HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAw w
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. G 3 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Renewal of City Attorney Contract
Recommended Motion: Approval of resolution renewing contract with Atkinson -
Farasyn for legal services.
Report Summary: The City Attorney's contract will expire on June 30, 1989. The
proposed renewal would be on the same terms, conditions and rates of compensation as
set forth in the existing contract. The City Attorney presently receives a monthly
retainer of $2,570 for the first 35 hours of time and charges $80 per hour for monthly
services in excess of 35 hours. Litigation services are billed at $85 per hour. The
contract also provides for PERS contributions by the City and a continuing education
budget of $1,500 per year for League meetings, conferences and seminars.
Fiscal Impacts: The 1989 -1990 budget amount for City Attorney services would
not be increased above the 1988 -1989 budget figure.
Attachments: Proposal for Renewal of City Attorney Employment Agreement
and Council Resolution approving the same.
Motion and Vote:
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA APPROVING PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF
CITY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT THEREFOR
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows:
1. That the proposal for rendering legal services to the City of Saratoga
submitted by the law firm of Atkinson.- Farasyn, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," is hereby approved and accepted.
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be, and they hereby are authorized to
sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Saratoga.
sss
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of June,
1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
MAYOR
r N �
May 30, 1989
PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF CITY
ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
TO: The Honorable City Council
of the City of Saratoga
J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982)
L. M. PARASYN (1915 -1979)
We offer and agree to continue our representation of the City of Saratoga
as City Attorney and to provide the services required by law to be provided by a City
Attorney, and to assist the City of Saratoga in the conduct of its legal affairs. Our
services shall include the following:
1. To attend monthly meetings and conferences as follows:
(a) Two regular Council meetings;
(b) Two regular Planning Commission meetings;
(c) When requested, study sessions of the City Council or the
Planning Commission;
(d) To be present at City Hall for meetings and consultations with
staff members once a week and such additional times as may be
necessary.
2. To provide the Council, its planning commissioners, officers, agents
and employees with telephonic advice and opinions relating to City business.
3. To assist the City Council, its planning commissioners and staff in
drafting ordinances, rules, regulations and resolutions relating to the conduct of the
City business.
4. To initiate and prosecute civil and criminal proceedings relating to
violations of the City Code.
5. To defend the City when requested against claims of liability for
personal injury, property damage or inverse condemnation and to represent the City in
any other type of litigation brought by or against the City in addition to the Code
enforcement services described in Paragraph 4 above.
• 6. To render such additional legal services as may be requested from
time to time by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Manager or the
City staff.
-1-
ATKINSON • FABASYN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL B. SMITH
660 WEST DANA STREET
LEONARD J. SIEGAL
P.O. BOX 279
HAROLD 5. TOPPEL
ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042
STEVEN G. BAIRD
(415) 967 -6941
PAUL K. ROBERTSON
May 30, 1989
PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF CITY
ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
TO: The Honorable City Council
of the City of Saratoga
J. M. ATKINSON (1692 -1982)
L. M. PARASYN (1915 -1979)
We offer and agree to continue our representation of the City of Saratoga
as City Attorney and to provide the services required by law to be provided by a City
Attorney, and to assist the City of Saratoga in the conduct of its legal affairs. Our
services shall include the following:
1. To attend monthly meetings and conferences as follows:
(a) Two regular Council meetings;
(b) Two regular Planning Commission meetings;
(c) When requested, study sessions of the City Council or the
Planning Commission;
(d) To be present at City Hall for meetings and consultations with
staff members once a week and such additional times as may be
necessary.
2. To provide the Council, its planning commissioners, officers, agents
and employees with telephonic advice and opinions relating to City business.
3. To assist the City Council, its planning commissioners and staff in
drafting ordinances, rules, regulations and resolutions relating to the conduct of the
City business.
4. To initiate and prosecute civil and criminal proceedings relating to
violations of the City Code.
5. To defend the City when requested against claims of liability for
personal injury, property damage or inverse condemnation and to represent the City in
any other type of litigation brought by or against the City in addition to the Code
enforcement services described in Paragraph 4 above.
• 6. To render such additional legal services as may be requested from
time to time by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Manager or the
City staff.
-1-
• 7. For services to be rendered pursuant to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6
above, our compensation shall be as follows:
(a) Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Dollars ($2,570.00) per
month for the first thirty five (35) hours of attorney time
expended for each month of service, commencing as of
July 1, 1989, and continuing each month during the term of this
Agreement.
(b) Eighty Dollars ($80.00) per hour for any of such services in
excess of thirty five (35) hours per month.
The City shall make contributions on Harold S. Toppel's personal
behalf in the appropriate amount to the State of California Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS). Harold S. Toppel shall make corresponding monthly
contributions to PERS on his personal behalf and in the appropriate amount. This
provision of the agreement shall inure solely to Harold S. Toppel's benefit. This
contribution shall be in addition to the said basic monthly contribution.
8. For litigation services rendered pursuant to Paragraph 5, we will be
compensated at the rate of Eighty Five Dollars ($85.00) per hour for attorney time.
9. In addition to the foregoing, paralegal services, if utilized, will be
charged at the rate of Forty Dollars ($40.00) per hour. We shall also be entitled .to
reimbursement for actual direct costs relating to the performance of our services.
10. Out of the amount budgeted for the City Attorney's office, Harold S.
Toppel shall be entitled to a continuing education allowance in the sum of One
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), to be applied toward the cost of attending
the spring meeting of the City Attorney's Department of the League of California
Cities, ABAG and U.C. Extension seminars, and similar programs designed for
continuing legal education.
11. This renewal agreement shall be for a period of 12 months
commencing as of July 1, 1989, and terminating on June 30, 1990. The agreement may
be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) da}js prior written notice to the other.
Approved and Accepted.
CITY OF SARATOGA
By
Mayor
ATTEST
• City Clerk
-2-
CLAIM AGAINST CITY OF SARATOGA
1. CLAIMANT'S NAME (print): AUDRIE M. REIMERS
• 2. CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 15290 Clydelle Avenue, San Jose, CA 95124
treat or P. .Box nu m er - City - State - Zip o e —"-
3. AMOUNT OF CLAIM $ 501000 Home Phone See #4
Work Phone
4. ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT,
IF DIFFERENT FROM LINES 1 AND 2 (print): PAUL L. DeVRIES
Name
777 Marshall Street
(Street 0. Box number)
Redwood City, CA 94063
(City - State - Zip Code)
5. DATE OF ACCIDENT /LOSS: October 7, 1988 TIME OF ACCIDENT /LOSS: 8:30 p.m.
6. LOCATION OF ACCIDENT /LOSS: Near 14760 Aloha Street, Saratoga
7. HOW DID ACCIDENT /LOSS OCCUR: Claimant tripped over elevated man -hole cover
8. DESCRIBE INJURY /DAMAGE /LOSS: Left hand, elbow, broken left knee
9. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY /DAMAGE /LOSS, IF KNOWN: Unknown
10. ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM (list items totaling amount set forth above):
Compensatory damages
General damages
11. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant:
S To be determined
:50,000.00
S
12. Dated: PVul L. DeVries
Febru?ry 2S_ 1989
Wom. REIM THIS FORK M C
ITY CLE1;K, CITY CF SARA'LbGA,13777 FRUI'i'VALE AVFN'JE,
SARATOGAr CALMMRN3A* 95070.
10/87
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECU'T'IVE SUMMARY NO. /6 C
MEETING DATE: _ 6_21 -RA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SD
BRIAN KELLY, SPRINGER AVE. (1 Lot)
Recommended Motion:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY 7
,PZ2VAL
Approve Resolution No. SD 89- 003 -02, approving Final Building Site.
Report Summary
1. SD 89 -003 is ready for Final Building Site Approval.
2 - All requirements for City and other departments have been ccmpleted.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal- Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD 89- 003 -02.
2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
. y
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 003 -02
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF BRIAN KFLLY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 15,295 square feet parcels shown as Parcel 84 on the Mazy Springer
Tract recorded in Book F3 of Maps at Page 69 in the Recorder's Office,
Santa Clara County, submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga,
be approved as one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
vote:
0 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
t
day of
CITY CLERK
19 by the following
MAYOR
RESOLUTION SD -89 -003
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
JULIE AND BRIAN KELLY, 14491 Springer Avenue
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
one (1) lot, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -001 of
this City, and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
building site on, 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 building site and land use
with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified
in such General Plan, reference to the Staff Report dated 4/26/89 being
hereby made for further particulars, and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofor received and considered the
Categorical Exemption prepared for this project in accord with the
currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through
(g) of Government Code. Section 66474 exist with respect to said
subdivision, and tentative building site 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 20th day of
March, 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. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
2. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for checking and recordation (Pay required
N.A. due t0 exiStirlg
checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map of
record, submit three (3) to -scale prints.)
Tract Map
3. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 20
ft. Half- Street on Springer Avenue.
N.A.
4. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easements, as
required.
DONE
5. Improve Springer Avenue to City Standards or enter into a
Deferred Improvement Agreement for the following improvements:
w
SD -89 -003, 14491 Springer Avenue
D.l.A. a. Designed Structural Section 13 ft. between centerline and
flowline.
b. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24)
c. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
D.1.A. 6. Construct Storm Drainage System as directed by the City Engineer, as
needed to convey storm runoff to street, storm sewer or
watercourse.
7. Construct Standard Driveway Approaches.
With Building Permit 8. provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
9. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard
or prevent flow.
10. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
a. Street Improvements.
N.A. Due to D.I.A.
11.
Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
12.
Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
13.
Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
DONE
14.
The project shall be connected to the sanitation sewer through West
Valley Sanitation District of Santa Clara County.
N.A.
15.
Existing wells shall be treated in accordance with S.C.V.W.D.
requirements. Plans shall be submitted and approved by the district.
With Building Permit
16.
Existing septic tank(s) must be pumped and backfilled in accordance
with Environmental Health standards.
DONE
17.
Domestic water shall be supplied by San Jose Water Company.
DONE
18.
Design review shall be required for structures on the lot.
19.
Tree removal shall be prohibited unless in accord with Article
15 -29 of the City Code.
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.
SD -89 -003, 14491 Springer Avenue
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 26th day of April, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, and Kolstad
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tappan
ATTEST:
ecre ary, anning Commission
A:RESTM
lR.
C airman, P1 nni Commis ion Vj
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Tsvia Adar
DATE: 4/26/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV.
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -89 -001, SD -89 -003; 14491 Springer Avenue
APPLICANT /OWNER: Brian and Julie Kelly
APN: 503 -26 -048 Q
N
. O / � �'�•oJ 211 Sel-]4.eY " -nl ..lr. "-•+ 7.
// a/h � �/ bf. � [tLJ 2e6w fO /'tr. la =lo If 1 11 •I �� � 1 .t' 11111 .t w
� 1 tt�� j'ri � �•P 1 +f 2 ZI' 'er -a) - °) laza t` I?Oj-ra�M.) t'f•r7.i t e: L1,y 14
�7 �° � //� � tow! /[6 O fOf' +� to fro to r4ler. t 4 �i+t0 y►I.f7.7)�9 .�
;o C s. 211 y t J r4 •/ a. f c4,J lit) � _ 1 i.
�� `� �•�, �C fOj. +R [tu t�Oa %" 90400 °a���41t) � r4! a= !o!• ca /t .f ►� t) - r_ [t� ,;�•
O 'h " " tl Z f•• -q -e 1•!1/ o ' a.fr. 411 17.4 ti JlA k 7 ° �,•,
0 a Fo p4 t/ Q
� y,)O[ae V +04(0 tv /allr + 1•,. > °[In °l.r� laa) e.)tt y q uf/ �.
~ �'t /) -v •.1 fOj7) �r1n H/� 4 r4 yLl •4 �/ /i 27: �i /4j
Iloo u+) 14690/11 2q1 fq f) /lt Por.r>; (ial s° =•ar. a� A .7 s °1110 (t!I I -rr 4P/
toy -go-go swot 4'•y rrHto bf 45,a) t). /t°•1 >r • °!. 14y4p .1
-11-11 7f'0� V �4fdr raft••' +a_ /4)
w •t7,S 1°••97 [>al fOj'rs. 1ar) 14,,
jOrs/ a 143 lIr qp /a).b �,aJ `•.1111 *a) �.s4.fr /at6 =T.
lug) rtaJ soy'ryyyyJ ti+ �u / >ar 411 ='[! +) 14! 9004.p.,
)CU too►(I!
a'14•r 11-11 10t
207C2J !. =7•[f °)
•�'1y
Fos-zs -14 yo °!)/ aJ4t��rfJ a'rs. eft 7G r[I �j
20011 (AV f'r [� 4 4 a. rr, 1 +a ♦ ¢I f 'ryt 7
el y'ol -tf -[i 2p f• /0 =�ill)1 �� 4� 4d` •Ft pie a ty
f ••
:.a J� si o 9164 ho
1osoUa 2oo7otcr too4o[w too to 2oy°j j` �/ ya [+ �1 ,Q�'�� a w�;� i+'R,, �. •'Dot M` ! +v
1-I /-E7 '1brN yo11 3'70 !ol-t8 -71 y rOf.r' `Ir / PD.. nt�y) '•y4 0 •� �!,'y *d il- w 1��. �• o.. O
1 14 N >�_rj
V
101 -t6•s4
501-211- 7S \ a. ,t`')�f•J
'`
THE
SUBJECT LOT
'
M
op
\
1,v
CLo>
7
�
M <
29
Sol -6T
1+111 146111
� 146y6� 141=0
h0
,?MN'>
v
hry�
14440 14641 k ,IVY
h,6.7
210or C17)
1414iJ 14644 1*
6 ;"
^�J
h44
•SS-'t6
l�Vh4
Zj0=�(1i1
1461•
l4ur.� H 1 /
aip
rJ +i hJ y'd7 `J�..
41 4'
�= 4
14141
W 1610 f4 ? +*
r sa
1 •
C (11)
•l 14650 14.111 /• . + I+a f L
•
�'i
a-f0
14.So
0 IKit •4
y c
c
507-44 144ts ~•o•
1467E
r
�1, 146K
14666 1
1416• IM.K 14646 •14-41
644
14.19 I1. P'+'
.7.5w- 2,4
�•1{
Iµ1170 144• 14.60
146111
146°1J IK60 IK6L tit
Q
�.w'+ n •
P.101 ♦(IW
�• 146b
1466[
14661W IK61 IKC4 go!'6f
16 I µµ•
146•!
t
1• rA N
-54-11 211-0..
r1
14164
INN 1164 i 64661 Q.
,6
i i 11Q/ M �M' Q 4
M'
14 "6
14667 14616.6. ,
14"11 146" (
M
d) • O 1
14[.00
14666
1661
14111 1
Q
-
/• 1107 -7t -aa
1 4 6 T O
141.70m
1 6471 14611 1µ10 rt
1M•17y�_
Q
.. '.1 %
14671
1467= IK74 +
146
"1
_ at
21150
1 46 74
146.71
141175 y • 14674 _ o
141677 (� 4n Q •.
I44r�•00
\
14170
1467 .�
11671
I4467
4 11.4
�
s7`/
14640
1461L
14610
503'64` 14611 14611 li
1. �
1A416p f Av 1w t17•�•
11 7 s14674
17 •O \°-r -270
146414
I41M /. /.r
{17 -7- Ifj(. fo
' 1461•
1"91 IKK .j
14
•
Y• Ili,-
14611
"SSI
141.611 14N1 Sol -I.O O
'
411.Y Igy6y
1+64°
14661 1464•
146 7 14641
rf 166 1.E
146c6
QI 1460. .a
C P
f4-IS I COl -ii -tl
146.1
.
.e
•1
101 S .7O O:
Q
5011 -11• Ayq
167
1pga '►•1 �; � � 411'1 �` • MM
601 -4Q '26
L i
11.1 ,,. W l • % IA,10
A 41,
�;•.0-
I
s6� =� PAµE ,,,11 ,Z
14700
froi•sr - to
t1
fll•� 0,10 ,A,4e
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 6 -21 -89
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL FOR SD 89 -001
SINSLEY CONSTRUCTION, SOBEY ROAD (1 Lot)
Recommended Motion:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Approve Resolution No. SD 89- 001 -02, approving Final Building Site.
Report Summary:
I. SD 89 -001 is ready for Final Building Site Approval.
2. All requirements for City and other departments have been completed.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. SD 89- 001 -02.
2. Resolution Approving Tentative Map.
3. Location Map.
Motion and Vote:
RESOLUTION NO. SD 89 -001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF TNfif',F'Y CON TRUCTICN, INC.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1:
The 0.964 Acre Parcel shown as Parcel A on Parcel Map recorded in
Book 315 of Maps at Page 31 in the Recorder's Office, Santa Clara
County, and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be
approved as one (1) individual Building Site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and
passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
day of 19 by the following
vote:
0 AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
t
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO. SD -89 -001
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
RAY SINSLEY, 15314 SOBEY ROAD, APN: 397 -07 -82
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
1 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD -89 -001 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 3 -8 -89 being
hereby made for further particulars, 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 March, 1989 and is marked Exhibit B in the hereinabove referred
file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions
of said approval are as follows:
N.A. 1. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at the time of obtaining final
approval.
2. Submit parcel map to City for checking and recordation (pay required
checking and recordation fees). (If parcel is shown on existing map
of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints).
DONE 3. Submit Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to provide for a 20 ft. half -
street on Sobey Road.
.4. Submit Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to provide easements, as
required.
5. Improve Sobey Road to City Standards, including the following:
1. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and
DONE flowline. (D.I.A.)
See Deferred 2. Asphalt concrete berm (D.I.A.)
Improvement
Agreement 3. Underground existing overhead utilities (both Sobey and Quito
Roads). (D.I.A.)
SD -89 -001, 15314 Sobey Road
With Building 6. Construct driveway approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to
Permit 24 ft. at street paving.
7. Construct Valley Gutter across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
8. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway and access road intersections.
9. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
10. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
After Building
— 11. Obtain encroachment permit from the Engineering Department for
Permit
driveway approaches or pipe crossings of City street.
12. Engineered improvement plans required for:
Done - See
1. Street improvements. (D.I.A.)
Deferred
13. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from improvement
Improvement
plans. (D.I.A.)
Agreement
14. Enter into Deferred Improvement Agreement for the required
improvements marked D.I.A.
15. Improve Quito Road per plan line. (D.I.A.)
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditic
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 8th day of March, 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, and
Tucker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tucker (;
t i
Chairma , Planning( Aommission
SD -89 -001, 15314 Sobey Road
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted
Signatu V, of Applic Date
v A ,
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Martin Jacobson
DATE: 3/8/89 PLNG. DIR. APPRV
APPLICATION NO. & LOCATION: DR -88 -098, SD -89 -001; 15314 Sobey Road . .
APPLICANT /OWNER: Sinsley
APN: 397 -07 -082 Q
N
aYC..
07-65
k397-07-14 397 -a7 -15
397 -07 -23
S08EY R
1527o 1530
(c) 97 -07-22 397 -07 -76
1523,7
397-07 -sq.
(p�
3971 o 277
7 -62
I SZ75
.397-07-74
152o1
397-07-1c)
I=t
397 -07.83 397 -07-
) V 15295
397- 07- 4g
' 1 5317
(U 397 - 67 -g 5
7- (ol C2)
(I) 15289 16295
15279 397.07 -73 397 -07 -44
X97- 07 -7Z
(7)
ggo► � r4) � (zl U)
T 69-47 18 7 21 C3)
S97-08-44 3 8645-46 397 08-42 1865
3-37-68-41
132 I 408 -4
'527 1
40,9 - 4(-,
1
40/ S p- zb e s
IZEE�
4og �
_ 6 -roo
log
9y
S-z
398 rA)
b _r2
44 4
I
SUMMARY OF FEES & BONDS
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRACT NO SD NO 89 -001
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - - - - N.A.
Park & Recreation Fees - - - - - - $1300.00
Plan Check & Inspection Fees - - - - $ 200.00
Final Map Check Fees - - - - - - - - - - 0.0
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ? AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: / CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Department
SUBJECT: Preparation of Grading Plans by Licensed Architects
Recommended Action: Introduction and adoption of ordinance.
Report Summary: The City's grading ordinance (Article 16 -55) generally requires
grading plans to be prepared and signed by a civil engineer. This requirement reflects
similar provisions contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by other cities.
However, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether building officials should
accept grading plans prepared and signed by a licensed architect. As a result of
complaints by architects on this issue, the California Board of Architectural
Examiners has now intervened by sending a bulletin to all building officials expressing
its view that the preparation of grading plans is included within the scope of
architectural services and any city that refuses to accept grading plans signed by a
licensed architect would be violating state law. A copy of such bulletin is included for
your reference.
Although it could be argued that the bulletin is only advisory, there does
not appear to be any organized opposition by local building officials or legal challenge
to the conclusions set forth therein. Consequently, we are recommending that the
City's grading ordinance be changed to allow the submission of grading plans prepared
and signed by a licensed architect. This change would have no affect upon the ability
of the City to require soil engineering reports and geotechnic reports in connection
with any development project. These reports must be prepared by a licensed soils
engineer or engineering geologist, and cannot be prepared by an architect. It should
also be noted that we will continue to require certification to be made by a civil
engineer that the grading operations have been performed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications, even if such plans and specifications were originally
prepared by the architect.
Fiscal Impacts: N one.
Attachments: (a) Proposed ordinance;
(b) Building official information bulletin dated February 10,
1989 issued by California Board of Architectural
Examiners.
Motion and Vote:
6�4�, , 7/.5-.
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS IN ARTICLE 16-
55 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING
EXCAVATION AND GRADING
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 16- 55.040 in Article 16 -55 of the
City Code are amended to read as follows:
"(a) Two sets of grading plans and specifications. When required by the City
Engineer, the plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil
engineer (Tr—architect who is licensed by the State to prepare such plans and
specifications.
(b) When required by the City Engineer,^a soil engineering report and
engineering geology report. Such reports shall describe the geology of the site and
shall include current data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing
soils, type and depth of foundation supports, allowable bearing capacity for such
support, together with conclusions and recommendations concerning slope stability
and the effect of the geologic conditions on the proposed development, as well as
recommendations and conclusions for grading procedures and design criteria for
corrective measures if any are necessary. Recommendations included in the reports
and approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the final grading plans
and specifications.
SECTION 2: Paragraph (a) of Section 16- 55.070 in Article 16 -55 of the Citv
Code is amended to read as follows: v
"(a) For engineered grading, it shall be the responsibility of the civil engineer
or architect who prepares the approved grading plan to incorporate all
recommendations from the soil engineering and engineering geology reports into the
grading plan. He shall also be responsible for the professional inspection and
approval of the grading within his area of technical specialty. This responsibility
shall include, but need not be limited to, inspection and approval as to the
establishment of line, grade and drainage of the development area. The civil
engineer or architect shall act as the coordinating agent in the event the need arises
for liason between the other professions, the contractor and the City. The civil
engineer or architect shall also be responsible for the preparation of revised plans
and the submission of as- graded plans upon completion of the work. ^During grading
all necessary reports, compaction data and soil engineering and engineering geology
recommendations shall be submitted to the civil engineer or architect and the City
Engineer by the soil engineer and the engineering geologist."
-1-
SECTION 3: Paragraph (c) of Section 16- 55.070 in Article 16 -55 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
"(c) The engineering geologist's area of responsibility shall include, but need
not be limited to, professional inspection and approval of the adequacy of natural
ground for receiving fills and the stability of cut slopes with respect to geological
matters, and the need for subdrains or other ground water drainage devices. He
shall report his findings to the soil engineer and the civil engineer or architect for
engineering analysis."
SECTION 4: Section 16- 55.100 in Article 16 -55 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"516- 55.100 Notification of noncompliance
If, in the course of fulfilling their responsibility under this Article, the civil
engineer or architect, the soil engineer, the engineering geologist or the testing
agency finds that the work is not being done in conformance with this Article or the
approved grading plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing
to the person in charge of the grading work and to the City Engineer.
Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall be submitted."
SECTION 5: Section 16- 55.110 in Article 16 -55 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"516- 55.110 Transfer of responsibility for approval
If the civil engineer or architect , the soil engineer, the engineering geologist
or the testing agency of record rs c anged during the course of the work, the work
shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed to accept the responsibility within
the area of his technical competence for approval upon completion of the work."
SECTION 6: Paragraph (b) of Section 16- 55.150 in Article 16 -55 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Fill slopes. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil
engineering report, fills shall conform to the provisions of this Paragraph. All
compacted fills shall be inspected by a licensed soil engineer when required by the
City Engineer. In the absence of an approved soil engineering report these
provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures."
SECTION 7: Paragraph (d) of Section 16- 55.150 in Article 16 -55 of the City
Code is amended to read as follows:
"(d) Preparation of ground. The ground surface shall be prepared to receive
fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable
materials, scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill, and where slopes are
steeper than five to one and the height of fill is greater than five feet, by benching
into sound bedrock or other competent material as determined by the soils
-2-
engineer. The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five to one shall
be at least ten feet wide. The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet
overflow, or a paved drain shall be provided. When fill is to be placed over a cut,
the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least ten feet wide, but the cut must be
made before placing fill and approved by the soils engineer and engineering geologist
as a suitable foundation for fill. Unsuitable soil is soil which, in the opinion of the
City Engineer,^the soils engineer or the geologist, is not competent to support other
soil or fill, to support structures or to satisfactorily perform the other functions for
which the soil is intended."
SECTION 8: Subparagraph (a)(1) of Section 16- 55.200 in Article 16 -55 of the
City Code is amended to read as follows:
"(1) An as- graded plan prepared by the civil engineer or architect,
including original ground surface elevations, as- graded ground
surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and
elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The
civil engineer shall provide a certification that the work was done
in accordance with the final approved grading plan."
SECTION 9: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 10: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-.3-
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Govewnor
DEPARTMENT Of BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EXAMINERS
C BOX 944258
1021 O STREET, SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 94244 -2580
As. �
�—' TELEPHONE: (9161 4453393
February 10, 1989
BUILDING OFFICIAL INFORMATION BULLETIN
89 -01
The California Board of Architectural Examiners (CM) has on active building official contact
effort as part of its enforcement program. The board attempts to keep all building officials up
to date on changes In the Architects Practice Act, Its roster of licensed architects, its
regulations, and Its policies. On a periodic basis the CBAE issues informational bulletins which
explain these changes. The CBAE does not attempt to dilute or negate the discretion of local
Jurisdictions. All bulletins including statutory Interpretation are advisory.
SIGNATURE ON SITE GRADING PLANS
The California Board of Architectural Examiners (CBAE) has
received a number of inquires directly and through its Building
Official Contact Program from architects and building officials
regarding who is authorized to prepare and sign Site Grading
Plans. This bulletin is issued to clarify the law to those
jurisdictions which have mistakenly prohibited architects from
signing grading plans related to their architectural projects.
Business and Professions Code Section 5500.1 subsection (a)
defines the practice of architecture as follows:
'The practice of architecture within the meaning and
intent of this chapter is defined as offering or
performing, and being responsible for, professional
services which require the skills of an architect in
the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in
part, of buildings, or groups of building and
structures."
As defined in Section 5500.1 an architect is authorized to plan
sites. The preparation of drawings and specifications concerning
on -site drainage and grading is clearly related and integral to
site - planning, and would therefore be included within the scope
of the practice of architecture.
Section 6737 of the Professional Engineers Act provides that a
licensed architect , when practicing architecture in its "various
phases ", is specifically exempted from obtaining an engineer's
registration to engage in activities such as site - planning and
grading, since site planning is a function (phase) of the
practice of architecture
The question as to whether a city or county, by ordinance or
regulation, may prohibit state licensed architects from engaging
in preparation of plans involving site - grading by limiting
preparation and signing of such plans to consulting engineers is
answered in Section 460 of the California Business and
Professions Code, which provides as follows:
"No city or county shall prohibit a person, authorized
by one of the agencies in the Department of Consumer
Affairs by license, certificate, or other such means to
engage in a particular business, from engaging in that
business, occupation, or profession or any portion
thereof...•
This section clearly prohibits a city or county from preventing
any person presently licensed by the Department of Consumer
Affairs from engaging in the duties and functions of that
profession. As discussed above, site grading is a function of
the practice of architecture, and therefore, a licensed architect
may not lawfully be prohibited from preparing and signing site
grading plans and specifications.
If you have any questions concerning the above, or any portion of
the Architects Practice Act, please contact the Board's
Enforcement Unit at (916)445 -3393 or (916) 324 -9914.
ir
f
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. (C b
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Maintenance
AGENDA ITEM 5F
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Hours of Operation of Public Parks
Recommended Action: Introduction and adoption of ordinance.
Report Summary: The existing City Code states that parks shall be closed to the
public between the hours of 10 p.m. and sunrise of the following day. However, none
of the City parks is equipped for nighttime activity and various law enforcement
problems have arisen from use of the parks after dark. The maintenance director has
therefore requested that the ordinance be changed to provide for park closure one -half
hour after sunset instead of 10 p.m. This change would allow maximum utilization of
the park during longer summer days, while still avoiding the problems associated with
nighttime operation.
Fiscal Impacts:
Attachments:
Motion and Vote-::
None.
Proposed ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING SECTION 11 -05.020 OF THE CITY
CODE CONCERNING HOURS OF OPERATION OF
PUBLIC PARKS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 11- 05.020 in Article 11 -05 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"S11- 05.020 Hours of park operation; temporary closing
Unless otherwise designated by minute order or resolution of the City Council
or unless otherwise posted at a particular park, all parks shall be closed to the public
from one -half hour after sunset until sunrise of the following day, and no person
other than an officer or employee of the City shall be or remain in any park during
such time of closure. In addition, the Director shall have the power to close all or
any portion of the public park for other hours and times of any day as may be
reasonable or necessary in order to protect the public health, safety or welfare, and
shall have the further power to close all or any section of any park to the public at
any time, and for an interval of time, either temporarily or at regularly and stated
intervals (daily or otherwise), either entirely or to close the same to certain
particular uses, as may be reasonable or necessary under the circumstances to
protect the public health, safety and welfare."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of.competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
-1-
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
MAYOR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J
N0:40[:[91"I 4,16M
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Amendment to Ordinance Concerning Barking Dogs
Recommended Action: Introduction and adoption of ordinance.
Report Summary: Section 7- 20.190 of the exising City Code prohibits barking or
howling dogs which "disturb the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or persons
residing therein." Until recently, we have encountered no problems enforcing this
ordinance based upon testimony or declarations from the Community Service Officers.
However, a municipal court judge has now indicated that testimony from persons who
actually reside in the area may be necessary in order to establish that "the peace and
quiet of the neighborhood" has been disturbed. In other words, testimony by the CSO
of his or her own observations of the barking dog would not be enough, even if the CSO
had personally observed the dog for an extended period of time. Consequently, we are
suggesting that the ordinance be changed from a subjective standard of "disturbing the
peace and quiet" to an objective standard of continuous barking of a period of ten
successive minutes or more during any time of day. Such violation can be established
on the basis of CSO testimony alone, without further evidence from persons residing
within the neighborhood.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
A�
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING SECTION 7- 20.190 OF THE CITY
CODE CONCERNING BARKING DOGS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 7- 20.190 in Article 7 -20 of the City Code is amended to
read as follows:
"§7- 20.190 Barking dogs
It shall be unlawful for any person to harbor, keep or maintain any dog in the
City which barks or howls for a period of ten successive minutes or more during any
time of the day. Any such dog is hereby declared to be a public nuisance."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. % AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Building Department
SUBJECT: Posting of Street Addresses on Existing Properties
Recommended Action: Introduction and adoption of ordinance.
Report Summary: The Uniform Building Code requires all new development to
have identification numbers or addresses posted in such a position as to be plainly
visible and legible from the street. However, no similar requirement has been imposed
with respect to existing developed properties. There are certain hillside areas of the
City where street addresses are not displayed in a manner that would enable
identification of the premises by emergency response personnel. The proposed
ordinance would add a new section to the building regulations requiring address
numbers to be posted and visible from the street providing the means of access to the
site. However, the ordinance is not self enforcing. No violation would occur until the
property owner has first been given a written notice from the City requiring the
posting of a street address, and the owner fails or refuses to do so within 30 days after
receiving such notice. In this regard, the City is relying upon other agencies such as
the Saratoga Fire District or the Sheriff's Department to advise us of those properties
where the posting of a street address is necessary.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance.
Motion and Vote:
��4tA4e -/K1
ORDINANCE NO. 71.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ADDING SECTION 16- 75.040 TO ARTICLE 16 -75
OF THE CITY CODE TO REQUIRE
IDENTIFICATION OF PREMISES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: A new Setion 16- 75.040 is added to Article 16 -75 of the City Code,
to read as follows:
".Y 16- 75.040 Premises identification
(a) Every site on which improvements have been constructed for human
occupancy shall be identified by address numbers located in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street which provides the means of access to the
site.
(b) The failure or refusal by any owner or occupant of a site to identify the
premises as required by this Section, within thirty days after written notice is given
by the City to do so, shall constitute an infraction offense subject to the penalties
as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code."
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it
would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and
phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its
passage and adoption.
a s s s s s
The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the
waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular
-1-
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
-2-
MAYOR
V
t ,•
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing)
Recommended Action: The procedure on this matter is as follows:
(1) The Mayor should first acknowledge the City Clerk's report concerning the
publication and posting of notices.
(2) Open the public hearing to receive any protest or comments to the
proposed assessments.
(3) Close the public hearing and consider any protest which may have been
raised. The recommended action is that all protests should be overruled.
(4) Adopt Resolution No. 2564.4 confirming and imposing the annual
assessment.
Report Summary: On April 19, 1989, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2564.2,
"A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report," and Resolution No.
2564.3, "A Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972." The final action for the
assessment proceeding is the adoption of Resolution No. 2564.4 to overrule any protest
and levy the assessment in accordance with the Engineer's Report.
Fiscal Impacts: The cost for the administration, maintenance and servicing of
the landscaping and lighting district are charged to the various zones within the
district, based upon the benefit received. The assessements will be collected by the
County as part of the property tax bill and proceeds thereof will be remitted to the
City.
Attachments: (1) Resolution No. 2564.4.
(2) Engineer's Report (available in the City Clerk's Office)
(3) City Clerk's report.
Motion and Vote:
OX
f
M
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1989 -1990
Notices have been published and posted as required by the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of publishing and posting are on file
in my office. A copy of the Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed
in my office on and has been open to public inspection since
that time.
Dated: Z p
City Clerk
i . 'I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO._ AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Of—
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation)
Recommended Action: The procedure on this matter is as follows:
(1) The Mayor should first acknowledge the City Clerk's report concerning the
publication and posting of notices.
(2) Open the public hearing to receive any protest or comments to the
proposed annexation and assessments.
(3) Close the public hearing and consider any protest which may have been
raised. The recommended action is that all protests should be overruled.
(4) Adopt Resolution No. 2565.4 confirming and imposing the annual
assessment.
Report Summary: At its meeting on May 17, 1989, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2565.2, "A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report,"
and Resolution No. 2565.3, "A Resolution of Intention to Order the Annexation of
Territory to an Existing Assessment District and the Levy and Collection of
Assessments Within Said Territory Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972." The final action for the annexation and assessment proceeding is the adoption
of Resolution No. 2565.4 to overrule any protest and to order the annexation of the
areas described in the Engineer's Report and the levy of assessments upon each lot
within such areas.
Fiscal Impacts: The cost for the annexation proceedings and the administration,
maintenance and servicing of the improvements will be charged to the various areas to
be annexed, based on benefit received. The assessments will be collected by the
County as part of the property tax bills and the proceeds remitted to the City.
Attachments: (1) Resolution No. 2565.4.
(2) Engineer's Report (available in Clerk's Office)
(3) Clerk's report.
Motion and Vote:
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1989 -1990
ANNEXATION NO. 1989 -1
Notices have been published and mailed as required by the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972. Affidavits and certificates of publishing and mailing are on file
in my office. A copy of the Engineer's Report prepared by the City Engineer was filed
in my office on _ and has been open to public inspection since
that time.
1
Dated:
City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL _
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��� AGENDA ITEM '
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Adoption of CDBG County /City Contract for F.Y. 1989/90
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Contract and Authorize City Manager to Execute
Summary
Through a Joint Powers Agreement the City of Saratoga
participates with seven other small cities and Santa Clara County
as Urban County recipients of Community Development Block Grant
funding. Beginning with fiscal year 1989/90 there is a new
federal requirement that each participating jurisdiction annually
execute a contract specifying each party's responsibilities and
obligations. Attached to the contract will be descriptions, work
plans and budgets for each project which will be active during
the year.
The language and format of the contract ha been studied and
discussed over a period of time by County and City staff. This
final version formalizes the existing operation of the program
and does not impose any new obligations on the City.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments
CDBG County /City Contract for 1989 -90.
Motion and Vote
• CDBG COUNTY /CITY CONTRACT
Contract No.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on ,
by and between the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision
of the State of California (hereinafter "COUNTY ") , and the
CITY /TOWN OF Saratoga
(hereinafter ( "CITY ") participating as a member of the County of
Santa Clara COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (hereinafter
"CDBG ") Joint Powers Agreement.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, COUNTY has received CDBG Entitlement Program funds
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter
HUD) as an entitlement jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of
Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended; and,
WHEREAS, COUNTY has agreed to the use
9 by CITY, as a
subrecipient, of a portion of COUNTY'S CDBG entitlement for a
housing program to be operated within COUNTY and shall benefit
low and moderate income households;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows;
I. PROGRAM
COUNTY agrees to grant for fiscal year a
portion of its CDBG entitlement, and /or program income as defined
in 24 CFR 570 Subpart J, "Grant Administration" (570.504), to the
CITY, as a subrecipient being the sum of
for the purpose of implementing the housing program (hereinafter
PROGRAM). Reimbursement for fiscal year shall not
exceed the total sum of the beginning fiscal year Cash Control
Sheet (fiscal year CDBG allocation of funds to CITY, and roll-
over of unexpended CDBG funds from previous years allocations to
CITY.)
CITY is granted authority to also expend funds for eligible CDBG
Housing activities from its approved rehabilitation program
revolving loan fund account, including accrued Program Income.
Authority is based on CITY being in compliance with all Federal
Rules and Regulations governing the CDBG PROGRAM, and the COUNTY
CDBG Reallocation Guidelines.
W
As a condition to this contract CITY shall submit Exhibit "A"
(Program Description) , Exhibit "B" (Program Work Plan) Exhibit
"C" (Proposed. Implementation Time Schedule) and Exhibit "D"
(Budget), or an equivalent acceptable format for providing this
information, for all allocated CITY projects awarded funding
during fiscal year . The approved versions of such
submittals shall become a part of this Contract.
II. TERM
A. The term of this Agreement shall begin on
-- ---------- - - - - -- and shall terminate on
B. . The term of expenditure for the grant amount.provided
for herein shall begin on
-------------- - - - - -- or and
terminate on the earlier of or the
date of the expenditure of the total grant, and /or program
income amount provided for herein, or upon the termination
date established pursuant to Section V or Section VII of
this Agreement.
III. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY S
A. City Shall:
1. Provide COUNTY with written certification that the
following information will be on file at the CITY
offices, and will be subject to monitoring by HUD
and /or COUNTY HCD staff, or their representatives.
a. Names and addresses of the current CITY
Manager and CITY Council members;
b. Copy of CITY'S approved Affirmative Action
Plan; and
C. Records of all CITY Council meetings dealing
with CDBG matters.
2. CITY shall provide COUNTY with a Three Year
Housing Assistance Plan, (Hereinafter HAP), at the
beginning of each three (3) year Joint' Powers Agreement.
B. Program Performance by CITY. CITY shall:
1. Conduct the PROGRAM within Santa Clara County, for
the purpose of benefiting low and moderate income
households. I
- 2-
2. File progressive reports with COUNTY on the type
and number of services rendered through the operation
of the PROGRAM- and a description of the beneficiaries
of these services, which reports shall evaluate the
manner in which the PROGRAM is achieving its objectives
and goals according to the standards established by the
COUNTY.
C. Fiscal Responsibilities of CITY. CITY shall:
1. Appoint and submit the name of the CITY managerial
staff who shall be responsible for the financial and
accounting CDBG activities of CITY, including the
receipt and disbursement of CITY CDBG funds. The COUNTY
shall immediately be notified in writing of the
appointment of a new fiscal agent and that agent's
name, and CITY will submit four (4) new signature cards
if applicable.
2. Establish and maintain an accounting system that
shall be in conformance with generally accepted
principles of accounting. The accounting system shall
be subject to review and approval of COUNTY.
3. Document all PROGRAM costs by maintaining records
in accordance with Section III, Paragraph D below.
4. Submit the COUNTY request for reimbursement,
as needed, supported by documentation as agreed to by
CITY and COUNTY.
5. Certify insurability of CITY, subject to approval of
COUN'T'Y as defined in Exhibit "E" (Insurance) ; and
obtain certificate of sufficient insurance from all
subrecipients which shall list CITY as co- insured.
6. Subparagraph C. 1) through 5) above are expressed
conditions precedent to any COUNTY funding and failure
to comply with these conditions may, at the discretion
of COUNTY, result in the suspension of funding or
termination of specific projects in non - compliance; or
initiate the suspension of funding or termination of
this AGREEMENT provided for herein.
7. CITY is liable for repayment of all disallowed
costs. Disallowed costs may be identified through
audits, monitoring or other sources. CITY shall be
required to respond to any adverse findings which may
lead to disallowed costs, subject to provisions of OMB
Circular A -87, "Cost Principles for State and Local
Governments," and A -128, "Single Audits of State and
Local Governments."
-3-
D. Establishment and Maintenance of Records. CITY shall:
1. Maintain complete and accurate records of all its
CDBG transactions including, but not limited to,
contracts, invoices, time cards, cash receipts,
vouchers, canceled checks, bank statements, client
statistical records, personnel, property and all other
pertinent records sufficient to reflect properly:
a. All direct and indirect costs of whatever
nature claimed to have been incurred or
anticipated to be incurred to perform this
Agreement or to operate the PROGRAM; and
b. All other matters covered by this Agreement.
E. Preservation of Records. CITY shall preserve and make
available its records:
1. Until the expiration of three years from the date
of final payment to CITY under this Agreement; or
2. For such longer period, if any as is required by
applicable law; or 0
3. If this Agreement is completely or partially
terminated, the records relating to the work terminated
shall be preserved and made available for a period of
three years from the date of termination.
F. Examination of Records; Facilities. At any time during
normal business hours, and as often as may be deemed
necessary, CITY agrees that HUD and the COUNTY, and /or any
duly authorized representatives may until expiration of: (a)
three years after final payment of this Agreement, (b') three
years from the date of termination of this Agreement, or (c)
such longer period as may be described by law: have access
to and the right to examine CITY CDBG records and
facilities, and the offices and facilities of CITY'S
subrecipients, used in performance of this Agreement or the
operation of the PROGRAM and all matters covered by this
Agreement.. CITY also agrees that COUNTY or any duly
authorized representatives shall have the right to audit,
examine, and make excerpts or transactions of and from, such
records and to make audits of all contracts and
subcontracts, invoices, payrolls, records of personnel,
conditions of employment, materials and all other data
relating to the PROGRAM and matters covered by this
Agreement. CITY will be notified in writing of intended
audits. CITY will be required to respond in writing to the
HCD Program Manager to any audit findings, and have the
responses included in the.final audit report. The cost of
any such audit will be borne by COUNTY.
-4-
•
G. Compliance with Law. COUNTY
and CITY staff shall
become familiar and comply with
and cause all its
subcontractors and employees, if any,
to become familiar and
comply with all applicable Federal,
State and local laws,
ordinances, codes, Regulations and decrees including, but
not limited to, those Federal rules and Regulations,
executive orders, and statutes
identified in "F
ASSURANCES." Specifically, COUNTY
and CITY shall comply
with the requirements of OMB Circular
No. A -87, "Principles
for Determining Costs Applicable to
Grants and Contracts
with State, Local and Federally recognized Indian Tribal
Governments ", and OMB Circular A -128
"Audits of State and
Local Governments ".
In addition, CITY AND COUNTY will comply with Federal
Regulations as cited in 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart J, and 24
CFR Part 85, and all other local, State or Federal laws
applicable to this PROGRAM.
IV. OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY
A. Method of Payment. During the term of this Agreement,
COUNTY shall reimburse CITY for all allowable costs and
expenses incurred in connection with the PROGRAM, not to
exceed the total sum of the beginning fiscal year Cash
Control Record plus all Program Income accrued during the
fiscal year. Reimbursement for eligible expenses will be
paid by COUNTY within thirty days (30) of the date the
reimbursement request'is received by COUNTY HCD staff, under
the proviso that the CITY has complied with all PROGRAM
regulations, and contract conditions agreed to by CITY and
COUNTY.
Reimbursement may be held back, in part or in full, by
COUNTY, in the event of CITY'S non - compliance to PROGRAM
regulations and conditions. Non - compliance includes, but is
not limited to, incomplete documentation of expenses,
failure to submit adequate documentation of PROGRAM
progress as described i.n V., paragraph B., of this
Agreement, failure to provide and maintain an accounting
system that shall be in conformance with generally accepted
principles of accounting, or based on the suspension or
termination of the Grant to COUNTY made pursuant to the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
B. . In the case of CITY non- compliance prior to exercising
any recourse authority contained herein, COUNTY shall
initiate the following procedure:
1. Notify the CITY Coordinator in writing of the
alleged non - compliance and request an immediate meeting
between CITY Coordinator and COUNTY HCD Program Manager
to resolve issue(s). If issue(s) is(are) not resolved
satisfactorily within thirty (30) days, notify CITY
-5-
Manager in writing requesting an immediate meeting
between CITY Manager, CITY Coordinator and COUNTY HCD
Program Manager to resolve the issue(s).
2. Determine if any portion of the reimbursement
request meets all eligible criteria, and if so,
authorize payment for the eligible portion of the
reimbursement request;
3. Review the procedure to by followed under V. C. of
this Agreement (CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, Corrective Action
Procedure); and
4. Forward a written report to HUD's Regional Office
detailing the non - compliance issues and the steps
being instituted to correct performance, copy to the
CITY Manager.
V. CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
A. Monitoring and Evaluation of Services. Evaluation and
monitoring of the PROGRAM performance shall be the mutual
responsibility of both COUNTY and CITY, with the
understanding that HUD looks to COUNTY as the sole
responsible party for meeting PROGRAM requirements. CITY
shall furnish data, statements, records, information and
reports as mutually agreed to by CITY and COUNTY as
necessary for COUNTY to monitor, review and evaluate the
performance of the PROGRAM and its components. COUNTY shall
have the right to request the services of an outside agent
to assist in any such evaluation. Such services shall be
paid by COUNTY.
B. Contract Noncompliance. Upon receipt by COUNTY of any
information that evidences a failure by CITY to comply with
any provision of this Agreement (24 CFR 85.43 "Enforcement ")
COUNTY shall have the right to require corrective action to
enforce compliance with such provision. Areas of non-
compliance include but are not limited to:
1. If CITY knowingly shall have made any material
misrepresentation of any nature with respect to any
information or data furnished to COUNTY in connection
with the PROGRAM.
2. If there is pending litigation with respect to the
performance by CITY if any of its duties or obligations
under this Agreement which may materially jeopardize or
adversely affect the undertaking of or the carrying out
of the PROGRAM.
3. If CITY shall have taken any action pertaining to
the PROGRAM which required COUNTY approval without
having obtained such approval.
-6-
•
4. If CITY is in default under any provision of this
Agreement.
5. If CITY makes improper use of COUNTY funds.
6. If CITY fails to meet all provisions of the COUNTY
CDBG Reallocation Guidelines, or Joint Powers
Agreement.
C. * Corrective Action Procedure. Once non - compliance is
established the following procedure shall be initiated:
1. COUNTY HCD Program Manager and CITY Manager shall
negotiate a time frame and course of action for
correcting the non - compliance;
2. Under this Agreement, CITY shall provide COUNTY
with a written plan and. time frame for correcting the
non- compliance issue (s). Such plan shall be submitted
by CITY to COUNTY within thirty (30) days of the
initial non - compliance meeting between CITY and COUNTY.
3. CITY must initiate the corrective action
procedure within sixty (60) days of the initial non-
compliance meeting between the COUNTY HCD Program
Manager and the CITY Coordinator (COUNTY, at their
discretion, may extend this time line for extenuating
circumstances);
4. COUNTY shall have the right to require the
presence of CITY officers at any hearing or meeting
called for the purpose of considering corrective
action; and
5. CITY has the right to appeal all findings of non-
compliance, and subsequent corrective action, with both
the COUNTY Board of Supervisors and HUD.
D. Termination for Cause. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in the foregoing, COUNTY may terminate or
suspend this Agreement by written notice to CITY if the non-
compliance issues) have not been addressed within the
aforementioned corrective action plan time period, if CITY
is in bankruptcy or receivership, if a member of CITY'S
management is the subject of investigation for wrongdoing in
connection with the CDBG program, or if there is reliable
evidence that CITY is unable to operate the PROGRAM.
Suspension of payment or termination under this section
shall be effective on the date notice of termination is
received by CITY, or such later date as may be specified in
the notice.
-7-
•
VI. PROGRAM COORDINATION
A. COUNTY. The County Executive shall assign a single
PROGRAM MANAGER for COUNTY who shall render overall
supervision of the progress and performance of this
Agreement by COUNTY. All services agreed to be performed by
COUNTY shall be under the overall direction of the PROGRAM
MANAGER.
B. CITY. As of the date hereof, CITY has designated
Carolyn Kina to serve as CITY
CDBG Program Coordinator, and CITY MANAGER _Larry Peacock
(or assignee approved by the
CITY Council) to assume overall responsibility for the
progress and execution of this Agreement. The COUNTY shall
be immediately notified in writing of the appointment of a
new CITY CDBG Program Coordinator, or a new CITY Manager (or
assignee approved by the CITY Council).
C. NOTICES. All notices or other correspondence required
or contemplated by this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the following addresses:
COUNTY Housing and Community Development Program
c/o Charles Chew, HCD Program Manager
Office of the County Executive
East Wing, Eleventh Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
CITY City of Saratoga
Name of CITY
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga 95070
Address of CITY
Harry R. peacock
Name of CITY MANAGER
Ali notices shall either be hand delivered or sent by United
States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid.
Notices given in such a manner shall be deemed received when
hand delivered or seventy -two (72) hours after deposit 'in
the United States mail. Any party may change his or her
address for the purpose of this section by giving five days
written notice of such change to the other party in the
manner provided in this section.
I
IRE
•
VII. TERMINATION
A. In addition to the COUNTY'S right to terminate for
cause set forth in Section V, either COUNTY or CITY may
suspend or terminate this Agreement as provided for in 24
CFR 570, at Subpart J "Grant Administration ", and /or 24 CFR
85.44 "Termination for Convenience ". Provisions of the
Reallocation Guidelines will apply, but may be adjusted if
termination is for cause.
B. Upon termination, either under this Section VII or
Section V, CITY shall:
1. be paid for all documented services actually
rendered to COUNTY to the date of such termination;
provided, however, COUNTY shall be obligated to
compensate CITY only for that portion of-CITY'S
services which are allowable costs and expenses as
determined by an audit or other monitoring device;
2. turn over to COUNTY immediately any and all copies
of studies, reports and other data, whether or not
completed, prepared by CITY or its subcontractors or
subrecipients, if any, in connection with this
Agreement. Such materials shall become property of
COUNTY. CITY, however, shall not be liable to COUNTY'S
use of completed documents if used for other than the
services contemplated by this Agreement; and
3. transfer to the COUNTY any CDBG funds on hand and
any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG
funds. All assets acquired with CDBG funds shall be
returned to the COUNTY unless otherwise negotiated by
separate agreement per the provisions of the Santa
Clara County CDBG REALLOCATION GUIDELINES.
C. Upon termination of this Agreement, CITY shall
immediately provide COUNTY access to all documents, records,
payroll, minutes of meetings, correspondence and all other
data pertaining to the CDBG: - entitlement fund granted to CITY
pursuant to this Agreement.
VIII. PURCHASING REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY
CITY and COUNTY will be accountable for all applicable
Federal Regulations as detailed by 24 CFR Part 570, Subpart
J, i.e. 570.500 (Definitions), 570.503 (Agreements. with
Subrecipients), 570.504 (Program Income), and 570.505 (Use
of Real Property) with regards to the use and disposal of
Real or Personal Property purchased in whole, or in part,.
with CDBG funds.
In
'r
In addition, 24 CFR Part 85 (The Common Rule) includes
definitions under- 24 CFR Part 85.3, however, Common Rule
85.31 (Real Property) DOES NOT APPLY TO CDBG ACTIVITIES.
The following definitions will apply to this Agreement.
A. Definitions. 24 CFR, Part 58 (Common Rule)-85.3
1. Equipment means tangible, non - expendable, personal
property having a useful life of more than one year and
an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit.
2. Title as defined in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85.32
(a) .
3. Use as defined in detail in 24 CFR, Part 85.32 (c)
(1) .
4. Supplies as defined in detail in. 24 CFR, Part
85.33.
5. Procurement, Use and Disposition of Real Property
as defined in detail by 24 CFR, Part 570.503
(Agreements With Subrecipients), 570.505 (Use of Real
Property), and 570.504 (Program Income).
IX. PROGRAM INCOME
Income generated by the. PROGRAM shall be regulated by all
provisions of 24 CFR 570 Subpart J "Grant Administration ", and
the Santa Clara County CDBG REALLOCATION GUIDELINES. (C. 1. a.-
c.)
X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
This is an Agreement by and between independent contractors
and is not intended and shall not be construed to create the
relationship of agent, servant; employee, partnership, joint
venture or association between CITY and COUNTY. CITY, including
its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not have
any claim under this Agreement or otherwise against COUNTY for
any Social Security, Worker's Compensation, or employee benefits
extended to employees of COUNTY.
XI. ASSIGNABILITY
A. This Agreement may not be assumed nor assigned to
another CITY, CORPORATION, PERSON, PARTNERSHIP or any other -
entity without the prior written approval of COUNTY.
-10-
•
B. None of the work or services to be performed hereunder
shall be assigned, delegated or subcontracted to third
parties without the prior written approval of COUNTY. Copies
of all third party contracts shall be submitted to COUNTY at
least ten days prior to the proposed effective date. In the
event COUNTY approves of any such assignment, delegation or
sub - contract, the subcontractors, assignees or delegates
shall be deemed to be employees of CITY, and CITY shall be
responsible for their performance and any liabilities
attaching to their actions or omissions.
XII. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFORMATION
COUNTY and CITY agree to maintain the confidentiality of any
information regarding applicants for services offered by the
PROGRAM pursuant to this Agreement or their immediate families
which may be obtained through application forms, interviews,
.tests, reports from public agencies or counselors, or any other
source. Without the written permission of the applicant, such
information shall be divulged only as necessary for purposes
related to the performance or evaluation of the services and work
to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, and then only to
persons having responsibilities under this Agreement, including
those furnishing services under the PROGRAM through approved
subcontracts.
XIII. HOLD HARMLESS
In addition to the indemnity set forth in Exhibit "E ", CITY
shall indemnify and hold COUNTY, its employees and elected
officials, boards and commissions, harmless with respect to any
damages, including attorney's fees and court costs, arising from:
1) any negligent act or omission, or willful
misconduct arising out of any work or service performed by
CITY, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors
under the PROGRAM or this Agreement, including but not
limited to the evaluation and monitoring of subrecipient's
PROGRAM performance.
COUNTY shall indemnify, defend and hold CITY, its employees,
officers, officials, boards and commissions, and agents harmless
with respect to any claims, causes of action, or damages,
including attorney's fees and court costs, arising from:
1) the failure of COUNTY to reimburse CITY for
eligible costs as defined by HUD and this Agreement; and
2) any negligent act or omission, or willful
misconduct arising out of any work or service performed by
COUNTY, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors
under the PROGRAM or this Agreement.
-11-
XIV. WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
In no event shall any payment by COUNTY constitute or be
construed to be a.waiver by COUNTY of any breach of the covenants
or conditions of this Agreement or any default which may then
exist on the part of CITY, and the making of any such payment
while any such breach or default shall exist shall in no way
impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to COUNTY with
respect to such breach or default. In no event shall payment to
CITY by COUNTY in any way constitute a waiver by COUNTY of its
rights to recover from CITY the amount of money paid to CITY on
any item which is not eligible for payment under the PROGRAM or
this Agreement.
XV. NONDISCRIMINATION
In connection with the performance of this Agreement, CITY
assures that no person shall be subject to discrimination because
of sex, race, religion, ethnic background, sexual preference,
age, handicapped status, or union activity.
XVI. AMENDMENTS
Amendments to the terms or conditions of this Agreement
shall be requested in writing by the party desiring such
amendments, and any such amendment shall be effective only upon
the mutual Agreement in writing of the parties hereto.
XVII. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT
This Agreement, in conjunction with the Santa Clara County
CDBG Joint Powers Agreement, contains the entire Agreement
between COUNTY and CITY with respect to the subject matter
hereof. No written or oral Agreements, other than the Santa Clara
County CDBG Joint Powers Agreement, with any ofticer, agent or
employee of COUNTY prior to execution of this Agreement shall
affect or modify any of the terms of obligations contained in any
documents comprising this Agreement.
XVIII. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event it becomes necessary for any party to obtain
legal counsel to enforce the terms of this contract, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
-12-
s
J
r
a
•
XIX. MISCBLLANEOUS�
A. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience of
reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no
way be, held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the
interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of
this Agreement.
B. All exhibits attached hereto and referred to in this
Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference as if
set forth fully herein.
r�
-13-
C,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
in duplicate the day and year above written.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ATTEST: Donald B. Rains
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
CITY
By:
APPROVED TO FORM ND ITY:
0 �rz
THO WM. CA •
uty County Counsel G �9
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
A
City Counsel
r
jkw /disc #7 /city.con /6 -7 -89 revised
-14-
•
EXHIBIT E
Insurance Requirements
Indemnity: CITY agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
COUNTY, its officers, employees and elected officials, boards and
commissions from all suits, actions, claims, causes of action,
costs, demands judgments and liens arising out of the CITY'S
performance under this Agreement, including the CITY'S failure to
comply with or carry out any of the provisions of this Agreement.
Insurance: CITY agrees to issue a certificate of self
insurance, or otherwise verify prior to the commencement of the
performance of the terms of this Agreement, that the following
types of Policies are in effect at the stated minimum limits.
A. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance including the
following:
1. Premises Operations
2. Broad Form Blanket Contractual
3. Personal Injury coverages
A11 coverages to have a minimum of $500,000 Combined Single
Limit.
B. Comprehensive Auto'Policy to cover:
1. Non -Owned
2. Hired Auto
These coverages must have a minimum of $500,000 Combined
Single Limit for bodily injury and property damage.
C. Errors or Omissions coverage for attorneys and
paralegals with a minimum limit of $500,000 per occurrence
Combined Single Limit with no more than $1,000 deductible
per occurrence. (Where scope of service provides for
attorneys and paralegals)
D. Medical Malpractice Insurance Minimum limits of
$500,000 per occurrence with no greater deductible than
$1,000 per occurrence. (Where scope of services provides for
medical staff)
E. Workers Compensation coverage with the statutory limit
of liability and $1,000,000 employer's liability.
i.
a
C7
F. Endorsements: On all required insurance the CITY agrees
to the following endorsements:
1. Thirty (30) days notice of cancellation or
reduction in coverage of any nature must be given to
COUNTY.
2. The CITY certifies their insurance to be primary,
and any other valid and collectible insurance the
COUNTY may have will be excess only.
C�
jkw /disc #7 /city.con /4 -7 -89 revised
E]
ii.
•
f
I
EXHIBIT F
Assurances
CITY hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with all
regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements applicable to
the acceptance and use of Federal funds for this Federally -
assisted program. Specifically CITY gives assurances and
certifies with respect to the Program that it is in compliance
with the following Regulations as defined by 24 CFR, Part 570,
Subpart J:
1. 570.601 Public Law 88 -352 and Public Law 90 -284;
affirmatively furthering fair housing; Executive Order
11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259 addresses
discrimination. HUD regulations implementing Executive
order 11063 are contained in 24 CFR, -Part 107.
2. 570.602 Section 109 of the Act addresses
discrimination.
3. 570.603 Labor Standards.
4. 570.604 Environmental Standards.
5. 570.605 National Flood Insurance Program.
6. 570.606 Relocation], Displacement and Acquisition.
7. 570.607 Employment and Contracting Opportunities.
8. 570.608 Lead Based Paint.
9. 570.609 Use of Debarred., Suspended, or Ineligible
Contractors or Subrecipients.
10. 570.610 Uniform Administrative Requirements and Cost
Principles. The recipient, its subrecipients, agencies
or instrumentalities, shall comply with the policies,
guidelines, -and requirements of 24 CFR, Part 85, and
OMB Circulars A -87 (Cost Principles for State and Local
Governments), A -128 (Single Audits of State and Local
Governments); and for subrecipients, A -110 (Grants and
Agreements with Non - Profit Organizations), and A -122
(Cost Principles for Non - Profits). The applicable
sections of 24 CFR, Part 85 and OMB Circular A -110 are
set forth at 24 CFR, Part 570.502.
11. 570.611 Conflict of Interest.
iii.
•
12. 570.612 Executive Order 12372. Allows States to
establish its own process for review and comment on
proposed Federal financial assistance programs,
specifically the use of CDBG funds for the construction
or planning of water or sewer facilities.
jkw /disc. #7 /city.con /6 -7 -89 revised
I
iv.
9
1
CDBG COUNTY /CITY CONTRACT
INDEX
Page
1 - 14
Basic Contract
Page
i. & ii.
Exhibit
E,
Insurance Requirements
Page
iii. & iv.
Exhibit
F,
Assurances
Page
v.
Exhibit
A,
Program Description
Page
vi.
Exhibit
B,
Program Work Plan
Page
vii.
Exhibit
C,
Proposed Implementaion Time
Schedule
Page
viii.
Exhibit
D,
Budget
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM L�
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Transit Assist Joint Powers Agreement and Indemnification
by City of Saratoga
Recommended Action: Approval of Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement and
Indemnity Agreement and authorization for City Manager to execute the same.
Report Summary: The City Council has previously given conceptual approval for
the City of Saratoga to provide liability insurance for Transit Assist. Under the
existing joint powers agreement between Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno,
insurance coverage was to be provided by Los Gatos under its policy with the ABAG
Plan. However, it has been determined that insurance coverage can be obtained on a
more cost effective basis by having the City of Saratoga indemnify the Joint Powers
Agency against liability exposure. Saratoga would then obtain a contractual liability
endorsement to its policy with the ABAG Plan to cover any liability under the
indemnity agreement with Transit Assist. Under this arrangement, the insurance
premium would be lower, and the deductible amount (which is paid by Transit Assist)
would be significantly reduced because Saratoga maintains a lower self- insured
retention than the Town of Los Gatos. Saratoga would not charge Transit Assist for
any increased premium payable to the ABAG Plan for the contractual liability
endorsement, in recognition of the unreimbursed expenses incurred by the Town of Los
Gatos for administration of the Transit Assist program.
The actual amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement is being
revised by the Town Attorney for Los Gatos to incorporate certain changes requested
by the Saratoga City Attorney. In addition, there are a number of technical
amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement desired by Los Gatos which do not relate
to liability insurance. The revised Agreement, together with a proposed draft of the
Saratoga Indemnification Agreement will be distributed to the Council under separate
cover at the beginning of next week or at the time of your meeting.
Fiscal Impacts: Slight increase in the cost of liability insurance paid to the
ABAG Plan. The premium increase has not yet been determined by ABAG.
Attachments: None.
Motion and Vote:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL j404C1W)(_
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Additional Sheriff's patrol of Bohlman Road on July 3rd & 4th
Recommended Motion
Authorize a Sheriff's Reserve Unit to patrol Bohlman Road on July 3rd
from 4:00pm to 10:00pm, and a Sheriff's Reserve Unit to establish a
checkpoint at the beginning of Bohlman Road to restrict access on
July 4th from 4:00pm to 10:00pm, as recommended by the Public Safety
Commission.
Report Summary
Over the past four years, the City Council has authorized the "closure"
of Bohlman Road on July 4th due to the propensity of people living
outside of the area to use Bohlman Road as a place for viewing
fireworks displays. Previously, large numbers of people would take
advantage of the spectacular view of a number of fireworks displays
offered in the valley, and then would have parties of their own.
The street closure was not a true closure in the sense that the
Sheriff's officers would allow residents and guests of residents to
proceed past the checkpoints.established at the base or entrance
of Bohlman on the evening of the 4th.
At the Public Safety Commission meeting of June 12, 1989, Saratoga
Fire District Chief Kraule recommended the proposed action in light
of the serious fire hazards inherent to the area. This recommendation
was endorsed by the Commission by unanimous vote.
Staff also supports the recommendation due to the minor cost involved,
and the extreme fire danger which exists in the area resulting from
the abundance of vegetation and the drought -like conditions which
currently exist there.
Fiscal Impacts
The total cost for assigning a reserve unit to Bohlman Road as
recommended would be $230.00.
Attachments
None
Motion and Vote
n /<
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J AGENDA ITEM t �
MEETING DATE: June 21, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Personnel Resolutions for Fiscal Year 1989/90:
Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City
Service; and Resolution Adopting Pay Schedules for
Temporary Employees
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent Positions
in City Service for Fiscal Year 1989/90.
2. Approve Resolution No. Adopting Pay Schedule for Part -
time Temporary Employees for 1989/90.
Summarv:
The Resolution authorizing permanent positions in the City
service adds the third Community Service Officer position and
increases the Japanese Garden Caretaker and Recreation Program
Coordinator to full -time positions.
The Resolution adopting pay schedules for part -time temporary
employees covers those part -time positions which are filled on a
temporary basis and are not part of the regular classifications.
Fiscal Impacts:
Wage and salary costs are included in the proposed 89/90 budget.
Attachments
1. Resolution No.
2. Resolution No.
Motion and Vote:
Q
Qq
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carolyn King DATE: April 18, 1989
FROM: Dan Trinidad
SUBJECT: Pay Schedule for Part -Time Te iporary Workers
In order to keep the salary for part -time teltporay custodians and Hakone
weekend workers competitive with the facility supervisor, we have added
504 to their hourly rate.
A B C D
Custodian 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25
Hakone weekend worker 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25
Director of Maintenance
t
f. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. S ,f
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: — June 21, 1989 CI Y APP OVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING DEPT.
i
SUBJECT: Grant Final Acceptance of SD 87 -011 and 87 =013 and Release
each Bond, Paul Avenue, Cunningham
Recommended Motion:
Grant Final Acceptance of SD 87 -011 and SD 87 -013 and Release Bond.
Report Summary:
City Council at their regular meeting 6 -15 -1988 gave Construction Acceptance
for above project and developer has maintained the improvement for one year.
No improvements were required for SD 87 -011.
Fiscal-Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
.1. Resolution accepting Dedication of Right -of -Way.
2. • Memo describing bond.
Motion and Vote:
RESOUMCN NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING, DEDIC ATICN OF RIGHT -OF -IVRY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves, as
follows:
SECI'ICN 1: Reference is hereby made to .the following Offer of
Dedication to the City of Saratoga covering rights -
of-way over portions of Land.
a.) Offer recorded on November 12, 1987 , in Book
K 356 at Page 1515 of Santa Clara County Records,
SECTICN 2: The aforesaid Offer of Dedication is hereby accepted
by the City of Saratoga and the above portions of said
land covered thereby are hereby declared to be public streets of
the City of Saratoga.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of , 19 , at a regular
meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
ti
�VIEMOORANDUM
TOO��
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
7O: City Council
DATE: 5- 23 -89
FROM: Cite EncTineer
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SD 87 =013
Location: PA�TL AVENUE
The one (1) year maintenance period for
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 , 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: DAVID CUNNINGHAM
Address: 16861 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, Ca.. 95030
2. Date of Construction Acceptance:
3. Improvement Security:
Type: CASH
Amount: $ 2,456.50
Issuing Cc: David Cunningham
Address: 16,861 F;11mer Avenue, Los Gatos, Ca 95030
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No. • Receipt #3264
4. Miles of public Street: 0.012
5. Special Remarks: Release 50% Cash Bond $1,228.25.
RSS /dsm
d
SA/RATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. IK��rb
MEETING DATE: 7/5/89
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA ITEM E
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Response to County General Plan Revisions and Status of Masson
Mountain Winery Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council review the draft
correspondence objecting to reversal of County General Plan policy which
would allow development outside of cities, and to receive the status
report of the Paul Masson Mountain Winery.
Report Summary: The report presents draft correspondence requested by
Council which objects to the County Planning Commission's consideration
of major policy changes. The draft letter incorporates the City's
desire to include the Masson Mountain Winery in its sphere of influence
because of the potential for serious impact to Saratoga.
Additionally, the report provides a status of the potential development
of the Masson Mountain Winery. Although no formal applications have
been submitted and only initial contact has been made by the developers
consultants, staff wanted Council to be aware of the status because of
its extreme sensitivity.
Fiscal Impacts:
Attachments:
Motion and Vote
None
1. Memorandum from the Planning Director
2. Draft Council correspondence
09,2W @:T O& ° &UQX5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 7/5/89
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Response to County General Plan Revisions and Status of Masson
Mountain Winery Project
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that the Council review the draft correspondence
objecting to reversal of County General Plan policy which would
allow development outside of cities and to receive the status report
of the Paul Masson Mountain Winery.
(lvcrvi cm
The purpose of this report is to present a draft Council statement
responding to the County's General Plan proposal to revise its
policy limiting urban development to incorporated cities. Since the
County's General Plan most directly impacts the western hillsides,
this report will also provide the status of development of the
Masson Mountain Winery.
County Plan Update
As was discussed in staff's previous memorandum, the County is
embarking on a multi -year review of their General Plan. The County
has decided on a process which encourages public, Commission and
staff submit topics for the work program prior to beginning the
actual policy review. In the course of taking suggestions, the
County Commission received requests to study current policies
limiting development to incorporated cities and restricting
development on sites with 30% slope or more. Any discussion and
possible changes to these policies will have serious affect on
Saratoga's western hillsides especially in the area of the Masson
Mountain Winery.
Once all suggestions for General Plan topics are reviewed by the
County Planning Commission, the County staff will prepare
recommendations to prioritize which topics will be studied as a part
of the work program.
After the work program is prepared, it will be distributed to cities
and other agencies for review; we anticipate scheduling it for
Council review in August or September.
Paul Masson Mountain Winery Update
The operators of the concert series continue to process the
Environmental Impact Report for the activities. The Council may
recall that the County has required a use permit and rezoning
application to legalize the concerts and related activities. The
Council responded to the preparation of the EIR by indicating the
issues the City wants studied: 1) traffic; 2) noise; and 3)
jurisdictional boundaries between the City and County.
With respect to the Masson Mountain Winery proposed development, the
property's sale has recently been finalized. However, prior to
this, the purchaser's engineering consultants contacted staff to
indicate their tentative plans. Staff understands that a tentative
map application for approximately 11 lots on the 70 acre Masson
parcel currently within the City is emanent and will be submitted
prior to other phases. The engineer also indicated that further
residential development is proposed for 90 acres outside the City
for which annexation to the City will be requested. The remaining
acreage is proposed to remain outside of the City and may contain
additional single family development and a golf course.
Staff presented the City's initial proposal for inclusion of the
Mountain Winery and surrounding parcels into the City's Sphere of
Influence and Urban Service area to LAFCO. The result of this
meeting indicated that the formal presentation must include the
Council's policy statement regarding open space in this visual and
mountainous area. It was quite evident that application of the
existing hillside policies in the NHR Specific Plan will not address
the density issues created by this type of terrain.
As the Council is aware, the City is in the process of evaluating
its open space position. The Planning Department is receiving
proposals from firms to perform the opinion survey. Once the survey
is complete, the Council will provide direction on the scope of open
space policy revision. It is imperative that this Council direction
be incorporated in staff's application to LAFCO to include the
Mountain Winery in our Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area.
Staff believes that the Council's affirmation of its policy
direction with respect to open space is critical to a successful
LAFCO application resulting in the inclusion of the visually
sensitive lands into the City's jurisdiction.
Step en E lie
Planning Director
SE /dsc
e
U
=E-73 C�&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
Santa Clara County Planning Commission
70 West Hedding St.
San Jose, Ca. 95110
Dear Commissioners:
The Saratoga City Council strenuously opposes contemplated policy
changes currently being discussed as a part of the General Plan
revision. While this Council recognizes the importance of
periodically reviewing general plan policy, this Council must object
to a review that includes outright reversal of adopted policy.
Specifically, we object to any change to the policies limiting
development to incorporated cities and restricting development on
sites of 30% or more. Any change in this policy will result in far
reaching and irreversible impacts to the quality of life our residents
enjoy. To allow intensification of the environmentally sensitive
hillsides could quite possibly result in long term geologic,
traffic, and visual impacts that will most directly impact Saratoga
residents.
As the Commission is may be aware, Saratoga's visual backdrop, the
Santa Cruz mountains, are for the most part, outside of this City's
jurisdiction. This condition has resulted in recent concern
when sale of the Paul Masson Mountain Winery became emanent.
Earlier this year the Council authorized a study of the City's
Sphere of Influence and Urban Service areas and applied to LAFCO to
extend the City's jurisdiction over these sensitive lands.
The County Commission's recent reconsideration of the policy which
limits development to cities, reinforces the City's initial concern:
that development will occur on environmentally sensitive lands with
specific Saratoga impact without those most impacted being heard.
The Council feels compelled to remind the Commission that the
sensitive hillsides are accessed through Saratoga, drain to Saratoga
and are visually connected to Saratoga. This Council urges the
Commission to discontinue discussion of intensification of
unincorporated lands especially when the potential impacts to a
neighboring City are so great.
Sincerely,
Karen Anderson
Mayor
KA /se /dsc
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: 6 -21 -89
ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING
AGENDA ITEM �..
CITY MGM.,. ,A$PROVAL
SUBJECT: ACCEPT OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR "PARK"
UNDER TRACT 7763, Dividend Development
Recommended Motion:
Approve Resolution No.
Accepting Parcel A for future park under Tract 7763.
Report Summa•
On July 16, 1986, Dividend Developuent gave Offer of Dedication of 2.305
acre land for future park under Tract 7763 in lieu of Park and Recreation
fees. The City of Saratoga did not accept this Offer of Dedication at
the time of Final Tract Map Approval.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution No. ,
Motion and Vote:
6/21: Continued to 7/5.
• Recording requested by:
CITY OF SARATOGA
After recordation return to:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLU'T'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARNICGA
ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF DEDICATION
WHEREAS, a subdivision map for Tract No. 7763 was recorded in the
Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, California on August 18, 1986 , in
Book 563 of Maps, Page 31 -33 ; and
WHEREAS, a 2.305 acre parcel of land, designated on said subdivision map
as Parcel A, was dedicated to the City of Saratoga for the purpose of utilization as a
public park; and
WHEREAS, such offer of dedication was not accepted by the City of
Saratoga at the time the subdivision map was recorded and the City now desires to
accept the offer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga that the offer of dedication of that certain parcel of land consisting of 2.305
acres designated as Parcel A on the subdivision map for Tract No. 7763, as recorded in
the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, California on
August 18, 1986 , in Book 563 of Maps, Page 31 -33 , is hereby
accepted for the purpose of said parcel being utilized as a public park.
s s s
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the day of , 1989, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Is
414, ej C L - �'# ���
City Clerk
/ 7
-tG�
Mayor
LjFOR�14,
ogu,ff o2 0&12&UQ)(5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
June 13, 1989 David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
Mr. Richard B. Oliver
Senior Vice President
Dividend Development Corporation
3600 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
.Re: Beauchamps Park Site
Dear Mr. Oliver:
The City Council will be considering a resolution to accept dedication
on June 21st. Before the City records the acceptance, the City will
require that the site be cleared of all debris and the surrounding
streets and gutters be cleaned and swept. Please contact Dan
Trinidad, our Maintenance Director, to schedule an inspection once
the cleanup has been done so he can advise me when to record the
acceptance.
Sin erely,
Harry Peacock
City Manager
jm
cc: Dan Trinidad
May 31, 1989
ugu'ff Qq §&M&19Q)(5&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
Mr. Richard B. Oliver
Senior Vice President
Dividend Development Corporation
3600 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Re: Beauchamps Park Site
Dear Mr. Oliver:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
Francis Stutzman
The City normally does not formally accept offers of dedication
on subdivisions until all improvements to streets, storm drains,
sewer, etc. which require dedication of various easements have
been completed and accepted by the City.
I assume from the content of your letter you would like the City
to accept dedication now rather than wait the additional six
months or so. my engineering staff estimates it will take to
finalize the improvements. Based on that assumption I have asked
the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of acceptance for
7 approval by the City Council at its June 21, 1989, meeting. Once
adopted by the City Council, the resolution will be recorded and
title will transfer to the City. If DDC does not wish the City
to accept dedication now, please advise.
Sin ere'
Harry Peacock
City anager
jm
cc: City Attorney
City Engineer
Maintenance Director
City Council
dzL
Dividend Development Corporation
3600 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95051
(408) 246 -5001 Telephone
(408) 296 -8450 Facsimile
May 25,.1989
Mr. Harry Peacock
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Beaucham s Park Site
Dear Harry:
RECEH'ED
MAY 3 01989
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
I received from the City Attorney a recent letter and copy of
the tax bill for the City Park parcel at Beauchamps.
I am not sure of the intent of.the City in this matter. I
was working under the impression that the Park was dedicated
and accepted at the time the final map was recorded, and I
find now that the City refused to accept the dedication.
I am not very excited about paying taxes on land offered for
dedication as a park, nor am I very excited about having a
continuing liability that might arise out of our continued
ownership.
Would you please let me know the City's plans. When will
they accept dedications? Why have they refused to accept it?
If the City does not want to accept it, what does that mean
as far as we are concerned?
Very truly yours.
DIVIDEND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Richard B. Oliver
Senior Vice President
RBO: gat: 17