on the proposed four unit
development. Therefore, staff is recommending that the hearing be
limited to comments pertaining to the adequacy of the draft EIR.
Further hearings to consider the proposed tentative map will be
advertized, and conducted to- discuss the- specific proposal at
subsequent Commission meetings.
The project itself has a lengthy. history which the Commission is
familiar and is discussed in the draft EZR.: The project area in
April, for Williamson Act cancellation by the City Council in
April, 1988. This action removed 21.5 acres from the contract and
left 31 acres under contract. Although notice of non - renewal has
been given to the City for the remaining 31 acres..
The pr''opose& location for the four homes: was' graded to create fill
for- the quarry Creek repair.: The City. proceeded: with, the creek
repair on azr- emergency basis in 1986 whom agreements. were= entered
into with =the developer. Large-amcunts of fill were taken from they
site which created a plateau now Proposedr !or, single family
residences. The creek repair is proceeding, permits from. the Army
Corps of Engineers are. pending_ and a mitigation- plan is in
preparation..
Analysis.
The purpose of the•EIR is-to provide a systematic review of the
spectrum of potential environmental impacts for a proposed_ project.
The EIRQ process facilitates a dialogue betwom. the, environmental
consultant,. the. City; State and local agencies and the public to
examine Potential impacts prior to project approval..
The EIR process also provides the necessary. date to establish
provisfona to lessen identified impacts..., . mitigation measures are
listed to address each identified impact,; - and are required to be
implemented by' subsegwnt action by the approving body..
The.. drat:.. 31W- Prepared for the Mount Eden Road.- development has
identilie&�,pctential environmental impacts: and mitigation measures
in the fo2laringt areas:
A. Goo_ l2sm
Impacts: Slope. Stability; seismia Safety
Mitigation Noasures:
I- setback structures-from slope.
2. Incorporate geotechnical investigation recommendations.
3. Review by City Engineer
4. Incorporate Building code seismic Safety requirements. '�=
Memo to Planning Commission
Re: EIR, Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Rd.
H.
C.
D.
E.
5. Design foundations and retaining walls to resist
ground shaking.
6. Flexible utility connections.
7. Specific engineering recommendation shall be incorporated
into the final design.
Drainage /Hydrolow /Water Quality
Impacts: Alteration to natural drainage pattern= downstream
Pollutants; downstream sedimentation.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Conformance -with grading ordinance.
2. Minimize grading for pads.
3. No exposed slopes in rainy season.
4. Repair haul roads.
S. Retain natural vegetation.
6. Hydroseed slopes.
7. Periodic inspections by soils engineer.
S. No storm water flowing on unprotected slopes.
9. Catch basins to retain sediment during construction.
Visual/Aesthetic
Impacts: Residents adjacent will have a view of the project
area; light and glare.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Design and landscape home to be compatible.
2. Implement Saratoga Design Review process.
3. Non - reflective glass.
4. Low profile exterior lighting.
No
Impacts: Construction noise; future traffic.
Mitigation measures:
1. Muffle construction equipment.
2. Restrict hours.
3. Inform public.
Public Services
Impacts: Water, Fire, Police, wastewater and others.
Mitigation Measures: , 4,.
Memo to Planning Commission
Re: EIR, eocciardi, Mt. Eden Rd.
1. Obtain water from adjacent property owner; or
2. Obtain water from San J084 Water Co.
3. Provide Saratoga fire systems in future units.
4. Fire retardant roof systems.
5. Minimum emergency vehicular access.
6. Statement of overriding concern for length of cul -de -sac.
7. Clearly identify streets and addresses.
S. Annex to Cupertino Sanitary District.
9. Provide sanitary Bawer lines.
F. Fiscal Analysis
Impacts: The project has a positive fiscal impact; no
mitigation measures required.
In addition to impact and mitigation measure identification, an EIR
evaluates alternatives. The document discusses several options to
determine what effect the alternative will have on the environment.
This EIR identified two alternatives: 1) No project alternative; and
2) A reduced density alternative. The no project alternative
concludes that seismic and slope concerns are not present and that
erosion will continue to become more severe than the present time.
The reduced density alternative, which removed lot #4 from the
project concludes that there will be no appreciable difference from
the proposed project if slope and foundation engineering
recommendations are followed.
The consultant has also responded to preliminary comment received
during the public review period. Comment was received from the
City, Santa Clari galley Water District, State agencies and the
Pierce Canyon Homeowner's Association.
In general, public concern questioned the geotechnical reports and
investigations on which the EIR was based. Concern was expressed
that investigations were made prior to the removal of the earth
and does not provide an accurate assessment of current conditions.
Additionally; drainage, erosion and grading concerns are raised with
respect. to the following: the need for additional discussion on
drainage; comparison of the several geotechnical reports,
enforcement of mitigation measures; and foundation design.
While the focus of the comments is toward geology, grading and
drainage, other comments were made in the following areas:
1. Construction noise and attenuation
2. Water supply
3. open space maintenance
4. Location of Herrocal Fault
S. visual impacts
6. Solid waste disposal
7. Off -site roads
Memo to Planning Commission
Re: EIR, Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Rd.
8. Revenues expended
9. Growth:inducinq impacts
lo. wildlife
11. Natural resources
The Commission will find the complete correspondence detailing the.
concerns itemized above in the "Response to Comments" attached to
this report.
The California Native American Heritage Commission has suggested
that native American relics and artifacts may exist in the area. An
inventory is pending to determine if cultural resources do exist,
and to determine possible mitigation measures.
Conclusion
The purpose of the EIR is to provide the necessary framework to
determine a project's effect on the environment. The EIR must be
found to adequately discuss and mitigate the impacts identified
This findinq is reached before a decision on the project is reached. .
Staff suggests that the comments received at this public hearing be
addressed in a Final EIR to be presented at the Planning Commission
April 12, 1989 meeting. Staff also suggests that the tentative map
application be advertised and a hearing held at the April 12th
Planning Commission meeting so that mitigation measures can be
discussed in the context of the four lot residential development.
Steph Emsl e
Planning Director
SE /dsc
A:memopc
MEE M OF THE ary couNaL
NNE 13, 1988'
KUBLIC HEARINGS continued
Page s
Hlava aoodnDed as follow
• 7tdb the teactioD of membete d the adlaw committee was being famed b.dtacnp aLr !t
ne's property for sits montm b a yes i
-
private Fate wet a ptivats Propstty oweer;'S0CW , operated ca d d the
spdoea with the Tent for Public Em& telmdag
ApplicaeK bs eo =dW eo p-rd - , j a(mycomadme
GenaW Pisan d ier noted dim the wil iMm Act COW= had b eaeoelled and tbs
was not tbs same ae selling an psetei el petipmer
COuncilmeaber Hlava tint the Comma bad Dios �
owner could rider sale d far pmiad d rtes ar I
would hold the property for Sbe
her n WCSt that the Applicant befote a ocmmieeee famed.
Ms. Callon stand thm tits acquistoe b as md 90 unable to be mods a this dma; time no andwh r to mob s� a war
. F a s
six man*
Favored a bred based coin Wjmjy task 90� p° 000
• Uedmtxood d acd at neighbors w
>6roo twee msmbsn;
come to the soma eoudmko at the eaped°g WpOrtattidsm emy na oW not
With the high level atW mss is the b ettplow ahattadves was aeoeenyr
Mayor Pet non commented as
Favamd a coadWtanoe d this A b
altttattadw
If ldt him. be would vat oft b
- Felt very singly that be na sttppoet wig om qm•
Sarabp Cry am Yom61 �1 f d inn m tbb ttei�ltbaehood
such a ate msm�ation
ne8� a Ammy almd a decidoa ftam the AppUCW be in a timely a i i
r arch wow eaabfr other paedp b � � �
Consemn macbed tab appiiadaee !br'ths Cammietee with d mtmbees b be
dose at die Ad Reguls Meeting d Jubr u ccodemeas d dw y 4
1988, at which the mF=I Dad time tdhedldt d &@ Commioee
�
a ANDERSON MOVED TO CONTn4Ug CiP 87-003 Tp Y 6� 198i.
is the * Moyise added tine tee cth► Amuttsy► , eommmicase with i�
ai rite foe a 90 day ex mt me following the " memh coodnue W
n
to ----v -0 the Nalmn bpm the comminnw
9:20 - 9:33 P.K
B. Appel of Tentative mtP �pevOf� b atbdlvide 3 eddwuh�siagIfamily bama
Rd.. lab a tool d 31ae. tots ort wltiA wig be
N
(21.5 Weak the egative Delon iioon � ben I p id �(AppdUZ4 Kohler IO UX
-008).
Plan" Caldwell reviewed the Repoet b tits Mayor ad Gty candl. June 13. 196L
The Public Hearing was opened a 9:12 P.M.
dftft"'
MEETING OF THE ary COUNC L
17JNE 15. 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
PAP 8
Mr. Ronald Stein. Attomey for Pierce Cmym H meowtm3 AsmoclsdM Noted the lack to time m study the is sue Weil end asbd fora hm
Amazed that no Enviroemeaev Ia poet �t (EIIt) wan dam as the Qmmahsy Rq*
Project: such was m im m* m ppunta a[ the App ' mtddseadoa
Amazed that m EIR waa not dam as the anoslladon of the Williatoeoe Aa Cataset car
on caclhmeat Pam pmad to tbs Water Coogmw
Questioned how myam could consider these sadoas Pmt oaeat the C B.
Cited theme C definition not - c�QAk ptvjeeta is gaeatioa wen eloee� alipt�d
activity being approved and which a�6a< wan impoetaot wsu that penject' tefieted to d»
tthay be m ssvaal
ggova nn aht apm , 'pmjed did not mom each �� �' dw
I7taw�a diffaa a is bow a p[ojm ddWM U the rips d sawbw
• If the prolea ware viewed &a Quarry Creek tcpak, remonsl of lead m repair she. aa-
cellAtion of a Williamson Act Canawa and appev d of a Tenadve Map. -one omm
that each &coon aken sgmrady did not have agmdcmt impae� as the eadto ®nee �
Viewed ss a rod project cos tmtaa ask orhethe tech world haw eaviratmmesi WVem,
- Suggested that such had devaatadag eaviroememal invem for do area
Noted whit he it the Stipnladm for Semlemtmt App ad saosd that clady the
A.the pry of Sa s%)gL knew extaaly what W. Cooaiatdi planned
rather than reduce i CtEQA �� m d � at the aarliau po@$" drat
pn*a to pates in artier tit avoid `soeh ha mahmft
• if EIIt should haw ham aondnotsd rather than a NeSoM
It additioohi proof sutra that pt'I wen dad togeti- be died the failow�ehg;.
Geotedhatd Iaveed� Va paro Cc, dims by Teen To* 19f6r
- Applkaooa of Mr. pap L. 14. pop 3
U
enwh QA6.tbOCIlYwu mQoited n sbow the - 9 -cs ddm that thane would hot be u
ttxxptha
Studies completed under CEQA should be duos phut so TmUdw
approved �v tesotd with dw Cound>: secondly. if�saAt�nlw Map wee&
and may sad thht 4 • dm boaoaowse would bo rggoh eo compisss such
Noted for ths:ecot 'the h idpoed Nepdw pecleeadoo. handy. f�
t bait study, the for 1 ta=e soils iawsd
and finally the possib ft of teoaepaeethhg a forme F M � was no evtdeocet
Only m initial such did na seem a be the cm
_ aady existed wfiieb aas+d that that was noeavhoamemd
peed of %m G�blbn Temedw Map Appty amom
Mr. Willem Kohler. Apps
Noted that a poop 1 ��d
Reviewed the aedoa of the ph=," _ VW, he
C0111100101 at m � j
pp Ra ader mamaased the cad form E>St:
had the Tmmsdw Map wen
– such who nix tenet noted hr the teoaed La 4 hd a
An "ancma a landslide as La 4 was ma as ml g I cr i�ad as beast addeeseed
Asked that as Fnviepmmamtat lapeht bs oomphaed
Added that La 4 was mead for a po 114m 4 R boors
Presented a copy of a lame Than the Ware Comp�Nn end srasd d as be dm non wsmt the
Noted of F mid GamsY aoaoeme ad 9" do p o
W. Bill Peeeed.13485 Old Oak Way. Satasop` ptgssatsd a pegpaegd srasemmc dead Jttas
lSib. asldug that the developscoaspiets peioro. amamafiN s belioas:gosiviag dditioW psmdae
Ms. �aFebx�o. Query Rd.. Sango p. aommmed as follows;
consulted about the p m*M had tbm been EIR headnp. fibs would hart
testified: in order m find out what was happeainp she was required m buy a as of plans
No E1R was done she was told that such was unmmem" since this was m
an MCaed�thha whichhncdOslc nee 8 oo for the tnm yarn fibs lived in Sump
_
•
Felt her pr+opaty was aMhid 008 be mated
subdivision a deiny"ed fa the sake of this development: asked that the; pm
postponed 111101 justice wag done fa existing pmpaty owaaa
MEErNO OF TIE Cny COUNCQ. Pa
NNE is. 198Pap
PUBLIC HEAR MS Candaved
Ms. Dors G=& 134310ld Oak wq. Sa:aoop, commeaeed d fellows:
Reimn oed elver d - 3 due d the vequmo (k homK w.hi� an ProbIM in the Creek were caused bm a miaimttm d three yeses
which backed UP. eio ld the Crack bed ad no the ro d� eed ��
Cited the oar fad accident Of bar 14 year old m who tried d mints the lop
VaQ%= Credo and thh were cattsae 11 date lo the fm
Reports on Va cz oa cs ba d these was am a moving
There was no due emer8escp that prevensed an EM gm b*g Seed: the ComWl
was not told the tem6 shoot the siatstiote
Fish and Gam; claed the ptn = doves and were s;eidag is charges � the Cky
Urged that as E>it be oomphod and CEQA rules ><oibtted.
ML C3esfd 1e219m.12127 Qdw Rd.. Seeaoogtt. oommested as lbucrm
Fortzolly= EM be
Quesdaiedgeowlicd opany aid. !y !h. gso]cal ,d,o
had n« vi:std ehe:io;. why „available ptd.,d this remavil of this M and the lsdc
°f 'hod°g etemed. eoeAaetnitr with this eisaud Plate
. C=d a fmd aoc khw sod this destesetios aft hi111ids an to a mavieg hedsllde
• Urged discrosion of this wodw sod aeoneaep mitigstios� ached that as EM be eao"W
ML lo Pm &What M "n comm;ewd as tbibwu
Qtr► C�edt Pblect hd bas coined s �� mW atbr the �dleg !br the
• Nated far tlw:ecaed the soocidhg a CEQA, ptojao havitV X81 ace this a s-
Add exposing WdlvWlllW i twl; a mt� 8edo ss wa; mgttited
strppoet d PO$ to this allbets d Piero; Canyon Aseochtia�
Mr. Run rowtber was sppdhd at this desteanios ca W Feiatxday
it was time that Sump trot ig m lawn at? rive Stars d Callfiorai< '*UPM7 sd stated da
asked that td city asaod;r tha reoatomeedetiA m of Phroll i AmmdmkmL
Mr. Tolhk Amaissy tint to a bowww .
Ccxiffa and � PAM lawtoiv. the Qnetslr C:+sak Repair Frojeos<
Noted
S
!bt Seedimsttt AgteimeaR coasaibwrtesa dtha tepadrptojsit
• Staud that tin Rspeir ca�� a this pt±ojat and coodwiooa nadoed
The mm
maw tha dta � d I slbr both an
Asked b �R,apeir �mmisdotey diiWmiostiote that a Negative DedaredW wan
suflscieat be
Depanmsst teed Osess >tehsi;d gw Pam to this AM Carp; d Engimm tha
Cotes
bad m Suetco■oes showaoodtttaleg as EM
Mr. Raeuld Sods asked hr codesa as ee dbw Dspastmsu of Phh teed Gems a resPoad
regatdiag whstbu ar not fty bd acoteawte abort dds I jsPip
Mr. Cmwdw stated the k was hh tmdaratasdieg that the Ca to d bd bew advised that that
had no choice Aisp�voting on stack ium as pnosWtios d Vyumm as Aa Cvet� h
TMessm A *aa� adopes the voters ad � d t� added that &Wmd the stomeem bb.
ML Grew noted A
between the two ptoh in that the Appiitt's Amteser otso;d tbtt thus wss iaoegtseiote
the pasties tram rapo fior mog a � rescbed an this peojeet absdved
CL'SVENGERMLAVA MOVED TO CLOSE
Passed 3.0. THE PUBLIC FiLARINa AT 10:41 P.M:
MW MG OF THE CRY COUNC L Paps 8
NNE 15..1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The C ty A y}� commented a fdlowc
The issue�belbre the Council was wbedw as EM should be dooa. Staff had mot a dee6
urination drat the four lot wbdivWan wcold not have sigaidpat y,�
The Council could aocYpt Such Or re5a tt thn an Egt be peepned by 'tht
Zoning would be under the Dedp i CAM Piddines � Ma
• Reeeu bd ision awas bein under the Zoning
ty pr oPtund was consistent with Mann A
The City Englneer Provided infeetaatian tequa m a art dw opacity of the ¢cheer
Councilmember Clevenger oomommted as ibilows
• Was familiar with the d the Quarry C �Rapair�eM do had
sufficient doubts to ask that a feeused Fav@onmmd
- Noted lack re residents � cam0m abas eveaa
�OOd °g oa dw Caood and;tinned b aak fa en EM
. Concurred thl at the RqWr PMm hd siptillpet mwav; �,�s„er. the Repak wee
designed b dal with a
• Did not fee! a 4lot Aun 25 am would bee dp dpntenvhanmsmt impeete
Per Staff Reoommendatian. she did oat fat! an MA wan ¢anti for on this project not
would the project have dw same IMPO s as dw Repair Project
Councilmember AMeeeoa cited the aon�
• Neighbors would be n8eved b ate dw compisssd bdm app wd of my houses
Noted �° _co0IMr' d goo is the hillside area and tht♦ feat that this
. as she°'�� sWitndastood tepatt was none bdose eltt hill had been ¢acted off
would made settee to the Depeamem d Flsb std Gams w= going b tegdM an EDt. it
Favored the EM with �soch n this dent
Concerned that tesideme did not fed bud b * faDow
an
by Qty: m Egt would allow poblit: inptc
Maya Peterson commenced as Mowr.
Praised tht Cocoon Asaodebs for geoaadtdpl tVMM ploy on this
• Noted that Sarasoge was an do ed— PAS
Would accept as EM it such wip d: bowerer. ht felt that
existing gat and a
Aclm aymend thet this bad not beat =6 enilahle b tesidsnb in dw area¢ at
Egg may tread the eaisdng a�ommmiesrist p* .
The City Attorney. tt:>pottdie9 ao Cmadlm�
P� � � � the MUS d et EM. if teq��� � pm- - -that tbt Tam"
and
Q=ty Creek nee would be the subject d as E1L Dt �
dus
proPetty Was P019# by&dov atndias aster in =owed= with the Repair project.
Council m eommeettd U Mows
member and not 60 for � � and is In that the City
was under txixm isrewigstlost amgswad that the Council not be itdhmeoad by #A&
Noted lawsuits filed altar the d Menstse A and his comminnaet b nerd
land use policy which tanitud in� a P of doOm
The .ouadl wee advised that no
A kgitimab stab d emergency hd exisbd and ptabtia htNdrlfsalrty was eadangsted: dw
To a 0° d the Qtts�r Qesk RSptlr ptttjtst wet
�dy dtwlopmtnt dpriveb in the Snebga� in an envirea
mentWy satsidve fiahion was the � dcenoantt n this bteeittg
Wh. not doubting the extent ad coat dpsvbus attsdip. attch were . sitar cost dm-
. An Tentative EM MAP allow a ayntbthe d pavioos setdia. giving a cim focus d the impect a
Tentative Map may have on outer ptoperties dowatmpta
Such would also insure that cottceras d dw public were addressed
Noted his admiration for the work d tbt 6ry Amorney on this complex problem
Favored sustaining the appeal requiting an EM an the Tentative Map Applica**
s
MEETING OF irm CrTY COUNCIL.
N Pap 9
NE 15.1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City e m no a advised die Couadl aAtr complee = d r EM and Tenrdvs Mac APpovd.
Tentative Aa�W' the Couoci! could na bW thin item apia, If oottotaaa eetadva to the
MW PIS emmed. such d"M ba noted at thin drat
MOYLBS/CLEVENGER MOVED TO SUSTAIN TIM APPEAL, RESCIND THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRF-CrM THAT AN ENVIRWMENTAL, TMPACp
REPORT p� BE ON THE 'TENTATIVE MAP APPLLGTION Paard 4-1,
cTha�ld the P1aMag Commiadoa dart the Teaddvr Mao beaaad
o slsb jaae to ��� mW "Faval And that aU p mW&
C. Discussion Of Media Dedp at Scamp Ave. and Kadab Dr.
CitY Engineer ravieaed the Report so the MaM cad Car Cam. Jttaa 13r 198L
Healing wr opened at 11:20 P.M.
Tytsell.12336 Obead Dr. Sarfop� � r M N
CCited mtcrae And every day: noted tbs chap oompiatcjaa d the
Prard thattJt I Oudir at S a6m � stet
cot P�bb a mab a � U-mm at thin i�
Mr. t a Dr. SaeaooR o�meard r fdk" u
_ volatile vered Kodeb DrJSwm op Am comw
Of « lft m � e�� A PA Mt6 am lar
RQulesaooed ai9Nfor Rev learod the Ba L.eveb d Saevirn ?or the io�eedonr
W. Bob Peoodch, S Pat wo,
. Noted the mtmbtrdata is t
Noted the Peddbu opposing alit
AveJKc" Dr. and the teattoaa Sh
75 -W% of rridetm is the Asaooia
madiod
SmWs tt�ooemgmeradadoaadegle
H meowoets !t drat do chaogr 9e
is m OWN aed r foiiowa:
of bud Iaaa at 3-mm
Ynib Dr ease r the moat c oavea�at
sad Avr. deed the adb "m'mdadaootr
cooerae tithe homeowoeea
10 00hadom the �Pddts
trsd 1, &A t 00"ar*Wftmftm
NOW oo da dw w �r �edraed tde 00mmrrd r fallom
Tram c lad wan a WARY ibaass for d the at m wst f
ia d Demaded taft bs� ad am is an
r btdts
Ms. Dan Graft 13431 OaE Wjr» S� cord thae the did �
the City uw*u a pobiam SXW* addd that dmk tegttrt be
Dr. An W
one sow d a � a�hm �r �R iaor wets an tae p� .
Mr. Art B the chaum Of the ndghbodlood ad sir ooaoaened about aditq
Mr. Tim to find YFmmb0ftft=cocmxmd as folbwr
available oonsultaor is civil en ' ` `m an p°A'b Rrrdt
ssumed that ttsf8c modiadoa mde�wou d be tamsfacrep tolls for overyotn
• Ron Reid. Smfop Ave.. Sa moM cord Uflsc hamtb 08 Kasich DrJSaaeop Ava
To: The Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
From: Donald and Rosemary Newman
22641 Mt. Eden Rd.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Commission Members,
We are writing you to inform you of our concern regarding
the petition which is currently being circulated by Mr. Coccardi
in which he requests the roadway which is to serve as an ingress
and egress for the Cocciardi /Burke four lot subdivision off Mt.
Eden Rd. (SD -87 -008) be downgraded.
We received a telephone call from Mr. Cocciardi on Sunday,
April 16th, asking us to sign a petition (dated Feb. 22, 1989,
see copy attached). Mr Cocciardi expressed the fact that he did
not feel that "we" needed a curbed city street to service his
subdivision as it connects with Mt. Eden Road. Instead, he
proposed that there be a "capping" of the current roadway which
now services ourselves and two other homes: the Kim's (which is
currently for sale) and the Hall's (oho we understand have already
written to the Commission expressing their opposition to the
proposed downgrading of the roadway).
As we see it - there are several problems associated with
Mr. Cocciardi's "proposal ".
1. We feel that a roadway 16 feet wide, as is being
ar000sed in the petition, will be unsafe, especially during the
developmental phase of the subdivision, as there are currently
blind spots and a narrow culverted section across a deep ravine
along the existing roadway.
2. The current roadway was not constructed to carry heavy
construction equipment and has already broken down due to heavy
trucks and bulldozers using the roadway to gain access to the
Cocciardi /Burke MT. EDEN ESTATES development. Such detremental
effects to the roadway were documented in pictures taken by former
City Engineer, Carl Vieweg and should be a part of the City
records. The roadway was also severely damaged about a year and
a half ago by dump trucks carrying broker up concrete from the
meridan curbing as it was being removed from Saratoga/
Sunnyvale Road during the Beautification project, and carried to a
dump site adjacent to the building sites associated with the above
four lot subdiivision.
3. We have experienced further problems with the current
roadway during years when rainfall was heavier than in the past
two. Because it has no curbs, half of the roadway where the
cuiverted portion is, washed out because the edge of the road was
eroded by water running across it. That same year, if you recall,
a similar situation occurred on Mt. Eden Road across from the
old Terlink home.
All of our concerns are addressed in the REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION dated May 1I, 1988 (excerpts attached)
stating the specific conditions required by the Engineering Dept.
for development. We feel the interests of those homeowners
along the roadway would be best served by adhering to these
requirements.
One last point: we would hope that installation of under-
ground utilities and water would be completed before the paving
of the roadway takes place.
Thank you for your interest, and if you should have any
questio, s regarding our concerns for the proposed roadway,
please contact us at 867 -2069.
Sincerely,
Donald and Rosemary Newman
tilt
in
1.
+
ITY OF SARATOGA r.
RUITVALE AVE
ARATOGA, CA. 95070
RE; WIDTH OF GAJ':,' ROAD
0 WHOM IT MAY cONCEi�N:
WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED `H A, T I r; R'S IS A PROPOSAG TO WIDEN �-TH.P-
I
.2C,VE GARP—`0 ROAD FROM WHER LL I �
TARDI -BURKE SURCIV151;bN LOT SUBDIVISION OFF. EDEN
PRnPE2TY- OWNER: ,;'
ol
- - ------- - ---- --- --------
` /f--- --- --- --------------------
---------------- ----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L - - - - - - - -
Ow.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ir
WE, THE UNDERS',`�t,'-`D,
P,"'Ull',-RTY
OWNERS
OF THIS ROAD. EPEP.Y
,1EQUEST THAT THIS
N 0 11,
WIDENED
TO -A FULL C ll� FREE T
W I Tki-
clu:n'gkjmS
INSTEAD
THAT IT BE KE, A
'N
.,AXIMUM WIDTH OF SIXT2L Ftnt
THIS IS A RURAL P,,AD,
Wll)h',NING
IT WILL
REQUIRE INCRE ED CUTS
AND FILLS, WILL REQU,'T-'F- "HE
lZir",:�-NAL OF MANY TREES AND REMOVE-THE
?RESENT NATURAI, EFFECT OF
THE POAD
AND WILL DO NOTHING TO,ENHAtkE
THE AREA.
SINCERELY,
PRnPE2TY- OWNER: ,;'
ol
- - ------- - ---- --- --------
` /f--- --- --- --------------------
---------------- ----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L - - - - - - - -
Ow.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ir
SD -87 -008, 22631 Mt. Eden Road
EXHIBIT A
1. The applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions withi
30 days -of the passage of this resolution or said resolution sha]
be void.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
2. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining Fine
Approval.
3. Submit Parcel Map for City for checking and - recordation and pa
required fees.
4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20- fY
h a 1 f street's one 3 Niifa: Court -=ands impr 9T�tf, ` ._min arum access boa
standards�_as; ?: prescr be&by r the- City1, Engineer. 3'
5. Provide evidence of. access rights to Mr. Eden Road from. th
proposed cul -de -sac.
6. Improves the existing; right =of= way= between Mtn. °°, Eden R a ands
beg nm ngr of`'the subdivision°:: to City: s'tandards�;includ cng�
/ -IV . w
a. des igned..structural sect 19 2:6 ft'betwee'flowlin.
.,r
b. P. c. concrete,' curb�'and,4gut*, er"- (x-24) .
C. undergrounding-- existing overhead utilities.
7. Construct st6jjE &,j,& fi4" "ystem as directed by the City Engineer
as needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer, c
watercourse, including the following:
a. storm sewer.trunks with necessary manholes.
b. storm sewer laterals with necessary.manholes.
C. storm drain inlets, outlets, channels, etc.
8. Construct standard driveway approaches.
9. Provide adequate sight-; distance. and remavgobstructons f view a
required at driveway and access road intersections.
10. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change
retard or prevent flow.
11. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
12. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Santa Clara County for work to b
done within their right -of -way.
13. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:-
a. street improvements
b. storm drain construction
2
000222
SD -87 -008
STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Proposal /Background
The applicant is requesting tentative map approval of plans t(
subdivide a total of 52.5 acres of land into 5 lots; 4 of whicl
(21.5 acres) will be developed with single family residences, th,
fifth parcel (31 acres) will remain under the Williamson Act an(
not be developed.
In 1973, a Williamson Act Contract to preserve the subject propert,
as agricultural land was entered into.between the City of Saratogi
and Mr. Anthony Coccardi. On April 20, .1988, the City Counci:
adopted a resolution cancelling the Williamson Act Contract fo:
21.5 acres. (See on
to City Council dated April 6, 198:
and City Council minutes dated 4/6/88.)
The proposed building site for each lot has been graded flat, an(
the dirt used for the Quarry Creek Repair Project. The perimete:
of the site, however, is characterized by moderately steep to ver,
steep slopes �with � mature vegetation including�a numb,. o ,mat�ur(
oaks. Proposedaccet a fotilots" r#cudg,aa2 fdepavw
streets °ext �'� °~
endt3ngom M ' E ` Rcxadst he weste ec3' of the
subdi�v sld _,r ah °� -aynpi fmuii ac es ac Court th a c -de-
sac turnaround. Since the length of the proposed cul -de -sac is
greater than@5fifet'�" XfmateY
$PI�'e '�`"SEie�'ft. long, the
applicant is requesting the Planning Commission grant an exceptioi
to the subdivision ordinance limiting the length of cul -de -sacs.
B. Analysis
During the City Council's debate on the applicant's request t(
remove the 21.5 acres from the Williamson Act, several propert,
owners in the area voiced a concern regarding the loss of the lane
as open space and wanted assurances that when the property wa:
developed, access to this site,or from TRACT 7761 -Mt. Edei
Estates, was not permitted from the existing Quarry Road.
In response to the above concerns, the applicant has designated
large portion of the site as a "Scenic Easement." In doing so, the
areas of the site that have not -been.graded <for the repair project
will remain in a natural state. In addition, as a condition o:
approval for TRACT 7761, .this site and TRACT 7761, will b(
connected to the existing Quarry Road by a 18 ft. wide pave(
emergency access road. Gates will be at erected at both ends o:
this "road" and through access permitted only during emergencies.
The required findings to support the applicant's request to excee(
the maximum length for a cul -de -sac can be made. Specifically_
since there is no other reasonable alternate access to the site
the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment o:
N
000228
SD -87 -008
substantial property rights of the applicant. In addition
*antine[..-_-the-- exception will na be; - detz =` iitetiti'al' 'to the ,u
P,, >-
w =in aacessV to,�, the�s:i�te , inn t °imes=of,=- arU ,Yemergency wislc�ti
not bi'�r
The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoninc
code requirements. Specifically, the width, depth and footage o;
the four lots meet the requirements of the NHR zone district.
addition, the project's density meets the site density requirement:
of the zoning code.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application b�
adopting Resolution SD -87 -008. The project and improvements arc
consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, will not creatc
public health or safety problems, or cause substantial environmenta:
damage.
01
000229
SD -87 -008
24. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approv
all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., sit
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and desig
parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure tha
his recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by th
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Cit
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of sit
development and building permits.
25. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the long
term stability of the proposed building site considering: 1) th
proximity of the residence to steep slopes, 2) the site's seismi
setting, 3) apparent dip -slope conditions and 4) the area o
potential slope instability identified by John O'Rourke in th
referenced report. Appropriate geotechnical design should b
proposed (as necessary) to ensure the long -term stability of th
proposed development.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS _ SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
26. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit plan.
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to th.
Santa Clara Valley Water District for review and approval.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
27. Annex property to Cupertino Sanitary District prior to
Final Map approval.
28. The developer of TRACT NO. 7761, Mt. Eden Estates, is obligated t
construct sanitary sewers in Quarry Road in accordance with th
plans and specifications approved by the District. Thes
facilities must be constructed and accepted by the District prio
to being able to provide sanitary sewer service for the propose
development.
.SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
29. Fite hydrants shall be located•within*fiva <hundred feet from al
futU t'.rq '�3eMeap and deliver no less than one thousand gallon
per minute of water for a sustained period of two hours.
30. The developer shall install fire hydrant(s), the exact number t
be determined by the Fire Chief, that meet Fire District
specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted pri(,
to construction of any building.
31. All future driveways shall be constructed to the followin,
standards:
4
000224
JYff' ASSOCIATES
21083 Comer Dr.. Saratoga,. California 95070. (408) 741 -1159
June 1, 1989
Mr. Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
City of Saratoga
Re: SD -87 -008
Dear Steve,
"47celvza
P 'AN'V"V0 DEPT
I appreciated your concern over my vote against the certification of
the EIR for SD -87 -008. As I explained to you, I was mistaken in
stating that the minutes of the April 26 meeting were missing from the
record. I simply overlooked them in my packet. The -only reason I
voted in this manner was because I felt the documentation was
incomplete. Now that I realize my error I wish to go on record as
agreeing with the, other commissioners present-in recommending the
certification be approved by the City Council. If you will include
this letter with the City Council's packet I'm sure the confusion will
be minimized.
I apologize for causing you any discomfort. And -I greatly appreciate
Your patience with my-misunderstanding.
Yours truly,
Janet Harris
Planning.Commissioner
W
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: June 7, 1989
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: NEW COUNTY CAL -ID AGREEMENT FOR FY 1989/90
Recommended Motion:
AGENDA ITEM -A)
CITY MGR. APPROVAL /�W_
Authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment in behalf of the City to the original
Cal -ID Agreement extending the term of same to June 30, 1990 together with associated
costs for FY 1989/90.
Report Summary:
On April 26, 1988, an Agreement approved by Council took effect which concerned the
development and implementation of the Cal -ID system in Santa Clara County. Funded
by all the incorporated cities and the County, the Cal -ID system allows all of the
county's law enforcement agencies direct access to the state fingerprint system which
identifies suspects involved in local crimes.
The current Agreement expires on June 30, 1989, and would be extended by the proposed
Amendment to June 30, 1990. Funding for the system is based on each public agency's
share of population.
Fiscal Impacts:
Saratoga's share of the funding for the system is $6,328; the amount is included in
the proposed FY 1989 /90 police protection budget.
. Attachments:
Proposed Agreement Amendment and supporting information.
Motion and Vote:
� �V,
A
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
° o LOCE 01EPZ% V X1EH1r
DATE: 5 -1 -89
TO: SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF & POLICE CHIEFS
FROM: JOHN C. SMITH, CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: NEW CAL -ID COUNTY AGREEMENT FOR FY 1989/90
Attached is a new agreement for the Santa Clara County Cal -Id Automated
Fingerprint system. The agreement signed by all of the agencies last year
expires June 30, 1989.
This new agreement is done by a First Amendment and is executed by
having each City /County representative and their attorney sign their
individual form. When all of the forms have been signed and returned, each
City will be provided a copy of the signed forms.
Please take the steps necessary to have the forms signed by the proper
City /County representative and return the agreement to:
City of -San Jose
Office of the City Clerk
Room 116
801 N. First Street
'San Jose, Ca 95110
(Attn: Sharon Pardun)
Also attached as Exhibit A is a list showing the allocation of operating
costs for fiscal year 1989 -90 broken down by each entity's share. This is
the amount due in July 1989.
The Local Input Terminal has been hooked into the State's system. The
first latent fingerprint (a burglary suspect) that San Jose P.D. checked
through the State was a positive hit.
If you have any questions please call me. Thank you.
` l2,
hn C. Smith
Chief of Police
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
151 WEST MISSION STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 t
(408) 277 -4454
APR 25 1989
JOAN R. GALLO April 21, 1989 POLICE
City Attorney
John C. Smith
Chief of Police
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
1000 Villa Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
RE: California I.D. System
Dear Chief Smith:
Enclosed please find the First Amendment to
Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency
Access to the California Identification System.
Please note that the method of execution for this
First Amendment is by counterparts -- the same
method as was used for the original Agreement.
Thank you for your assistance in the handling
and distribution of this First Amendment. Should.
you have any questions, please. feel free to call.
Sincerely,
JOAN R. GALLO), ty Attorney
CARL B. MITCHELL
Deputy City Attorney
ejh
' JRG:CBM:ejh
3/29/89 (2)
• FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCESS TO
THE CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
0
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day
of 1989, by and between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
a county of the State of California (hereinafter ( "County "), the
CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF CUPERTINO,
a municipal corporation, the CITY OF GILROY, a municipal
corporation, the CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation, the
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation, the TOWN OF LOS
GATOS, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal
corporation, the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation,
the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF
MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation, the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
municipal corporation, the CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal
corporation, the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation, and
the CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Incorporated Cities ").
R E C I T A L S:
WHEREAS, the County and the Incorporated Cities have entered
into an agreement dated April 26, 1988, entitled "AGREEMENT TO
PROVIDE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACCESS TO THE CALIFORNIA
IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM" (hereinafter "Original Agreement "), in.
order to fund, implement and operate a local automated fingerprint
identification.system (hereinafter "Local ID System "), which will
provide local law enforcement agencies with direct access to the
California Identification System (hereinafter "CAL -ID System ")
through the use of local remote access network equipment
(hereinafter "Local RAN Equipment "); and
-1-
7590i/0424i
JRG:CBM:ejh
3/29/89 (2)
WHEREAS, the County and Incorporated Cities desire to •
continue the Original Agreement and to modify its terms with
respect to the financial contributions which the County and the
Incorporated Cities will each make to the City of San Jose in
order to implement and operate the Local ID System and to extend
the term of the Agreement for another year.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
benefits, the County and Incorporated Cities agree that the
Original Agreement be amended as follows:
1. Section 3 of the Original Agreement, entitled "TERM ", is
amended to read in full as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date of
execution of this Agreement by all parties and shall terminate
on June 30, 1990, unless terminated earlier as provided
herein. It is anticipated that the parties will renew this
Agreement beyond June 30, 1990, by an express written
amendment.
2. As required under Section 6.C.3. of the Original Agreement,.a
list setting out the operating budget for fiscal year 1989 -90
and reflecting the financial contributions of each party to
the Agreement for the 1989 -90 operating costs of the Local ID
System is attached as Exhibit "A ".
3. This Amended Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts each of which shall be an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one and the same document.
•
-2-
7590i/0424i
' JRG:CBM:ejh
3/29/89 (2)
1
4. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement
remain in full force and effect.
I
WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove
written.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Dated:
City Attorney
CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Dated:
City attorney
CITY OF GILROY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
7590i/0424i
By:
CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Dated:
By: Dated:
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
By: Dated:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
By: Dated:
-3-
JRG:CBM:ejh
3/29/89 (2)
CITY OF MILPITAS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1
•
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM_:
City Attorney
By:
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
By:
-4-
7590i/0424i
Dated
Dated:
U
By:
Dated:
City Attorney
CITY
OF
MONTE SERENO
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
By:
Dated:
City Attorney
CITY
OF
MORGAN HILL
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
By:
Dated:
City Attorney
CITY
OF
MOUNTAIN VIEW
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
By:
Dated:
City Attorney
CITY
OF
PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
By:
Dated:
City Attorney
CITY
OF
SAN JOSE
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM_:
City Attorney
By:
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
By:
-4-
7590i/0424i
Dated
Dated:
U
JRG:CBM:ejh
3/29/89 (2)
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f
•
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
7590i/0424i
CITY OF SARATOGA
By:
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
By:
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
By:
-5-
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
r , ern Tr 11 A..
ALLOCATION OF OPERATING
COSTS -- FISCAL YEAR 1989 -90
% Share
1/1/88
4.92%
Population
Campbell
34050
Cupertino -4&
38850
Gilroy
27600
Los Altos
27300
Los. A1tos�_'Hfll'11
7875
Los Gatos
28050
Milpitas
44100
Monte-Sereno-,j
3420
Morgan Hill
21550
Mt. View
62500
Palo Alto
56900
Santa Clara
89700
Sara.togal
30050
Sunnyvale
115700
County
104100
Total
691745
% Share
Contribution
4.92%
$
7173.60
5.62%
$ ^`
8194.2.4
3.99%
$
5817.62
3.95%
$
5759.30
1.14%
$f "1Ifi62 =:-18
4.05%
$
5905.10
6.38%
$
930 2.36
.49%
v ��
3.12%
$
4549.12
9.04%
$
13180.77
8.23%
$
11999.75
12.97%
$
18910.91
4.34%
$
6327'.93 .
16.73%
$
24393.18
15.050%
$
21943.65
100%
$145834.15
N , I
•
1
•