Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1992 City Council Agenda packetSARATOTA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 15, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 Reauthorization of District for FY 92 -93 Recommended Action: 1. Conduct public hearing and receive any public comment. 2. Adopt resolution overruling protests and confirming assessments. Discussion: At your meeting, the Council will perform the final step in the annual three step process for reauthorizing the existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District. First, the Council must conduct the required public hearing to receive any public comment on the proposed assessments for FY 92 -93. After the hearing, the Council can modify any of the proposed assessments as it deems necessary and then confirm the final assessments by adopting the attached resolution. Afterwards, staff will transmit the Final Engineer's Report to the County Assessor for entry on the FY 92 -93 property tax roll. Fiscal Impacts: None directly. All costs associated with the reauthorization of the District are recovered via the annual assessments. For FY 92- 93, total assessments of $90,078 are proposed to be levied. Attachments: 1. Assessment data from Engineers Report. 2. Resolution overruling protests and confirming assessments. Motion Vote: ITY MGR. APPROVAL CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1 A S S E S S M E N T for Fiscal Year 1992 -1993 WHEREAS, on May 20, 1992, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 92 -032 describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 1992 -1993, more particularly therein described, and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 92 -032 directed the Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications for the proposed improvements, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the assessment district, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable lots or parcels of land within the assessment district, to which Resolution reference is hereby made for further particulars, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Larry I. Perlin, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the Fiscal Year 1992 -1993: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUMMARY* ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Wages 1,503 Attorney 528 Assessment engineer 6,497 Advertising 903 Miscellaneous 105 Subtotal MAINTENANCE COSTS Wages $19,525 Contract maintenance 36,160 Contract repairs 3,150 Irrigation water 6,275 Electric energy 37,145 Subtotal 102,255 CONSTRUCTION 6,000 Subtotal $117,791 -1- 9,536 Subtotal Six month reserve Contingency allowance Previous year carryover Estimated property tax revenue Zone N BREAKDOWN OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONE* Total Costs $205,335 0 3,977 1 1,803 2 509. 3 4,308 4 16,611 5 -0- 6 -0- 7 5,345 8 -0- 9 6,663 10 3,340 11 2,830 12 2,182 13 -0- 14 3,855 15 4,055 16 2,484 17 -0- 18 969 19 6,970 20 18,771 21 5,406 22 -0- Total Assessment $90,078 Net to Assessment 90,078 As Prelim- As inarily Finally Approved Confirmed *See Cost Detail herein for breakdown -2- $117,791 52,958 34,586 (53,232) (62,025) JUL-10-'92 FR I 15:41S I D NE':'EF"= Ni E ET PL RESOLUTION NO. 92- FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 TEL !f E10/7._ 4421 #-Eb A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 20th day of May, 1992, said Council adopted its Resolution No 92 -032, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1992 1993" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 92-032; WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration; WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said Act and said Resolution No. 92 032, including (1) plans and specification of the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 15th day of July, 1992, at the hour of 8:30 p.m. of said day in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 1992 1993, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; July 10, 1992 nnrs \273 \res \92LLA.MSR JUL-1n-'57' FRJ 1 It:f1ErEF !1 ..E ET WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; and WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, filed protests with the Clerk of said City at or before the conclusion of said hearing, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said Council; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That protests against said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram, or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, for Fiscal Year 1992 be, and each of them hereby are overruled. 2. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council does hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto. 3. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 and the boundaries thereof benefitted and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situate in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and any zone thereof and the general location of said District. 4. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in July 10, 1992 mnrs \273 \res \92LLA.MSR -2- TF_ f_10:7_:_. =Si -4 ;_;1 05 pn7 J U L rRI 1= •:.11.. ID:NEtt i•IHE HL Juty 10, 1992 mnrs \273 \res \92LLA.MSR -3- said report, be, and they hereby are, finally adopted and approved. 5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally adopted and approved. 6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements. 7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 92 and also the boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in said report be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 9. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1991 1992 be, and the same hereby is, finally adopted and approved as a whole. 10. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the city Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the date thereof. 11. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as JUL 1O- FR I 1= it: ME'T'ER'= N i. E ET qL #=t=i's PFIF amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this council. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the 15th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: ATTEST: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: July 10, 1992 mnrs \273 \res \92LLA.MSR CITY CLERK -4- MAYOR Printed on recycled paper. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Staff DATE: July 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Design Review #91 -057 Farsio; 14930 Vintner Court 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 Project Description: The applicant, Mr. Ali Farsio, is appealing a Planning Commission denial of his design review application to construct a 3,332 sq. ft. detached guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel. The subject property is zoned single family residential and is located within the NHR zone district. The Commission was unable to make the required design review findings and voted unanimously to deny the request. Overview: On May 13, 1992, an application was presented to the Planning Commission requesting design review approval to construct a guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel. The new guest house would have become an accessory structure to an existing 4,768 square foot residence. The Planning Commission determined that the design review findings were not present to approve an accessory structure of this size. The fundamental concern expressed by the Planning Commission was that the proposal was inconsistent with the Measure "A" settlement agreement of the original subdivision (Tract #6665). The intent of this agreement was to preserve the rural character of the northwestern hillsides by reducing the amount of lots within Tract #6665. Through this settlement, the applicant's two parcels (lots 27 and 28) were merged into one parcel with a condition that only one house be constructed on the now merged parcels. The Commission felt that the guest house would be construed as a single- family residence, thereby violating the provisions and intent of the settlement. Other concerns expressed by the Commission were that the size of the guest house, over 3,000 square feet in floor area, and its location, 190 feet from the main residence, could be considered as an independent use and perceived as a single family residence. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Francis Stutzman File No. DR -91 -057; 14930 Vintner Court Based on these findings, the Commission determined that the proposal would be inconsistent with the City's definition of accessory structure" which is a use subordinate and incidental to the main residence. The applicant asserts that the location of the existing residence in relation to the configuration of the parcel restricts him from designing an attached or detached guest home which would be clearly incidental or accessory to the main dwelling. Staff agrees that a 3,332 square foot accessory structure would be difficult to construct close to the house. However, a much smaller structure could be constructed to the right of the main residence with or without a use permit, depending on its location. The Commission moved to deny the application and directed staff to prepare a denial resolution to be adopted at the May 27, 1992 public hearing. At the May 27th meeting, the applicant submitted a letter indicating that he would be willing to modify the proposed plans by deleting the attached two -car garage and driveway in order to reduce the amount of floor area and its independent access. Further, the applicant was willing to reduce the amount of proposed floor area from 3,332 square feet to 2,450 square feet, a reduction of 882 square feet. The Planning Commission determined that these changes were significant enough to constitute a new application and voted 5 -0 to adopt the denial resolution. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the design review request without prejudice. Respectfully submitted, PAUL KERMOYAN Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution DR -91 -057 2. Planning Commission minutes dated 5/13/92 and 5/27/92 3. Staff report dated 5/13/92 4. Measure "A" Settlement Agreement 5. Correspondence 6. Site Plan, Exhibit "A" DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -057 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Farsio; 14930 Vintner Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a 3,332 square foot guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The proposed 3,332 sq. ft. detached guest house, with its own attached two -car garage, does not meet the intent of either the Measure A settlement agreement stipulations, or the City's single family zoning regulations, in that: a. The sheer size and self- sufficient nature of the structure in relation to the existing 4,768 sq. ft. home on the property does not qualify it as an accessory structure, i.e., the proposed guest home use would not be subordinate nor inciden- tal to the main residence. The self sufficient nature of the structure is reflected in it's size, number and types of rooms, two -car garage with independent access to the street, distance from the main residence and it's lack of direct or convenient access to the main residence. b. The Measure A settlement agreement for the Parnas subdivision stipulated that "lots #27 and /28 be paired and that only one (1) house shall be built on the paired lot." By determining that the proposed guest home does not qualify as an accessory structure, the Planning Commission is precluded from permit- ting an additional detached single family dwelling on the subject property. In addition, the settlement agreement requires that only one of the building sites be utilized for the paired lots. The proposed guest house would violate this provision by allowing development on both building sites of the paired lots. c. The City's single- family zoning regulations permit only one (1) main residence on a single parcel of land. By determining that the proposed guest home does not qualify as an accessory structure, the Planning Commission is precluded from permit- ting an additional detached single family dwelling on the subject property. Pile No. DR -91 -057; 14930 Vintner Court NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Farsio for design review approval be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 27th day of May, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BOGOSIAN, CALDWELL, DURKET, MORAN, TUCKER NOES: none ABSENT: FAVERO, FORBES 7'7 Chairper ATTEST: Planning 'Commission Secretary, Plan ng Commission Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of May 13, 1992 Page Seven DURKET /MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. PASSED 5-0. DURKET /MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE V -92 -004. PASSED 5 -0. 6. DR -91 -057 Farsio, 14930 Vintner Ct., request for design review approval to construct a 3,332 sq. ft. detached guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the NHR zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated May 13, 1992, to the Commission and answered their questions in regard to the application. City Attorney expressed agreement with the points of analysis outlined by staff in the Report and suggested the following additional points for analysis to help guide the Commissioners' discussion: 1) the size of the structure compared to the main structure; 2) distance from the proposed structure to the main structure and the proposed structure's independent accessibility; and 3) the proposed structure and its use. The City Attorney also stated that there were concerns regarding the proposed structures compliance with the settlement agreement primarily the provisions that appear on page 7 and 8 of the agreement. At 9:00 p.m. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. Mr. Farsio, applicant, spoke in support of his application stating that the additional living space to be provided by the proposed structure was needed for his children and their guests, his mother -in -law, and for occasional out -of -town business associates. He explained that due to the configuration of his lot the addition could not be attached to his existing home. He explained that his parcel could not be subdivided that the proposed structure could only be used as an accessory structure, not a primary residence. He also answered questions from the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Chang, 14900 Vinter Court spoke in opposition to the application stating that the accessory structure was not in compliance with the subdivision agreement. They explained that at the time they purchased their home they were assured that another structure would not be permitted to be built on the 14950 Vinter Court parcel. Mr. Farsio, applicant, again addressed the Commission and explained that the proposed structure was just an expansion of his existing home, but because of lot constraints the structure would be detached from his existing home. MORAN /DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:15 P.M. PASSED 5 -0. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of May 13, 1992 Page Eight Commissioner Moran stated that she did not feel that the application was consistent with the settlement agreement. She also stated that because of the size of the proposed structure in comparison to the main structure and its independent accessibility she did not feel the proposed structure could be defined as a guest house. She expressed support for directing staff to draft a resolution for denial of the application. Chairperson Caldwell stated that she did not find the proposed structure to be a subordinate use, but a dominant use. She also stated that the structure would be inconsistent with the settlement agreement and could not support an approval of the application. Commissioner Bogosian suggested that the applicant look to some type of underground parking in order to re- locate the proposed structure to the area which is currenity use for the driveway. He also stated that he did not feel the proposed structure complied with the spirit of the code in regard to a guest cottage and could not support approval of the application. Commissioner Tucker stated that she concurred with her fellow Commissioners' comments and could not support an approval of the application. Commissioner Durket expressed support for denial of the application based on the reasons stated by the previous Commissioners. MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, OF DR -91 -057 FOR ON THE REASONS MENTIONED (ABOVE) BY THE COMMISSIONERS. PASSED 5 -0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. DR -91 -070; Neuhaus, 12246 Woodside Dr; Review of Final Landscape Plan. Planner Walgren gave a brief report on the proposed landscape plan and answered questions from the Commissioners in regard to the plan. Commissioner Moran stated she was in favor of the staff asking the applicant to provide more landscaping in the front yard. Planner Walgren stated that two more large trees could, be required. This was acceptable to Commissioner Moran and the rest of the Planning Commissioners. 2. Informational report related to historic adobe wall at 15321 Quito Road Planner Adar gave an informational report on the background of the adobe wall issue and answered questions from the Commission. There were no oral communications. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 27, 1992 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Caldwell, Commissioners Forbes, Moran, Bogosian, D urket, and Tucker Absent: Commissioner Favero (excused) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 22, 1992. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren had the following technical corrections: Item #2 on the agenda under Public Hearing, Kerwin Ranch Subdivision, the expiration date of 9/21/92 which appears at the end of the agenda description should be corrected to 7/21/92. Item #3 on the Public Hearing calendar, Warmington LL -92 -001, page 129 of Resolution LL -92 -001, 4th paragraph, third line, should be amended to read: "...Exhibit "A" and directs the applicant to file a deed or record of survey pursuant to Section 6412(d) of the subdivision Map Act to the City Engineer for checking..." Planner Walgren also stated that a letter had been received from Mr. Farsio, the applicant of Item #1 on the Consent Calendar. The letter requested that the Planning Commission reconsider a modified version of his proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -91 -057 Farsio, 14930 Vintner Ct., request for design review approval to construct a 3,332 sq. ft. detached guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the NHR zone district. (Cont. 5 -0 from 5/13/92 public hearing to prepare denial resolution for adoption). ...,+�L'c1 AU..:... •..1.......... 1,' __...m s,_ �cT.7...$Fti.•.. v. ..a..�_...a: ...,.._s.�, sr`c .i: _...7 .r. c..::.Nia'..;:i= Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of May 27, 1992 Page Two Commissioner Moran removed the item from the Consent Calendar to inquire as to whether the City Attorney had an opportunity to carefully review the resolution prior to the meeting. Planner Walgren stated that both the staff and the City Attorney had carefully reviewed the resolution. Commissioner Moran addressed the issue of the letter received from Mr. Farsio and stated that she felt that the modifications as outlined in the letter were significantly different from what the Planning Commission had reviewed at previous meetings and she would not be comfortable voting on any of the suggested modifications at the present time. Planner Walgren stated that it had been explained to the applicant that the public hearing on his application had been closed and that consideration on the application had been given. Therefore should he want to make modifications and/or a new proposal he may do so by making a new application. Planner Walgren stated, that because of the significance of the changes, consideration of them would constitute re- opening and re- notification of the public hearing. DURKET /BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION LL -92 -001 AND DR -92- 008 FOR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PASSED 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD -91 -005 Kerwin Ranch L.P., 13616 Fruitvale Ave., request for tentative map approval to subdivide an 11.6 acre site into sixteen (16) single family residential parcels ranging from 20,500 to 32,000 sq. ft. in size. The subject property is located at the southeast comer of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues, within. an R -1- 20,000 zone district, and is proposed to be accessed by two cul -de -sacs; one an extension of Ronnie Way serving eight (8) parcels, and the other accessing Saratoga Avenue, aligned with Scotland Dr., serving the remaining eight (8) parcels. (Cont. from 3/25/92 and 4/28/92 public hearings; application expires 9/21/92). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated May 27, 1992, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: DR-91-057; 14950 Vintner Court Applicant/owner Farsio Staff Planner: Paul Kermoyan Date: May 13, 1992 ApN: 503-75-018 Director Approval: ITEM #6 File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court CAGE HISTORY: Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: EXECUTIVE EMM RT 9/05/91 12/12/91 4/29/92 4/30/92 4/23/92 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for design review approval to construct a 3,332 sq. ft. guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the NHR zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing to begin discussion on the appropriateness of a "guest house" of this size, given the City's land use goals and objectives for the hillside districts. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposal can be support- ed, approve the application, with conditions, by adopting Resolu- tion DR -91 -057. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -91 -057 3. Correspondence 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court ZONING: NHR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC) PARCEL SIZE: 3.45 acres AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 18% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 20% GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 365 Cu. Yds. Cut Depth: 6 Ft. Fill: 365 Cu. Yds. Fill Depth: 5 Ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Horizontal wood siding colored tan, white colored trimming, and composition tile roofing per the submitted material board. LOT COVERAGE: 14,985 s.f. 15,000 s.f. HEIGHT: 12 ft. 12 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURES: Main Residence: 3,936 s.f. Main Garage: 832 s.f. Proposed Guest House: 2,853 s.f. Proposed Garage: 479 s.f. TOTAL: 8,100 s.f. 8,100 s.f. SETBACRS: PROJECT DISCUSSION: Front: 55 ft. Rear: 84 ft. Right Side: 47 ft. Left Side: 367 ft. STAFF ANALYSIS PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE Front: 30 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Right Side: 25 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. Site Characteristics: The applicant's property is located at the corner of Congress Springs Road and Pierce Road, within the Parnas subdivision (Tract #`6665). The property is rather unique in that Vintner Court intersects the parcel in the northwest, Congress Springs Lane intersects the parcel in the southeast, Pierce Road is adjacent to the property in the west, and Congress Springs Road is adjacent to the property in the south. File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court An existing one story, 4,768 sq. ft. residence is located on the east side of the property. The site is a hillside parcel charac- terized by relatively moderate south facing hillside topography constituting an average slope of 18 The building pad for the proposed accessory structure, however, has a level to moderate slope with the steepest portions occurring on the northwest area of the proposed building site. The applicant's engineer has indicated that the slope of the building pad is approximately 20% and will require approximately 730 cubic yards of total earth movement to accommodate construction. The existing residence, approved in 1986, required approximately 720 cubic yards of earth movement. Therefore, if the proposal is approved, 1,470 cubic yards of earth movement will occur on this parcel. The majority of trees and vegetation on the property are located on the south side of the property. Due to the fact that no trees are proposed for removal and grading will occur at a minimum distance of 60 feet from these trees, staff did not require the services of the City's Horticultural Consultant. Additionally, the trees will be protected since they lie within an existing sanitary sewer easement, pedestrian and equestrian easement, access easement, slope easement and private storm drain easement. These easements are located along the entire south property boundary. The property is well screened from Congress Springs Road. However, passing motorists on Pierce Road will be able to view the southwest portions of the parcel and one property owner on Vintner Court will be able to view the majority of this property. Nevertheless, view impacts will be minimal. Background: Tract #6665 received Tentative Map approval on April 25, 1979. On April 8, 1980, the voters of the City of Saratoga adopted an ordinance commonly referred to as "Measure A for the preservation of the rural character of the northwest hillsides. It went into effect on April 25, 1980. As a result of this ordinance, the total number of lots in Tract #6665 were reduced from thirty four (34) to twenty -nine (29). Consequently, the applicant's two parcels (Lot 27 and 28) were merged into one parcel with a condition that only one house be constructed on the now merged parcels. The Measure "A" settlement defines "h use" as a single family dwelling unit which refers to a self- con4tained dwelling. Land Use Issues: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,332 sq. ft. guest house on the southwest portion of the property. The guest house will be 12 feet in height and its design incorporates all of the required techniques as suggested in the residential design handbook. According to City Code Section 15- 06.330, "Guest House" is defined as an accessory structure containing a lodging unit without kitchen File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court facilities, and used to house occasional visitors or non paying guests of the occupant of the main dwelling unit. Unlike second units, the City Code does not limit the size of a guest house. Therefore, staff's review of the submitted plans indicates that the proposal satisfies this definition. The General Plan and the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan, specify that the goal of the plans is to preserve the rural character of the hillsides, provide for low density single family residential development, and provide a compatible relationship between development and land. Further, the purposes of the zoning ordinance are to ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for purposes which are most appropriate and most benefi- cial to the City, to maintain a suitable balance between structures and open spaces on each site and to prevent housing densities in excess of those prescribed in the General Plan. The guest house could be considered to be incompatible with these goals and objectives due to its size, configuration and location. Visually, the structure will likely be perceived as an independent dwelling unit. However, the proposal does technically comply with the density requirement in the land use element of the General plan and in Chapter 15 zoning regulations. Design Review Findings: This proposal was received and accepted as complete before December 23, 1991. Therefore, it has been reviewed under the regulations of the previous ordinance. Staff's recommen- dation is based on design review findings required in Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code: The guest house will be located at a lower elevation than surround- ing parcels and only one property owner will be able to view this site with little or no impacts associated with the height, elevation or placement of the structure; privacy impacts will not occur due to the seclusion of the property; bulk and mass concerns will be mitigated through the use of horizontal and vertical articulations; tree removal is not proposed; the proposed 12 foot high guest house will be compatible in terms of bulk and height to other one and two -story homes within the area; and the height and placement of the structure will not impact light, air and solar access of adjacent properties. Staff has included a condition in the attached resolution restrict- ing the use of the structure to a guest house. However, the Commission should be aware that this condition will be extremely hard to enforce since the property can be seen only by one adjacent property owner and passing motorists on Pierce Road. Staff has received correspondence from a neighboring property indicating concern over this proposal. Their letter is attached for review. File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing to begin discussion on the appropriateness of a "guest house" of this size, given the City's land use goals and objectives for the hillside districts. If the Planning Commission finds that the proposal can be supported, approve the application, with conditions, by adopting Resolution DR -91 -057. RESOLUTION NO. DR -91 -057 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Farsio; 14950 Vintner Court WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for design review approval to construct a 3,332 square foot guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevation and placement of the project on the site does not unreasonably interfere with views of the surrounding residences in that the guest house will be constructed on a lower elevation than surrounding properties. The combination of a maximum height of 12 feet and the location of the building pad will eliminate such impacts. The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of the surrounding residences in that the seclusion of the parcel in relation to surrounding properties minimizes this concern. -The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal, soil removal, and grade changes in that no tree removal is proposed and a balance of cut and fill will occur to accommodate the building pad. The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighborhood in that the combination of horizontal and vertical articulations such as horizontal wood siding, window designs and bay windows and room projections will mitigate this issue. The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that the 12 foot maximum height of the structur? and the proposed ranch -style design will achieve this goal. -The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of adjacent properties in that the height and placement of the structure will not cause such impacts. -The plan does incorporate current Saratoga grading and erosion control standards in that Both the City Engineer and Geologist has reviewed and conditioned the request based on these standards. File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Farsio for design review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A incorporated by reference. 2. Prior to submittal for building permit or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning Department. 3. Height of the guest house shall not exceed 12 feet. 4. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed 8,100 sq. ft. 5. No retaining wall shall have an exposed height that exceeds 5 ft. In addition, no fence or wall shall exceed six (6) feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard or within any required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three (3) feet in height. 6. Fences and walls shall comply with the hillside district fencing requirements contained in Section 15- 29.020 of the City Code. 7. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 8. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtain- ing a Tree Removal Permit. 9. Slopes shall be graded to a maximum 2:1 slope. 10. All exposed slopes shall be contour graded. 11. Exterior materials and colors shall consist of horizontal wood siding colored tan, white colored trimmir and composition tile roofing colored charcoal grey per the submitted material board. 12. Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance, applicant shall submit the following for Planning Director review and approv- al: a. Landscape plans for the front and exterior yards surround- ing the guest house to screen the structure from Pierce Rd. File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court and Vintner Ct. This landscaping shall consist of an appro- priate number of 24 inch box trees to accomplish this purpose. b. Landscaping shall be of native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's Xeriscape Guidelines. 13. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A or B prepared or built -up roofing. Reroofing, less than 10 shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code `Appendix E, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). 14. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and main- tained in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 -60 City of Saratoga. 15. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit (City of Saratoga 16 -60). 16. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in garage. (City of Saratoga Code 16- 15:110). 17. Driveways: All driveways have a 14 ft. minimum width plus one ft. shoulders. 18. A kitchen shall not be constructed within the guest house and in no evert shall the applicant be given the opportunity to apply for a second unit use permit based on the fact that the size of the guest house does not conform to the size permitted for second units. 19. The guest house shall only be used to house occasional visitors or non paying guests of the occupant of the main dwelling. This requirement shall be recorded as a deed restriction prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance. 20. Geotechnical Plan Review The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that his recommen- dations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court 21. Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Field Inspection The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspection shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundation and retaining wall prior to the placement of steel and concrete. In addition, a Certified Engineering Geologist shall inspect, map, test, and sample (as needed) cut slopes made during project construction. The results of the geologic and geotechnical inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to release of the Grading Bond. 22. The applicant shall post a $2,500 grading bond with the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. 23. The applicant shall pay all outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultants's review of the application prior to zone clearance. 24. The applicant shall sign an indemnity agreement with the City as stipulated in Municipal code section 16- 75.020 (d) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 25. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 26. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. File No. DR -91 -057; 14950 Vintner Court Section 5. The applicant shall affix a copy of this resolution to each set of construction plans which will be submitted to the Building Division when applying for a building permit. Section 6. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 13th day of May, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Signature of Applicant Date Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Cal. 95070 R ECEIVED MAY-6 1992 Steve Rounda Sheng PLANNING DEPT. Vintner Ct. EPT. Saratoga, Cal. 95070 May 5, 1992 Subject: DR -91 -057, Guest House at 14930 Vintner Ct Reference: Stipulation for Settlement, 2nd of March, 1983, between Parnas Corporation and City of Saratoga Recorded at Santa Clara County, H393page166 to page178 There are some concerns in our part regarding the subject design review. We fell strongly; that the building site of this guest house is clearly in conflict with the agreements addressed in the Reference. Stipulation for Settlement. 14930 Vintner Ct is a paired lot of Subdivision Tract Map #6665 lots 27 and 28 (see attachment 2). There are several paragraphs address the limitaions of these paired lots in the Reference Settlement. 1. There is only one (1) house shall be built on each of the paired lots. (H393page172, item A.2, attachment 1) A detached guest house clearly is another house on this paired lot. 2. Only thirty -seven (37) detached single family dwellings to be built upon the building sites related to Tract Map #6665, #5928 and SDR 1426. (H393page171, item B. attachment 1) Since this guest house is a detached dwelling (with two car garage'', it shall be counted as one of the 37 dwellings. Therefore, when the last it in Tract #6665, #5928 and SDR t426 applying for building a family dwelling (38th), any residence of Saratoga can effectively challenge the City based on the above Reference by counting the 37 existing detached dwellings and clouding the legitimate property owner to build a residence. 3. With regard to each of the paired lots, one may elect to utilize one (1), and only one, of the existing previously- approved building sites for either lot. (H393page172 and 173, item 5. attachment 1) The existing approved building site in this paired lot is on lot (lot 27) that currently a dwelling structure is resided upon. A detached guest house is another building lite on this paired lot. 4. To ensure that no development of any kind whatever shall occur at any time in the future on the remaining four (4) lots (after the four paired lots have already utilized their approved building sites). (H393page172. paragraph after item 8.2, attachment 1) Four paired lots defined in the Reference Settlement are Tract Map #6665 lots 2 and 3. 16 and 17, 27 and 28. SDR 1426 lots A and B. (H393page172, attachment 1) The existing dwelling structure is resided on lot 27, while the guest house building site is proposed on lot 28. Based on the above statement, lot 28 shall not be allowed for any development of any kind whatever at any time. In summa one of the essences of the Referenc:e settlement is. to assure the four paired lots that once one building sita is ,tilized in one lot the another lot shall not be developed of any klod ~hatever at any time. In our op:nion, any guest house may be approved in a paired lot as defined in the Reference Settlement only if it is attached to the existing dwelling structure and located upon the same lot in the pal lot. �znc�re�y, Attachment 1: H393page170,171,172,173 Attachment 2: Plat map of lot 27 and 28, a paired lot CC: Mr. Paul G. Kermoyan, Planner Mr' Paul L. Curtis, Planning Director t ATM City Clerk UT ©2 SARAV.CCM\ 777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 C An 807.3 STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT 1 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF aft lb 9 54 i 83 762002S OFFICIAL RECORDS S •A RA COUNTY I. GEC{ E t:. MANN REL:STR„R RECORDER H393 P'cE16s This Stipulation for Settlement "Agreement is made at Saratoga, California, this -11 day of '7LCic„ 1983, between Parnas Corporation, a California corporation "Parnas on the one hand and the City of Saratoga, a Municipal corporation "City and the City Council of the City of Saratoga "City Council on the other hand, with reference to the following recitals: A. Parnas is a land developer presently developing two sub- division tracts within the City of Saratoga, to wit, Tract #6665 and Tract #5928; and a redivision SDR 1426. B. Tract #6665 consists of thirty -four (34) divided lots and said tract received Tentative Map approval on April 25, 1979; C. Tract #5928 consists of eight (8) lots, seven (7) of which are being developed by Parnas..: Said tract has received Final Map approval and said Final Map was recorded in the Recorder's Office of Santa Clara County on May 30, 1979; D. SDR 1426 consists of four (4) subdivided lots and desig- nated Parcels A, B, C, and D. Parcels A, B, and C are a resub- division of lots 2, 3, and 4 of Tract #5928. Parcel D is lot 15 on the approved Tentative Map for Tract #6665. Said SDR 1426 received Tentative Map approval on September 6, 1979. E. At a special election ordered consolidated with the 2 H393 Py'E167 general municipal election and held on April 8, 1980, the voters of the City of Saratoga adopted an ordinance entitled "An Initiative Ordinance Directing Preparation of a Specific Plan for Preservation of the Rural Character of the Northwest Hillsides of the City of Saratoga and Imposing a Moratorium on Development Pending Completion of Said Plan." The Initiative Ordinance is also commonly referred to as "Measure A." It went into effect on April 25, 1980; F. Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance provides that: "SECTION 7. INTERIM RESTRICTIONS Pending final completion of the requirements of Section 3, no zoning changes, land divisions, subdivisions, building, or grading permits for construction of a new residence, or other land development approvals of any kind shall be issued in the subject area, nor any applications accepted therefor; provided that upon a showing of extreme hardship and in agreement with the provisions of this initiative, exceptions may be granted after two noticed public hearings by a 4 /5ths vote of the City Council." G. To implement Section 7, the City Council, on June 4, 1980 adopted Resolution No. 956.1, a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Establishing Criteria for Evaluating Hardship Exemption Applications Under Section 7, Interim Restrictions of Measure A;" H. On April 22, 1980, Parnas Corporation filed an application for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance for property consisting of Tract #5928 and Tract #6665; I. Noticed public hearings were held on June 4, 1980, July 2, 1980, July'8, 1980 and July 22, 1980 at each of which the applicant 3 H393 PACE 168 was heard and presented evidence. In addition, all other persons wishing to be heard were heard; J. On August 21, 1980, upon the basis of the records, files, and proceedings relating to the application of Parnas for an exception on Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance, the City Council of the City of Saratoga made the determination that the application for an exception under Section 7 of the Initiative Ordinance for both Tracts #6665 and #5928 should be granted, provided, among other things, that the total number of lots in Tract #5928 be reduced to four (4) and the total number of lots in Tract #6665 be reduced to twenty -nine (29) in order to conform with the density provisions of Section 4(a) of the Initiative Ordinance; K. Said determination was embodied in Resolution No. 965, passed by a 4 /5ths vote of the City Council on August 21, 1980; L. On October 7, 1981, Parnas filed a Complaint for Declara- tory Relief, Rescission, Restitution and Damages in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara entitled Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, vs. City Saratoga, a Municipal corpora- tion, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen, Martha Clevenger, Linda Callon, Dale Watson, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. 485489. On or about December 14, 1981 defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint and filed a Cross Complaint for Declaratory Relief entitled City of Saratoga, a Municipal corporation; John Mallory; Cheriel Jensen; Martha Clevenger; Linda Callon; Dale Watson, Cross Complainants, vs. Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. 4 H393 NcE169 M. On October 8, 1981, Parnas filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, entitled Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, vs. City of Saratoga, a Municipal corporation, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen, Martha Clevenger, Linda Callon, and Dale Watson, Case No. C814041. On or about December 10, 1981 defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint and filed a Cross complaint entitled City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation; John Mallory; Cheriel Jensen; Martha Clevenger; Linda Callon; Dale Watson, Cross Complainants, vs. Parnas Corporation, a California corporation and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. N. On November 18, 1980, Parnas filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara entitled Parnas Corporation, a California coporation, vs. City of Saratoga, a Municipal corporation, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen, Martha Cleven- ger, Linda Callon, Dale Watson and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 463183. On December 14, 1981, defendants filed their Answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate. 0. The City and the City Council Members appeared in all actions referred to hereinabove and each and all denied and continued to deny each and every one of Parnas' allegations as to all issues and in all respects. P. Without admitting the validity of any of the contentions which have, or might have been made by any of them, the parties to this Agreement desire and intend fully and finally to compromise and settle all such contentions and other matters in controversy among them. 5 H393 F CE1 r0 Q. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement and under- standing concerning the subject matter between the parties to this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations and proposed or executed agreements, written and oral. Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that neither the other party, nor the agents or attorneys of the other party, has made any promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained herein to induce the execution of this Agreement, and acknowledges that this Agreement has not been executed in reliance upon any promise, representation, or warranty not contained herein. R. In addition to the settlement of all matters in contro= versy with respect to the actions set forth hereinabove, the parties hereto desire to settle all other claims, demands and /or causes of action which may exist between them whether known, unknown, or sus- pected, except as they may arise from this Agreement. S. The parties to this Agreement hereby acknowledge that they have been represented by independent counsel of their own choice throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of this Agreement and that they have executed this Agreement with the consent of, and upon the advice of, their own counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. In addition to those hereinabove set forth, and any others hereinafter contained, the following definitions shall also apply throughout this Agreement: A. "Building Sites Building sites for Subdivision Tract Maps #6665 and #5928. H393 NGE17i B. "The 37 Houses The thirty -seven (37) detached single family dwellings to be built upon only thirty -seven (37) lots and upon only the building sites related to Tract Map #6665 and #5928 and SDR 1426 as per Paragraph #3 below. 2. Upon the effective date of this Agreement as defined below "effective date the parties to this Agreement will not take any action in pursuance of any lawsuit mentioned hereinabove or initiate any new lawsuit (except or permitted in Section 7 hereinafter) within the recitals herein for as long as necessary to allow Parnas to obtain grading and building permits to build only the thirty -seven (37) houses as provided in Paragraph #3. 3. The City shall process applications for and grant building and grading permits and issue all other necessary approvals and /or permits to building only the thirty -seven (37) houses, conditioned upon prior design review approval of each of said lots and houses under the City Zoning Ordinance, and further conditioned upon Parnas first complying with the applicable provisions of Ordinances of the City other than Measure A, or those Ordinances adopted pursuant to or in furtherance of Measure A. Conditioned upon full performance of this Agreement by Parnas, Parnas' right to build the thirty -seven (37) houses shall be irrevocable. The lots on Subdivision Tract Maps #6665, #5928, and SDR 1426 on which the thirty -seven (37) houses shall be built are as follows: A. Subdivision Tract Map #6665: 1. Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. 7 H393 P'cE1272 2. Lots 2 and 3, 16 and 17, 27 and 28 shall be paired and only one (1) house shall be built on each of the paired lots. B. Subdivision Tract Map #5928 and SDR 1426: 1. Lots 1, 6, 7, and 8 of Tract #5928 and lots C and D of SDR 1426. 2.) Lots A and B of SDR 1426 shall be paired, and only one (1) house shall be built on the paired lot. The purpose of such restriction is to limit all development of any kind within said subdivisions to the thirty -seven (37) houses and to ensure that no development of any kind whatever shall occur at any time in the future on the remaining four (4) lots as enumerated in Paragraph C below. C. Parnas shall immediately initiate procedure by the filing of maps with the city and take all other appropriate action to revert the paired lots referenced above to acreage pursuant to Government Code Section #66499.11 et seq. and the City shall accept and approve the reversion of th paired lots to acerage. 4. From and after the effective date of this Agreement, Parnas shall submit to the City applications for design review approval and grading and building permits for each of the thirty -seven (37) houses referred to in Paragraph #3 above. Such applications shall be processed by the City in the ordinary course of the City's processing of such applications. 5. With regard to each of the paired lots referenced above, Parnas may elect to utilize one (1), and only one, of the existing 8 H393 Pic:173 previously- approved building sites for either lot, or Parnas may apply for a modification of building site approval to relocate the building site on the paired lot. For purposes of development of any paired lot, Parnas will comply with development standards applicable to NHD Zone except as to lot size. All other non paired lots referenced above shall comply with development standards applicable to HCRD Zone. 6. Immediately upon the effective date of the Agreement, Parnas will dismiss all of the actions set forth in Paragraphs L, M, and N hereinabove without prejudice as to all parties to this Agreement. The City of Saratoga, a Municipal corporation, will dismiss all of its actions set forth in Paragraphs L, M, and N hereinabove without prejudice as to all parties to this Agreement. None of such dismissals shall operate as a retraxit. Upon full performance of this Agreement by all parties, or upon the fifth (5th) anniversary date of this Agreement, whichever occurs first, said dismissals shall be deemed dismissals with prejudice on the merits and the parties hereto shall execute, mutually exchange and file such dismissals with prejudice with the court in each of the actions mentioned hereinabove. 7. All parties agree that any and all statutes of limita- tions, including but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure Section #581(a) applicable to the causes of action set forth in each lawsuit mentioned hereinabove including cross complaints shall be tolled for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this agreement. Upon any party's failure to perform any provision of this Agreement, the other parties may, after compliance with Paragraph 9 H393 P1GE174 #11 hereof, file, reinstitute, or refile any appropriate lawsuit and proceed therewith, as well as assert such causes of action and /or rights to relief and /or defenses and /or cross complaints as may flow from such failure of performance or as may then be available. 8. Each party to the Agreement shall bear his, her, or its own attorneys' fees and costs and Parnas specifically hereby waives any prior award of attorneys' fees. 9. Conditioned upon full performance of the Agreement by all parties: A. The City and the City Council shall release Parnas, its agents and attorneys, from any and all claims, demands, and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known, unknown, or suspected in connection with the application of Measure A to Tracts #6665 and #5928 and SDR 1426, and the City and the City Council hereby waive the provisions of Civil Code Section #1542 set forth above. Their release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 9A is a separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph 9B hereof and the City and the City Council would not have agreed to this Paragraph 9 9A but for the release contained in Paragraph 9B. B. Parnas shall release the City and the City Council, their agents, and attorneys from any and all claims, demands, and /or causes of action which may exist between them, whether known, unknown, or suspected in connection with the application of Measure A to Tracts #6665 and #5928 and SDR 1426, or in connection with any act or omission by the city or any of its agents or representatives in processing any application by Parnas for tentative or final map 10 H393 ?'GEj7 approval for said tracts or SDR, and Parnas hereby waives the provisions of Civil Code Section #1542 set forth above. The release of unknown claims contained in this Paragraph 9B is a separate consideration for the release contained in Paragraph 9A hereof and Parnas would not have executed this Agreement or agreed to this Paragraph 9B but for the release contained in Paragraph 9A. 10. All parties to this Agreement shall use their best efforts to carry out all of the terms of this Agreement and shall take all steps'reasonably necessary to do so. Further, each party agrees not to unreasonably interfere with the respective benefits granted to the other party under this Agreement. 11. If at any time either the City or Parnas determines on good cause that it will be unable to obtain performance of this Agreement by the other, it shall give thirty (30) days written notice thereof to the attorneys of record for the other party in the lawsuits hereinabove mentioned. Immediately upon the receipt of such notice, the City and Parnas shall, consistent with the provisions of Para- graph 10 above, make every reasonable effort to resolve the matter underlying the notice within thirty (30) days. If such effort is unsuccessful any party may proceed as per Paragraph #7 hereof. 12. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing referred hereto, signed by Parnas and the City, only, which shall, for this purpose, be the Attorney -in -Fact of the City Council. Such amendment must specifically state that it is an amendment to this Agreement. This Agreement may not be amended orally or otherwise than as set forth in this Paragraph #12. 13. Parnas shall have the right to assign all or any part of DATED: DATED: together shall constitute one original document. When so signed, this Agreement shall be filed with the respective court as designated in Paragraphs L, M, and N above as a Stipulation for Settlement, and the Court shall order that the parties carry out its provisions, but the effectiveness of this Agreement does not depend upon Court approval or any such Court Order or Orders. 14/14 S DATED: ��1 PARNAS CORPORATION, a California corporation, by its president: CITY OF SARATOGA, a Muncipal cor- poration: BY: CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF SARATOGA: BY: 12 H393 =176 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA same. On A C K N O W L E D G M E N T FEbreai j /4 D. Lard, a Notary Public for the sonally appeared 7 j,,v'ji i the person, whose name /1 instrument, and acknowledged to me that iAm u m OFFICIAL SEAL E CAROL D. LARD NOTAR 1USLIC CALIFORNIA E y °p COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Comm. Exp. June 4, 1985 jinn ausuuaumumnnunuImu s s. H393 P�GE 1983, before me, Carol State of California, per- )rx7r =34-: Or rc.7/j'I�I�J proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, to be subscribed to the within IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal, at my office in the County of Santa Clara, the day and year in this certificate first above written. &46?) CAROL D. LARD Notary Public My commission expires on June 4, 1985. executed the 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT CERTAIN STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT RELATING TO PARNAS CORPORATION v. CITY OF SARATOGA, ET AL., SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 485489 AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINT; PARNAS CORPORATION v. CITY OF SARATOGA, ET AL., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, NO. C -81 -4041 AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINT; AND PARNAS CORPORATION v. CITY OF SARATOGA, ET AL., SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 463183 A. Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, (Parnas) is petitioner and the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen, Martha Clevenger, Linda Callon and Dale Watson (City) are respondents in that certain action entitled Parnas Corporation, a California corporation v. City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, et al., No. 463183, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (State Action No. 1). B. In State Action No. 1, Parnas filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking among other things an order that Parnas be excepted from the operation of the initiative ordinance and that Tracts 6665 and 5928 be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the tentative maps approved for said tracts and the final map approved for Tract 5928. C. Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, Parnas) is plaintiff and the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen, Martha Clevenger, Linda Callon and Dale Watson are defendents in that certain action entitled Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, v. City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, et al., No. 485489, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (State Action No. 2). D. In State Action No. 2, Parnas filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Recission, Restitution and Damages requesting the court to declare the respective rights and duties -1- c of the parties under the initiative ordinance; that said ordinance is unconstitutional, invalid and void on its face, or as it applies to Parnas if the ordinance is found to be valid, that it does not apply to Parnas' activities described in said complaint; for a determination by the court that the contract between Parnas and the City has been rescinded and requesting an order of restitution of the consideration paid by Parnas; and requesting monetary damages. E. The City and Councilmembers named as defendants in State Action No. 2 filed a cross complaint against Parnas Corporation for declaratory relief seeking a declaration from the court that the initiative ordinance, Measure A, is constitutional and valid both under federal and state laws and that the actions of the City Council in enforcing and implementing Measure A, especially in relation to Resolution No. 965 and Resolution No. 956.1, are legal and valid both under federal and state laws. F. Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, (Parnas) is plaintiff and the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, John Mallory, Cheriel Jensen, Martha Clevenger, Linda Callon, and Dale Watson (City) are defendants in that certain action entitled Parnas Corporation, a California corporation, v. City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, et al., No. C -81 -4041, pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (Federal Action No..1) G. In Federal Action No. 1, Parnas filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights seeking a declaration from the court that Measure A is invalid, a permanent injunction requiring the City to process and issue all necessary permits for the development and improvement of Tracts 6665 and 5928, including the construction of houses, and prohibiting the City from enforcing Measure A, or in the alternative, a permanent injunction requiring the City to process and issue all necessary permits for the development and improvement of Tracts 6665 and 5928, including the construction of houses upon all 34 lots in Tract 6665 and all 7 lots in Tract 5928, and also requesting monetary damages. H. The City and Councilmembers named as defendants in Federal Action No. 1 filed a cross complaint against Parnas Corporation for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that Measure A is constitutional and valid, both under federal and state laws, and that the actions of the City Council in enforcing and implementing Measure A, especially in relation to Resolution No. 965 and Resolution No. 956.1 are legal and valid both under federal and state laws. I. The City and the City Councilmembers appeared in all actions referred to hereinabove and each and all denied and continued to deny each and every one of Parnas' allegations as to all issues and in all respects. J. Parnas, the City and the City Council acknowledge that all assertions, allegations or claims which have been or could have been made by Parnas in the above mentioned actions are disputed by the City and all other defendants as to validity and any other aspect. Without admitting the validity of any of the contentions which have, or might have been made by any of them, Parnas, the City and City Council desire and intend fully and finally to compromise and settle all such contentions and other matters in controversy among them. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga "Council RESOLVES as follows: 1. The City Council, on behalf of itself and the City of Saratoga, hereby authorizes and approves the execution, delivery and implementation by City Manager of a Stipulation for Settlement on the terms and conditions as set forth in said Stipulation for Settlement attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and any and all other documents necessary to consummate such Stipulation for Settlement. Recitals A through J hereinabove are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The City Council further hereby authorizes and directs that said Stipulation for Settlement be recorded with the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of March 1983, by the following vote: AYES: Counci]menbers Fanelli, Moyles and Mayor Callon NOES: ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Councilmembers Clevenger and Mallory Sza, (e_ (1-6Q-c4 Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney Mayor Ali Farsio 14930 Vintner Court Saratoga, Ca. 95070 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Attn: Planning Commissioners; C/O Ms. Dian Carnekie REcR, V ED PUN 09 199 2 INNING D EPT MI DR -91 -057 Item number; 211 agenda dated HAy 221. 1992 Farsio Guest House. Dear Ms. Carnekie; Please distribute this consideration request among planning commissioners. This is requesting for your consideration for your motion approval for above mentioned property with the following changes. 1) Delete 2 car garage and drive way. 2) No ingress, egress from Vintner Court to Guest House. 3) Reduce total square footage from 3332. Sq. Ft. to 2450 Sq. Ft. Regarding Measure A settlement agreement is very clear that 37 houses for 37 lots there is no issue regarding guest houses at all. Therefor these 37 lots could haves 37 guest houses if lot size meat the city requirement and ordinance. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. With R Ali Farsio Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File No.: Project Address: Decision Being Appealed: 6 /o1/4l attached): APPEAL APPLICATION 1) 00 hit4 Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee: Name of Appellant: Mr• .f frt i'• •p Address: 141 4 we l c J. Telephone: (4 .o$ ?tit- 03 ;0 3 V/7 /9 o �tSt4 /�Li•i�i Grounds for Appeal (Letter may be e°y IA. t a 4 ts, s s Appellanature g *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED BY 5:00. -P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. ti File No. APN AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC NOTICING I, a. 'o as appellant on the above file and property known as 14 R 30. c.4- Data Services to do the legal noticing on the above file. Date: I hereby authorize Engineering Ali Farsio 14930 Vintner Court Saratoga, Ca. 95070 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Attn: Planning Commissioners; C/O Ms. Dian Carnekie Re: DR -91 -057 Item number 1 on agenda dated May 27, 1992 Farsio Guest House. Dear Ms. Carnakie; Please distribute this consideration request among planning commissioners. This is requesting for your consideration for your motion approval for above mentioned property with the following changes. 1) Delete 2 car garage and drive way. 2) No ingress, egress from Vintner Court to Guest House. 3) Reduce total square footage from 3332 Sq. Ft. to 2450 Sq. Ft. Regarding Measure A settlement agreement is very clear that 37 houses for 37 lots there is no issue regarding guest houses at all. Therefor these 37 lots could have 37 guest houses if lot size meet the city requirement and ordinance. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. With Re a ds• Ali Farsio Printed on recycled paper. August 6, 1992 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 To: Planning Director From: Deputy City Clerk Subject: Refund for Ali Farsio, DR 91 -057 As you know, the City Council took action on Mr. Farsio's appeal for the above project on July 15, 1992. The Council directed that the fee for Mr. Farsio's reapplication to the Planning Department on the project be reduced by the amount of his appeal fee. This is to inform you that the amount of the appeal was $155.00, paid by Receipt 23497 on May 28, 1992. Please reduce his application fee by that amount. 4 Grace E. Cory cc: City Manager Mr. Farsio Attachment: Relevant Portion of Council Minutes of July 15 City Council Minutes A 5 July 15, 1992 A. Appeal of denial of design review approval to construct a 3,332 sq. ft. detached guest house on a 3.45 acre parcel in the NHR zone district at 14930 Vintner Ct. (Applicant /appellant, Farsio; DR -91 -057) (continued from 6/17) Councilmember Tucker asked the City Attorney's advice on participating in the discussion of this hearing as she was involved in this matter as a member of the Planning Commission. City Attorney Riback stated as a Councilmember she is obligated to act on matters before the Council, unless there is a legal conflict of interest. Planning Director Curtis presented the staff report dated July 15, 1992. He noted the Planning Commission did review this in May and voted unanimously to deny the request, reasons outlined in the staff report. He noted on May 27th the applicant presented an alternative design to the Planning Commission, who felt that new plans should be resubmitted. He stated the applicant is now before the Council to appeal the original design. Mayor Anderson opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Mr. Ali Farsio, Applicant, noted his request for the guest house is within City Codes. He noted the size of a guest house allowed is not written in the Ordinance. He stated his lot is 3 1/2 acres and because of the shape it does not allow the building to be close to the existing residence. Mr. Farsio outlined his reasons for wanting the guest house and requested approval of the original design, but a smaller size. In response to Mayor Anderson's question, Mr. Farsio stated he has not submitted new plans for the smaller guest house. Councilmember Monia stated that he feels the applicant is confused about the process of the hearings. City Attorney Riback explained the process to Mr. Farsio, noting that if a new design is requested the applicant must submit new plans and be heard before the Planning Commission. He explained that the modification to the design came after the resolution, therefore new plans must be submitted. He noted the issue before the City Council is the appeal of the denial by the Planning Commission. He stated in order for the City Council to hear the subsequent proposal, plans must be submitted and then be heard by the Planning Commission. Mayor Kohler stated that this is a misunderstanding and suggested that the fee paid for the appeal should be applied toward the fees for the Planning Commission for the redesign. TUCKER /BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 5 -0. Councilmember Monia expressed concern about setting a precedent for other applicants coming in with redesigns. Councilmember Monia spoke in support of waiving the fee and applying it towards the fee for the City Council Minutes 6 July 15, 1992 Planning Commission. City Attorney Riback stated the appropriate action at this time would be to deny without prejudice and recommend going back to the Planning Commission with new plans. Councilmember Monia noted he would like to discuss this issue in a study session. MONIA /BURGER MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PASSED 5 -0. Councilmember Monia requested a report from the City Attorney about the complications of the Measure A agreement. He also suggested asking the Planning Commission to address the size of accessory structures. Councilmember Kohler asked if people in this area are notified of their legal rights when purchasing the property. MONIA /ROHLER MOVED TO REFUND THE APPEAL FEE BY ALLOWING A CREDIT AGAINST MR. FARSIO'S REAPPLICATION. PASSED 5 -0. Mr. Farsio stated there is no comments regarding a guest house in the Measure A settlement. City Attorney Riback stated he did look at the Measure A settlement and there is a serious question of whether Mr. Farsio has the right to build anything on the lot. He noted he has not had the opportunity to look at the background documents that relate to the settlement agreement back in 1983 and will look at these to determine the intent. Councilmember Monia suggested that Mr. Farsio wait until the legal opinion has been established before going any further. B. Resolution approving Final Engineer's Report and confirming Assessments (LLA -1) (existing) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution. City Engineer Perlin presented the staff report dated July 15, 1992. He noted he received no written protest. In response to Councilmember Burger's question, Mr. Perlin stated this is an existing Landscaping and Lighting District which was established in 1980. He noted the recommendation is to reauthorize the existing district. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:53 p.m. MONIA /TUCKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 92 -032.4 CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS. PASSED 5 -0. C. Integrated Waste Management Program Costs and Proposed SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 71-- AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: July 15, 1992 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SAN JOSE TO PAVE PROSPECT ROAD WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to execute the necessary agreements which will allow the City of San Jose to provide street resurfacing work in Saratoga. Summary: Within the next several weeks, the City of San Jose will be overlaying their portion of Prospect Avenue between the Lawrence Expressway and Blaney Avenue. They have received very advantageous bids for their City -wide overlay program and it would be in the City of Saratoga's interest, both from a financial and service delivery standpoint, to have the City of San Jose include our portion of Prospect Road between the Lawrence Expressway and Titus Avenue in their contract. The legal documents which will be required for this agreement will be prepared and reviewed by the City Attorney. Fiscal Impact: Since the City of San Jose's current contract is extremely large, this City will receive a significant cost savings in performing this work which is part of the program already scheduled for this year. Attachments: Motion and Vote: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 7/15/92 Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: None Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Recommended Motion: Receive and file. AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Status Report re: Kerwin Ranch Subdivision Report Summary: During the past several months, the Planning Commission has been reviewing a 16 -lot subdivision on property commonly known as Kerwin Ranch generally located at the southeast corner of Saratoga Ave. and Fruitvale Ave. Following several public hearings and work sessions, the project has evolved into a two -phase development with eight (8) lots fronting on an extension of Ronnie Way and eight (8) lots fronting on an extension of Lisa Marie Ct., with no connection between the two streets. At the July 8th meeting, the Commission continued the item to August 12th. The purpose of the continuance was to allow staff to readvertise for a public hearing so that additional public testimony could be received (the public hearing had been formally closed at the Commission's June 24th meeting). Issues that are still being "fine- tuned" are access points for phased construction, width of landscaped buffer along the Fruitvale frontage, and cost of Fruitvale /Saratoga intersection improvements. A major issue that has been discussed and resolved during previous meetings was the provision of open space /park site as part of the development. Following significant input from the public (i.e. public testimony and petitions), Heritage Preservation Commission recommendations and Planning Commission discussion, it was determined that an open space or park site would not be appropriate as part of the subdivision. It is anticipated that a final vote will be taken by the Planning Commission at the August 12th hearing. July 1, 1992 Kerwin Ranch Questions and Comments to Saratoga City Council: You have all read my letter to you and the Planning Commission, so I will not restate same remarks here. What involvement has the Heritage Commission /Historical Society had in reviewing the Kerwin proposed development? However, I have more questions which have not been raised or answered, which I think are more appropriate to address to the City Council then to the Planning Commission. The answers do not have to be provided tonight but, I do expect answers in writing in the near future. How was Santa Clara able to finance the renovation of the farmhouse and surrounding acreage on Saratoga /Lincoln Way? When are the results of the Open Space Task Force to be expected? Is this group cataloguing and prioritizing Open Space needs in this City? What happened to the $1.2+ million in money the City Council was planning to spend on the Nelson Property? Why can't it be applied toward purchasing of some of the corner lots at Kerwin? When can we expect to be able to vote on whether we, as citizens of Saratoga, would even want to purchase Open space and how much we would be willing to spend for it? If we cannot vote on whether we want Open Space, why not? I know these questions are not all I have. I have personal questions to ask of individuals, some who are not here tonight. In general, my main question to the citizens of Saratoga is, why does this sale of this property not concern you? It concerns me a great deal. Not because I begrudge the family for selling their ranch. Not because I begrudge a buyer for buying it and wanting to make money on developing the ranch. Both of those people are within their personal rights. (more) Kerwin Ranch Questions (continued) Page 2 It concerns me, that there is so very few who seem to care. The 65 people who signed a petition to the city saying that they would oppose anything but the single- family residential housing concern me. This City must try to think long term in planning for Open Space. If we don't plan for Open Space now, we will wind up seeing only concrete, glass and stucco walls on our drives through this area. I think now is a good time to start planning to create the environment we desire to maintain and have enjoyed. I look forward to the answers to my questions. Cathy Gaskell 20700 Sevilla Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -6543 (H) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-ta AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 15, 1992 Fiscal Impacts: None. Attachments: 1. Site Map. 2. Quitclaim Deed. Motion Vote: ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineerinq� CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Village Parking District No. 3 Reconveyance of fee title to certain property located at 14407 Big Basin Way Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached Quitclaim Deed reconveying fee title to the described property. Discussion: During the proceedings for Village Parking District No. 3, the City inadvertently obtained fee title to the portion of the property located at 14407 Big Basin Way which was incorporated into the parking district. The property owner, Dennis Cunningham, is requesting the City to correct this error by Quitclaiming the fee interest in the property back to him while still reserving an Easement for ingress, egress and parking purposes over that portion of his property. Since the easement is what was originally intended and since the City has easements over all of the other properties in the District, Mr. Cunningham's request seems reasonable and the Council should rectify the matter by authorizing the Mayor to execute the attached Quitclaim Deed. The City Attorney has reviewed the Deed and is satisfied with its contents. CITY of SARATOGA PO.. ..k! .e. 1- Ta'*:. t in s...... P. M. 340-M- 14 .I 'CITY of SARATOGA 2,E. .7 C s jjkr 411.11 -11Mr "..4. S. C. V W. a (Sur ;2 117'" .1, es.ser—:_sr"--........._" 68 /6 L ..67--Ac: e. c.,• s•••106,77: „ray 0' Po'i. A e V •••0 3 4 4 I IS-117 6 C L 4 r 23 s" s• CC 0 ty 1 23 CITY OF SARATOGA *8 owe mar/ alw, fifia lOWN or MC CARTYSVILLE t El G BA SIN BOOK A-MAPS-PG.43 M. 533 14 46/47 c 'Tv Of SAAATO 1 OFFICE Or COUNTY •S SE SSOR CL •R• COuNi Y, C AL !Rolls' A ORIGINAL *1: .401 pr dr./ PM.457-M 3 (LUMBER STREET) 5 P' 111‘1 5. 6/ 1 Z L pC- 5. 4 iv 0 v. ,er N, v,SIS It, 1.... 4., I 5•• .4 Ili A VI CM 9 9 0 04 0 04 44, 7, 7, Recording Requested By: City of Saratoga When Recorded Mail To: DENNIS M.CUNNINGHAM 14405 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CA. 95070 QUITCLAIM DEED I /WE the CITY OF SARATOGA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, does hereby QUITCLAIM to DENNIS M. CUNNINGHAM, a married man, all that real property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of parcel 2 as said parcel is delineated upon that certain parcel map recorded February 28, 1974, in Book 336 of Maps at Page 54 in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, State of California: THENCE south 00 30' 56" West, 62.33 feet along the easterly line of said Parcel 2 (336 M 54) to the true point of beginning: THENCE continuing on said easterly line (336 M 54) south 00 30' 56" west, 36.68 feet: THENCE departing from said easterly line (336 M 54) south 58 40' 55" West, 22.24 feet: THENCE South 19 30' 00" West, 80.67 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said parcel 2 (336 M 54): THENCE NORTH 70 45' 50" WEST, 64.03 feet along the southerly line of said parcel 2 (336 M 54): THENCE departing said southerly line north 19 15' 21" east, 63.33 feet: thence North 84 14' 53" West 81.13 feet: THENCE South 19 18' 00" West, 44.41 feet to an angle point on the southerly boundary of said parcel 2 (336 M 54): THENCE South 37 59' 10" West 51.55 feet along the southerly line of said parcel 2 (336 M 54): THENCE North 55 01' 04" West 17.26 feet along the Westerly line of said parcel 2 (336 M 54): THENCE departing said Westerly line north 65 4' 56" East 5.47 feet: THENCE North 13 50' 10" West, 60.09 feet: THENCE North 66 38' 16" East, 35.33 feet: THENCE North 56 37' 36" East, 34.94 feet: THENCE South 84 39' 24" East 67.63 feet: THENCE North 87 51' 25" East, 64.89 feet: THENCE North 67 10' 16" East 46.32 feet to the true point of the beginning, reserving therefrom an Easement for ingress, egress and parking purposes. This QUITCLAIM DEED is being given to reflect of record the intent of that certain QUITCLAIM DEED recorded 1/30/89 in Book K832 Official Records of Santa Clara County at Page 1630 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2: MEETING DATE: JULY 1, 1992 ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING Recommended Action: Discussion: Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CAA CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Preliminary approval of Engineer's Report for FY 92 -93 1. Adopt resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for FY 92 -93. 2. Adopt Resolution of Intention to levy assessments for FY 92 -93 and fixing date and time of the public hearing. The attached two resolutions, if adopted, will complete the second step of the three step process to reauthorize the existing Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for FY 92 -93. The first resolution preliminarily approves the Engineer's Report while the second resolution is a Resolution of Intention to levy the annual assessments. More importantly however, the Resolution of Intention fixes the date and time of the public hearing on the reauthorization of the district which is set for your next meeting on July 15. Because of its size, I have not included the Engineer's Report with your packets. Copies are available for Council's and the public's review in my office and with the City Clerk. None directly. All costs associated with the reauthorization of the District are recovered via the annual assessments. 1. Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report for FY 92 -93. 2. Resolution of Intention to levy assessments and fixing date and time of the public hearing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 22—C SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 4K MEETING DATE: JULY 1, 1992 n CITY MGR. APPROVAL Discussion: ORIGINATING DEPT: ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Quito Road Bridge Replacements Capital Project No. 905: Extension of Cooperative Agreement Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached extension of the Cooperative Agreement between the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to July 1, 1993. Attached is an extension of the Cooperative Agreement originally entered into between the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno and the Santa Clara Valley Water District on February 21, 1989 for the Quito Road Bridge Replacements, C.I.P. No. 905. As the Council will recall, the project involves the replacement of the two southerly bridges on Quito Road and is primarily funded through the Federal Bridge Replacement Program. The 20% local match for the project is to be equally shared by the two cities and the Water District. This past week, after nearly a year and a half delay, the City finally received authorization from CALTRANS and the Federal Highway Administration to advertise the project for bids and to prepare for construction of the project. Before the City proceeds with this next step however, it is necessary to extend the Cooperative Agreement between the three local agencies for another year. As soon as this is done, the City can prepare to advertise the project for bids and if all goes according to plan, the project should be under construction by the beginning of fall. Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. However, $600,000 is budgeted in the adopted FY 92 -93 budget in Capital Project No. 905 to complete the project with the estimated net cost to the City being $40,000. Attachments: 1. Extension of Cooperative Agreement. 2. Cooperative Agreement. Motion Vote: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SCVWD Agmt #A1004 THIS AGREEMENT, dated February 21, 1989 by and between the CITY 01? SARATOGA, a municipal corporation "Saratoga the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation "Monte Sereno and the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public agency of the State of California "District is made with reference to the following facts: A. Pursuant to the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program "HBRR Saratoga applied for and received a commitment from the California Transportation Commission to allocate HBRR funds for participation in the replacement of two bridges on Quito Road which cross San Tomas Creek, identified as Bridge No. 37C0111 and Bridge No. 37C0112 "the Project B. San Tomas Creek is under the jurisdiction and control of the District and each of the bridges to be replaced crosses the common boundary line between Saratoga and Monte Sereno. C. It is expected that HBRR funds will be made available for payment of eighty percent (80%) of the total Project cost. The parties hereto have agreed to share the remaining twenty percent (20%) of the total Project cost, as hereinafter set forth. D. The Federal Highway Administration has granted authorization to proceed with the Project, and approval has been granted by Caltrans to proceed with the Request for Proposals for Engineering Design. E. The parties desire to execute this Agreement in order to establish their respective rights and obligations concerning the administration, financing and construction of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. Scope of Project. The Project shall consist of the replacement of Bridge No. 37C0111 on Quito Road near Austin Way and Bridge No. 37C0112 on Quito Road near Bicknell, including the acquisition of any necessary right -of -way. All work shall be performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Saratoga, Monte Sereno, the District and all local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Project or whose approval is otherwise required for receipt of HBRR funds. 2. Allocation of Projeet Cost. (a) Each of the parties has executed this Agreement in reliance upon the commitment by Caltrans to contribute eighty percent (80%) of the total Project cost. In the event an agreement for such contribution is not executed between Saratoga and Caltrans, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and each of the parties shall be released from any further obligation or liability hereunder. cC l3 (e) Performance of all acts and execution of all documents as may be necessary or appropriate for receipt of HBRR funds from Caltrans equal to eighty percent (80%) of the total Project cost. (f) Contracting for the preparation of construction plans and specifications and submision of the same for review and approval by Monte Sereno, the District and all other local, state and federal agencies whose approval thereof is required. (g) Preparation of bid documents, advertisement for bids and award of construction contract(s), subject to approval thereof by Monte Sereno and the District. (h) Arranging for relocation or removal of any utility installations that conflict with the Project. (i) Administration of the construction contract(s), including supervision and inspection of the work to assure compliance with the approved plans and specifications, disbursement of advances to the contractor(s) based upon work satisfactorily completed, and processing of any change orders. (i) Issuance of final Project approval, with the concurrence of Monte Sereno and the District, and recordation of notices of completion. 4. Limitation on Powers of Lead Agency. The powers and duties herein conferred to Saratoga as the lead agency for the Project shall not include the power: (a) To make any material change in the approved plans and specifications for the Project without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and the District; or (b) To award or modify any contract for the performance of professional, consulting or construction services without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and the District. 5. Payment of Project Costs. (a) In addition to its own respective share of the Project cost, Saratoga shall periodically advance the amounts to be paid with HBRR funds, pending a reimbursement for such advances by Caltrans; provided, however, Saratoga may, at its option, withhold any advance which is not legally required to be made if Saratoga has not received full reimbursement from Caltrans for all prior advances. (b) Monte Sereno and the District shall deposit with Saratoga their respective shares of the Project cost within fifteen (15) days after receipt of billing from Saratoga. A billing will be sent upon award of a contract for engineering design services, covering all estimated costs to be incurred until the start of construction. A second billing will be sent upon award of the construction eontract(s), covering all estimated costs to be incurred for construction and completion of the Project. (c) Upon completion of the Project, Saratoga shall furnish to Monte Sereno and the District a detailed accounting of all actual Project costs. If such -3- 10. Limitation of Liability. Saratoga shall not be responsible or liable to either Monte Sereno or the District for any act or omission made in good faith in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder as the lead agency, nor shall Saratoga be responsible or liable for any act or omission by any consultant or contractor retained for the performance of any services related to the Project. 11. Termination of Agreement. In the event a contract for construction of the Project is not awarded by July 1, 1989, this Agreement shall terminate unless extended by mutual consent of all parties hereto. Upon such termination, Saratoga shall refund to Monte Sereno and the District any balance of their respective contributions remaining after deduction of the Project costs incurred to the date of termination and payable by each party under the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. as to For City proved as to Form: J M to Sereno City AAtorney Approved as to Form: J CITY OF MONTE SEBENO By�1C u -L- Maya Pro Tem a4//f f t Attest: Att SANTA CLABA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By JA$- 4 ::E9 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 19F AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 1, 1992 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Stating City Policy Concerning Use of City Property, Material, or Equipment for Personal Business or Any Other Unauthorized Purposes Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution. Report Summary: Several issues have come up within the last year that demonstrate a need for a more comprehensive policy regarding use of City property than that which we have currently. Within the employee Standards of Conduct, there is a blanket statement which prohibits the use of City material, time or equipment for unauthorized purposes or for personal use. This statement appears in the Employee Handbook and our Personnel and Administrative Policies Manual. The City also has adopted separate policies for employees prohibiting the use of City vehicles for personal business, and limiting telephone use for placing or receiving personal phone calls during working hours. The attached Resolution stating City policy is intended to broaden the scope of these other policies and encompass Council members, Commissioners, volunteers and others who are not employees of the City but who may have access to City equipment. The new policy also prohibits the loan of City equipment, and any unauthorized removal of material or equipment from the premises. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Resolution No. gZ-04 9 1 (05 UMW ©2 0 'IT REPORT TO MAYOR AND dak CITY COUNCIL DATE: June 26, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING: July 1 1992 SUBJECT: Pierce Road Bridge Replacement Capital Project No. 953: Status Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to direct the design engineer to develop plans to temporarily reopen the bridge with restricted weight limits. DISCUSSION: Since your meeting on June 3, I have had several conversations with CALTRANS' engineers concerning reopening the Pierce Road bridge. Consistently, I have been told that the existing condition of the bridge is not safe for vehicular traffic and that the bridge should remain closed. The main reason that the bridge is considered unsafe is because the northerly abutment of the bridge is primarily supported by the large root mass of an old tree. The structural engineers who assess the condition of the bridge cannot evaluate the stability of this large root mass and consequently, cannot evaluate the stability of the structure as'a whole. Since the engineers are unable to quantify or assign any values to the existing abutment support, they have little alternative but to recommend that the bridge remain closed. As of this date, the design engineer is finalizing the plans for the replacement bridge and staff is continuing to pursue the City's application for funding of the project through the Federal Bridge Replacement Program. Additional environmental assessments required by CALTRANS are nearly complete and staff anticipates submitting the plans, specifications and other project documentation to CALTRANS for their review in July. Unfortunately, I have recently learned that it may take CALTRANS up to six weeks to review the City's submittal package, and another six weeks to review a second submittal if any corrections or additional information are required (which I suspect will be the case). As a result, it now appears that the City may not receive CSZ.. /92 1)/(4) the necessary clearances from CALTRANS to proceed with the project until some time in November at the earliest. This could further delay the actual start of construction until next spring if conditions are placed on the project which would restrict working within the creek area during the winter months. In view of these latest revelations, I believe the Council must decide by your July 15 meeting at the latest how the City should proceed with this project. To assist you with this decision, I propose the following three options for your consideration and which in my view, are the only three bonafide options available. Option 1 Continue processing the City's application with CALTRANS until the project is approved and the City receives authorization to proceed. As stated above, this could delay the start of construction until next April and the reopening of the roadway until approximately one year from now. The City would however secure 80% Of the estimated $300,000 construction cost from the Federal Bridge Program, or $240,000. Option 2 Abandon the City's application for federal assistance and pursue the project with local funds. Following this approach, I believe the bridge could be rebuilt and the road reopened by the end of October. The City would fund the entire project and it is doubtful that any of the construction costs would retroactively qualify for reimbursement from the Federal Bridge Program. Option 3 Continue processing the City's application and in the interim, design and build a structural support scheme which would allow for the temporary reopening of the bridge with restricted weight limits. I've discussed this approach with the design engineer and he estimates that the cost to design and build such a support would be between $30,000 and $40,000. The support would be designed to carry only the vertical loadings of the bridge and not any seismic loadings. To carry the seismic loadings, the cost would probably double or triple. The design engineer estimates that he would need two to three weeks to complete design of a temporary support and assuming the City used either informal bidding procedures or emergency contracting procedures to perform the work, the bridge could most likely be reopened with restricted weight limits by the beginning of September. Since the temporary support would be in place throughout the winter months, periodic inspections of the bridge by the design engineer would be necessary. Furthermore, if the inspections revealed that the conditions beneath the bridge worsened, then the bridge might need to be closed again to all traffic. It is also unlikely that any expenditures on the part of the City to temporarily reopen the bridge would qualify for reimbursement from the federal program. At this point, I believe the Council should proceed with the third option in order to reopen Pierce Road to most traffic in a reasonable time. Although the City cannot recoup any of the costs associated with temporarily reopening the bridge, I believe the City has an obligation to the safety and convenience of the hillside residents who must travel along Pierce Road. In my opinion, the costs associated with temporarily reopening Pierce Road are small when compared to the inconvenience of having Pierce Road remain closed for up to another year. FISCAL IMPACTS: As noted above and dependent on Council's decision. ATTACHMENTS: None. MOTION AND VOTE: