Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-1986 City Council Agenda packetf AGENDA BILL NO: /066 Agenda Item Ci DATE: DEPARTMENT: Maintenance SUBJECT: Awarding of Contract for Congress Springs Park Project Issue Summary Ma'y 2, City Mgr Approval We have received 1 bid each for the landscaping and for the restroom /concession stand at Congress Springs Park. The low bidder for the landscape is Cagwin Dorward with a bid of $363,446.41. The low bidder for the restroom /concession stand is K.J. McGranahan $145,414. Although we received only 1 bid on each project we feel that, based on the previous bid, the bid is not excessive. Although an additional $95,000 must be appropriated for funding, the project is badly needed to relocate the ball fields away from the West Valley Transportation Corridor and to provide restrooms and tennis courts at the park. Fiscal Impact The total project will cost $545,000 including professional services. Since approximately $30,000 has already been paid for these services, $515,000 will have to be rebudgeted in the 1986- 87 fiscal year budget. Exhibits /Attachments Memo Recommended Action Recommend awarding contract to Cagwin Dorward at $363,446.41 and K.J. McGranahan at $145,414. Council Action Approved staff recommendation. 1 DATE: May 1, 1986 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Maintenance SUBJECT: Congress Springs Park Reconstruction As I'm sure you will, recall, the bids which were received last month for the reconstruction of Congress Springs Park exceeded the budgeted amount for the project. We felt we could modify the plans to reduce the cost and encourage more competive bidding. We have now re -bid the project and must report that, unfortunately, the re- bidding did not reduce the price as much as anticipated. During the first bid we received two bids for the combined project. The low one was for 528,378.07 and the high one was for 719,894.27. We divided the project into two segments for the re -bid; the park landscaping etc., and the restroom /snack shack building. The bid for the landscaping was for 363,446.41, and 145,414.00 for the building. As can be seen the combined price of 508,860.41 is only 19,517.66 less than the previous bid. The current Capital Improvement Budget includes 415,000 for this project, plus Council was advised that an additional 35,000 would have to be appropriated to cover architectural fee and inspection costs. This total of 450,000 is now 95,000 below the total up -to -date cost of 545,000. After reviewing all of the bids, I believe the new bids to be fair and representative of the actual project value. It definitely appears that the Landscape Architect's estimate is low which has caused us to under budget for the projects. If we proceed with this project $515,000 will have to be included in the next year's budget. (We will have already paid the Architect's fee of about $30,000.) I have discussed with both bidders cost reducing methods which can be utilized during construction. Both agree that they will be able to find cost saving changes once they get into the project. Because of this, I am confident that the actual construction cost will be below the contract amount. Because of the time constraint caused by the high use of the park we cannot work out these savings before we enter the contract. As previously decided, this project is badly needed, and since a major portion of the funds are coming from the State 265,000 which '..s be s. on this project or lost) it is my reco. enda'ion tha; C� authorize the award of the contracts. Dan Trinida• Jr. Director of Maintenance 1 AGENDA BILL NO. /0 h7 DATE:May 7, 1986 DEPT. :City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Destruction of Certain City Records Summary: Since records accumulate continually, it is necessary to destroy them in accordance with established procedures from time to time in order to free needed storage space. The attached exhibits list 38 boxes of records which have exceeded their required retention time as established by the Records Consultant consistent with State and federal law, as well as the City's Records Management Policy. As required, the department head, City Attorney, and City Manager have approved the destruction of these records. All the listed records lack permanent value and may be destroyed without being microfilmed. Fiscal Impacts: None. Exhibits /Attachments: Resolution authorizing destruction of records, with exhibits listing records. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution. Council Action: Adopted resolution 2334. CITY OF SARATOGA Dental Claims, Clerical Recruiting Files, 1981-82 46B Approval: Dept. Head EXHIBIT A City Attorney City Manager Approval: Dept. Head EXHIBIT A Employee Time Sheets 1979 2A Employee Time Sheets 1981/82 3A Employee Time Sheets 1980 4A Duplicate Cash /Receipts and Deposit Receipts FY 1980 -81 5A Accounts Payable A -G FY 1981 -82 6A Accounts Payable H -Q FY 1981 -82 7A Accounts Payable R -Z FY 1981 -82 8A Check copies #3422- 36907); copies purchase orders /requisitions FY 81 -82 9A Warrant copies, FY 80 -81, 81 -82 10A Payroll Adjustments, 1978 -80; labor distribution reports, 1977 -80 11A Check Registers FY 1980 -81 12A Payroll Recap reports (printouts), Withholding Tax Quarterly Reports, 16A W -2 copies, Unemployment Insurance Reports, California Income Tax Reports, Payroll Adjustments, Franchise Payment Records- 1981 -82 Accounts Receivable (paid), Purchase Order copies, Data Processing 17A Corrections, List of Checks returned by mail, bank statements/ reconciliations, accounting corrspondence, Water Improvement Project 78 -1, check copies to contractor, 1978 -79 PERS Reports (copies), Payroll Reports, Bank Statements /Reconciliations, 18A Data Processing Corrections Accounts Payable P -Z, FY 1980 -81 20A Accounts Payable A -G, FY 1980 -81 21A Accounts Payable H -P, FY 1980 -81 22A Employee Time Sheets, 1979 8B Duplicate Warrants (29076- 29581) 11B Bank Statements, cancelled checks (Bank of America), FY 1977 -78 12B Duplicate cash receipts, FY 1977 -78 13B Accounts Payable A -K, FY 1976 -77 14B. Accounts Payable, L -R, FY 1976 -77 15B Accounts Payable S -Z, FY 1976 -77 16B Bank Statements, Cancelled checks, duplicate warrant copies, 1976 18B i Bank statements /Cancelled checks, 1977 21B Accounts Payable A -PG&E, 1977 -78 31B Accounts Payable, Pacific Telephone thru X 32B Accounts Payable A thru G, FY 1978 -79 33B Accounts payable H thru P, FY 1978 -79 34B_ Accounts Payable S -Z, FY 1978 -79 35B Accounts Payable A -M, FY 1976 -77 36B Accounts Payable N Z, FY 1976 -77 37B Accounts Payable A -L, FY 1979 -80 38B Accounts Payable M -R, FY 1979 -80 39B Accounts Payable S -Z, FY 1979 -80 40B Cash Receipts, FY 1979 -80. 43B City Attorney City Managerie 2 <i- Traffic Accident Reports 1981 lA evz e1i1 6he 96 �CCI�Ce l f Reor(5 cP r a w 2 F f f Bax 4 c feh c /1 7e Ca�cne� 1 etti__ bra tie, j 1 71-- to (9(f0 Approval: Dept. Head City Attorney City Manager AGENDA BILL NO. (7 51 DATE: 4/29/86 (5/7/86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: FARWELL AVENUE. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Su wary: Residents.on Farwell Avenue have requested all.wa.y stop signs at Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that such devices are not warranted. Installation 'of unwarranted stop signs at this location, i.e. immediately after a sharp bend in the road, could result in a rear end accident history where there has been no accident history in the past ten. years. Existing pavement markings will be rejuvenated. Fiscal Impacts: None proposed Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Resident Request 3. Sketch of existing conditions 4. Information on 1982 actions Recommended Action: 1. Deny request for all way stops. 2. Authorize more frequent traffic enforcement. Council Action Approved staff recommendations. AGENDA ITEM F.- CITY MGR. APPROVAL igif6P Og 11'W cts 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867- 34 38 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer FROM: Senior Engineering Technician SUBJECT: TRAFFIC FARWELL AVENUE DATE: April 28 1986 Responding to the letter of 3/13/86 from Dr. Rossen of 19740 Farwell Avenue, requesting a three -way stop at the curve of Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way, the following items are addressed: 1. Accident History There have been no accidents at this location since 1976 (see attached Accident History diagram). 2. The posted speed limit for Farwell Avenue is 25 MPH. 3. There are advance curve warning signs (W3 L &R) along with advisory speed signs (W6 -15) posted on Farwell Avenue at both approaches to the curve, along with directional arrows (W57) and Type N (9 button reflectorized) markers at the head on approaches. 4. In November 1982 we installed rumble strips at both approaches to the curve along with the appropriate striping (see attached work order and sketch). This installation was made after we had been contacted by and followed by a meeting with the Rossens and neighbors. 5. Within the last six (6) months the property owner at inside of this curve installed a wall with a portion along the southerly side, easterly of the curve being in the right -of -way immediately adjacent to the edge of pavement (making it somewhat of a problem for pedestrians walking on the south side for a short distance). Along with the construction of this wall a gate was placed in the offset at the encroachment into the right -of -way, encouraging pedestrian use at a close proximity to the curve. Memorandum to City Engineer April 28, 1986 Re: Traffic Farwell Avenue Page 2 6. The installation of a three -way stop at this location is not warranted and would possibly cause problems at a location where there isn't a problem, primarily at the northbound approach (a stop sign at the terminus of a sharp right hand turn). An installation of stop signs at this location could create a situation which would result in rear end type accidents. 7. As far as the complaint of speeding, we can suggest that the traffic enforcement periodically work both the east /west and the north /south legs of Farwell Avenue near the curve. 8. The 12" white stripes at the rumble strips along with any other markings or markers is scheduled to be restored as soon as possible (within a few days). If you have any questions or comments on any of the above items, let me know, or if you would like for me to pursue this matter further, advise me so I can work it into my schedule. ED:cd Attachments Erman Dorsey Senior Engineering Techn an RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RONALD M. 120& 1 N, M.D., INC. Dip!ornate American boards of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease Fellow American College of Cardiology Fellow American College of' Physicians Joyce Hlava Saratoga City Council Saratoga Offices Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Joyce: VALLLY CA1:2DIOVA8CI]LAR CONalLTANT& MEDICAL, GROUP As you know, we reside in Saratoga on Farwell Avenue. Farwell Avenue has become a major thoroughfare connecting Fruitvale Avenue with Highway 9 (Saratoga -Los Gatos Road). Motorists frequently use our street as a means of avoiding the traffic signal at Fruitvale Avenue and Highway 9 continuing at the same speed which they traveled on the major highways. I recently observed a child who barely missed being struck by an automobile as it rounded a curve on Farwell Avenue near Wild Oak Way at an excessive rate of speed. We have three small children who frequently play near this inter- section and there are at least 8-10, other young children living in the immediate vacinity of this dangerous intersection. I have previously discussed the matter with the Council and they installed speed bumps and painted caution signs in the corner in question. With the recent resurfacing of Farwell Avenue, the speed bumps have become ineffective and the warnings are no longer visi- ble. Recently, stop signs have been placed on a similarly danger- ous street, Daves Avenue in Monte Sereno. As a physician who has all too often had to care for children involved in accidents,-I plore the Council to take preventive measures now to avoid a poten- tial catastrophy. Preventing an accident rather than waiting for a serious injury or worse would seem to be the prudent course of ac- tion. I strongly request that the Council create a three -way stop at the curve of Farwell Avenue and Wild Oak Way. In addition, a patrol car should regularly cite speeders and impress upon them the residential nature of the street. I would appreciate your help in this matter. Sincerely, T,i nr'la Prnccan March 13, 1986 Ronald M. Rossen, M.D. 1 2410 Samaritan Drive Suite 101 San Jose, California 95124 .Telephone (408) 371 -8950 Al•••• ••11111, Z Ea.4 W57 ;Type N 1 EX/ST/NS CONDIT/ON ‘t, FARWELL AVE. :1 6 .40 1r 4'111=41' 1.» ,41-'R/ L, /986' C PI AI e ••=1, .11•=1, 4 .111M• n Pt I SCALE: o 60' 1 "V t g_m rik NONE 2 /2/74 %1 'p Tip i ti force cc /r U /l S/JCC.7 1- or ,fon7t Yep /os•v sir,,o 4 VE, od7e fine c G� 1 0 t n ACC D E/ 7 H I:s T011Y 7_ ry a F4RW/ cA i< MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Erman Dorsey, Engineering Material $222.77 Labor 189.03 Vehicles 58.00 Total $469.80 II 04 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 DATE: 12 -17 -82 R. Hamilton, Maint,. Clerk Cost of Implementation Rumble Strip Farwell Wild Oak Completed 11 -24 -82 LOCATION DATA DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED LABOR VEHICLE MATERIALS COST ON STREET DISTANCE N,S,E N CROSS STREET SID N S,EW f.11DDLE M WORK ORDER EERY HRS. HRS. QTY. GATE ACTION 1" 71 Wi/dlbi GS/�, w�a y.�e Ex "end Daub /e' Ye/lo� arid nsfall euinb /e s tie 7Ps a Farwell Ave. sho..✓a on /he a/, c* ske% FQrir/P.11 AV e. Uli Wy, E��y N/8 l�.�e E ,cfeE./e.,74 Uoi.b /e YPo•..4/ ,,/all ru rib /e sfrro r a 1 sh a.,,n on fhe attzzchealsketc4 1 CITY OF SARATOGA DAILY FIELD LOG FOR SIGNS MARKINGS DATE&/Ober 29,1982 BY E. Dorsey R VE Z. L. 4 1/Lc ROWSZE STR/P 1NSTALL4 770/V RUMBLE STR/P 'NJ'TALLAT' /ON Li E 1 /2 "1YH /TE STR /PE-" 4:4)0000200 0000000 1/4RiFS TYPE A 3 7 rf roJCAL MARKERS DIRECTION oe TRAVEL IIEMOJ AN DIM To: Bob Shook DATE: August 30, 1982 FROM Wayne Dernetz SUBJECT: Petition for Botts Dots on Farwell Avenue Please see the attached petition which will be presented to the City Council at their 9/15 meeting. The petition requests the installa- tion of Botts Dots around the blind corner on Farwell Avenue. Please look into this matter and advise me of any reason you see why the City should not comply with the request. I would hope we could respond to the petition at the September 15 meeting. J. Wayn Dernetz ck cc: Dan Trinidad II D 'E 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SAR:ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 lR.CEiV D AUG 3 0 1982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City Council of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Council Members: 19740 Farwell Avenue Saratoga, California 9507 August 23, 1982 Sincerely yours, Linda Rossen Farwell Avenue (4 1 zt, Farwell Avenue connects Fruitvale and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. It has been used as a short cut by people who travel through at high rates of speed. There are eleven children residing in the immediate vicinity of this curve, and we are concerned for their safety. We would appreciate your appraisal of this problem. We know that you share our belief in safety for our children. We hope to hear from you soon. As concerned parents and residents of Saratoga, we urge your sup- port of our wish to install Bots Dots (rumble strips) around the blind corner of Farwell Avenue. L /(1 �>n eqr eve,0 lz ``f 6(JL Y/i7/6 RECEOVE D AUG 3 01982 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 1059 AGENDA ITEM 4 ID DATE 4 -11 -86 (5-7-861 DEPT.: City Engineer CITY MGR. APPROVAL g---) SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR 1480, Ken Daniel Summary: The public improvements for SDR -1480 have been satisfactorily completed and the one (1) year maintenance period has been completed. Fiscal Impacts: None Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Resolution #36 -B 2. Memo describing bond Recommended Action: Grant "Final Acceptance" to SDR -1480 and release surety bond, and approve Resolution 36 Council Action MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for SDR -1480, Ken Daniel The one (1) year maintenance period for 12881 Pierce Road has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected. Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted into the City system. Attached for City Council consideration is Resolu- tion 36 -B- which accepts the public improvements, easements and rights -of -way. Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation described in the improve- ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be released. The following information is included for your information and use: 1. Developer: Address: Location: 12881 Pierce Road Ken D. Daniel 2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3. Improvement Security: Type: Surety Amount: $12,000 Issuing Co: Balboa Insurance Company Address: 594 Howard Street San Francisco, CA Receipt, Bond Ge t4-fin Tn.: L05- 068937 4. Miles of Public Street: 5. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Og`fflUi 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 12333 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road April 3, 1985 DATE: 4 11 8 6 Robert S. Shook AGENDA BILL NO. 6:7,' DATE: 4/30/86 (5/7/86) DEPARTMENT: Planning CITY OF SARATOGA moo AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Request from Planning Commission for a Moratorium on Antennas SUMMARY: '1. The Planning Commission considered a request for a variance to allow a 100' high ham radio antenna at 15480 Peach Hill Road (minutes attached). FISCAL IMPACTS: None. FXHIBITS /ATTACHMENTS: 2. The neighbors expressed opposition to the 100' antenna; the applicant withdrew his application. 3. The Planning Commission reached a concensus to request that the City Council impose a moratorium on free- standing antennas so that a study of the matter could take place. Request for Moratorium on Antennas from Planning Commission dated '4 /16/86. 2. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of 4/9/86. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct City Attorney to prepare urgency ordinance pursuant to Section 36934 of the Government Code to prohibit any radio antennas as accessory structures, other than those which are attached to a roof, and not extending over 25' above a roofline. COUNCIL ACTION Approved staff recommendation. MUT cDft Lni REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Moratorium on Antennas Very truly yours, *kaki. gtul Ann Marie Burger Chairperson DATE: 4/16/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 5/7/86 At the meeting of April 9, 1986, the Planning Commission considered the request of an applicant for a variance to erect a 100 foot antenna in his backyard. After several neighbors protested during the public hearing, the applicant withdrew his request for the variance and stated that he could erect the antenna to a height of 45' without the vari- ance. It was the applicant's stated opinion that when he erects the 45' antenna as permitted, it would visually' impact the neighbors more ad- versely than placing the 100' antenna in the location he proposed. After some discussion, the Commission unanimously decided to request that the City Council impose an immediate moratorium on erecting free- standing antennas until the Planning Commission can restudy the exist- ing ordinance. We anticipate that the study and possible revision to the ordinance will require a moratorium for approximately six months. The Commission would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter by directing the City Attorney to draft the appropriate re- solution. Planning Commision, lawn area. 4.000 sq. ft. or less. Minutes 4/9/86 Page 6 Mr. Hank Halbish is working with the Amens on the landscaping. He stated that if you look at the landscape, the fence as proposed adjacent to the pool would stand out. Commissioners Pines /Guth moved to close the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. The public hearing was closed at 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Harris stated that she considered it a special privilege, and she would vote against it. Commissioner Pines stated that the Planning Commission could allow more than 4,000 sq. ft., but still in the tree line. Commissioner Pines does not have a problem if it doesn't have a visual impact on the neighbors. Any movement into the tree line is better for everyone. Commission Guch has been to the site and reported that the property slopes so deeply that'it would be difficult to see the fence anyway. The side is heavily wooded. To move the fence in would impact the situation more. COMiMISSIONERS PINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM V -724 MAKING THE FINDING THAT the Planning Commission feels that green chain link fencing is more appropriate on the property line. Passed 1 -1. Commissioner Harris opposed. (Commissioner Siegfried had left the meeting.) Chairman Purger explained that Mr. Kennedy requested (1) lot line adjustment between both properties in order to make the line straighter and (2) variance for Planning Commission to approve a 100 ft. ham radio antenna with guy wires with a setback of 10 ft. for one of the guy wires. Yuchuek Hsia recommended the approval of the property line adjustment request and denial of the variance because of the 100 ft. antenna. The City Attorney spoke regarding the FCC issue, who licenses radio operators. The FCC has control over the towers. The applicant_submitted a ruling by the FCC in 1975. The federal laws created a limited preemption of some local ordinances. He also stated we can rule on safety and aesthetics. What we need to do is establish an ordinance. We need to study this very technical issue depending on topography. Height may or may not be a consideration of the antenna. Discussion was held about regulations and technicalities of the antennas. 9a. Negative Declaration LL -i3, V -731 Joseph Kennedy 9b. LL -13 Joseph Kennedy request for lot line adjustment approval to change the property line between Parcel A and 8 so tnat the guy wires and proposed antenna would be located entirely on Parcel A and variance approval to allow a 100 ft. high ham radio antenna with a setback Of 10 ft. for one of the guy wires at 15480 Peach Hill Road. Planning Commision Minutes 4/9/86 Page 7 Commissioner Guch did a site visit and reported her findings. The public hearing opened at 8:31 F.M. Applicant Joe Kennedy, 15480 Peach Hill Road, spoke first. He thanked the City Attorney for his summaries and stated the City Attorney had reasonably well characterized the antenna for the variance request. He pointed out that it may be a long time before the issue is resolved and that he is willing to participate in technical support. In the interim, because of the lay of the land, he will have to move the antenna back up the hill towards Peach Hill. The purpose is to get it away from most of the neighbors. This will mean that the antenna will be located 200 yards closer to Peach Hill. The antenna will be as close to Peach Hill as he can get it, turning the guy wires away from the setback. He has contacted the amateur radio league who will supply information discussed on the phone with staff. Applicant agreed to withdraw request for variance because he doesn't see a need if there will be a more proactive solution based on discussion with Commission members. The City Attorney stated the first step would be to meet with staff and then we can have a study. session. The Planning Commission asked for clarification of 45 vs. 55 ft. Lucille Hise explained there was a recent change in the zoning ordinance. Jack Connolly, 15405 Hume Drive, stated he was one who will be obstructed by the "Eiffel Tower His first thought upon hearing of the tower was, "there goes the neighborhood." He lives with a view of the hills and Montalvo and is reasonably secluded. The City has gone to great lengths to bury everything else underground. He realizes ham radio operators have rights. .to broadcast. Mr. Kennedy's dish does not blend in with the environment at all and stands out in the canyon. Henry Bowes lives across Peach Hill and directly above the Kennedy property. Heverified that the variance is withdrawn. He also asked if there would be a hearing to adopt or modify the existing ordinance. The City Attorney informed him and the audience that if anyone wants to be notified they should leave their name and address with the staff with a request for notice so they will get the notice mailed personally to them. Martin Messinger, 1558 Peach Hill Road, stated his living room window looks out upon Mr. Kennedy's house and the canyon. Mr. Messinger is opposed to the 100 ft. antenna and definitely visually opposes any antenna that he has to look down upon from his living room window. Mr. John DeMont, neighbor and landowner, stated he has 25 acres just above Peach Hill Road. The neighbors don't understand the location of the antenna from the staff report. They would also like a moratorium until a new ordinance is proposed, mostly because of the slopes. He feels that they have had to take special considerations for aesthetics in this residential area and have done so. He was also concerned that Mr. Kennedy may have the right to install a 45 ft. antenna at the edge of Peach Hill Road. Mr. DeMont is in favor of continuing the matter until guidelines are set and then would like to bring it back to the Planning Commission. Bert McCandless owns 3 acres contiguous to Mr. Kennedy. He Planning Commision Minutes 4/9/86 Page 8 would like to second the appeal for a study session for a solution. To Wavey, 15375 Peach Hill Road, reiterated what was said earlier. Aesthetically, he would not like to have the view destroyed by antennas. In the neighbors' contact with the FCC, they mentioned there would be television interception and interference. He stated they did not have cable up there, so reception is not very good to begin with. So he feels its an important consideration. 8i11 Elfving, 15451 Peach Hill Road, expressed the concern that the other neighbors have discussed. He would like to prevent an antenna before it actually goes up. He feels it should be given further study. Judy Leavey, 45375 Peach Hill Road, is opposed to the variance for aesthetic reasons, safety reasons, and interference of television communication. She would like to see the matter continued and the neighborhood advised. She prefers that the application not be dropped or withdrawn. Jean DeFino, 15625 Peach Hill Road, would like to add support to all the previous speakers' feelings. Terry Kerry, 15320 Peach Hill Road, opposes the antenna also. Tommi Kabara, 15590 Peach Hill Road, stated that she looks right down on the Kennedy driveway and she is behind everyone else who has spoken this evening. Charles Brooks, 15355 Peach Hill Road, also supports other neighbors in their concerns. He had one question that he wanted to clarify. What is the overall height relative to the horizon of a 100 ft. antenna down the hill as opposed to a 45 ft. in another location? Kay Long, 15269 Peach Hill Road, stated she lives below Mr. Kennedy's home and that her vies was looking up at Mr. Kennedy's home. Therefore she was concerned about the antenna from down the hill. The City Attorney explained the urgency ordinance procedure. If you want an urgency ordinance, it must be addressed to the City Council. We certainly are not intimidated by the FCC, but cannot pretend it doesn't exist. A discussion was held about technicalities of free standing antennas as an accessory structure. Consensus was that the Planning Commission should make a request to the City Council that a moratorium be imposed on the free standing antennas as an accessory separate from the building and request that we do more study. It was noted that the applicant is withdrawing the variance application. Pines /Guth moved to close the public hearing at 8:55 F.M. COMMISSIONERS PINES /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. PASSED 5 -0. FINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE LL -13 PER STAFF REPORT. Passed 5 -0. COMMISSIONERS PINES /HARRIS MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL A MORATORIUM FOR FREE- STANDING ANTENNAS AND AGENDIZE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR A SOLUTION. Passed 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 1 0 f AGENDA ITEM DATE: 4/28/86 (5/7/86) DEPT.: Engineering SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING` DISTRICT LLA -1 (existing) Summary: At-your April 16, 1986 meeting you adopted Resolution No. 2330, a resolution describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional Council action is required for this district to proceed. The Engineering's Report is not included because of the following: Engineer's Report contains the Total Assessment for each zone, Rules for Spread- ing Assessment, Cost Estimate for each zone, Description of Work, Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram. This report is made up of. 110' pages and will be available on May 7, 1986 for Council review. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are charged to. the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn, send to the City. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night. 2. Resolution No 2330 6 3. Resolution No. 2 33 o C. Recommended Action: Adopt the following: Resolution "A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report" Resolution "A Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 This Resolution also sets the time and place of Council Action the public hearing for said district on June 4, 1986. CITY MGR. APPROV AGENDA BILL NO. W6 DATE: 4/28/86 (5/7/86) DEPT.: Engineering CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ,LLA -1 (Annexation) Summary: At-your April 16, 1986 meting you adopted Resolution No. 2331, a resolution describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for fiscal yPxr 1986 -87 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional Council action is required for this district to proceed. The Engineer's Report is not included because of the following: (08 CITY MGR. APPROVAL) e Engineer's Report contains the Total Assessment for each zone, Rules for Spread- ing Assessment, Cost Estimate for each zone, Description of Work, Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram. This report is similar in size to the existing Landscaping and Lighting District report and will,be available on May 7, 1986 for Council review. Fiscal Impacts: The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing, and lighting costs are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn, send to the City. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night. 2. Resolution No. 3. Resolution No. Recommended Action: Adopt the following: Resolution "Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report" Resolution "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 Land- scaping and Lighting Act of 1972 This Resolution also sets the time and place for the public hearing for said District on June 4, 1986. :Council Action° AGENDA BILL NO. /0 t/ DATE: 5/1/86 (5/7/86) DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Summary: This ordinance represents a variety of miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 15 of the City Code, as described in the Memorandum from the City Attorney submitted herewith. In summary, the ordinance would accomplish the following changes: (1) Establish as a conditional use the keeping of additional horses on a site located within an R -1 zoning district which is not located within an equestrian zone; (2) Establish for the R -1, R -M and C districts the same regulations concerning the location of structures upon 30% and 40% slopes as now applied to the HC -RD and NHR districts;. (3) Establish regulations for the HC -RD and NHR districts to restrict the fencing of an area in excess of 4,000 square feet; (4) Exclude from the requirement of design review approval an internal addition to an existing structure which does not result in any exterior modifications to the structure, except for the installation of skylights in the roof; and (5) Designate the conditions for issuance of a temporary use permit as being discretionary rather than mandatory and expand the authority of the Planning Commission to establish such conditions on a case by case basis. Fiscal Impacts: None. Exhibits /Attachments: (a) Memorandum from City Attorney (b) Negative declaration (c) Proposed ordinance (d) Planning Commission resolution recommending adoption of ordinance (e) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting on April 9, 1986 (f) Memorandum.fran City Manager a) Conduct public hear' Recommended Action: Approve negative declaration (c) Adoption of ordinance Council Action: CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 2 4) 2 5/7: Conducted public hearing, approved negative declaration, introduced ordinance, with amendments. 5/21: Adopted Ordinance 71.4. PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL GREGORY A. MANCHUK ROBERT J. SMITH STEVEN G. BAIRD NICHOLAS C. FEDELI, JR. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ATKINSON FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM Saratoga City Council Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Ordinance April 22, 1986 J. M. ATKINSON, (1692 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1916-1979) This ordinance can best be described as a potpourri of miscellaneous and unrelated amendments to the zoning regulations as contained in Chapter 15 of the City Code. The amendments have been combined into a single ordinance solely as a matter of convenience. Most of the changes are the result of the Commission having focused upon a specific issue during the course of reviewing an application for approval. as follows: The amendments can be classified into five separate categories, described 1. Additional horses in nonequestrian zones (Section 1). Under the existing zoning regulations, a site located within an R -1 district may have one horse for each 40,000 square feet of net site area, but if the site is located within an equestrian zone, the permitted number of horses can be doubled. The existing regulations contain no provision for the granting of a variance or use permit to allow additional horses on sites not located within an equestrian zone. Section 1 of the proposed ordinance would add a new paragraph (m) to establish, as a conditional use, one horse for each 40,000 square feet of net site area in addition to the number of horses allowed as a permitted use on sites which are not located within the equestrian zone. Thus, in the case of a one acre site, one horse would be allowed as a permitted use and a second horse would be allowed only upon the granting of a use permit. 2. Location of building sites (Sections 2, 3 and 4). The existing zoning regulations for the HC -RD and NHR districts provide that the average grade of the footprint underneath any structure shall not exceed a 30% slope and no structure shall be built upon a slope which exceeds 40% at any location under the structure between two five foot contour lines, without a variance first having been granted under Article 15 -70 of the zoning ordinance together with an exception under Article 14 -35 of the subdivision ordinance. No comparable regulations now exist with respect to the single family residential (R -1), multi- family (R -M) and commercial (C) zoning districts, although hillside lots having slopes in excess of 30% or 40% may be found in all of these districts. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the proposed ordinance are virtually identical and intended to establish the same rules concerning the location of building sites for the R -1 districts (Section 2), the R -M districts (Section 3) and the C districts (Section 4). 3. Fencing in hillside areas (Sections 5 and 6). The former zoning regulations for the HC -RD district prohibited fencing an area in excess of 4,000 square feet. This restriction was similarly incorporated into CC &Rs recorded at the time of subdivision approval. From time to time, the Planning Commission was requested to grant a variance from the restriction and because the rule seemed to present more problems than it was worth, coupled with the fact that no similar restriction existed with respect to the NHR zoning district, the restriction was deleted in the new City Code. Upon giving further consideration to the matter, the Planning Commission has decided that the City still, should maintain a policy against excessive fencing in the hillsides by restoring the restriction against enclosure of an area in excess of 4,000 square feet (excluding the area of any pool, which was not counted under the old rule for the reason that a pool is required by ordinance to be completely fenced). Unlike the former Code, an exception from the restriction would no longer require the granting of a variance and the making of variance findings. Instead, an exception may be granted if the visual impact of the fence is substantially mitigated or if the fence is required for safety reasons. With respect to the recorded CC &Rs containing a restriction against fencing without prior approval from the City, the jurisdiction for the granting of such approval has been transferred from the Planning Commission to the Planning Director. Section 5 of the proposed ordinance adopts the new fencing regulations for the HC -RD district and Section 6 of the proposed ordinance adopts identical regulations for the NHR district. 4. Internal modification of existing residences (Section 7). This section amends the design review ordinance by adding a new provision at the end of the definition of "major addition" as contained in Subsection 15- 45.020(b). This provision is intended to cover a situation where a second story area (such as a loft) is added to an existing structure without making any change in the exterior elevations, except for the addition of skylights in the roof. Under the existing Code, design review would be required since an existing single story structure has been converted to a multi -story structure. However, since there has been no increase in the size of the structure and no creation of new privacy impacts through the installation of windows, there is no necessity for requiring the owner to obtain design review approval. Accordingly, this amendment would exclude from the definition of "major addition" an internal addition to an existing structure which does not result in any exterior modifications to the existing structure. 5. Temporary use permits (Section 8). Section 15- 60.030(a) of the existing Code (which is substantially the same as the former Code) sets forth a list of conditions for the issuance of a temporary use permit which are described as mandatory." Upon considering various applications for a temporary use permit, both the Planning Commission and staff agree that each of the conditions may or may not be appropriate, depending upon the circumstances. This amendment would change the conditions from being mandatory to illustrative and give the Commission discretionary authority to modify the conditions or to impose additional requirements which are not listed in the City Code. The amendment would provide t e degree of flexibility which normally is available upon issuance of a use permit. -2- EIA -4 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 File No. C -233 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a, Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance amendments to; 1) allow for the keeping of more than one horse on a lot zoned R -1 that meets the current standards for the equestrian zone and receives the grant of a use permit; 2) revise the slope restrictions in R -1 zoning district similar to those in the HCRD NHR zoning district with the possibility of grant of a variance if the standards cannot be met; 3) place slope restrictions in R -M C districts; 4) disallow fencing in the NHR HCRD zoning districts to enclose more than 4000 sq. ft.. unless an exception is granted by the Planning Director or Planning Commission; 5) permit major additions which do not result in any exterior modifications except skylights to be approved at staff level; and 6) allow mandatory conditions for temporary use permits to become discretionary. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA.. 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment since the amendments would only allow development with Planning Commission and /or Planning Director approval. Executed at Saratoga, California this 21st day of March 1986. YUCHUEK HSIA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER FINDINGS: 1. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance are required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the ordinance. 2. The proposed zoning amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. 3. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance will create flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance given approvals by the Planning Commission or Planning Director. This will streamline the process for project proponents, citizens and staff; allow for the possibility of development on certain lots with Planning Commission review; and place restrictions back in the City Code that were inadvertantly removed with the recodification. 2 C -233 "Exhibit B" Planning Commision Minutes 4/9/86 Page 11 to set the fence height at 8 ft. Discussion was held about interpretation of exposed vs. actual height of the fence. Chairman Burger summarized conditions as follows: (1) The portion of the wall that has 5 ft. in exposed face height and is not visible from a public area and is not within view of neighboring properties unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. (2) No changes. (3) A wall in excess of 6 ft. is not located in a setback where a variance or use permit would normally be required. Chairman Burger /Commissioner Pines suggested as a fourth condition: (4) In no case shall the wall exceed an exposed face height of 8 ft. COMMISSIONER PINES /GUCH MOVED TO MODIFY TRACT 6628 SELECTING OPTION #3 OF THE STAFF REPOT AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 AS AMENDED. If it meets these four criteria, an administrative review will be sufficient and will not need to come to the Planning Commission. Passed 4 -0. 13a. Negative Declaration 5M -28 Richard Geno 13b. 5M -28 Richard Geno, request for site modification approval for grading and retaining walls on a slope greaterthan 10% and for swimming pool location at 21449 Tollgate Rd.; continued from 3/26/86. CONTINUED TO 4/23/86. 14a. Negative Declaration C -233 City of Saratoga 14b. C -233 Consider amending certain zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga to (1) allow for the possibility by use permit of additional horses in the R -1 zoning district similar to those allowed in the equestrian zones: (2) eliminate design review requirements for second story additions when no exterior changes are proposed other than skylights; (3) restrict building on slopes exceeding 40% in the R -1, C, and R -M districts: (5) allow for the conditions on temporary use permits to not be mandatory: and, (6) allow only 4,000 sq. ft. of fencing in the NHR and HC -RD zoning district unless an exception is granted. The City Attorney stated staff position that this ordinance has numerous changes resulting from a study session on March 18. The changes are totally unrelated to each other. The City Attorney summarized section 1 allows as a conditional use an additional horse so that sites not in an equestrian zone could be treated like those who are purely use permit process. Sections 2 and 3 are identical to R -1, R -M and C districts rules that apply to hillsides building on a 30% or 407.. slopes. We took the building rules in the hillsides and applied them to the other zoning districts, mostly for consistency. Sections 5 and 6 deal with fencing. The City had eliminated a 4,000 sq. ft. limitation, and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to put it back in. But we would not have to deal with it as a variance. It would be approved by staff based Planning Commision Minutes 4/9/86 Page 12 upon standards. These are the City Attorney's suggestions. (1) There might be safety reasons to have a fence, even when it was not visible. (2) Section 7, page 3, amendment to Design Review. Only change is last paragraph which starts with notwithstanding the foregoing to allow an internal modification if there is no change to the exterior structure, it is not deemed to be a major addition and would avoid design review. The applicant would still need plan check and building permit. (3) Section 8 is an amendment dealng with temporary use permits. The conditions listed on the present code are stated as mandatory and there's really no reason to do that. The City Attorney suggests there is no reason to have .hard and fast rules. These are things that can be imposed but gives more flexibility. The public hearing opened at 10:40 P.M. Richard Powell, architect, spoke regarding building on slopes greater than 307.. He stated he was interested because the owners he represents were given prior approval to build on a site whose slope runs 43 They intended to build but never did, and the permit expired. So based on the present ordinance, the lot becomes unbuildable and they would need a variance process to get approval for this lot. Commissioner Pines /Guch moved to close the public hearing. Passed 4 -0. Commissioner Harris was concerned about fencing and stated that. almost anyone could get a fence under security conditions. The City Attorney suggests we change the wording to read safety because safety is distinguiishabie from security in general. COMMISSIONER PINES /GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM C -233 AS AMENDED, INCLUDING SECTION 5.2 AND SECTION 6 AS AMENDED. Passed 4 -0. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Appeal of Tree Removal Permit from Rosemary Albrecht, 20190 Winn Road Staff denied removal of the tree, and Mrs. Albrecht appealed. Staff has no .further input, but wants us to uphold their decision and deny the appeal. Mrs. Albrecht was in the audience and stated she wants to remove the tree because of damage during the last storm. Commissioner Pines was concerned that the neighborhood was not notified about removal of the tree. The City Attorney recommended notification of the neighbors and we could come back for opinions. Commissioner Pines wants to notify neighbors adjacent and across the street. The City Attorney stated that the letter could say, "If you have an objection you can appear at the public hearing or write a letter." Mrs. Albrecht stated that the eucalyptus tree is located at 13500 Ward Way in Saratoga. Consensus of Planning Commission was to hear the matter at the April 23 Planning Commission. RESOLUTION N0. C -233 -1 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING HORSES RS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE R -1 DISTRICT; LOCATION OF BUILDING SITES IN THE R -1, R -M AND C DISTRICTS; FENCES IN THE HC -RD AND NHR DISTRICTS; EXCLUDE CERTAIN INTERIOR ALTERATIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF DESIGN REUIEU; CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY USE PERMITS WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed amendment as it would affect the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga, and after consideration of a Negative Declaration prepared for the project 'and brought before the Commission, this Commission has made certain findings and is of the opinion that the proposed amendment attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" should be affirmatively recommended to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLUED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga as follows: That the proposed amendment attached hereto be and the same is hereby affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption as part of the Zoning Ordinance of said City, and that the Report of Findings of this Commission, a copy of which report is attached 'hereto and marked Exhibit "B be and the same is hereby approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLUED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Resolution of Recommendation with attached Proposed Amendment and Report of Findings and summary of hearings held by this Commission to the City Council for further action in accordance with State Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 9th day of April, 1986 by the following roll call vote: RYES: Harris, Burger, Guch, and Pines NOES: None ABSENT: Siegfried, Peterson ABSTAIN: /l c t Chairman of the Plannin ommission ATTEST: 449(4 f l UChUQk 450i, Secretary 1 r, TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OE'117 ©2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM City Council City Manager DATE: 5/1/86 Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Ordinance: Memorandum fran City Attorney In reviewing the memorandum from the City Attorney and his attached proposed ordinance, I have concerns about two items, establishing added horses as a Conditional Use and discretionary conditions for temporary use permits. As for the first issue it seems to me that the City could be getting itself into another one of those situations where the sole standard as to whether or not someone could have one horse or two depends on whether the neighbors like it or not. I am also concerned that such an action seems to be in effect, spot zoning, even though it might not be deemed so legally, because of the existence of the equestrian zone where more than one horse may be kept as a matter of right. For these two reasons I would not recommend the City Council approve the change to the existing code. The second issue is, I think, a matter of semantics rather than substance. Rather than being totally permissive about imposing any condition, which is implied by the use of the word "may" in Section 8 at the end of line 3 of subsection (a), I would suggest substituting the word "shall." This would still leave the determination as to whether a particular condition is applicable or not but remove the implication that no conditions need be met if the review of the application so determines regardless of circumstances. AGENDA BILL NO. 0 (D DATE: 5/1/86 (5/7/86) DEPT.: Engineering SUBJECT: SDR 1568,- EJUB k'ERHATBEGOVIC, PIERCE ROAD CANCELLATION. OF FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL Summary: On 7, 1984 the City Council granted Final Building Site Approval for SDR -1568. Site Approval was required due to a more than 50% expansion. The applicant now plans to scale back his addition to less than 50% and cancel the existing approval. City to refund unused fees and retain balance to cover costs of processing. City to release bonds guaranteeing completion of conditions which are no longer appropriate. Fiscal impacts: Return of $730 in fees '.and .$1000 in cash bond to applicant. Exhibits /Attachments: Resolution Cancelling Final Building Site Approval Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution Council Action Approved resolution. 2335 Approval for SDR 1568. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM 4T Cancelling Final Building Site D E CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: May 1, 1986 AGENDA ITEM 7 DEPT.: FINANCE CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Amendment of City Investment Policy. Summary: Today's interest rates are falling. The City's Investment Policy now in existence allows investment in CDs of one year duration and in LAIF. CDs are approaching 7% yields. The LAIF rate is now 8.62% and expected to be 8.4% by June 30, 1986 and 8.25% by 1987. GNMAs, on the other hand, currently yield from 9.05% to 9.11% when held for periods longer than one year, probably 5. Fiscal Impacts: Maximize investment yields.. Recommended Action: Accept the enclosed amendment of City Investment Policy Section 111. Council Action 517:. Referred to Finance Committee. Exhibits /Attachments: 1. Report to Mayor and City Council. 2. Game Plan 3. Copy of current investment policy. 4. Material regarding Government National Mortgage Association securities. Harry R. Peacock City Treasurer REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ogirw �NUC� Amendment of Saratoga Investment Policy. DATE: May 1, 1986 COUNCIL MEETING: May 7, 1986 It is recommended that Section 111 be amended by adding sub paragraph 111 B (2) C as follows: Mortgage backed securities guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 1. Investment allowed for periods more or less than one year. 2. Limit amount invested to 25% of total investable funds,cor, $1, 125, 000.00,- whichever GAME PLAN INVESTMENT STRATEGY CITY OF SARATOGA MAY 1, 1986 1. Establish a permanent investment fund of monies not needed for current operations. $2,500,000.00. 2. Use 1/2 of this "fund" to lock in as high a yield as possible, consistent with safety, for a longer term than currently permitted. (City policy now limits investments to one year duration. Look at 5 year terms. 3. Use the other half of the permanent fund in Savings and Loan CDs ($100,000.00 each, insured, one year) at current yields. 4. For remainder of investments, over and above the permanent fund, utilize LAIF. Harry R. Peacock City Treasurer Balanced Portfolio 2.2 2Z% 100% Allocation Less than 1 year 3. 1 MloiC 1 to 3 years I. Zs .f4A4'K 6 6 $l /e Nod 14 a�e 5unc 4 to 7 years I. 25 4• °I.0 1.10 6 Co 4A Tai Pr +cot;o Harry Peacock City anager MUT ©2 REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Investment Policy Section IV Statement of Responsibility "The City Treasurer shall submit for City Council review and acceptance a monthly report on the status of all invested City funds. The report shall be signed by the City Treasurer and shall certify that all investments made are in accordance with the current adopted Invest- ment Policy. The Investment Policy may be changed only with approval of the City Council and shall be reviewed by the City Council not less frequently than once a year as required by Section 53646 of the Government Code." 1/16/86 NOTE TO FTT,F,- Attached copy of investment policy is revised version. Betsy Cory DATE: 1/10/85 COUNCIL MEETING: 1/15/85 State law requires annual review of the City's Investment policy by the City Council. At its meeting of January 9, 1986, the Finance Advisory Committee reviewed the Investment Policy currently adopted by the Council and recommended that the Policy be amended to include a Statement of Responsibility. It is recommended that Section IV Summary be deleted since it is now out of date and that a new Section IV be added to read as follows: All other provisions of the current Investment Policy are recommended to remain as previously adopted. ATTACHMENT: Investment Policy adopted on September 18, 1985. 1, CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY The basic intent and purpose of this policy statement is to describe the primary objectives and means by which the City handles various investment instruments for City funds. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The investment of the funds of the City of Saratoga is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity and high yield. The primary objective of the City's investment policy is safety. Our invest- ments are placed in a variety of investment instruments and the balance between the various instruments may change from time -to- time in order to give the City the best combination of high yield, liquidity, safety and local investment. As a matter of policy, one of the secondary goals of this agency's investment program is related to local economic development by the placing of funds in local banks whenever possible (and in the best interests of the City of Saratoga). The City's investment program in local banks and savings and loans is accomplished to the extent that it does not sacrifice other goals of our investment policy, namely, safety, liquidity and high yield. These investments shall not exceed insurance requirements or collateralized securities within any institutions where the City places such investments. II. VARIED INVESTMENT PROGRAM Whenever possible, the City of Saratoga uses a varied investment program to accomplish all of its goals. The following are examples of the types of investments which the City may avail itself of: Certificates of deposit allow cities to select the amount and day of maturity as well as the exact depository. Savings accounts allow transfers of money from savings to checking and earn short -term interest on odd amounts of money which are not available for longer investment. Repurchase agreements allow investments of large amounts of money for less than thirty days at rates higher than we can earn from savings accounts. U. S. Treasury securities are highly liquid in addition to being considered the safest of all investments. Federal Agency securities are highly liquid and considered riskless. The Local Agency Investment Fund offers high liquidity because deposits can be wired to checking account in twenty -four hours. Interest is computed on a daily basis. Negotiable certificates of deposit are high grade instruments, paying a higher interest rate than regular certificates of deposit. They are liquid because they can be traded in the secondary market. III. SARATOGA INVESTMENT PROGRAM Given the current economic climate and the City's present reserve amounts, the following types of investments are utilized by the City: A. DEPOSITORY SERVICES (1) Legal Constraints Money must be deposited in state or national banks or state or federal savings and loan associations _.in .the State. Many deposits under this category may be in active or inactive deposits. The deposits cannot exceed the amount of the bank's or savings and loans paid up capital and surplus. The bank or savings and loan must secure the active and inactive deposits with eligible securities having a market value of 110% of the total amount of the deposits. (2) Depository Services Active deposits are demand or checking accounts which receive revenues and pay disbursements. Inactive deposits may include time certificates of deposit issued in any amount for period of time as short as 14 days and as long as several years. Interest must be calculated on a 360 day basis not the actual number of days. As a matter of policy, the City does not invest in CD's for longer than one year. We require that each financial institution submit current financial statements which are evaluated by staff prior to the investment of funds. A passbook account is similar to an inactive deposit except not for a fixed term. The City also utilizes this type of savings account which provides a significant degree of flexibility in that funds can be deposited and withdrawn according to our daily needs. B. OTHER INVESTMENT VEHICLES (1) Legal Constraints Surplus funds of local agencies may only be invested in certain eligible securities. (2) Approved Investment Vehicles a) Local Agency's Investment Fund This is a special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for invest- ment. There are no minimum investment periods and the minimum transaction is $5,000 in multiples of $1,000 above that, with a maximum of $5,000,000 for any agency. This fund offers high liquidity because deposits can be converted to cash in 24 hours and no interest is lost. All interest is disbursed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed 1/4 of 1% of the earnings. b) Time Certificate of Deposit 1. Deposits shall be limited to a maximum of one year. 2. Earnings shall be contractually determined at the time the investment is made. 3. Deposits are either insured (by FDIC or FSLIC) or collateralized to protect the principal. IV. STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY The City Treasurer shall submit for City Council review and acceptance a monthly report on the status of all invested City funds. The report shall be signed by the City Treasurer and shall certify that all invest- ments made are in accordance with the current adopted Investment Policy. The Investment Policy may be changed only with approval of the City Council and shall be reviewed by the City Council not less frequently than once a year as required by Section 53646 of the Government Code. I certify that the above policy was duly adopted by the City Council at its regular meeting of January 15, 1986, by the following vote: AYE S: Councilmembers Callon, Fanelli, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None CERTIFIED CORPORATION NASD SIPC Specialists in Government Securities and Investments- for Pension Plans, Institutions. Governmental and Tax Exempt Organizations, and Individual Portfolios 3505 Camino del Rio South Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 Local (619) 282.2140 Califomia (800) 821.5913 Nationwide (800) 462.2200 International Telex 595874 FCC SDG Member California Society of Certified Public Accountants Western Pension Conference National Association of Accountants California Municipal Treasurers Assc. California Association of County Treasurers Tax Collectors National Water Resource As5O<iation Government Finance Officers Association Municipal Treasurers Association of USA Accounts Protected to 52,500,000 IIRST CERTIFIED MARKET WATCH (619) 282 -2140 (800) 462 -2200 (800) 821 -5913_ (Calif.) AS OF: MAY 1, 1986 MONEY MARKETS 30 -Day Commercial Paper (A /P Domestic Bankers Acceptance Japanese Bankers Acceptance Certificate of Deposits CAPITAL MARKETS 2 -Year Treasury Note Agency Notes FFCB Zero Coupon STRIPS 5 -Year Treasury Note Zero Coupon STRIPS Discount GNMA 10- Year Current Coupon GNMA Current Coupon FREDDIE 9.50 Current Coupon FNMA 9.00 6.65 6.55 oy 6.73 F, 1 5 6 -Month Agency Discount Note FFCB 6.52 To Treasury Bill 6.39 Certificate of Deposit 6.45 6.79 go 7.10 7.04 oh 7.15 oh 7.26 oj 8.72 o10 9.07 9.32 oh 9.00 9.12 Treasury Bond 30 yr 9.25 7.53 To keep. you abreast of the market, these are the approximate current yields for selected securities. CAVEAT Read prospectus or other offering material before you invest. This data is for general information only and is not an offer or solicitation of any type. These yields can vary significantly with market conditions. No guarantees or warranties are made herein. Why GNMAs? SAFETY Principal and Interest Highest Guarantee Same as the U.S. Dollar Bill INTEREST RATE CHANGES Much like a CD, but higher rates and no early withdrawal penalty. Market Safety if Rates Go Up Convert to cash whenever you want. Because rates move up gradually (usually in '/a or less in- crements) you normally have time to convert to cash if you want and still show a gain. High Yields and Profits if Rates Drop. YIELD 61.10 J LIQUIDITY Convert to cash any business day, anywhere. "The safety of the GNMA security is unquestionable. It is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Govemment. Holders are guaranteed the timely payment of principal and interest whether or not collected, and are guaranteed full repayment of the principal irrespective of whether the mortgages used to collateralize the security go into default Aeefetant Attorney General Honorable George Romney Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C. 20410 Dear Secretary Romney: Iletartment of Justice flasilingtnn. 20530 1969 The Attorney General has asked me to reply to your letter to him of November 14, 1969, regarding guaranties of mortgage- backed securities proposed to be made by the Government National Mortgage Association pursuant to section 306(g) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 1721(g)). The proposed guaranties and the securities they would cover are described in regulations recently adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 24 CFR Part 1665. You asked whether the Association is authorized to make the proposed guaranties and whether such guaranties would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Section 3O6(g) of the Charter Act expressly authorizes the Association to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities described therein, and the regulations cited above conform to the satutory grant of authority. The statute provides that: "The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts which may be required to be paid under any guaranty under this subsection." I therefore conclude that the Association is authorised to make the proposed guaranties and that they would constitute general obligations of the United States backed by its full faith and credit. Sincerely, 44 41 William H. Rehnt Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel FIRST CERTIFIED CORPORATION 3505 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE 310 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 (619) 282 -2140 The BEST Portfolio Investment GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (`Ginnie Mae') ADVANTAGES Unusually High Yield. Ginnie Maes are among the highest yielding government securities available. More- over, the faster mortgages in a Ginnie Mae pool are paid off, the higher the yield to you as an investor. Government Guarantee. Because of their full backing by the U.S. Government, large denomination Ginnie Maes are even safer than bank CD's and they have the advantage of higher antici- pated yields. Excellent Cash Flow. As the holder of a Ginnie Mae certificate, you receive government guaranteed principal and interest payments each month from your proportionate share of a Ginnie Mae mortgage pool. You thus have monthly income to reinvest as you like according to the dictates of the market. Easily Convertible to Cash. The Ginnie Mae can be sold any business day anywhere in the United States. In 1982 an average 200 million changed hands daily. End the Quandary About Interest Rate Trends. With Ginnie Maes, you no longer have to 'lock in' your capital in Tong -term securities for high yield. In fact, fast paying Ginnie Maes are relatively short -term investments offering higher yields than most of today's Tong -term securities. And with their liquid ity and unusually high cash flow you can be ready to take advantage of higher interest rates with other high yielding investments. FIRST CERTIFIED CORPORATION 3505 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE 310 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 (619) 282 -2140 Legal Investment GNMA's are legal investment for virtually all Pension Plans, Financial, Institutions, Governmental and Tax Exempt Organizations, and Portfolios. Collateral Eligibility As a result of their being backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, GNMAs are eligible as: (a) security for public monies of the U.S. Government; (b) collateral for Treasury Tax and Loan accounts; (c) collateral for Federal Reserve Bank advances and discounts; (d) riskless assets for state and local trust investments; (e) a security for national banks to deal in and purchase for their own account without regard to legal limits posed on investment securities. Interest Rates and Investments Yields The interest or coupon rate stated on a specific GNMA certificate is 1/2 of 1% Tess than the FHA -VA mortgage interest rate in effect at the time the individual mortgages were issued. Currently, outstanding issues have interest rates ranging from 51/4% to 131/2 A 1/2 of 1% difference is made up of a .44% servicing fee retained by the issuer and a fee of .06% assessed and paid to GNMA on a monthly basis. Yields are normally quoted on an average life basis. In order to compare yields quoted on this basis with other investments, two factors must be taken into consideration. First, since the principal and interest for each month is not paid until the fifteenth of the following month, the yield is reduced by three to nine basis points before it is quoted to compensate for those extra days. Second, because of the compounding of monthly interest payments rather than the normal every six month payment, up to ninety basis points must be added to make the yield comparable. The amount of the add -in varies directly with the basic yield. See the attached yield table for the necessary adjustment factors (Exhibit A). Tax Consideration For income tax purposes the Internal Revenue has ruled that holders of fully modified pass through securities are treated as owners of an undivided interest in the mortgage pool which backs the security. Therefore, such institutions as real estate investment trusts, mutual savings banks, cooperative banks, and savings and loan associations, can invest in these securities and still maintain their tax status. Interest on such certificates is subject to Federal Income Tax and principal payments represent a return of capital. For a more detailed explanation, an investor should consult with his accountant regarding his individual situation. FIRST CERTIFIED CORPORATION 3505 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE 310 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 (619) 282.2140