The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-17-2011 City Council Packet SupplementalAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 17, 2011 SPECIAL MEETING — 4:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 4:30 P.M. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 11, 2011) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON - AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION — Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b): 2 cases. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54956.8): Property described as APN517 -32 -001 and APN503 -48 -014. Agency Negotiator /s: Dave Anderson, City Manager and John Cherbone, Public Works Director Negotiating parties: Santa Clara County, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Under negotiation: Terms of payment. 1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov't Code Section 54957.6) Council will confer with the City's labor negotiators, Deanna Mouser and/or Monica LaBossiere and/or Dave Anderson, regarding Saratoga Management Association, Saratoga Employees Association, and/or the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Gov't Code Section 54957) Title: City Attorney ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868 -1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA title IIJ Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted on August 11, 2011, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 11th day of August 2011 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk 2 CITY OF SARATOGA ` I REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL V NAME shod Coe) ADDRESS 215 3 Sar°0-090t Joe: k - Dr;ve. d5Ilwddd DoVICe SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 0 I t 0( (� TELEPHONE NO. C ` 6) 79c)- (0)(o TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: "c e r n C ° N / eve (1; () NAME CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL 0 71161,,. ADDRESS > q.so �)e SUBJECT CL,if '&_.)ea, ✓ C AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE g ' 1-7 TELEPHONE NO. 1756 5d TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME -� C� (C) \A `e t ADDRESS II jj SUBJECT ! DI/I �(/�C+ 11 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE In TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: -7 vv--) CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME "re, r lvf. +', ADDRESS al Dq 6 PC- SUBJECT Sax Wm0-e- X0'.11 q11(11 1 q►- 1 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 1 ecf. NAME ADDRES S SUBJECT CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL JAleem 1-<IA aoso 5ctva, - 5laa 4 4.i, AGENDA ITEM NO. I 1 DATE TELEPHONE NO. 605-5a6-1 . TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: NAME CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL 0,524 ADDRESS /) I SUBJECT C frL6L-2 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE i %) TELEPHONE NO.gb6 e) s ).- TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7 / ' n CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME ADDRESS 5' / ail/a, ClizARAt AGENDA ITEM NO. / L DATE 3 ✓/ !) TELEPHONE NO. J -? ZP TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: 7 1� SUBJECT lJ 1 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME 1,\ M MA YC-C (ADDRESS 1 lLi 00 `*Q ( V 1 �6 SUBJECT 0 v � AU- C- AGENDA ITEM NO. l 6 DATE -) `TELEPHONE NO. os 40 -0 t 0 d TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: (` 0 0 PR NAME CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL Tce\A\e 60■ckber -j -L ADDRESS �c,v111/ 111/� SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE U I I� TELEPHONE NO. - TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: -Tr() CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL NAME au6 ADDRESS 14 l'1-2 DE 4AVItmke L SUBJECT Or6 7\%1C'v PO AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011 REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 P.M. — CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 11, 2011) REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non - Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. General Obligation Bond Refunding Summary Report Recommended action: 1. Review 2001 General Obligation Bond Refunding Summary Report, refunding documents and schedules, and new 2011 GO Bond Debt Payment Schedule. 2. Present Mayor Howard A. Miller with a commendation from the City for initiating the General Obligation Bond refunding. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains' routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes — July 6, 2011 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 3. City Council Special Meeting Minutes — July 14, 2011 Recommended action: Approve minutes as submitted for the July 14, 2011, City Council Special Meeting. 4. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable cycles: June 30, 2011 July 7, 2011 July 11, 2011 July 14, 2011 July 18, 2011 5. Review of Accounts Payable Check Register Recommended action: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: July 21, 2011 July 25, 2011 August 4, 2011 August 9, 2011 6. Treasurer's Report for the Month Ended May 31, 2011 Recommended action: Review and accept the Treasurer's Report for the month ended May 31, 2011. 7. Annual Approval of the City's Investment Policy Recommended action: That the City Council review and approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2011/12. 8. Citizen Options for Public Safety - Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds Grant (COPS /SLESF) Recommended action: Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of the Citizen Options for Public Safety Program's Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (COPS /SLESF) grant as a source of funds for additional public safety services. 9. Ordinance to amend the City Fire Code to exempt from automatic sprinkler system requirements parking structures made from non - combustible materials that are at least 20 feet from the nearest building and meet certain other requirements. Recommended action: Adopt attached ordinance to amend the City Fire Code to exempt from automatic sprinkler system requirements parking structures made from non - combustible materials that are at least 20 feet from the nearest building and meet certain other requirements. 10. Saratoga Monte Sereno Community Foundation Scott Petersen Memorial Collection Recommended action: Accept donated funds collected by Saratoga Monte Sereno Community Foundation in memory of Scott Petersen for the Saratoga Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). 11. Saratoga Monte Sereno Community Foundation Grant for Tree Dedication Program Recommended action: Accept grant from the Saratoga Monte Sereno Community Foundation and approve the attached budget adjustment resolution. 12. Quito Road Bridges Environmental Work Recommended action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for consulting services with the David J. Powers & Associates for NEPA and CEQA environmental documents for the Quito Road Bridge Replacements for the amount of $135,195.00. 13. Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Schedule Recommended action: Move to adopt the resolution approving a revised meeting schedule. 14. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Restricting Parking on Melinda Circle Recommended action: Move to adopt MV Resolution restricting parking on a portion of Melinda Circle. 15. Saratoga Employee Association (SEA) Side Letter of Agreement for Reductions Recommended action: Adopt resolution approving the side letter of agreement with SEA agreeing to both long term and short term reductions in compensation and /or benefits currently provided to the SEA - represented employees. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 16. Review of the City's "Over the Counter" Development Review Process Recommended action: Provide direction to staff on the following alternatives to modify the Community Development Department's process of reviewing non - discretionary residential building permit applications for any new structure, addition to footprint of a structure or increase in structure height as to "Over the Counter" clearance. 17. Acquisition of Congress Springs property from the County of Santa Clara including dedication of Conservation Easement to the County of Santa Clara and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Recommended action: Approve the attached resolution (1) adopting the Negative Declaration for the acquisition and easement; (2) approving a project funding agreement with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department; (3) approving a purchase agreement with Santa Clara County Roads Department; and (4) granting a conservation easement to the County of Santa Clara and the MROSD. 18. Let's Move City Plan Recommended action: Accept report and approve the draft Let's Move City Plan. NEW BUSINESS 19. Consider Proposed Responses to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports on Rehiring Pensioners, Emergency Dispatch in Santa Clara County, and Fire Department Response Protocols and Consolidation Opportunities Recommended action: Review the Grand Jury Reports and authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed responses. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Howard Miller City School Ad -Hoc Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Executive Committee Santa Clara County Cities Association SCC Cities Association Selection Committee Valley Transportation Authority PAC West Valley Mayors and Managers Association West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Association Vice Mayor Chuck Page City School AdHoc Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Board Let's Move City Mayor /Vice Mayor Oath of Office Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Saratoga Ministerial Association TEA AdHoc West Valley Sanitation District Councilmember Jill Hunter Historical Foundation KSAR Community Access TV Board SASCC Tree AdHoc Village AdHoc West Valley Flood Control & Watershed Advisory Committee Councilmember Emily Lo Association of Bay Area Government Carlson House Restoration AdHoc Electric Vehicle Charging Stations AdHoc Highway 9 AdHoc Library Joint Powers Association Sister City Liaison Village AdHoc Councilmember Manny Cappello Carlson House Restoration AdHoc Chamber of Commerce County HCD Policy Committee Electric Vehicle Charging Stations AdHoc Highway 9 AdHoc Let's Move City Mayor /Vice Mayor Oath of Office Santa Clara County Emergency Council TEA AdHoc Tree AdHoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868 -1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: 1, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on August 11, 2011, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www. saratoga. ca. us Signed this 11th day of August 2011 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2011 9/7 Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees 9/21 Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with Saratoga/Monte Sereno Community Foundation 10/5 Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with Traffic Safety Commission 10/19 Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with Assemblymember Jim Beall, Jr. 11/2 Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/16 Regular Meeting —Joint meeting with Hakone Foundation 12/6 Council Reorganization 12/7 Regular Meeting -- Joint meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission and Historical Foundation 12/21 Regular Meeting Memo To: City Council From: Ann Sulliv Date: August 17, 201 Re: Agenda Item 17 — Acquisition of Congress Springs Property from the County of Santa Clara Including Dedication of Conservation Easement to the County of Santa Clara and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Adoption of a Negative Declaration City of Saratoga Office of City Clerk The attached property descriptions of the Quarry property replace those that were included in the attachments to the staff report. A IAA& Su.l,l,%vaw Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk EXHIBIT "Al" LEGAL DESCRIPTION AUGUST 5, 2011 All that certain real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of Section 11, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, described as follows: All that certain real property shown as Parcel "A" on that certain Record of Survey filed for record in Book 394 of Maps, Pages 29 and 30, Santa Clara County Records, Santa Clara County, California. Excepting therefrom a portion more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Parcel "A ", thence along the northerly line of said parcel the following four courses: 1) North 84 °56' 57" East 199.98 feet; 2) North 75 °01'57" East 113.78 feet; 3) South 00 °06'37" West 54.01 feet; 4) North 75 °12' 38" East 45.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said northerly line South 25° 00'00" East 375.00 feet; thence North 90 °00'00" East 150.00 feet; thence North 25 °00'00" East 80.00 feet; thence North 00 °00'00" East 157.97 feet; thence North 24 °24' 18" West 85.68 feet to said northerly line of said Parcel "A" and also to the southerly right of way line of Congress Springs Road as saidaroad is shown on said Record of Survey; thence along said northerly line and also along said southerly right of way line South 85 °31'57" West 33.77 feet to the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 220.65 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 14 °44'20" for an arc length of 56.76 feet to the beginning of a compound curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 355.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along last said curve through a central angle of 14 °32'21" for an arc length of 90.08 feet; thence North 65 °11'22" West 77.84 feet; thence leaving said southerly right of way line South 24 °57'46 "° West 15.94 feet; thence South 75 °12'38" West 55.48 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 1,89 acres more or less. SEE EXHIBIT "B1" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.. This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act. Karl Barker, P.L.S. #8342 Date t =1 as g$> — _____�':� Tan 75 48 .--- A�a37 05 • L„1;05 39 � 2J , �.. Q] 23 F Tan=b310 ;03 R=225 00 r� 80.10 L 105.''08" �$ '4°t3 Ri5000 .��7 ��,¢�7 R1 • i. �1'3�$ p 5�Z "�w �G�js'32r48A on 24 6'- 98 "e L S�. ° � 5 A� J e4 1iz._ N OAU l'" 0' pp LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING .. ......... Ll . __... 1333.86 SB71t'17' LE ,.. 698.52 . S86'30'58'E L3 .:......:....'321.22 N16'19'57 %.: L4 .196133 ......` .N4T29'24•IJ. L5 238.05 N31?22'23'W L6' ! 4223 ! N16'3175' d 17 " 34.47. N40•10'01'E L8 134:62 N71•3T38!E L9 109.63 N17'02'52!V LI0 116.55 S88t0720`!V Ltl 199.90 S75'30'50'V 1:12 ! 71.59 ..N01'16'40'V 113 171.75 N83'30'S5'.V: 114 _ 217.53 _ 555•39'31'V 'LIS .82.99 S17'40'56'E L16 ' 90.14 S75'05'37'V. L17 " 72.93 S89.42'09'V. LIB , . .. 35.08. S52'S1'Ol'V L19 22,51' N55•50'45'V L20 33:77 S85•31'STV L21 15.94. S24.57'46'..V L22 33:77 385'31'57'W DETAIL APN 503 -48 -014 PARCEL " " 394 M. 29 APN 517 -32 -001 PARCEL 41 '0 Pia CURVE TABLE. CURVE LENGTH 'RADIUS. DELTA 'TANGENT C1 : _ " 1:17: 305.00 0.13'13'; ' 0.59 C2 78.92 `• ...185,00 24'26'31` l•:. ...40,07 3' 121.04 355.00 19.32'08' `' 61.11 )F CA 1F0 EXHIBIT "B1" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OVER A PORTION OF A.P.N. 503 -48 -014 AUGUST, 2010 EXHIBIT "A2" LEGAL DESCRIPTION AUGUST 5, 2011 Alt that certain real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of Section 11, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, described as follows: All of that certain real property shown as Parcel "A" on that certain Record of Survey filed for record in Book 411 of Maps, Page 51, Santa Clara County Records, Santa Clara County, California. SEE EXHIBIT "B2" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE APART HEREOF. This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Professional Land Surveyors' Act. Karl Barker, P.L.S. #8342 Date EXHIBIT "B2" 4 0414} ortyr,lo:e.. 114/11 ar-.4914RAId &trio* A'aikkr- ir.Amot aosfe#pr, Getfisemo Aziril%),, lee twit' ge.4•,•* Ar,Afit::4*.•Y 5110417V1. ThCite#.*0..:;0‘1404'•,%74;;i,kii ieicootatAr..4:kitAri:iil'orieioSiivioarT40;,**•., ,sat**.2.)•;sdie.0,144,40:ff e0i4,- ‘,,efaistr:11.1ii*Vilir a • $ :574.9 • ,Ltme-Lrey l• irwinre . warJakiestr hou,Jo • 14me-krey rirtor4 vire- se-r- C ) taPo.477:$ Kr-torlo0 5r-kftp.IG At1). 17f$,V4.4LY rex Dr—r-ra •t-1 ror4=05. A- 15/5 iumeArr_s pmeps,o4 '5•14,61f4 eta Kis ■•.4 :r1 G.rrf L-noorrl 4.4*449 J1.0141' /{„irei • royar -Om la, nico. -far ,FT cora 4.e,. -1S e. 5 64.1-r. Cc:"LarrY • COUNTY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I% we, 11. No o..* 4. 4.0 7Crit olb .0.1 Mt. R/5 3.9411257 t .J 7!'IrTK'E ;6;;Ifil7•3‘ff*Zsk' ANZU t: ":0C 61- 31 Art, _e,r4f-• •— re Po: • vt;$ AGFte. 04 r ex .,..t!",q.,‘ 0141 freCt) r:r 64? ke WO ..C.r.i...,.1. ■,:icATH •No4 ,.. .. N ,r..•,:','-'•.; i/P ''.,/, ....:1 .' t. q ' 0. i 2....-'7, .-0,(7, 1,!.' :?4:;•••11 Ok ' .>-..:'30•4(..14/ 41r s•• ‘.. rr -fr 'o, .; ▪ t: $' 44, ne e ID ,".."614•Itse:rs, ee, "4"1 'II.et/79re as. .(aritrif. cc:441r- e;) tterwtri dzir MILLEXP Lip , ..., v .i. PIN' 24/16 - ■ , V'l :4) 3..larm.,.1 :r1 .1? i ,, . ink ?f't: KLCORD OF SURVEY • RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE 5.41133cy 31714 'Ph Ris SE 1.1 ' 43/14;5 • 1' te;" or! Joni c•ffrsi. PisTAIL-•3 0.17, C •cl ,,,.A Or TIE LAND5 Of WflA C74RA CNA/TY MN wog.... 41.EML14._ 6- telit. : r 1127."•";., ' :'.13.-to !ol 6.• :, :-*A -iii.:4 . 41 HP 51/A14 4 /37117/01.1 Of 710 1E. 0 t 007G# 1-1 4 '....',... 4.1 •'''' - '1+1 : g..d.5 / /,Te5RIm , 141 f 1 , DM E1ffRE0 oIst . 64, &g SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A r AGTV-•, 4/0•164.E' SCALE //a' /04?" G=.1,11..... 16W1, 1911 N r„., ‘,.,9.9-4) ,, . FI-401-1<_-, '',"' ' ''''''' ,,,Ver/at.111- 6.1 zfog.:;:±4,r • p., • City Clerk [Ann Sullivan] From: Bill [wtbrooks @brookshess.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:56 AM To: Howard Miller; Chuck Page; Jill Hunter; Emily Lo; Manny Cappello Cc: City Clerk [Ann Sullivan]; Dave Anderson Subject: Agenda Item 17: Saratoga To The Sea Trail Aug. 17, 2011 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I want to express my thanks to you, to the members of the Pedestrian, Equestrian and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee, the Community Development and Public Works Staffs, Supervisor Kniss, and all the other dedicated people who have brought the Saratoga To The Sea Trail from a dream to the cusp of reality. This will be an achievement that will outlive all of us and benefit Saratoga and Bay Area Residents for as long as there is a Bay Area. Thank you on behalf of all of us. William T. Brooks 1 Silicon Valley VI Association of REALTORS August 17, 2011 Honorable Howard Miller Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Miller and Council Members, ff The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) is a trade association representing nearly 4,000 real estate professionals in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Our association has historically been an advocate for private property rights and fair public policy. We would like to comment regarding item 16, the "Review of the City's `Over the Counter' Development Review Process." We respectfully request the council not adopt options one or two as provided in the staff report, and make no modifications to the current over - the - counter development review process. The current over - the - counter process allows for homeowners to make minor modifications to their home by utilizing rights promulgated through existing zoning regulations. The current process is far from broken, and the two options presented to the council will be more time consuming and costly to homeowners whose minor building applications conform to all existing zoning regulations. We do not believe that changes to this process are warranted based on the number of complaints received in comparison to the number of permits as cited in the staff report. We firmly believe these changes will result in far more complaints from homeowners in the future than at present. This has been the case in Cupertino; the city this month responded to an outpouring of complaints from homeowners regarding its burdensome permit and design review process for improvements to single - family homes by removing most of the discretionary review and public noticing requirements. We view option one as downzoning existing single - family homes by converting most ministerial permits to discretionary permits. This option attempts to lock in existing single - family homes to their current frame, regardless of the ability to improve the home within the existing zoning regulation. Further, making most of the minor modifications now discretionary permits opens the door for potential city council and CEQA review of additions less than 100 square feet. Before moving forward on option one, we suggest the city reach out to prior over -the- counter permit applicants to see if they would have proceeded with that same permit under the new rules. Option two is a temporary solution, which will foster demands for the eventual adoption of option one. It maintains the ministerial permit status of minor modifications that are currently 19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100 • Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408.200.0100 • Fax: 408.200.0101 • www.silvar.org compliant with existing zoning regulations, but will now require public noticing to neighbors. Even with the notice, neighbors will not be able to provide public comment or appeal the permit because it is ministerial in nature; hence, the reason for the recommendations made under option one. The notice in function will serve as a notice of future construction, but will result in neighbors viewing the city and applicant as unresponsive should there be potential concerns. A more effective and equitable approach to this issue may be to conduct proactive outreach to homeowners to help them better understand the existing zoning regulations. If after the outreach, the city receives significant comment that the existing zoning regulations no longer reflect the same vision held by residents, then the council should consider modifying the zoning code. We respectfully request the council not approve either option because they would work against the best interests of current and prospective homeowners of aging homes by creating uncertainty as to their ability to receive city approval for minor permits. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on behalf of the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS ®. Sincerely, Adam Montgomery Government Affairs Director Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® Dear Mayor and City Council, I'm here to give you the results of the Goldberg investigation of the project at 12369 Saraglen, otherwise known as "Bucket 1" in light of and as a lead in to "Bucket 2" appearing later in tonight's agenda. According to the Saratoga Municipal Code a project qualifies for Administrative Design Review if it is an expansion or reconstruction of 50% or more of an existing single -story main structure. I'm sure Mr. Taylor can explain why this project did not qualify but it did add 857 square feet to a 2158 square foot home, with a new roof, new flooring, new walls, all new doors and windows, all new kitchen, all new dining room, master bedroom and bathroom, it was gutted and open to the air for weeks on end, and the construction has been going on for four months already. If this does not qualify for more than 50% reconstruction then what can qualify? But no, staff assures us all that 871 square feet is a "limited" addition. In our neighborhood this looks like a really big addition. Sometime before the current plans were submitted the owner approached the city about this renovation and expansion. Someone at the city discovered that the original home was built inside the setback area by inches. Someone must have contacted the Community Development Officer as he referred to it as the "boundary problem ". This appears to look like an Administrative Design Review since the Community Development Officer had to get involved. A ministerial decision would not involve him because everything is supposed to be straightforward and by formula to qualify as a ministerial decision, or so I thought. We were told that the Community Development Officer never gets involved in ministerial OTC projects but he sure was involved in this one. At this point, with staff needing guidance, why wasn't this bumped to Administrative Design Review? In fact it was essentially a secret design review that was taking place since the Community Development Officer was involved although there are no records of any conversations or decisions. This was clearly not ministerial anymore... But wait, someone on staff decided to tell the owner to simply move the new addition in 4 inches and we will just consider this ministerial and give you your permit. Why would this happen this way? Well during this time period the owner was complaining about our city staff and it elevated to the Asst. City Manager. She, in turn, made sure that staff knew he was an elected official from a neighboring city and the project approval followed quickly thereafter. I call that greasing the wheels. You can draw your own conclusions but it is clear that the neighbors were not being considered. City staff ignored that the home was illegal non - conforming and ignored that the project was major construction over 50 per cent. None of the changes you might consider later tonight are worth a hill of beans if staff is not going to carry through. For example, staff has a list of OTC Requirements but for 12369 Saraglen there was sure a lot of stuff missing. Plan preparers name, address and telephone number MISSING, Site Slope MISSING, Age of Structure MISSING, Impervious Coverage Table MISSING, Floor Diagram MISSING, Demolition Table MISSING, Setback Table MISSING, Height Information Table MISSING, and last but not least, a Stamped and Signed Boundary Survey MISSING. But don't worry, it is still ministerial according to the City Manager. Even though there was voluminous missing material, even though it illuminated a never before seen situation of an illegal non - conforming structure in Saratoga, and it was something I would call a major addition and renovation project that will have lasting negative impact on its next door neighbors for years to come. Despite all this missing supposedly required documentation, with supposedly no discretionary decisions being made, the permit for the project was granted. And so ends my report on "Bucket 1". eft - 2e�,5e (9(JI) � OTC Requirements Checklist has been satisfied, the application is forwarded to the Building Division for processing. In general, the City of Saratoga has two types of Design Review Approvals for residential development. One is Planning Commission Design Review (under City Code § 15- 45.060) and the other is Administrative Design Review by the Community Development Director (under City Code § 15- 45.065). The scope of the project determines which of the two Design Review processes is followed. The following is a summary list of these thresholds: Planning Commission Design Review • Any new two story main structure (normally the residence) or new two story accessory structure • A second story addition to an existing single -story structure. • Any new single -story structure over 18 feet in height. • Any remodel of a structure that would result in the floor area of all structures on site exceeding 6,000 square feet. • Any main structure to be constructed on a lot having a net site area of less than 5,000 square feet. • Any removal of fifty percent or more of the structural elements or members of the existing exterior walls that define the boundary of the building on a single story structure over eighteen feet in height, or a multi -story main structure, or an accessory structure. Administrative Design Review • New single -story residences and accessory structures with a floor area exceeding 250 square feet. • The expansion or reconstruction of 50 percent of more of an existing single -story main or accessory structure. • An addition of 100 square feet or more to an existing second story of a main or accessory structure. • A new basement or an enlargement of an existing basement. These Design Review Approvals are considered discretionary because either the Planning Commission or Planning Staff must exercise judgment in order to make the Design Review findings listed in City Code Section 15- 45.080 prior to a project being approved. A list of these findings is included as Attachment #1. Both Design Review processes require public notice prior to a decision being made on the project. Planning Commission Design Review requires a notice of the Public Hearing be published in the newspaper and be mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project. Administrative Design Review requires a "Notice of Intent to Approve" to all property owners within 250 feet of the project. Both review processes include a 15 calendar day appeal period after an approval has been granted. Over the Counter Review Residential development that does not fall within the above Design Review parameters does not require Design Review Approval. Hence, by way of examples, the following types of projects can be approved OTC. Page 1 of 1 From: "John Livingstone" <johnl @saratoga.ca.us> Date: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:18 PM To: "Rina Shah" <rshah @saratoga.ca.us >; "Rina Shah" <rshah @saratoga.ca.us> Subject: questions Hi Rina, Did Patrick Kwok come in to take care of his OTC project with the boundary issue? Would you mind giving me a list of some of the projects and /or duties that you have accomplished over the last two years that you are particularly proud of. Probably the same list you use for your interviews. Thanks John L 5/25/2011 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powell" <bpowell @saratoga.ca.us> Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:20 AM To: "Christopher Riordan" <criordan @saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Patrick Kwok Hi Chris, I'm e- mailing as I see you guys are swamped at the Planning Counter this morning. John L. brought to my attention a customer service issue related to Mr. Kwok. I wasn't able to talk to you about it yesterday, as I hadn't called Mr. Kwok yet. I spoke with him this morning. He is a Council member from Cupertino who owns a home at 12369 Sara Glen Drive. Apparently, Cindy helped him at the counter, and he felt he received very poor customer service. It sounds as if the project is an addition. Mr. Kwok (as the property owner, not the architect) felt there was a lot of information on the drawings he submitted; however, Cindy asked him questions related to the information: • Setback • Square footage of the addition • APN He felt she should have been able to simply look at the drawings and obtain this information, rather than being "lazy" (his words) and asking him a bunch of questions. My question to you: Does this relate to Cindy's inability to read plans well? Do we need to send her to a plan reading /checking class? Thanks! Barbara 5/25/2011 Memo To: Chris Riordan, CDD From: Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner . Fax: Date: June 2, 2011 Phone: Pages: 2 Re: 12389 Saragien Drive CC: 0 Urgent H For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle Chris — I reviewed the plan set titled "ADDITION FOR MR. AND MRS. KWOK — 12369 SARAGLEN DRIVE" using the "Over- the - Counter Requirements for Planning Department Review" checklist dated August 2010. The checklist is used as a guide for planning staff to review submitted projects for planning approval. Depending on the scope of work, Staff uses its discretion to determine if more or Tess information is required on the plans to grant approval. Below is my analysis of the project: Cover sheet • Plan preparer's name, address and telephone number is missing. An application can still be processed without the plan preparer's information if the submitting party is either the owner or a licensed contractor. The addition at 12369 Saragien was submitted by the owner (Patrick Kwok). • Lot size was shown on cover sheet, but was inconsistent with Building Location Survey lot size. The cover sheet stated that lot size is 10,348 sq. ft., which would allow a property owner to have approximately 3,370 sq. ft. of total floor area (assuming the average slope of the lot is less than 10 %). • The Building Location Survey demonstrated the lot size to be approximately 14,857 sq. ft., which would allow a property owner to have approximately 4,050 sq. ft. of total floor area (assuming the average slope of the lot is less than 10 %). • With the proposed addition, the total amount of floor area of the project at 12369 Saraglen Avenue.is 3,687 sq. ft. • The average site slope was missing. An application can still be processed without the average slope if the property seems to be relatively flat, due to its location within the City. 12369 Saraglen is on the northern portion of Saratoga, east of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Properties in that area typically have slopes Tess than 1%, making them pretty flat. • • The age of the existing structure was missing. An application can still be processed without the age of the existing structure because Staff can review the approximate age of the residence through public record and our software system (i.e. Trak -IT). 12369 Saraglen was built in 1967 and would not qualify as a historical resource. Proiect Information • Existing, Additional, and Allowable impervious coverage is missing. • The "total lot coverage" shown on •the cover sheet is actually "total floor area ". This was a typographical error on the applicant's part. By identifying the error, this can be easily remedied by the applicant and /or the-planner at the counter. • A "blocked out" floor area diagram to indicate the areas that are used to determine total floor area is missing. A "blocked out" floor area diagram allows Staff to verify the floor area of the proposed project i.s compliant with City Code. At the planner's discretion, a "blocked out" floor plan diagram is not required if the floor plan can be measured with an architectural scale. An experience planner can use the architectural scale to determine the "approximate" square footage of all buildings on the lot in order to determine proposed and total floor area. • A demolition table showing the linear feet of existing exterior walls, the linear feet of exterior walls being removed; and the linear feet of new walls to be constructed is missing. Projects that remove, replace, or reconstruct fifty percent or more of the existing structural elements or members of the exterior walls which define the exterior boundary of a main structure or an accessory structure require Administrative Design Review1. • An impervious coverage table with a breakdown of site coverage is missing. At the planner's discretion, the table is not required if the site plan clearly demonstrates that the amount of impervious coverage is substantially Tess than the allowable site coverage per the zoning district. • A setback table of required and proposed setbacks is missing2. • A height information table is missing3. 1 The applicant demonstrated that less than 50% of the exterior walls would need to be removed on Sheet A2.2 of the floor plan. The project does not seem that it would trigger Administrative Design Review. 2 The applicant demonstrated the setbacks were being met on Sheet Al of the site plan. The project seems compliant with the allowable setbacks required for the R1- 12,500 zoning district, with the limited information shown on the site plan and the Building Location Survey. • A "Boundary Survey" was missing. Any application that proposes new construction three feet or closer to a required setback area shall include a boundary survey signed by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to do property line surveys. Such surveys shall verify the location of all existing property lines, easements, structures and protected trees. The project at 12369 Saraglen proposed new construction within three feet of a required setback. The applicant submitted a "Building Location Survey" which seemed to verify the location of all existing property lines, easements, and structures on the property. 3 The applicant submitted exterior elevations of the project With an architectural scale, a planner can determine if the proposed height is compliant with the height requirement of the City Code. The project seems to be in compliance regarding height Dear Council, Staff and Citizens, After reading through the staff report and attachments, my question to staff is what is the goal of these two options for improving the process? What are we trying to improve upon from what was described at the May 18th meeting? I ask this because I don't see anything in either of these options that speak to the issues discussed at that meeting or works to prevent that situation from repeating. Specifically, our situation highlighted the protection of views, privacy, and quality of life in Saratoga. There is nothing in this report that would have affected our outcome. We have been told that all administrative decisions are appealable in the city. The problem in our case was that we had no way of knowing that a building permit had been approved next door to our home so even though we had the right to appeal we did not know that the appeal process had started and ended by the time construction had gotten well underway. Had we known, we could have appealed. At first I thought the new flow chart looked fine because it started with neighbor notification then I realized that the description in the staff report says that the Technical Review process would be considered NON - APPEALABLE. So, previously we had an appeal process that required clairvoyance because there was no notification and now staff wants to give us notification but dismantle the appeal process. Why are we taking away the appeal process when city code 15- 90 tells us that any decision is appealable? In addition our situation was unique in that the project directly impacted our views, privacy and quality of life. Neither the current OTC process nor anything in this staff report speaks to privacy, views or quality of life. Again, these aspects of the city code would then only be able to be invoked with an active appeal process. Along these lines I would also recommend consideration be given to expanding the use of he Residential Design Handbook, which is a valuable reference document and should be used to guide all construction in the city. Staff should consider some mechanism to address these elements directly. Regarding Option 2, changing thresholds, it is hard to make decisions about thresholds without more information regarding potential impact. In 2010 we had 114 OTC projects, how many Administrative Review and Design Review projects did we have that year? If the threshold was changed to 500 square feet how would those numbers change for 2010? I can tell you that for the cities I contacted they use square footage for most thresholds because it is clear cut and easy to measure and understand. The cities I contacted have worked to get subjective measurements such as valuation out of their code keep it as simple and straight forward as possible. This goes far beyond what is mentioned in tonight's staff report. My advice for tonight is to put together some kind of neighbor notification into the current process without change to the appeals process. This can be done at little expense and notification would have given us the opportunity to express our opinion in a timely manner for all involved and will hopefully prevent these kinds of surprises for other residents. In their report, staff quotes an Administrative Design Review ministerial component as being "The expansion or reconstruction of 50 percent or more of an existing single - story main or accessory structure" yet the wording in the OTC flow chart used by staff says, "Will 50% or more of the square feet of the existing structure be expanded ?" In our situation we interpreted the first sentence to include reconstruction of the main house as well for which our neighbor's project encompasses the entire structure and therefore should have gone to Administrative Design Review. It is critical that the words match between these two documents and it is essential that the city code accurately reflect the processes used within the city. The bigger question facing how do we describe quality of life in Saratoga and what do we want to do to uphold those tenants. Do we want to protect the privacy of our current residents from unscrupulous builders? Do we really value the views from the hills to the valley or the valley to the hills? If so, what are we willing to do as a city to maintain these views? If staff is not upholding the sentiments written in the General Plan and City Code then we should strike that language. The city code should not speak to these important principles without any mechanism in the review O process to take them into consideration. The flowery words regarding privacy and quality of life just give people a false sense of security and the mistaken idea that their properties are in any way protected. 66■Aio--e_r)