HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-31-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTS (2)SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 19 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990 _C,I,TY MGR. APPROVAL
ORIGINATING DEPT: Enaineerinq%—ll\
SUBJECT: Scully Avenue Improvements adjacent to Kevin Moran
Park - Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Action:
1. Declare Roma Construction Corporation to be the lowest
responsible bidder for the work.
2. Authorize staff to execute the attached contract with
Roma Construction Corporation for $ 37,705.00
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
up to $ 5,500.00
Report Summary:
Engineering staff has solicited bids for the subject work using
the informal bidding procedures outlined in Article 12 -15 of the
Municipal Code. The work involves the installation of concrete
curb and gutter along the frontage of Kevin Moran Park and the
widening of Scully Ave. to provide on- street parking in front of
the park.
Three contractors bid the work. A bid summary is at-
tached. Roma Construction Corporation of Santa Clara
submitted the lowest responsible bid of $37,705.00 which is
1.6 % below the Engineer's Estimate of $ 38,310.00
Fiscal Impacts:
Although this is not a designated Capital Project, staff proposes
funding this work out of the budget for Capital Project No. 909,
Pavement Management Reconstruction. The adopted FY 90 -91 budget
contains $410,322 in Capital Project No. 909, Account No. 9140-
4510 which staff believes is sufficient to fund this work and
anticipated change orders as well as the 1990 Pavement Management
Program contract and anticipated change orders.
Attachments: 1. Bid Summary
2. Contract.
Motion & Vote:
DATE: 7- 1Z - , 19 9 0
TIME: Z : m 4 P • M.
CITY OF SARATOGA
BID SUMMARY
Sheet 1 of �1
PROJECT ,
Scully Avenue
Engineer's
Roma
Construction
Galante Brother
[rice
Calhoun
Brothers
Ite
Description
p
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Price
Amount
Unit
Prine
Amount
Unit
I Amount
Unit
Price
Amoun
Clear and Grub
L. S.
L.S.
2500.
2500.00
4500.01
4,500.00
9620.
8,620.00
5,000
5,000.
2 1
Relocate Irrigation
L. S.
L.S.
640.0
640.00
1100.0
1,100.00
L.s.
525.00
L800.0
1,800.
3
Roadway ExcaSubirade
300.0
C.Y.
26.0
7,800.00
30.0
9,000.0
17.85
5,355.00
L3.00
3 900.
Aggregate Base
210.0
Ton
17.0
3 570.00
18.00
3,780.0
17.40
3,654.00
14.00
3,360.
5
�{�cW thCuA.B Gutte
800.0
L.F.
14.0
11,200.00
11.50
9,200.0
12.50
10,000.00
17.00
13,600
6
Reconstruct Drain Inlet
1
Ea.
1700
1,700.00
2200.
2,200.0
1400.
1,400.00
,600.
1,600
7
C andicat Ramps
3.0
Ea.
500.0
1 500.00
560.0
1,680.0
545.0
1,635.0
500.0
1,500.
8
Asphalt & Oils
210.0
Ton
40.0
8,400.00
54.0
5,670.0
66.20
6,951.0
70.00
7,350.
9
Relocate Sicrns
Ea.
200.0
1-,Ow-00-,O--O
115.0
575.0
75.00
375.00
100.0
500.0
TOTAL
38,310.00
37,705.0
38,515.00
8,610.
AGREEMENT
BY THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the day of
,19 by and between the City of Saratoga
(hereinafter referred to as CITY) and,
NAME: Roma Construction Corporation
ADDRESS: 3521 Leonard Ct., P. 0. Box 4326
Santa Clara, CA 95054
PHONE: 408 - 496 -6257
(hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR), in consideration of
their mutual convenants, the parties hereto agree as follows:
CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the following specified
services and /or materials in accordance with the exhibits list-
ed below:
Construction of Scully Ave. Improvements as shown on the plan en-
titled, "Kevin Moran Park Site" prepared by the City of Saratoga,
dated June 27, 1990.
EXHIBITS - The following attached exhibits are made part of this
Agreement:
A. Project Plans.
B. Notice Inviting Bids.
C. Contractor's Bid Proposal dated July 12, 1990.
D. Contractor's Certificate of Insurance.
TERMS - The services and /or materials furnished under this
Agreement shall commence on City's Authorization and shall
be completed on or'before Thirty (30) working days
COMPENSATION - For the full performance of this Agreement,
City shall pay Contractor: $37,705 as stipulated in Contractor's
Bid Proposal dated July 12, 1990. Actual compensation may vary
depending on actual quantities of work performed and shall be
based on the unit prices bid for each work item as stated in the
Contractor's Bid Proposal. Extra work, if ordered by the City,
shall be compensated on a Force Account.basis and shall be com-
puted as specified in Section 9 -1.03 of the State of California,
Dept. of Transportation Standard Specifications dated January,
1988.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS -
Hold Harmless. Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any
and all demands, claims or liability of any nature, caused by
or arising out of the negligent performance of this Agreement.
Insurance. Contractor shall file with City, a Certificate of
Insurance, before commencing any services under this Agreement,
meeting minimum coverage requirements established by City and
naming City as an additional insured.
Non - Discrimination., No discrimination shall be made in the
employment of persons under this Agreement because of the race,
color, natural origin, age, ancestry, religion or sex of such
persons.
Interest of Contractor. It is understood and agreed that this
Agreement is not a contract of employment in the sense that the
relation of master and servant exists between the City and Con-
tractor. At all times Contractor shall be deemed to be an in-
dependent contractor and Contractor is not authorized to bind
the City to any contracts or other obligations. In executing
this Agreement, Contractor certifies that no one who has or
will have any financial interest under this Agreement, is an,
officer or employee of City.
Changes. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred
without the written consent of the City. No changes or varia-
tions of any kind are authorized without the written consent of
the City Manager or his authorized designee.
Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon ten
(10) days written notice to Contractor. Monies then owed to
Contractor based upon work satisfactorily accomplished shall be
paid to Contractor.
This Agreement shall become effective upon its approval and ex-
ecution by City. In witness thereof, the parties have executed
this Agreement the day and year first written above.
.PROJECT MANAGER FOR CITY.- CONTRACTOR -
Larry I. Perlin By:
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Title:
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070 Social Security
408/867 -3438 or I.R.S. Number:
.INVOICING - Send all invoices CITY OF SARATOGA
to the Project Manager at the
above address.
By:
.APPROVALS - City Manager
City Engineer
Organization: 9140
Account: 4510
Project: 900
Amount: $37,705.00
City Attorney
Progress Payment Record:
No. Date Amount Balance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVA
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
SUBJECT: Sarahills Drive Reconstruction, Capital Project No. 941
- Award of Construction Contract.
Recommended Action:
1. Declare W. E#. Ebert Corp. be the lowest responsible
bidder on the project.
2. Authorize staff to execute the attached contract with
W. H. Ebert Corporation for $ 58,215.00
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
UP to $ 9,000
Report Summary:
Engineering staff has solicited bids for the subject project
using the informal bidding procedures outlined in Article 12 -15
of the Municipal Code. The project involves the installation of
a new storm drain to replace the existing drain which has become
damaged beyond repair. The resurfacing of the street will be
included in the 1990 Pavement Management Program, Capital Project
No. 909, and will be done later this summer.
Three contractors bid the project. A bid summary is attached.
W. H. Ebert Corporation of San Jose submitted the
lowest responsible bid of $ 58,215 which is 29 %
above the Engineer's Estimate of $ 45,062
Fiscal Impacts:
The adopted FY 90 -91 budget contains $125,000 in Capital Project
No. 941, Account No. 9010 -4510 to fund the work. Sufficient
funds are therefore available to cover the base contract amount
and anticipated change orders.
Attachments:
1. Bid Summary.
2. Contract.
Motion and Vote:
DATE: July 12 , 1990
TIME: 2 00 P. M.
CITY OF SARATOGA
BID SUMMARY
Sheet 1 of 1
PROJECT
Sarahill Storm Drain
& French Drain
L
ENGINEERS
W. H. EBERT
SANCO PIPE
R.W. FRENCH
Item
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Pricel
Amount
Unit
Price
Amount
Unit
Price
Amount
Unit
Price
Amount
1
Install 18" R.C.P.
170.0
L.F.
50.0
1 8,500.00
79.0
13,430.0
123.0
20 910.00
80.
13,600
2
Bore and Jack 18P.V.C.
70.0
L.F.
150.0
10,500.00
290.01
20,300.0
289.0
20 230.00
2751
19,250
3
Install Manholes
2.0
Ea.
2000.0
4,000.00
1500.
3,000.00
1300 1 .0
2,600.00
1075
2,150
4
Install Christy Boxes
2.0
Ea.
300.0
600.00
350.0
700.00
300.0
600.00
850
1,700
5
Install Rip-Rap
L.S.
L.S.
6000. C
6,000.00
7900.0
7,900.00
600.0
6,600.00
4;45012-4
4'5"0""
6
Install 6" Frenchrain
859
L.F.
18.0
15,462.00
15.0
112,885.00
29.0
1240,911.00
' 26'
22-'344r
TOTAL
45,062.00
58,215.00
75,851.00
83,484.
a
a
U
T
U
C
O
a
f
C
L
0
AGREEMENT
BY THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the day of
,19 ,.by and between the City of Saratoga
(hereinafter referred to as CITY) and,
NAME: W. H. Ebert Corporation
ADDRESS: 1620 S. Seventh Street
San Jose, CA 95112
PHONE: 408- 297 -1031
(hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR), in consideration of
their mutual convenants, the parties hereto agree as follows:
CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the following specified
services and /or materials in accordance with the exhibits list-
ed below:
Construction of drainage improvements on Sarahills Drive in
accordance with project plans dated November, 1989.
EXHIBITS - The following attached exhibits are made part of this
Agreement:
1. Project Plans.
2. Contractor's Bid Proposal dated
3. Contractor's Certificate of Insurance.
TERMS - The services and /or materials furnished under this
Agreement shall commence on City's Authorization and shall
be completed on or before Twenty (20) working days
COMPENSATION - For the full performance of this Agreement,
City shall pay Contractor: $58,215 as stipulated in Contractor's
Bid Proposal dated July 26_, 1990. Actual compensation may vary
depending on actual quantities of work performed and shall be
based on the unit prices bid for each work item as stated in the
Contractor's Bid Proposal. Extra work, if ordered by the City,
shall be compensated on a Force Account basis and shall be com-
puted as specified in Section 9 -1.03 of the State of California,
Dept. of Transportation Standard Specifications dated January,
1988.
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS -
Hold Harmless. Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any
and all demands, claims or liability of any nature, caused by
or arising out of the negligent performance of this Agreement.
Insurance. Contractor shall file with City, a Certificate of
Insurance, before commencing any services under this Agreement,
meeting minimum coverage requirements established by City and
naming City as an additional insured..
Non - Discrimination. No discrimination shall be made in the
employment of persons under this Agreement because of the race,
color, natural origin, age, ancestry, religion or sex of such
persons.
Interest of Contractor. It is understood and agreed that this
Agreement is not a contract of employment in the sense that the
relation of master and servant exists between the City and Con-
tractor. At all times Contractor shall be deemed to be an in-
dependent contractor and Contractor is not authorized to bind
the City to any contracts or other obligations. In executing
this Agreement, Contractor certifies that no one who has or
will have any financial interest under this Agreement, is an
officer or employee of City.
Changes. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred
without the written consent of the City. No changes or varia-
tions of any kind are authorized without the written consent of
the City Manager or his authorized designee.
Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon ten
(10) days written notice to Contractor. Monies then owed to
Contractor based upon work satisfactorily accomplished shall be
paid to Contractor.
A
This Agreement shall become effective upon its approval and ex-
ecution by City. In witness thereof, the parties have executed
this Agreement the day and year first written above.
.PROJECT MANAGER FOR CITY - CONTRACTOR -
Larry I. Perlin By:
City Engineer
City of Saratoga Title:
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070 Social Security
408/867 -3438 or I.R.S. Number:
.INVOICING - Send all invoices CITY OF SARATOGA -
to the Project Manager at the
above address.
By
.APPROVALS - City Manager
City Engineer
Organization: 9010
Account: 4510
Project: 941
Amount: $58,215.00
City Attorney
Progress Payment Record:
No. Date Amount Balance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.—loo AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 24 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVALJ=—�=�
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering
Y
SUBJECT: Route 85: Prospect Rd. to Saratoga Creek - Grant of
Revised Easement
Recommended Action:
Approve revised Grant of Easement and authorize Mayor to execute
Deed.
Report Summary:
On May 2, Council approved the granting of three temporary con-
struction easements to CALTRANS for the Route 85 project from
Prospect Road to Saratoga Creek. Two of the temporary easements
are located within Kevin Moran Park, while the third easement is
located across the freeway in Azule Park, (see attached map).
Since then, CALTRANS' designers have determined that one of the
two easements in Kevin Moran Park, No. 49333 -2, needs to be
modified. Also, it has been determined that the easement should
be a permanent easement and that it should be made in favor of
the West Valley Sanitation District as it is strictly needed for
the placement of their facilities. The revised easement descrip-
tion and map are attached for your review.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Attachments:
1. Map of original easements.
2. Revised easement description.
3. Revised easement map.
t.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR- SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NIZ NORTHAMPTON 34 II 386 36
assi _O Jw. DRIVE /
;. I
m� - b TITUS AND LANGTRY TR ACT
– o- AV�a��
SCULLY -- —� °%'a' 1
rt a
10.382 AC. OR. I Proposed I
49333-3 �T�mp.Cor/atr. Eosanenl)
T CITY OF SARATOGA t`e!s II 50
: r.9 , 1
'i`
ui
M iH=.. i -
(�CEI11N MORAN PARK I I�
fEoxr : s40 l i:m,p o /urrr i /Mray1�7 J��nr
1w ¢-
.o .�
is o O
"o
t� -'.n
O Z
PTN. 14
Q ,
t!1`
4 333-2 emO aeons,#-- Q�\r
ci
.far.6.CCh•ica /.7crvicr y aeAmM�,A�•A�4�
RE: Highway 85 - Parcel 49333 -2
DEED OF EASEMENT
The City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation as Grantor, hereby grants to WEST
VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a public corporation,
Santa Clara County, State of California, as Grantee, the following easement in the City
of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to-wit"
BEGINNING at a point in the Northeasterly line of that certain parcel of land described
in the Deed from August John Boisseranc, et al to the State of California recorded
February 10, 1969 in Book 8429 of Official Records at page 124, Santa Clara County
Records, said point bears, along said Northeasterly line S32°23'43 "E 179.67 feet from the
Southwest corner of lot 67 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract No. 2970 Blue
Hills of Saratoga" which map was filed for record in Book 134 of Maps at page 54 and
55 Santa Clara County Records; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, along said
Northeasterly line, S32 °23'43 "E 14.97 feet more or less, to the intersection thereof with
the Northerly line of that certain easement for sanitary sewers granted to County
Sanitation District No. 4 of Santa Clara County recorded March 11, 1965 in Book 6879 of
Official Records, at page 114, Santa Clara County Records; thence leaving said
Northeasterly line, along said Northerly line the following two courses: N79 °23'13 "E
2.30 feet and N87015'12 "E 19.88 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line N51 °25'00 "W
27.14 feet; thence S57°36'17 "W 10.56 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Bearings and distances used in the above description are on the California Coordinate
System of 1927, Zone III. Multiply distances shown by 1.0000537 to obtain ground level
distances.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement for the purpose of acquiring,
constructing, completing, reconstructing, repairing, maintaining, and operating sanitary
sewers and appurtenances for said District, together- with the right of ingress and
egress, therefor. Neither Grantor nor his successors in interest shall erect nor construct
any building or other structure, nor drill or operate any sort of well, within the limits of
the above described easement.
GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER GRANTS TO GRANTEE the right to the use of
such land on each side of the hereinabove described property as may be reasonably
necessary for the deposit of earth and construction materials and the use and operation
of equipment during the construction, maintenance, repair, or replacement of said
sanitary sewers and appurtenances.
Parcel 49333 -2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and
signature_ this day of ,19
i
Prepared
(M&S)
Reviewed
(WVSD)
This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my
direction, in co ormance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act.
Signature
Licensed Land Sumeyor
Date k6l GICi
AND �\
GF
�O
J DENNIS A. DILLON �J
4526
N EXP.9/30/90
CF C p�'�/
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
love
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 0 0
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
ORIGINATING DEPT: City -Manager's
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVA
SUBJECT: Approval of Part - time /Temporary Position -
Departmental Intern
I
Recommended Motion:
Approve part- time /temporary position of Departmental Intern.
Report Summary:
From time to time the City has had the opportunity to hire a
local college student to work as an intern during the summer. Up
to now the position of intern has not been formalized. Staff is
requesting that the attached job description for the position of
departmental intern be approved and the position added to the
City's part- time /temporary classifications. Employees in these
classifications are paid on a straight hourly basis and receive
no employee benefits. Hourly rate for the Departmental Intern
would be set at $7.50 for f.y. 90/91 and adjusted annually with
the adoption of the budget along with the other part- time /tempo-
rary positions which the City maintains.
Fiscal Impacts:
The cost of part- time /temporary
budgets.
Attachments:
Job Description
Motion and Vote:
help is included in Department
City of Saratoga
DEPARTMENTAL INTERN
Part - time /Temporary
July, 1990
DEFINITION:
Under direct and indirect supervision of a Department Head
or other staff, a Departmental Intern performs sub -
professional duties in carrying out the work of a City
Department. Duties will vary according to the needs of the
Department to which the intern is assigned.
EXAMPLES OF WORK:
An intern will be assigned projects which are designed to
utilize the intern's knowledge and skills while providing
in -depth learning of the operations of City government. An
intern may work on one major substantive project or on a
series of smaller but more varied tasks which would enable
the intern to gain a broad view of local government.
QUALIFICATIONS:
Education equivalent to completion of one year of college
courses; ability to work independently, communicate
effectively both verbally and in writing, and to establish
good working relationships with other staff and members of
the public.
AV
SARRAGT�OGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /0U I AGENDA ITEM:— qA
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
CITY MANAGER:
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENTe��
SUBJECT: CITY HALL JANITORIAL SERVICES YEARLY CONTRACT
Recommended Motion:
Award the City Hall Janitorial Services Contract in the amount of $6,440.04
to Neal's Janitorial Service.
Report Summary:
This Contract is to provide janitorial services to the City Hall offices.
It will become effective August 1, 1990 and will run until the end of the
fiscal year June 30, 1991. Staff received the following four (4) written
proposals.
Neal's Janitorial - $536.67 per month
Facilities Maintenance - $539 per month
Service by Medallion - $560 per month
Pioneer Building Maintenance (present contractor) - $565 per month
The low bid represents an increase of $29.67 per month over the current
contract with Pioneer Building Maintenance. References for this contractor,
who has been the the business for over eight years, have been favorable
regarding their overall performance and workmanship.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funds have been included in the fiscal year 90/91 budget to cover these
costs.
Attachments:
Janitorial Services Agreement
Motion and Vote:
JANITORIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The City of Saratoga ( "Owner ") hereby enters into agreement . with Neal 's
Janitorial Service ( "Contractor "), whose business address is 2670 S. White
Road #278, San Jose, California 95148, to provide janitorial services to the
City Hall offices.
It is agreed as follows:
1) Scope of Work: Contractor shall perform work according to the
specifications listed in Attachment A.
Scope of Services to be Performed, and the term of this agreement will be
for a period of one year (Fiscal Year 1990191), beginning the day this
contract is executed and ending on June 30, 1991.
2') Agreement Price: Owner shall pay and the Contractor shall accept, in full
payment for the work agreed to be done, the sum of Six Thousand Four Hundred
and Forty Nine dollars and four cents ($6,440.04), said price shall be paid
at $536.67 monthly until the end of this Agreement.
3) Contract Documents: The completed proposal consists of the following
documents: This agreement, Scope of Services to be Performed, Frequency of
Service, Term of Proposed Contract, Insurance and Bonds.
All rights and obligations of Owner and Contractor are fully set forth and
described in the contract documents.
All of the above -named documents are intended to cooperate, so that any
work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or visa - versa, is to
be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. The documents
comprising the complete contract will hereinafter be referred to as "the
contract documents." In the event of any variation or discrepancy between
any portion of the Agreement, and any portion of the other contract
documents, this agreement shall prevail.
4) Disputes: Should any dispute arise in respect to the true value of any
work done, or any work omitted, or any extra work which may be required, or
in respect to the amount of any payment to the Contractor during the
performance of this contract, such dispute shall be decided by the Diretor
of Maintenance, and the decision of the latter shall be final and conclusive.
5) Permits: The Contractor shall, at his expense, obtain all necessary
permits and licenses, etc., necessary for the performance of this contract,
give all necessary notices, pay all fees required by law, and comply with
all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations relating to the work and to the
preservation of public health and safety.
$t,
I
6) Worker's Compensation Insurance: In accordance with the provisions of
Article 5, Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2 (commencing with Section 1860) and
Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 4 (commencing with Section 3700) of the Labor
Code of the State of California, the Contractor is required to secure the
payment of compensation to his employees and shall for that purpose agree to
obtain and keep in effect adequate Worker's Compensation Insurance.
7) Non - discrimination: In connection with the performance of the Contractor
pursuant to this Agreement, the Contractor will not willfully discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, age,
religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, local custom, habit or sexual
orientation.
8) Termination of this Agreement: Either the Contractor or Owner may
terminate this agreement at any time upon 30 days written notice. Should
this Agreement be terminated, the Owner shall pay the Contractor for any
services rendered prior to such termination.
9) Independent Contractor: The Contractor is, and at all times shall remain
an independent Contractor, and not an agent, officer or employee of the
Owner. As such independent Contractor, neither the Contractor nor any of its
agents or employees shall be entitled to any salary, fringe benefits,
worker's compensation, retirement contributions, sick leave, insurance or
other benefit or right connected with employment by the City of Saratoga, or
any compensataion other than as provided in the Agreement. In addition, the
Contractor shall have no power or authority to bind the Owner to any contract
or otherwise to incur any obligation or' liability for, or on behalf or in the
name of the Owner.
10)LiabilitY Insurance: During the term of this Agreement, the Contractor
shall. maintain in full force and affect comprehensive general liability
insurance and automobile liability insurance, providing coverage in form and
amount satisfactory to the Owner, with such policies being endorsed to name
the City of Saratoga, and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers
as additional insureds . thereunder and to require 30 days prior written notice
from the carrier to the Owner of any cancellation or reduction of coverage.
A certificate of insurance or, if required by the Owner, a copy of each
policy, shall be furnished to the Owner prior to commencement of any services
hereunder.
11)Hold Harmless: The Contractor shall indemnify and hold the Owner, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from and against any
and all claims, demands, causes of action, expenses or liabilities, including
attorney's fees, arising out of or in any manner relating to the performance
by the Contractor of its services hereunder, and the Owner shall not be
liable for any negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor.
I
12)Notice: Any notice may be served upon the Owner by delivering it in
writing, addressesd to Mr. Dan Trinidad, Director of Maintenance, City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and to the Contractor,
Neal 's Janitorial Service by delivering it in writing, addressed to 2670 S.
White Road #278, San Jose, CA 95128.-
13) This constitutes the entire Agreement between Don and Mike's Sweeping
and the City of Saratoga, and includes the following attachments:
Attachment A - Scope of Services.
In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed the Agreement, July , 1990.
Owner: City of Saratoga, a municipal Corporation
By:
Contractor: Neal's Janitorial Service
By:
1`
The City._of Saratoga is notifying interested Janitorial Services
Contractors of the need for a proposal for janitorial services to
clean the offices at the City of Saratoga City Hall, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue.
SCOPE OF SERVICE
All of 'the following task' descriptions will be performed routinely
five days' a week, Monday through Friday, unless, otherwise noted.
All work must be completed between the hours of b:00PM and 7:OOAM
daily.
ITEM 81
1) Gather all: waste paper and place for disposal.
2) Empty and clean all ash trays.
3) Sweep and /or dust mop all floor surfaces.
4) Vacuum clean all carpeted areas.
5) Dust desks, chairs, tables and other office furniture.
6) Dust counters, file cabinets and telephones.
7) Dust all ledges and all other. flat surfaces within reach.
8) Dust high partition ledges and molding. Note: weekly.
9) Remove-fingerprints from woodwork, walls and partitiong.
10)Remove fingerprints from door and partition glass.
11)Clean restroom fixtures and chrome fittings.
12)Cleau and refill all restroom dispensers from stock.
13)Spot wash restroom walls, partitions and doors.
14)C1ean restroom mirrors.
15)Wet mop restroom floors.
16)Sanitize toilets, toilet seats and urinals.
17)Wash all drinking fountains.
18)Polish or clean door kick plates and thresholds. Note: monthly
19)bust all venetian blinds. Note: monthly.
20)Vacuum clean all window draperies. Note: yearly.
21)Dust off or vacuum air grills. Note: weekly.
22)Keep - janitor closet clean and orderly.
23)Leave only designated night lights on.
24)Chock and lock windows, doors and gates upon completion of work.
45,)Floor waxing.
a) Buff .and wax all the monthly.
b) Strip, and re -wax all tile, twice yearly.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: !�
MEETING DATE:? 24 90
ORIGINATING DEPT.:Planning
CITY. MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Revised site plan for DR -89 -013 and Approval of a Nega-
tive Declaration; Applicant: Ira & Mayumi Velinsky
Location: 15859 Hidden Hill Rd.
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council approve
the Negative Declaration and the revised site plan as proposed.
Report Summary:
In response to the outcome of a recent lawsuit, the applicant has
modified the City Council approved plan to construct a single
family residence in the HC -RD zone district. This report provides
the background regarding issues surrounding the approval as well as
analyzes the proposed changes.
The issue before the Council pertains to the changes requested by
the applicant and the approval of the Negative Declaration. Staff
reviewed the modified plans and find they substantially achieve the
objectives of the approved plan. The Negative Declaration which is
attached to this report concludes that there will be no adverse
environmental impact as a result of this project.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Negative Declaration
2. Judge's Decision
3. Council Resolution
Motion and Vote:
F/7 ;/f1
r =
�
01�_guw @0 &UQYB&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 7/24/90
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Revised Site Plan for DR -89 -013 and Approval of a Negative
Declaration; Applicant: Ira & Mayumi Velinsky;
Location: 15839 Hidden Hill Road
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised site
plan and approve the Negative Declaration.
Background
On December 20, 1989, the City Council approved a variance and
design review application to allow the construction of a single
family residence on an undeveloped hillside lot at 15839 Hidden
Hill Road. The variance allowed an eight foot front yard setback
where 35 feet was required. The design review approval allowed
the construction of a one -story 23 foot high single family resi-
dence.
The debate surrounding this proposal involved several salient
issues including:
1. Preservation of the existing topography and the accuracy of
its depiction by the applicant's engineer;
2. House size and the compatibility with the surrounding commu-
nity;
3. View preservation and tree removal;
4. Findings to grant a setback variance;
5. Environmental documentation required by the California
Environmental Quality Act.
This report will summarize each of these issues in order to
provide the City Council with the context to review the proposed
modifications.
1.
Topography
The site is characterized by a steep ravine approximately 40 feet
deep. To the north of the ravine, is a level pad suitable for
the proposed construction. For discussion purposes, the ravine
has been described as the land below the 660' elevation and the
pad as the land above the 660' elevation.
Staff analysis of the proposed construction stressed the impor-
tance of eliminating encroachment into the ravine. While locat-
ing the home above the 660' elevation resulted in a home more
prominent on the site, staff felt that preservation of the ravine
was a priority. Further, staff felt that the one -story design
and the surrounding vegetation greatly minimized the visual
prominence of the building location above the 660' elevation.
The technical accuracy of the topography as depicted by the
applicant's engineer was questioned by neighbors surrounding this
proposal. The Council noted at previous hearings that the actual
building site was verified by the applicant's engineer. However,
questions regarding the overall site's contours and its average
slope remained as a concern to the neighbors. The City Council
ordered an independent verification of the entire site by an-
engineer selected by the City, to determine if the average slope
as indicated by the applicant was correct. The result of this
action certified that average slope did substantially conform to
the applicant's asserted calculations. The certified survey did
not require any change to the proposed plan as it remained in
conformance with the City's limitation on the house site which is
a function of the average slope calculation.
House Size and Compatibility
The proposed site is the last undeveloped lot amid a neighborhood
that has developed incrementally over the last several' decades.
Therefore, the compatibility of the proposed home with the inten-
sity of development surrounding it was a significant factor in
analyzing this proposal. Staff researched the County Assessor's
tax rolls to survey the extent of surrounding development to
create a compatibility benchmark. The following tables illus-
trate the results of this research.
2
Velinsky Neighborhood
House Sizes Including
Accessory Structures
TABLE I
TABLE II
SURVEY OF
SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENT
ADJACENT TO PROJECT
Assessor's
Parcel #
Main
Residence Sq.
Ft.
+
Accessory
(Owner)
Garage
Garage
Structures
Structures
510 -24 -006
(Hwang)
5600
+ 900
= 6508
sq.
ft.
100 cabana
510 -24 -018
(Hagland)
2591
+ 1100
= 3691
sq
ft.
None
510 -24 -020
(Sogg)
3386
+ 1832
= 5218
sq.
ft.
884 (cottage) +
3602
+
998
= 4600
sq.
ft.
936 (unit)
510 -29 -032
(Alexander)
1694
+ 456
= 2250
sq.
ft.
1122 (unit) +
None
510 -24 -015
3204
+
720
= 3924
576 (unit)
ft.
None
510 -24 -016
*5100
+
477
250 (garage) +
510 -29 -062
(Singh)
3796
+ 252
= 4048
sq.
ft.
768 (guest)
Sub Total
sq.
ft.
None
21,615
sq.
ft.
4736 sq. ft.
Average Sq.
Ft.
21,615/5 =
4,323
sq.
ft.
4766/5 = 947 sq.
Total Average Sq. Ft.
+
1832
5,270
sq.
ft.
TABLE II
SURVEY OF
DEVELOPMENT
IN THE
HIDDEN HILL TRACT
Assessors Parcel #
Main
Residence Sq. Ft. +
Accessory
Garage
Structures
510 -24 -010
3154
(no garage) =
3154 sq.ft.
None
510 -24 -011
2844
+
1215
= 4059
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -012
4046
+
756
= 4802
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -013
3602
+
998
= 4600
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -014
3736
+
768
= 5404
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -015
3204
+
720
= 3924
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -016
*5100
+
477
= 5577
sq
ft.
None
510 -24 -017
3256
+
850
= 4106
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -018
2591
+
532
= 3123
sq
.ft.
568 (guest)
510 -24 -020 (Sogg)
3386
+
1832
= 5218
sq.
ft.
884 (cottage)
936 (unit)
510 -24 -021
2991
+
700
= 3691
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -022
3175
+
432
= 3607
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -023
3653
+
660
= 4314
sq.
ft.
400 (carport)
510 -24 -024
3488
+
800
= 4288
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -025
2808
+
720
= 3528
sq.
ft.
None
510 -24 -026
4185
+
768
= 4953
sq.
ft.
None
Sub Total
67,447
sq.
ft.
2,788 sq. ft.
Average sq. ft.
67,477/16
=
4,217
sq.
ft.
174 sq. ft.
Total Average sq. ft.
4,391
sq.
ft.
*Based on engineer plans prepared by owner
,, The applicant proposed a 4824 sq. ft. one -story residence inclu-
sive of all building and garage area. Staff felt that the inten-
sity of the use was consistent with the survey of homes, garages
and accessory structures typically found in the immediate area.
Further, staff feels that the standard established by the Hidden
Hill tract also permits the structure as proposed and remain
compatible with its neighborhood.
View Preservation &_ Tree Protection
Much concern has focused on the visual impact the proposed resi-
dence will have on both the views from adjacent properties and
distant views from the Valley floor. Additionally, two ornamen-
tals exist on the optimal building area constraining the location
of the building footprint.
The ravine topography and the lower elevation of the property to
the south results in portions of the building to be visible from
the neighbor's property. Although not visible from the main
residence, the proposal will be seen from accessory units and
outdoor vantage points. Staff has maintained that increasing the
setback from the ravine by locating the building above the 660'
elevation, will reduce the visual impact to this property.
Construction within the ravine compounds the visual impact to the
southern property accentuating the apparent building height.
Further, staff feels that the one -story design and reduced build-
ing height also serves to minimize visual impact to the adjacent
property.
Staff also examined the potential visual impact to distant views
from the valley floor. To move the structure outside of the
ravine, the building is placed higher on the site. While this
location could result in increased visual impact, staff feels it
to be minimal in this case. The densely vegetated environs make
this site visually unobtrusive. Staff investigated several
vantage points along Highway 9 which proved the lack of visibili-
ty from this direction.
Two trees, a cedar and a pine, are located in the natural build
ing location. While staff noted that it was possible to save
these trees, it meant locating the structure further to the south
and west into the ravine. Therefore, staff recommended that
suitable replacement trees be required in order for the structure
to utilize the level portion of the site.
Variance Findings
Staff concluded that the presence.of the unique topography,
namely the ravine, created extraordinary circumstances justify-
ing the granting of a setback variance. Because the suitable
building location exists in close proximity to the north and east
property lines, a variance was recommended to reduce the front
0
yard in order to utilize the topographically unconstrained por-
tions of the site. Further, no adverse impacts resulted by
granting the front yard variance due to the large setbacks pro-
vided by the adjacent residence.
Objection to the variance was raised by adjacent neighbors.
While the encroachment into the front yard was not a direct
impact to the concerned parties, they asserted that the house
size should be reduced to provide code conforming setbacks and
remain outside of the ravine.As shown in the above table, staff
felt that the intensity of space development was consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood and concluded that no reduction in
square footage was warranted.
Environmental Documentation
All proposals for alteration of the environment are addressed by
the California Environmental Quality Act. As the Council is
aware, there is a graduated level of environmental documentation
required depending on the nature of the request. Small projects
such as the construction of a single family home is classified as
a categorically exempt project requiring no additional environ-
mental documentation.. The staff concluded that the proposal was
exempt under the State statutes.
As the Council is aware, there was a lawsuit filed seeking inval-
idation of the approval granted by the City Council. A portion
of the law suit argued that the project was subject to further
environmental review by virtue of the request for a variance in a
hillside location. In the judge's decision, it was concluded
that there was no environmental impact resulting from this pro-
posal but that the next level of environmental review should
occur. Namely, the judgment stated that a Negative Declaration
should be prepared to conclude no significant affect on the
environment would occur. Attached to this report is the draft
Negative Declaration submitted for Council's approval.
Proposed Site Modification
The applicant has elected to submit revised plans to eliminate
the need for a variance and to keep the structure out of the
ravine. For Council's reference, the following tables are pro-
vided comparing the approved plan and the revised plan:
TABLE III
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Zoning:
HCRD
General Plan Designation:
RVLD
Average
Site Slope: 23.6%
Net Parcel Size: 47,154
sq. ft.
5
WA'RT.F± TV
PROJECT COMPARISON
Approved
Revised
Code Req./
Project
Project
Allowance
Materials:
Horizontal wood
same
requires
siding painted gray
compatible
brown; gray tile roof
exterior
accent; composition
materials
shingle roof
Lot
Coverage:
8,542 (180)
8,841 (18.7 %)
11,789 (250)
Height:
23 ft.
2516"
26 ft.
Bldg. Size:
4,824 sq. ft.
4,808 sq. ft.
5,142 sq. ft.
Front Yard
8 ft.
40 ft.
35 ft.
Rear Yard
110 ft.
100 ft.
50 ft.
Rt. Side Yd.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Lt. Side Yd.
88 ft.
76 ft.
20 ft.
The effect of the proposed changes has shifted the house to the
west to increase the front yard setback. In addition, the foot-
print has changed to decrease the length of the building. The
length was reduced by relocating a bedroom from the west side
elevation to the south, making the building wider than in the
approved plan. The previous proposal was over 150' in length;
the revised proposal is now 135' in length.
By increasing the width, the measured building height has also
increased. Because the natural grade begins to drop dramatically
at the 660' contour, the finished grade on the south elevation
also drops. The revised plans are 2 -1/2 feet higher than the
previously approved plans due to a lower natural grade in this
location.
The design elements and exterior materials remain as initially
approved. The structure employs natural materials and colors to
blend it with the environment. The building is massed and
articulated similar to the previous proposal.
C=
Conclusion
The applicant has shown that a code conforming structure can be
built which remains substantially above the 660' contour. Staff
is satisfied that the ravine is protected. Further, staff finds
that the revised site plan eliminates the need for any paving or
retaining walls extending into the ravine. Lastly, staff feels
the reduced length of the structure also results in a positive
change from the approved plans.
Step en Emsyie
Planning Director
SE /dsc
Attachments:
1. Negative Declaration
2. Judge's Decision
3. Council Resolution
7
RES -ND File No. DR -89 -013
Saratoga
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
Environmental Quality Act of 1970
The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control
of the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation, after study and
evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant
to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of
1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the Cali-
fornia Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of
Saratoga, that the following described project will have no
significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the envi-
ronment within the.terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proponents propose to construct a one -story single
family residence in the HC -RD zone of the City. The proposed
4824 s.f. residence is situated on a 1.29 acre site in the hill-
sides of southwestern Saratoga.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is bisected with a ravine which carries water during the
rainy season. Above the ravine is a relatively level building
area located in the northeast portion of the site. The site is
vegetated with native ground cover and grasses. Two introduced
species of trees, a cedar and a pine, are located within the
building area.
PROJECT PROPONENT
Ira Velinsky
P.O. Box 93
El Granada, CA 94018
MITIGATION MEASURES
None are required
REQUIRED FINDING
Based on the findings in the attached initial study, this project
will not result in significant environmental impact and an envi-
ronmental impact report will not be required.
PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located at the end of Hidden Hill Drive (see map
attached).
1
RES -ND File No. DR -89 -013
Executed at Saratoga, California, this n �---_ day of ______,
1990.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DIRECTOR' AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER
90 .1
%Y415 967 1395 ATKINSON-FARASYN --*4 SARATOGA CITY 1� () [.);)
Fe�e�
,:vii
GRA E TA VINOA
2
F,�2'Rr -`� 14
5
.5
M
zV"
7
90
21
22
23
24
25
- . 26
6) Sant A.
...TRA VE=SK-�, Mj�.yumT -IW.
--and- DOES- vEL SZyr
7
Real Parties.. in . . ....
The court finds that Patitioner did apparently exhaust
its admirdstrative remedies by requesting preparation of an EIR
at the public, hearing of December 20, 1989:
As for the EIR requirement, the Court believes that
although the construction of a, single family home is ordinarily.
categorically exempt, and unusual circumstances are not indicated
I3
t -
14
,:
I6
I3
14
,:
I6
19
20
21
. . 22
23
24
25
26
S$441 A
JU 1G:0•3 Y415 96 7 UUf
in this case to take the Velinsky house out of the exemption., the
variance of the magnitude and on the slope involved here is not
exempt. Therefore, the entire "project" is subject to the -_EIR
requirement
On the other` hand, no significant effects on -the
environment are evident.,.. Construction of a single family home on
a hillside already dotted with other hones on similar -sized lots`,.
in an exIsting subdzvzsion does not seem likely to have a
significant environmental effect, and none are apparent on the
record. As for the.variance, since the "front" property Line
.faces the backyard of a neighbor who approved the variance,
rather than the street, it is .obvious that the variance _will not
have significant, environmental. "effect either.
- . Therefore, the _ ..
e law requires only the preparation Qf a
negative declaration in this case..
California Covernment. Code sec. 65906 rather severely
restricts the granting of variances -from zoning ordinances, An
.administrative agency does not have broad discretion to override
a legislative determination, I. for example, of desirable setback
p y, : it i _
limits. S ecifica_ll s not within a city council's
discretion to decide 35 feet is unreasonable when it prevents an
owner from building a 4,824 square --foot home, unless the city
council determines that a 4,824 square -foot home is a privilege
enjoyed _ by other similarly- situated property rty owners in ''the
vicinity. See Cal. Govt. Code sec. 65906.
The Court finds a lack of substantial evidence supporting
2 f
I
ii6 i21
-9ii l :ii1 415 967 1195 ATKI.NSti - FARASY_ N SARATOGA CITY LO 004
1
the Sarataga City Council's determination that a variance .was
2
necessary to avoid depriving the Velinskys of any privilege
3
enjoyed by their neighbors. -
4
A writ of mandate is issued to rescind the permits on the
5
Vel.insky Property, -pending preparation of a negative declaration,
`.
6
pursuant to California Public Resources Code sec. 21080(c).
7
F rther, the variance on the subject . property should be rescinded
=.-
until- and-.. unless substantial evidence can be presented to shout
that the variance is necessary to avoid depriving the Velinskys
1Q
of a-privilege enjoyed by other property owners the vicinity
`
11
'within the raeanin of Govt Code sec_
g
12
Dated: . ,Tune 19, 1990
13
y
PETER G. STONE
-
15
Nudge of the Superior court
-
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
i
25
26
0C) 5441 A
.3
RESOLUTION NO.: 2622.1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, IRA VELINSKY and MAYUMI VELINSKY, the applicants
have applied to the City of Saratoga for variance approval to allow
an 8 foot front yard setback where 35 feet is required for a new
single family residence to be constructed upon property located at
15839 Hidden Hill Road, such application being identified as V -89-
043, and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1989, the Planning Commission
of the City of Saratoga conducted a public hearing on said
application, and following the conclusion thereof, the Planning
Commission denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to-the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the
staff reports, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning
Commission relating to said application, and the written and oral
evidence presented to the City Council in support of and in
opposition to the appeal;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga
at its meeting on December 20, 1989, by a vote of 3 -2 with
Councilmembers Moyles and Stutzman dissenting, did resolve as
follows:
1. The appeal from the Planning Commission was upheld
and the decision of the Planning Commission was
reversed.
2. The, City Council was able to make the findings
required for granting the variance, based upon the
following circumstances:
(a) The variance is necessary because of special
circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape topography, location or
surroundings, strict enforcement of the
specified regulation, would deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the vicinity and
classified in the same zoning district. Due
to the unusual topography, a 40 ft. deep
ravine, which bisects the property, the
suitability unconstrained building site lies
1
in the northeast corner of the property which
requires a setback variance in order to develop
a home comparable to others in the
neighborhood.
(b) The granting of the variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district. Because other
property owners in the zone district enjoy
single family homes on property similarly
sized, the applicant is merely enjoying a
property right commonly seen throughout the
neighborhood. The variance is required to
enable the applicant to locate a home
comparable in size by Saratoga standards in the
most unobtrusive location.
(c) The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity. The variance
is to a front yard setback which is adjacent.
to the easterly neighboring parcel. Because
the adjacent home is set back'a substantial
distance and the adjoining yard area is a level
pad substantially lower in elevation, the
visual impact of the reduced setback is
minimal.
3. The variance is granted, subject to all of the
following conditions:
(a) All conditions contained in Resolution No: DR-
89 -013 are incorporated herein by reference and
shall remain in full force and effect.
(b) In accordance with conditions of DR -89 -013, the
applicant shall include appropriate landscape
material in the required landscape plans to
compensate for the removal of the two ordinance
size trees.
(c) A topographic survey shall be made of the
property by an independent civil engineer
selected by the City. The cost of such survey
shall be paid in advance by the applicants.
Based upon this survey, the engineer shall
determine the average slope of the property,
in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Such average slope shall
N
A
then be utilized for the slope adjustment
required under Subsection 15- 45.030(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance and the allowable floor area
shall be calculated after making such
adjustment. If the allowable floor area as so
determined. is less than the proposed dwelling,
the size of the structure shall be reduced to
conform with the allowable floor area and
revised plans reflecting such reduction shall
be submitted for approval by the City Council.
If the allowable floor area as so determined
is equal to or greater than the proposed
dwelling, no further action shall be required.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall
supercede and replace Resolution No. 2622 passed and adopted on
January 3, 1990.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
at a. regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on
the 18th day of April ,1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilors Anderson, MQyles, Peterson, Stutzman and Mayor Clevenger
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
.4
Att'� L' ILI--rl
City Clerk
3
RIM, A 0 •
IAWASM
VIA
LAW ()I'FTCIZk OF
13R[- '(.-!F "rICITININ, INC.
17i!`
9 !0+7
.1y 1090
ID
Saratoga City Council.
13"1 Fruitvale Avemjc.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: CD-U-III-7-il Meeting of 7/2-4/90
Agenda Ttern tlo. 10-6.
Revised Site Plan fox-
1 0 1 - _:_ ky)
Dear' 'C'ity Council mcmbers:
`.^1) s -Ietto�!r setg fo*-rth de-Velo-pinc-mts regarding the topic of
23' i9go tax e'd lett-er to you.
I enclose a. copy 0� my -1 ettc!r to iial.-olld L. Toppel
J
c i e -. c;,,i a- bl' n h i C, p J. n i r-I 11 t C, fit_- re ;':k -f'. cl y Out -
autf' ority to grant the conti-n'uance in Tny J-u.'111-7 G-"-d
facsimile letter, 1
you for your ccn-isidel,ation of these
Respectfully yours,
BRUCE TICH�N'IN
BT: j I
CC., Ilarold L. ToppcI, Esq.
William D. MCHLVI
Coalition for MIIS.Ide 1'r_-^'t iuiCt l-on
Wanda Alexander
Ma
/--I
p
13 iZ ru ci F- T i,c ff I N 1, N. TINZC,
7-7 ', 3 NORTU P ; :-Y :STS }
,sV)r
N _v 950i 'i
t4k)S) 7
July 24, 11990
VIA EAQ31L
Harald S, Toppel., Esc,
Atkinson- Fa ra s-yli
j
At-t-(:)1.7Pf--YS at Law
660 TA',' e- s t Egan- S tr -e e.t,
P. U. Box 279
Mov,i.zitcain
Re: Saratcqci 0"F
Site -PI-an foi, r)R•-n9-05-3
Dear Mr. T(,-)yPpel-
T I i i s I t e Y- c' 0 n., f i"I -c- 1--- i�, r-; c, I-) :t; t. p ri 0 Iff cj�.*i t c-� I c� p-no n �- 8 rkn., n c e of
J U)
I j/ G^fic k. E. a r�
to Auy you advised
'Inn I-lad rl�ce-ived --PTV lvi�wvkl mw V23/c,,,O fait lc-rtt-e-r to the.
S-azat1�q-a City Co"An-v -'A
YOU wit"'I my -At ch L th
!'U' k nce I r(�cluested,-
a legal, to �!-an -L L 8 C 0 I'l T- i a . k
3. liowe-vel--I �n as
I
I'lir - d-8c,et-
L ..10nary
o r to grant t A e conta nce , i i- n
8 w I
-c do >p, -A n d
4. 1. �,cu are arl OP11-i 1-011 ♦Y i-1--e e,.o tcrit�.-, of -.mw
"o th;� ci.v u i i i t en d to 1, a F. cl v i
G F, e ic
Qut in a r a I-a 1)1: 2 =.nd S of lei,-.ter,
Very t-I--LI-IY
BRUCE rT(,,4fN-fN
BT/ j -1.
Enclosure
C o a 1. i t i. o r., f o .- ii i. I I s � d -2- --' r!�-, r--: c n
Wanda Alexander
William. M(-.:Hu--,h, Esq.
lDe-
LA.w 1, r rlota►.q of
13RLrQE TicEIININ.INC.
17775 NORTH ONTtCRMY FtiTR1CKT
MOR(iAN TYJTJT.0ALIFORNIA 95037
TIG[.WPHOiVE (408) 779 -9194
FA08IMI -0 (•08)778 -x702
July 23, 1990
VIA FACSIMILE
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Council Meeting of 7/24/90
Agenda Item No. 10.E.
Revised Site Plan for DR -89 -013 (Velinsky)
Dear City Council Members:
My office represents the Coalition for Hillside Protection and
Wanda Alexander regarding the foregoing matter. I request that you
continue the public hearing on this matter to your.next regularly
scheduled meeting in order to permit adequate time for me to
prepare my client's position for presentation at the hearing.
The basis for this request is that Ms. Alexander is entitled under
the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions to
notice of this .hearing "sufficiently prior to a final decision to
permit a 'meaningful' predeprivation hearing to affected
landowners." (Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 618,
156 Cal.Rptr. 718, 725). (Please note that this hearing
requirement exists in addition to any hearing notice which may have
been sent pursuant to the requirements of the City's Zoning
ordinance.) We have not had sufficient notice and opportunity to
prepare because the staff report on this agenda item, which
contains points to which we must respond, was not made available
until this morning, one day prior to the hearing.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully yours,
BRUCE TIC NIN
BT:jl
cc: Coalition for Hillside Protection
Wanda Alexander
EBECIITIVE SUMMARY NO.
flb
MEETING DATE:? 24 90
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning
AGENDA ITEM: ( V �.
CITY. MGR. APPROVAL '
SUBJECT Revegetation of Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, and the William-
son Act Parcel related to Tract 7770
Recommended Notion: Staff recommends that the City Council review
the reports of the City Horticulturist and determine if the re-
ports' recommendations achieve Council's expectation for reforesta-
tion of the sites.
Report Summary:
The attached memorandum summarizes the two reports prepared by the
City Horticulturist: 1) An evaluation of the tree loss at Tract
7770; and 2) Suggestions for revegetation of Tract 7770. The first
report deals exclusively with an assessment of trees removed from
the Cocciardi portions of the development, Lots 1, 2, 10, 11 and
the Williamson Act Parcel. The second report discusses horticul-
tural considerations and recommendations for the revegetation of
all lots where trees were removed, Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 and
the Williamson Act Parcel.
Fiscal Impacts: None
Attachments:
1. Staff memorandum dated 7/20/90
2. Staff memorandum dated 5/30/90
3. Summary of Qualifications for Barrie Coate
4. Tree report prepared by Mayne Tree Experts
5. Coate Report: Evaluation of tree loss
6. Coate Report: Suggestions for revegetation
7. Tree location map
8. Restoration plans for Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 & 11 and the
Williamson Act Parcel
Motion and Vote:
ugu'ff o2 0&MZ19Q)0&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 7/20/90
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Revegetation of Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 & 11 and the
Williamson Act parcel related to Tract 7770
overview
The Council approved restorative grading for Lots 1, 2,3, 9, 10 &
11. However, Council deferred action on the revegetation of
these lots pending the completion of reports from the City's
Horticulturist, Barrie Coate. This report will summarize the
proposed restoration plans for the above referenced lots, and the
Horticulturist's reports.
Background
The following is a lot by lot summary of revegetation proposed by
the owners of each lot:
Lot 2 Location: Old Oak Way
Owner: Cocciardi adjacent to the subdivision
entrance
Proposed Vegetation: The owners propose to install two 6011, and
two 24" box coast live oaks on two reconstructed knolls. The
area is to be hydroseeded to return native groundcover.
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: Seven (7) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 1411, 1411, 1211, 2711, 18 ", 1811, 13"
Damaged: Six (6) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 28.511, 16.511, 15.4", 24.211, 27.411, 13.9"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $31,306.60
1
4 Lot 1 Location: Old Oak Way
Owner: Cocciardi northwest of Lot 2
Proposed Vegetation: The owners propose two (2) 60" and two (2)
24" box coast live oaks to be installed on two reconstructed
knolls. The area is to be hydroseeded to return natural ground -
cover.
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: five (5) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 2811, 3011, 2411, 2411, 31"
Damaged: four (4) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 20.411, 31.611, 2411, 15"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $41,120
Lot 10 Location: Northwest side of Old Oak Way
Owner: Cocciardi
Proposed Vegetation: The owners propose two (2) 60" and two (2)
24" coast live oaks to be installed on reconstructed knolls. The
area is to be hydroseeded to return the native groundcover.
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: six (6) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 2211, 711, 911, 1411, 2411, 2011
Damaged: seven (7) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 1611, 16.211, 12.911, 1511, 26.511, 13.811, 16.7"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $25,705.10
Lot 11 Location: Old Oak Way
Owner: Cocciardi at the northwest corner of the
subdivision
Proposed Vegetation: Three (3) 30" and three (3) 24" box coast
live oaks. The area is to be hydroseeded to return native
groundcover.
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: thirtee
Trunk Size: 2811,
12 ",
Damaged: two (2)
Trunk Size: 1311,
n (13) coast live oaks
1811, 3011, 1211, 2411, 2011, 20 ", 18 ", 36 ", 28 ", 26"
16"
coast live oaks
20"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $70,523
2
Williamson Act Parcel Location: West of Tract 7770
(fire road & Quarry)
Owner: Cocciardi
Proposed Revegetation: The owners propose construction of a
retention basin at the top of the former Quarry and the recrea-
tion of the woodland planting with a mixture of coast live oaks,
California Bay and Madrone seedlings. The restoration area will
be hydroseeded to return native groundcover and will be fenced to
prevent deer foraging.
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: nine (9) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 2011, 1211, 1811, 2011, 1811, 1811, 1811, 2011, 20"
Damaged: sixteen (16) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 16.511, 14.911, 11.911, 19.411, 12.611, 10.311, 1711,
16.211, 21.711, 18.811, 1311, 21.611, 21.611, 16.711,
12.5", 24"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $24,488
COCCIARDI: TOTAL VALUE OF TREE LOSS: $193,142.70
Installation Factor x 2 = $386,285.40
Lot 3 Location: Chiquita Way
Owner: Williams accessed by private easement
across Lot 9
Proposed Vegetation: The owners are proposing to install twelve
(12) 8" - 9" trunk diameter coast live oaks in an area below the
building pad and on the graded slope behind the building pad.
The graded areas are to be planted with drought tolerant ground -
cover. _
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: Two (2) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 2411, 24"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $24,416
Installation Factor x 2 = $48,832
Lot 9 Location: Adjacent to and upslope from
Owner: Rahn Chiquita Way near the northerly
subdivision boundary
Proposed Revegetation: The owners are proposing to install
twelve (12) 24" box trees below the building pad. Graded areas
would be hydroseeded with native grasses.
3
Trees Removed or Damaged:
Removed: Two (2) coast live oaks
Trunk Size: 2411, 24"
Estimated Value of Tree Loss: $24, 416
Installation Factor x 2 = $48,832
Summary of Horticulturists Evaluation of Tree Loss
The City Code sets out a process to determine the value of trees
illegally removed from properties in the City. Section 15-
50.120(b) states that the value of the trees removed shall be
computed by using the latest edition of the "Guide for Establishing
Values of Trees and Other Plants" as prepared by the Council of
Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Mr. Coate, the City Consulting
Horticulturist, has applied this formula in estimating the value of
the tree loss at Tract 7770. Attached to this report is a summary
of his background and previous experience in estimating tree value.
The methodology described in Mr. Coate's report establishes a basic
value for each tree removed or damaged from the site. As discussed
in his report, it is important to account for the remaining trees
that were damaged and which will never achieve pre - grading condi-
tions. Mr. Coate's estimate includes valuation of the extent to
which existing trees were damaged.
As mentioned in Mr. Coate's report, the developer also employed a
horticulturist to survey the site. While both experts walked the
site together to verify location of removed and damaged trees, Mr.
Coates' analysis was independent from any input from the develop-
er's own expert. The independent review is evidenced by the diver-
gent estimated tree value which was computed by the developer's
consultant.
The City Code establishes the method to assign value to trees
removed. Staff interprets the City Code to mean the value of trees
is only realized when the trees are installed on the site. There-
fore, installation costs, which will equal the tree costs must be
added to the estimated tree value.
Summary of Revegetation Report
Mr. Coate's second report pertains to the quality of the revegeta-
tion program proposed by the owners of lots within Tract 7770.
Essentially, the report suggests that both long and short term
goals for the reforestation of this site.
First, the report discusses the short term objective to provide
replacement for the tree canopy illegally removed during the grad-
ing operation. Mr. Coate indicates that virtually any size tree
can be transplanted to the site to provide an in -kind replacement.
However, the report recommends that the survival rate of trees
directly transplanted from other field locations is lower. The
report suggests that transplanted species that have been container-
ized in a nursery environment for a period and then transplanted to
the site have a much greater rate of survival.
The report provides photographic depiction of various examples of
containerized specimens. The largest containerized tree available
in an 84" box size. A tree in this size container would be 25'
tall with a 20' spread.
Regarding the long term objective to reforest the site, the report
discusses the use of seedlings or leach tubes to re- establish the
coverage over time. The report indicates that leach tube trees
planted now would provide maximum leaf coverage in a 20 to 50 year
time frame.
As a method to achieve both the long and short term objectives, the
report suggests that multiple trees be replaced for each tree
removed. Because the condition of trees removed varies, the report
suggests that 1 - 72" box, 1 - 60" box, 2 - 24" box and 3 - 15 gal.
replacements for those in prime condition and 1 -68" box, 1 - 48"
box and 2 - 15 gal. replacements for those in fair condition. In
addition, the report recommends that a proportionate amount of
leach tube trees be distributed in reforestation areas.
The Council will find that the replacements
10 and 11 and the Williamson parcel, falls
tree sizes and quantities suggested by Mr.
that are not sized as recommended by the
posed.
Findings
proposed for Lots 1, 2,
drastically short of the
Coate. Only four trees
report per lot are pro-
Lots 1,2,10, 11 & the Williamson Act Parcel (Cocciardi)
While the restoration plan proposes a mixture of box size trees and
leach tubes, the sizes and quantities are not consistent with the
recommendations of the Horticulturist's recommendation. In es-
sence, the plan is deficient in larger trees in that no 72" box
size trees are proposed. Further, the number of smaller replace-
ments are not provided in proportion to the trees removed. The
restoration plan does include the leach tube trees within the
quarry area as recommended by Mr. Coate.
Lot 3 (Williams)
This plan proposes 12 of the large 60" box trees which exceeds the
number of large trees recommended in the report. However, the plan
lacks the number of smaller 24" box and 15 -gal. trees or the leach
tubes recommended Essentially, this restoration plan achieves the
short term objectives.'
Lot 9 (Khan)
The owner's proposed plan includes 12 - 24" box trees, which does
not provide the larger 72"- 60" box sizes to achieve the short term
objectives. As proposed, this restoration plan only achieves the
short term objectives.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review the recommendation of
the City Horticulturist and decide if the report achieves the
Council's expectation for reforestation of the development.
te —ph en OE m l'e
Planning Director
SE /dsc
y,,�
sJ�
2� J%
92 ILJ
1:3777 I�IZI'I�I�V',V_1:.��' ►:;�1'I; • S: �► Z,A �► �O(�.�.('.ALII�UIZ:�I,A5);xO7O
(408) 867 '14 38
C()tINCH, NIEMBERS:
MEMO Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
David Moyles
Donald Peterson
TO: The Mayor and City Counc i 1 Francs stutzman
FROM: Larry I. Perlin, City Engineer . July 20, 1990
RE: Sequence of Events for the Restoration of Lots 1, 2, 10
and 11 in Tract 7770
At your previous meeting, Councilmember Monia requested an out-
line of the sequence of events which will result in the restora-
tion of lots 1, 2, 10, and 11 and the completion of the subdivi-
sion improvements in the Old Oak Way portion of Tract 7770.
The sequence of events as I envision them happening is as fol-
lows:
1. The developer, their contractor and their engineers will meet
with the City Inspector and myself to review the sequencing
and scheduling of the construction activities associated with
the grading restoration of the four lots. This meet-
ing will be similar to a pre- construction conference and will
enable City staff to lay down the ground rules for how the
work will be allowed to proceed.
2. The developer will commence grading restoration of the lots
in conformance with the approved restoration plans. At the
same time, the developer will complete elements of the
approved erosion control plan not yet finished.
3. Upon substantial completion of the grading restoration as
determined by the City Engineer, the 'Stop Work Order' on
the remaining subdivision improvements will be lifted and
work on the remaining subdivision improvements will resume.
This involves grading and paving of roads, construction of
curbs and gutters and installation of utilities, including
installation of the 8" water main across the Williamson Act
and Garrod properties.
4. At some point, which as of yet is undetermined, the landscape
restoration work will begin. This will involve the replant-
ing of trees and other plant materials and the installation
of either a permanent or temporary irrigation system.
It should be noted that all of the above work will be subject to
continuous inspection by the City Inspector and that the develop-
er's own engineers and consultants will be on -site at all times
to document and oversee all work. Also, until all remaining
Printed on recyciea paper
legal issues are resolved, no Notices of Code Violations or
Nuisances filed against the lots will be lifted, no lots will be
sold and no Design Review Applications for any of the lots will
be accepted.
Previously, the Council approved a schedule of milestones which
the developer would need to meet to demonstrate sufficient
progress towards abating the nuisances and restoring the lots.
That schedule is as follows:
June 1 - Restoration plans approved by City.
July 1 - Restoration and Erosion Control work begins.
Aug. 1 - Landscape materials and nursery stock ordered.
Oct. 1 - Restoration and Erosion Control work complete.
Nov. 1 - Landscape restoration begins.
Nov. 30 - Landscape restoration complete.
Because an additional month has been spent reviewing the prop-
osed restoration plans, staff believes that it is necessary to
modify the above schedule accordingly. Staff proposes a revised
schedule of milestones as follows:
July 10 - Grading Restoration Plans approved by City.
July 24 - Landscape Restoration Plans approved by City.
Aug. 6 - Grading Restoration and Erosion Control Work
begins.
Sept. 1 - Landscape materials and nursery stock ordered.
Oct. 31 - Grading Restoration and Erosion Control work
complete.
Nov. 1 - Landscape Restoration begins.
Nov. 30 - Landscape Restoration complete.
The revised schedule still envisions completion of all restora-
tion work and elimination of all nuisances declared to exist
within the subdivision by this fall. Completion of the remaining
subdivision improvements and restoration of the Williamson Act
property will follow separate schedules which have yet to be
determined.
Printed on recycled paper.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 5/30/90
FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Restoration P4ans for Lots 3 & 9, Tract 7770
Recommended Motion: Review and approve restorative grading and
landscape replacement for Lots 3 & 9 in Tract 7770 subject to
conditions.
Overview
Staff has received restoration plans for all lots within Tract
7770 currently in violation of the City's grading and tree pres-
ervation: Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 & 11. Staff finds that the restor-
ative actions on two lots (3 - Williams) & (9 - Khan) are con-
sistent with regrading and tree replacement provisions of the
City Code. Lots 1, 2, 10 & 11 (Cocciardi) are currently under
review by the City Horticulturist that will be completed prior to
the 6/20 City Council meeting.
Background
Both lots 3 & 9 require restoration, including grading and addi-
tional landscaping to replace the multiple trees removed without
permits. The specific violation details are as follows:
Lot 3 _ Williams
Grading: An existing level area conceptually identified on
the approved tentative map as a building location was ex-
panded into a westerly facing slope. Minor grading occurred
on the existing pad to even out this area.
Tree Re_: Two oak trees at 24" each were removed. One
tree was on the westerly slope and the other was to the east
of the existing level pad.
1
Lot 9 - Khan
Grading_: A building pad was created between the 682' and
686' elevations. This created building pad is generally
located within the conceptual building located on the ap-
proved tentative maps. In creating this pad a topographic
"finger" extending from the westerly slope was cut and fill
placed below the 685' elevation.
Tree Removal: Two oak trees at 24" each northerly of the
created pad adjacent to existing dense vegetation.
In considering restoration of these lots, staff applied the
following criteria:
1. Pursuant to -City Code 15- 50.120(a), trees removed illegally
shall be replaced with suitably sized replacement trees if feasi-
ble. If similarly sized trees are not feasible because of age or
size, an equivalent number of trees shall be provided and main-
tained.
2. . Pursuant to City Code 15- 50.120(b) where suitable replace-
ment trees will not provide equivalent aesthetic value, the value
of the trees shall be calculated using an accepted computation.
The value of the trees removed plus any installation and mainte-
nance costs constitute the civil penalty to be assessed by the
City.
3. When it is infeasible to locate all the equivalent trees to
compensate the loss of illegaly removed trees, the following
formula calculates the civil penalties to be assessed:
Civil Penalty = (Value of trees removed) + (Cost to
install) - (Actual cost to replant trees which are less
than full replacement equivalent)
The City's past experience with installation costs has been
at least equal to the value of the tree installed.
4. Replacement landscaping shall be located in the immediate
vicinity of trees removed and in areas to screen views of future
residences to achieve the maximum aesthetic benefit.
5. Restorative grading shall restore conditions illegally
removed without resulting in the additional environmental impact
or damage. To achieve this, tentative building sites were con-
sidered in order to reconstruct landforms so as to help blend the
future home with the surroundings and to avoid unnecessary import
and export of earth to and from the site.
6. Restorative grading shall not alter natural drainage. pat-
terns nor result in adverse erosion conditions. Proposals for
restorative grading shall utilize natural drainage patterns to
the extent possible.
Ea
7. Landscaping shall be provided an automatic and reliable
irrigation system for a minimum of five years. The irrigation
system shall be water - conserving drip type.
Staff has received plans for lots 3 and 9 that adhere to the
above criteria. Therefore, staff can recommend that restorative
action can begin. The details for each lot restoration can be
summarized as follows:
Lot 3 _ Williams
Gra_ ding: The westerly slope will be replaced with compacted fill
material to return the slope to blend the artificial slope with
the natural contours. The level pad that existed prior to the
illegal grading activities will be retained as a future building
site.
Replacement Landscapinq: As noted above, two oak trees each meas-
uring 24" in diameter were removed from the site. The restora-
tion plan indicates 12 oaks at 811 diameter which exceeds the
size of trees illegally removed from the site. Four replacement
trees are to be located within the reconstructed westerly slope
where one tree was removed. The remaining 8 trees are to be
located east of the building site to screen future building from
neighboring views. All graded slopes are to be planted with
ground cover.
All replacement landscaping is proposed to be irrigated with
either domestic water planned for this subdivision or a temporary
non - potable supply if domestic service is not available at the
time of planting.
Lot 9 _ Khan
Grading: The topographic "finger" removed from the westerly
slopes to create the building site is.to be reconstructed with
compacted fill material. Additionally, a knoll will be con-
structed on the east side of the created pad to create a natural
transition between the natural slope and the graded pad as well
as to screen the future building from neighboring views.
Replacement Landscaping: Two trees each measuring 24" in diameter
will be removed from the site. Twelve 2411 box size trees are
Proposed that will provide the size equivalent of the trees re-
moved from the site. The trees are proposed for the slope areas
below the created building site to screen future building from
neighboring views.
All landscaping will be on automatic irrigation system from the
domestic water supply. Should domestic water not be available t
ae time of planting, staff will require connection to a tempo -
ry, non - potable source.
Staff finds the proposals for Lots 3 & 9 consistent with the
requirements of the City Code as well as the criteria stated
3
above and recommends their approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Installation of trees shall be pursuant to the recommenda-
tions of the City's Horticulturist. The Planning Director shall
conduct an inspection subsequent to installation to insure satis-
factory installation and to verify the tree sizes equal the sizes
of trees removed.
2. All landscaping irrigation and grading shall be bonded 150%
of its value for a period of two growing seasons.
3. The lot owners shall enter into a maintenance agreement for
five years that shall ensure that reasonable care shall be given
to all replacement landscaping. The agreement shall be in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney and shall be entered into prior
to final inspection of landscaping.
STEPHE9 EMSL , Planning Director
SE \TRCT770:cw
4
Certified Arborist �58�
�ateiiiatioiiai Socie
.of Arboriculture,
Western Chapter
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
�J, soazc
has passed the Arborist examination
given by the
Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.
1990
Certification Committee
moo , �Q�oYiu�
President
BARRIE D. COATE
Horticultural Consultant
Consulting Arborist
40 8-353 -1052
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
A SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
My business involves:
1. Preplanting analysis of plant material lists for land-
scape architects and contractors.
2. Post planting problem analysis.
3. Analysis of large tree problems for attorneys, archi-
tects and city planning department.
I am a registered Consulting Arborist and hold a permanent Teaching
Certificate for California Junior Colleges_
During the last thirty years, eleven years have been spent in
Positions at the Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, the last of
which was Director of Horticulture. The balance.of that time has
been spent managing wholesale growing grounds.
During the last five years, I have served as an instructor in the
U.C. Cooperative Extension Certificate Programs for Landscape Archi-
tects on the subjects of "Plant' Identification,." and for the Certi-
ficate Programs for Gardeners in "Pruning Techniques."
Authorship and Editorship includes:
•A Study of Ways to Reduce Maintenance Costs Associated With
Plant Growth at Naval Installations, co- author James MacNair,
December 1984
• Native Plants in Color, 1980
:California California Native Plants and Their Commercial Sources, 1978,
revised 1979 and 1982;
•A Success List of Water Conserving Plants, 1982, 2nd Edition
1983.
• Water Conserving Plants & Landscapes for the Bay Area,
East Bay Municipal Utility District, 1986.
More comprehensive information is separately enclosed.
/{L AMERICAN SOCIETY pR
LriC7 CONSULTING APOOgIST
I SA NTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY Of ARBORICULTURE
1983 - PRESENT
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT AND CONSULTING ARBO_R_IST
Self employed
1979 - 1984
SARATOGA HORTICULTURAL FOUNDATION
Title:
Director of Horticulture
Responsibilities:
Supervision and implementation of plant selection
and testing program. Public relations.
1972 - 1979
BARRIE'S TREES &
SHRUBS. INC.
Title:
Vice President and Generai Manager
Responsibilities:
Production, Sales Promotion. Create✓+ the
operation from bare around to $250.000 /year.
1969 - 1972
WESTERN TREE NURSERIES INC.
Title:
General Manager
Responsibilities:
Production, Sales Promotion. Created the
operation from bare around for owners.
1962 - 1969
PACIFIC NURSERIES,
INC.
Title:
Manager of Mountain View Growing Grounds
Responsibilities:
Production. Managed the facility from around
breaking.
1960 - 1962
MONTEBELLO NURSERY Los Altos. California
Title:
Part -time Salesman
1957 - 1962
SARATOGA HORTICULTURAL FOUNDATION
Titles:
1960 -1962 - Suoerintendent
1958 -1960 - Propagator
1957 -1958 - Assistant Propaaator and Nursery Wor?<er
1954 - 1957
JAMES SCHWABACHER
ESTATE2 Cupertino. Cal,forni3
Position:
Gardener
EDUCATION
1956 - 1959 San Jose City College /Night School - Pre- l-lor71cuiture
1952 San Jose State Coilege /Pre - Horticulture Major
GEl`�IERAL
Born: Juneau. Alaska /December 17. 1933
1952 -1954: United States Armv - Infantry. Hc)noraole D!scnarce.
Marital Status: Married, two children by orevious marriage
ADVISORY SERVICES OFFERED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Many contemporary landscape sites are of such odor soil conditions that all possible
avenues must be fo l l owed to create a long-term successful !andscarne. These mus t
include careful matching of plant species to the conditions of soil chemisrry and
structure as wee l I as weather patterns and es the t i c expectations.
• Preoare and supervise contract growing schedules, to include insc-ecTion or oian-s
at the nursery or upon delivery
• Telephone consultation on horticultural subjects
Drought-tolerant plant Dallettes Dreoaration
• Plant Dallette DreDaration for soecir"ic saes, with soil structure anc cnem!s'r,1
mind
• Plant Dallettes evaluated for adaptability to micro -site concitiens
Clients served include:
RALPH J. ALECANDER & ASSOCIATES. Mill Valley
BEALS /LECHNER ASSOCIATES, INC.. San Jose
PERRY BURR & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, Santa Cruz
CARDOZA DILALLO HARRINGTON. Dublin, California
DONALD CLEVER INC. DESIGN, San Francisco
CHNMB, San Francisco. California
CIAS: JMI, INC., Berkeley, California
SHEILA DARR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. Berkeley
DESIGN- PLANNING ASSOCIATES, Alameda
INOUYE DILLINGHAM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, Berkeley
DILLON /DRULIAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATES. Los Gatos
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, San Jose
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY. Davis
GERALD G. GREIG LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, San Francisco
HARDESTY ASSOCIATES. Menlo Park
MARTIN KAMPH & ASSOCIATES. Los Altos
M. KIMURA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. Palo Alto
GREGORY LEWIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, Santa Cruz
M.P.A. DESIGN, San Francisco
DOUGLAS J. McADAMS, Sunnyvale
ORB IS DESIGN ASSOCIATES. Santa Rosa
ROBERT E. ORMSBY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, Pleasant Hill
PAUL JAY REED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. Sunnyvale
RUTH AND GOING, INC., San Jose
TOM SMITH ASSOCIATES. Citrus Heights
THACHER & THOMPSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS. Santa Cruz
PETER WALKER-MARTHA ;:,CiUARTZ. San Francisco
LEFFINGWELL & ASSOCIATES, Sausalito
ARBORICULTURAL SERVICES OFFERED
To municipalities:
Second opinion tree analysis orovided for City Arborists and
City Planning Departments.
Analysis of predictable effects of proposed construction and
detailed remedial procedures oreoared.
Cities Served:
City of Saratoga
Town of Los Gatos
City of Sunnyvale
City of Cupertino
City of San Jose
For Tree Surgeons:
Second opinion reports preoared.
Companies Served:
Able Tree Service, San Jose
Blair Tree Experts, Mountain View
Sohner Tree Service, San Anselmo
Christianson Tree Service, Boulder Creek
Davis Tree Service, Santa Cruz
Copeland Tree Service, Los Gatos
Expert Witness Service for Attorneys and Homeowners' Associations:
Roy Krickeberg, San Jose
Office of Richard Barrett. Burlingame
David McClain, Attorney
Office of James Piernat, Burlingame
David Beach. Attorney
Bill Jennings, San Jose
Frederick Michaud, Cupertino
Tree Inventories with Replacement and Replanting Plans:
Projects Include:
Menlo Country Club, Redwood Citv
Madronia Cemetery, Saratoga
Pasatiemoo Country Club. Santa Cruz
Alta Mesa Cemetery, Palo Alto
City of Menlo Park
Town of Ross
Thunderbird Golf Course. San Jose
CONSIA.TATION FOR COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE PROJECTS
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - 1980 ProQosal
Creation of a propagation and production plan for revegetation of the
Warm Springs Reservoir Watershed
Healdsburg, California
Elgar Hill Contractor and Saratoga Horticultural Foundation
This involved: detailed production charts and commentary sheets for twenty -nine
species of indigenous plants, to total one million plants.
TERRABAY LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA - 1983
San Bruno Mountain
Cardoza- Dilalio Landscape Architects
Designed to: Establish landscape development design criteria for pr000sed
Terrabay Project - -332 acre development representing approximately 15 percent of
2,000 acres in the San Bruno Mountains.
FOUNTAIN GROVE RANCH PLANT PALLETTE, GENERAL CONSULTING - 1981
North Santa Rosa Area, County of Sonoma
Orbis Design Landscape Architects
Designed as: Small city of 2,000 acres to include a variety of residential uses
supplemented by related commercial, industrial, office and recreational,
facilities.
RECONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR THE GREAT HIGHWAY AND OCEAN BEACH - 1981
Sloat Boulevard north to Lincoln Way, San Francisco
M.P.A. Design Landscape Architects
Approximately 3.5 miles of improvements and redesign.
FROST AMPHITHEATRE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN - 1983
Stanford University, Stanford, California
C NMB Landscape Architecture
Designed to: identify problems related to slooe erosion and the quality of
vegetation character. Record steps for erosion control, hazard reduction and
landscape improvements.
PACIFIC BELL - 1985
Bishop Ranch Business Park
M.P.A. Design Landsscaoe Architects
1.75 million square foot San Ramon Valley Administration Canter - 100 acre site
Designed for: Landscape and water features to blend the complex with its
surrounding environment.
MA63TER PLAN FOR ALAMEDA SHORELINE PARK - 1980
North shore of Aiameda's Bay Farm Island. Alameda and San Francisco
CHNMB Associates
Designed to: Preserve open bay edge and develop character and design elemen-ts
within the park of approximately six acres.
CONSULTATION FOR COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE PROJECTS - Continued
MANDALAY BEACH BOULEVARD - 1984
Mandalay, California
Gary Bye, ASLA - POD, Inc., Santa Ana
Designed to: Provide a dramatic, easily maintained landscape design.
CAPITOL TOWER OFFICE BUILDING - 1983
San Jose
Richard Arland, ASLA - POD, Inc., Santa Ana
Designed to: Provide a plant mix which would survive and be attractive in
this previous truck-stop site.
RIVERPARK TOWERS - 1986
San Jose
Lincoln Properties, Inc.
Riparian Mitigation Plan for 1.8 acres of Guadaluae Creek
MAINTENANCE PROBLEM SOLVING FOR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS /ARCHITECTS
Post installation review of plant performance for landscape architects. contractors
and homeowners' associations.
1. Evaluate and report landscaoe condition prior to associations acceot!nq lariCscace
responsibility.
2. Objectively evaluate and offer solutions for plant oerformance oroblems in cis-
putes between the practitioners involved.
3. Prepare landscape maintenance schedules.
4. Monthly or quarterly visits to supervise maintenance procedures.
Homeowner associations served:
BAY ISLE POINTE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Alameda
BROWN & KAUFFMANN PROPERTIES, Los Gatos
COMMUNITY OF HARBOR BAY ISLE, Alameda
HARBOR POINTE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Alameda
LOS GATOS WOODS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Los Gatos
NEWARK VILLAGE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Newark
OPERA PLAZA OWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS, San Francisco
PROMEX COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION -THE GROVE, San Francisco
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS SERVED
AURORA LANDSCAPING, Nevada City, California
B & B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC., Mountain View
CAGWIN & DORWARD LANDSCAPE & ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS. San Rafae!
CALIFORNIA HORTICULTURE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. Los Gatos
CALIFORNIA PLANTSCAPES, Saratoga
DESIGN FOCUS LANDSCAPES. Saratoga
ENVIRONMENTAL CARE INC., San Jose
GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION INC.. Alameda
GREEN LEAF LANDSCAPE COMPANY, Cupertino
KEYCO LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, Burlingame
MAYNE-TAIN INC., San Lorenzo
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE SERVICE. Sunnyvale
P T & A LANDSCAPING, Cupertino
WESTBROOK KILOS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS. Corte Mac-era
CONSULTATION FOR THE LEGAL AND REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL
• Loss Appraisal
• Health and Structural Analysis
• Large Site Tree Plotting and Analysis
• Expert Witness Service
■ To date, 90 percent of cases in 47i6h l've served have been settled
out of court.
Attorneys Served
OFFICE OF RICHARD BARRETT, Burlingame
David McClain, Attorney
OFFICE OF JAMES PIERNAT, Burlingame
David Beach, Attorney
BILL JENNINGS, San Jose
JEFFREY HOWARD, Tiburon
Realtors and Developers Served
BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS
BROWN & KAUFFMANN
CENTURY 21, San Jose
COFFEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
DORIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Alameda
FANELLI CONSULTING
HATHAWAY CONSTRUCTION
HOLIDAY INN, Santa Cruz
KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
KENNEDY/JEWS ENGINEERS
KIECKHEFER, WALTER COMPANY, Novato
OAKLAND AIRPORT HILTON
PENDAR CORPORATION
PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
PONDEROSA HOMES
PULTE HOME CORPORATION
QUARTERPENNY CORPORATION
REGENCY MONARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
SEAPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
SHAPELL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
TOWN & COUNTRY VILLAGE, Sunnyvale
WHICO CONSTRUCTORS, Gilroy
TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS
CCLA, ANNUAL CONFERENCE - Yosemite, California
Plant Selection from the Viewpoint of Site Adaptability Rather Than Esthetic
Preference
March 1989
TREE CITY USA AWARD BANQUET - Sunnyvale, California
"Trees, the Future of our Planet and How YOU Are Involved"
March 1989
NATIONAL DIRECT MARKETING AND FARM CONFERENCE - Oakland, California
Nursery Production for the Small-Scale Farmer
February 1989
SYMPOSIUM: "A NEW LOOK AT TREES"
California Academy of Sciences and Friends of the U.C. Botanic Garden
Water-Conserving Trees for the Dry Landscape
February 1989
CONSTRUCTION AMONG THE OAKS - Santa Rosa, California
U.C. Cooperative Extension Service
"Appropriate Plant Selection"
January 1989
WESTERN HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY - Los Altos, California
The Cal Trans Landscape and Its Problems
October 1988
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION --Monterey, California
Tri -Board Meeting
Water Conserving Plant Selection for Mid - California
July 1988
U.C. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE - Alameda County, California
The Pepper Tree Psyllid Outbreak and Its Affect on Tree Selection
May 1987
XERISCAPE '86 - Oakland, California
"Seldom Used Water Conserving Plants for Mid-California"
XERISCAPE '85 - Costa Mesa, California
"Four Keys to Success in Industrial Landscapes"
30TH ANNUAL BRITISH COLUMBIA LANDSCAPE- NURSERYMEN'S CONVENTION
Keynote speaker - 1983
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN
Moderator, Plant Forum - Nurserymen's Refresher Course
1979, 1980, 1981, 1983
SOCIETY FOR GROWING AUSTRALIAN PLANTS - Sydney, Australia
1979
TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS - Continued
37TH ANNUAL CONVENTION CALIFORNIA PARKS AND RECREATION
"Oldies But Goodies -- Forgotten Plants"
CENTRAL COAST LANDSCAPE FORUM
New Plant Introductions
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE - Anaheim, California
Golden Anniversary ISA Conference
SECOND CALIFORNIA SYMPOSIUM ON URBAN FORESTRY - Cal Poly, Pomona. California
Economic Criteria for Species Selection
PRESEAITATIONS DURING 1987
SOILS MANAGEMENT SEMINAR
Holiday Inn, Santa Cruz, California
"Water Efficient Landscape Design"
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
ALDER BORER SEMINAR
Walnut Creek, California
"Proper Plant Selections: What To Do If White Alder Does Not 'Fit the
Site"'
DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
University of California, Berkeley, California
"Off the Board and Into the Ground: Horticulture and Design"
CAPCA - BAY AREA CHAPTER
Sunol, California
"Insect and Disease Problems Associated with Mature Trees
in the New Landscape"
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT
Concord, California
"Xeriscaoe Plant Combinations"
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
Hayward, California
California Pepper Tree Pest Seminar
ISA - WESTERN CHAPTER
Felton, California (Roaring Camp)
"A Plant Walk in a Redwood Community"
SOUTH AFRICAN NURSERYMEN'S CONVENTION 40TH ANNIVERSARY
Sun City Center, South Africa
"Xeriscape Plant Combinations"
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN - CENTRAL CHAPTER
"How to Handle Water- Conserving Plants in the Retail Nursery"
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
Riverside, California
Landscape Troubleshooting Seminar
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ WATER DEPARTMENT
Santa Cruz, California
"Water Efficient Xeriscape Design"
[Continued]
PRESENTATIONS DURING 1987 - Continued
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
Alameda, California
Pitch Canker Seminar
"Selection of Pine Species for the Dry California Landscape"
CALIFORNIA PARKS AND RECREATION SOCIETY
Lodi, California
"Plants for Northern California"
ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPING SYMPOSIUM
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens
"How to Change a Water-Hungry Garden into a Water- 7nriTty Garoen"
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE
The City of Oakland - Parks Deoartment. Lake `^erirt. OaK,ana. Cali-;orn!a
"Factors in Determining Value - The Species Factor"
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE ON WATER- CONcERV!NG LANDSCAPFC,
The City of San Jose and Santa Clara Vallev Water D!strict
"Water- Conserving Plant Selection for Mid - California"
CALIFORNIA URBAN FORESTRY CONFERENCE
SPONSORED BY CALIFORNIA URBAN FORESTRY COUNCIL
Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut. California
"Cost-Effective Tree Selection"
HORTICULTURAL INSTRUCTION
Instruction in:
FOOTHILL COLLEGE DISTRICT ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE-OH90
- Introduction to Horticulture (1980-1981, 1983)
- Green House Management (1980 -1981)
- Woody Plant Pruning Techniques (1980 -1981)
- Plant Propagation (1983)
- Soil and Fertilizers (1983)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION SERVICE
Certificate Program for Landscape Architects
- Introduction to Plant Materials (1983 and 19841
- Plant Materials Applications (1983 and 1984)
Certificate Program for Commercial Gardeners
- Plant Identification for the Gardener (1985)
- Pruning Techniques for the Gardener (1985- 1986 -1987- 1988 -1989)
Plant Materials Application (1990)
WEST VALLEY COLLEGE
- Horticulture for Florists (1983 -1984 -1985)
Guest Instructor:
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY - 1980, 1981
FOOTHILL COLLEGE, Los Altos, California - 1980 -1984
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, San Luis Obispo, California - 1980 -1984
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -DAVIS - 1979-1980
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- BERKELEY - 1980 -1984
MISCELLANEOIIS
Authorships
Horticultural Editor of California Native Plants in Color
1980
Co- Editor of California Native Plants and Their Commercial Sources
1978
1979 - Revised
1982 - Revised
Author: The Success List of Water Conserving Plants
1982
1983 - 2nd Edition
Author: "Monterey Pine: A Horticultural Viewpoint"
1983
Author: ISA Western Chapter News, Volume 10, No. 4
1984
Co- Author: A Study of Ways to Reduce Maintenance Costs Associated with
1984 Plant Growth at Naval Installations
Contributor: Resistance of Acacia to the Acacia Psyllid
1983 Psylla uncatoides; C. S. Koehler, W. S. Moore, B. Coate.
Journal of Environmental Horticulture
Author: Water Conserving Plants & Landscapes for the Bay Area
1986 Published by the East Bay Municipal Utility District
1990 Second Edition
Contributions Acknowledged
Revegetation Manual for the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water-Conservation District Revegetation Program
Revegetation Manual for the County of Alameda Public Works Agency
June 1983
Who's Who in the Frontiers of Science
1984 -1985 Edition
Xeriscape Recognition Award - Plant Material
1985
Arboricultura] Research Award
by Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture
June 1989
Horticultural Authors Citation
by International Society of Arboriculture
August ?989
MISCELLANEOUS - Continued
Consultant'to
Sunset Magazine New Western Garden Book
1979 Edition
1988 Edition
HP Books Hedges, Screens and Espaliers, by Susan Chamberlin
1983
MEMBERSHIP
Professional Organizations
American Society of Consulting Arborists
Since 1983
American Society of Landscape Architects
Affiliate Member
California Arborists Association
Affiliate Member
California Association of Nurserymen --1962-1980
1964 - Chapter President
1968 - Named Young Nurseryman of the Year
International Society of Arboriculture - 1979 - Current
1981 - Chairman Arboretum Committee
International Plant Propagators Society
Since 1964
Public Service Organizations
American Society of Landscape Architects - Southern California Chapter
Drought Resistant Plant Research Program Committee
California State Office of Water Conservation
- Water Conservation Advisory Committee
1983 -1984
Center for Urban Horticulture at Dunsmuir - Advisory Coimcil
1985
Midori Bonsai Club - San Jose
Founding Member
Montalvo Association - Board of Counselors
1984-1985
Prusch Memorial Park Foundation
- City of San Jose Landscape Committee
�ttv � Cauaw�+'�mrs
i
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793
LICENSED FORESTERS • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
KENNETH D. MEYER 23 SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 522
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON SAN MATEO, CA 94401
VICE PRESIDENT June 8, 1990 TELEPHONE: (415) 344 -3860
Mr. Richard Murray
Richard Murray Associates
1000 Eighth at Camino Aguajito
Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940
Dear Mr. Murray:
I have inspected
the trees
on
the Cocciardi
property in Saratoga
with Barrie
Coate, the arborist
employed
by
the City of
Saratoga. The purpose
of this
inspection was to
ascertain
the
value of the
trees removed by the
Cocciardis.
The area involved five sites of approximately fifty acres. The trees removed
were from various sites representing different ecosystems, including
differences in soils, weather exposure and vegetation. The condition of the
trees inspected, likewise differed within the various ecosystems.
We established a condition rating by studying the trees surrounding those
that had been removed. We also used an aerial photograph to study the tree
canopies on the site. An average condition was then established for each site.
The size of the trees (diameter 4.5 feet high) was also established by the use
of the aerial photographs and the sample trees adjacent to the removed trees.
The number of trees was based on our inspection of the aerial photographs.
The trees removed were located on a water road on the Williamson Act parcel
and on building pads on lots one, two, ten and eleven. The appraisal of the
removed trees was made with the use of the guide "Valuation of Tree, Shrubs
and Other Landscape Plants ", published by the International Society of
Arboriculture, of which I am a member. The guide takes into account the
Species (rated 100 percent for trees in Saratoga), size, condition and location.
Location includes the site, as well as the benefits of the tree to a residential
structure. The Williamson parcel, as unmanaged wildlands, as defined in
California law by the State Department of Forestry, would rate a 30 percent.
The four building sites are rated 50 percent, although the trees cannot be rated
in regards to how they affect a structure. The 50 percent rating is based on a
rural residential area, and street and road areas for country (naturally
occurring) areas.
Murray 6 -8 -90, P. 2
In my opinion, the figure of $77,682 is a fair and accurate appraisal of the .
removed trees. This appraisal was made according to recognized and approved
arboricultural methods.
KDM:dcr
CC: Mr. Tony Cocciardi
ENC: Appraisal notes.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth D. Meyer
i" y
�,*\ �.,'•�
�/��'1
mod✓' �•r
Notes Regarding the Appraisal
1. Tree numbers are located on the aerial photographs and in the field.
2. DBH is a diameter measurement taken 4.5 feet high. Multi -stems use the
largest diameter plus one -half the sum of the remainder.
3. Condition ratings vary per sites.
4. City Value is given per the letter of May 8, 1990 to Mr. Richard Murray.
An effort was made to place a value to the diameter nearest that
estimated by the City. On some sites more trees were located and on some
less.
5. The appraised value is the conclusion of this study and report.
Tree No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12A
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DBH
Existing
(yes, No)
28.5
Yes
14
No
14
No
12
No
27
No
18
No
18
No
13
No
16.5
Yes
27.4
Yes
13.9
Yes
22
9.5,
16.0
(20.8)
16.2
12.9
7
9
15.0
14
24
17.7,
23.9
26.5
(47.3)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stump
Stump
Yes
No
No
Yes
LOT 1
Condition
(Percent)
50
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
75
75
50
Av. 62.5
LOT 10
50.7
35
50
50
50.7
50.7
55
50.7
50.7
25
City Value
(Dollars)
15,525
15,525
6,889
17,496
17,496
15,525
88,456
8,329
8,329
8,329
8,329
P.1
Appraised Value
(Dollars)
1,299
1,299
954
4,831
2,147
2,147
1,120
13,797
2,602
263
435
1,054
3,096
P.2
Tree No.
DBH
Existing
Condition
City Value
Appraised Value
(yes, No)
(Percent)
(Dollars)
(Dollars)
21
20.0
Yes
- --
- --
- --
22
13.8
Yes
65
- --
- --
23
12.4,
Yes
75
- --
- --
16.7
(22.9)
--- - - - - --
Av. 50.7
- - - - - --
66,632
- - - - --
7,450
LOT 2
24
16.6,
Yes
70
- --
- --
20.4
(28.7)
25
11.5,
Yes
70
- --
- --
11.9,
13.8,
31.6,
(50.2)
26
28
No
65.
6,889
5,403
27
30
No
50
22,329
4,771
28
24
No
50
6,889
3,054
29
29
No
70
3,367
4,275
30
12.8,
Yes
80
- --
- --
13.5,
14.0,
1. 8,
(42.0)
31
13.8,
Yes
25
- --
- --
15.0
(21.9)
32
31
No
90
- -
22,329
9,170
- - - --
Av. 63.3
----- - - - - --
66,632
- - - - - --
26,673
LOT 11
33
28
No
28.8
13,518
2,394
34
18
No
28.8
13,518
989
P.3
Tree No.
DBH
Existing
Condition
City Value
Appraised Value
(yes, No)
(Percent)
(Dollars)
(Dollars)
35
30
No
28.8
13,518
2,748
36
12
No
28.8
440
37
24
No
28.8
13,518
1,759
38
20
Stump
30
13,518
1,221
39
12.3,
Yes
40
- --
13.0
(19.1)
40
13.0,
Yes
20
- --
- --
20.0
(26.5)
41
20
No
28.8
13,518
1,221
42
18
No
28.8
13,518
989
43
36
No
28.8
13,518
3,958
44
28
No
25
13,518
2,078
45
26
No
28.8
13,518
2,064
46
12
No
28.8
- --
440
47
16
No
28.8
13,518
781
-- - - - - --
Av. 28.8
------ - - - - --
148,698
--- - - - - --
21,082
WILLIAMSON ACT
48
16.5
Yes
80
- --
49
14.3
Yes
60
- --
50
11.9
Yes
45
- --
51
19.4
Yes
50
- --
52
20
No
55
13,518
1,400
53
11.5,
Yes
30
- --
- --
12.6
(18.4)
54
6.7,
Yes
- --
- --
- --
9.5,
10.3
(18.4)
P.4
Tree No.
DBH
Existins
Condition
City Value
Appraised Value
(yes, No)
(Percent)
(Dollars)
(Dollars)
55
12.1,
Yes
- --
- --
- --
12.7,
13.2,
13.2,
17.0
(42.6)
56
11.5,
Yes
50
- --
- --
12.3
16.2
(28.1)
57
12
No
---
13,518
504
58
18
No
- --
13,518
1,334
59
21.7
Yes
65
- --
- --
60
20
No
- --
13,518
1,440
61
18
No
- --
13,518
1,334
62
18
No
- --
13,518
1,334
63
18
No
- --
13,518
1,334
64
13.4,
Yes
60
- --
- --
18.0,
18.8
((34.5)
65
13.1
Yes
35
- --
- --
66
8.8,
Yes
85
- --
- --
21.6
(26.0)
67
24
Yes
75
- --
- --
---------
Av. 55
--- - - - - --
$148,698
-- - - - - --
$8,860
GRAND
TOTALS
$519,116
$77,682
.^ A ors
D
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793
LICENSED FORESTERS • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
KENNETH D. MEYER
PRESIDENT 23 SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
P.O. BOX 522
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON SAN MATEO, CA 94401
VICE PRESIDENT June 8, 1990 TELEPHONE: (415) 344 -3860
Mr. Richard Murray
Richard Murray Associates
1000 Eighth at Camino Aguajito
Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940
Dear Mr. Murray:
I have inspected the trees on the Cocciardi property in Saratoga with Barrie
Coate, the arborist employed by the City of Saratoga. The purpose of this
inspection was to ascertain the value of the trees removed by the Cocciardis.
The area involved five sites of approximately fifty acres. The trees removed
were from various sites representing different ecosystems, including
differences in soils, weather exposure and vegetation. The condition of the
trees inspected, likewise differed within the various ecosystems.
We established a condition rating by studying the trees surrounding those
that had been removed. We also used an aerial photograph to study the tree
canopies on the site. An average condition was then established for each site.
The size of the trees (diameter 4.5 feet high) was also established by the use
of the aerial photographs and the sample trees adjacent to the removed trees.
The number of trees was based on our inspection of the aerial photographs.
The trees removed were located on a water road on the Williamson Act parcel
and on building pads on lots one, two, ten and eleven. The appraisal of the
removed trees was made with the use of the guide "Valuation of Tree, Shrubs
and Other Landscape Plants ", published by the International Society of
Arboriculture, of which I am a member. The guide takes into account the
Species (rated 100 percent for trees in Saratoga), size, condition and location.
Location includes the site, as well as the benefits of the tree to a residential
structure. The Williamson parcel, as unmanaged wildlands, as defined in
California law by the State Department of Forestry, would rate a 30 percent.
The four building sites are rated 50 percent, although the trees cannot be rated
in regards to how they affect a structure. The 50 percent rating is based on a
rural residential area, and street and road areas for country (naturally
occurring) areas.
Murray 6 -8 -90, P. 2
In my opinion, the figure of $77,682 is a fair and accurate appraisal of the
removed trees. This appraisal was made according to recognized and approved
arboricultural methods.
Very truly yours,
/x
Meyer
Kenneth D. �
KDM:dcr
CC: Mr. Tony Cocciardi
ENC: Appraisal notes.
Notes Re arding the Appraisal
1.
Tree numbers are located on the aerial photographs
and in the
field.
2.
DBH is a diameter measurement taken 4.5 feet high.
Multi -stems
use the
largest diameter plus one -half the sum of the remainder.
3.
Condition ratings vary per sites.
4.
City Value is given per the letter of May 8, 1990 to
Mr. Richard
Murray.
An effort was made to place a value to the diameter
nearest that
estimated by the City. On some sites more trees were located and
on some
less.
5.
The appraised value is the conclusion of this study
and report.
Tree No.
DBH
Existing
12
9.5,
(yes, No)
1
28.5
Yes
2
14
No
3
14
No
4
12
No
5
27
No
6
18
No
7
18
No
8
13
No
9
16.5
Yes
10
27.4
Yes
11
13.9
Yes
12A
22
No
12
9.5,
Yes
16.0
(20.8)
13
16.2
Yes
14
12.9
Yes
15
7
Stump
16
9
Stump
17
15.0
Yes
18
14
No
19
24
No
20
17.7,
Yes
23.9
26.5
(47.3)
LOT I
Condition
(Percent)
50
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
75
75
50
Av. 62.5
LOT 10
50.7
35
50
50
50.7
50.7
55
50.7
50.7
25
City Value
(Dollars)
15,525
15,525
6,889
17,496
17,496
15,525
88,456
8,329
8,329
8,329
8,329
P.1
Appraised Value
(Dollars)
1,299
1,299
954
4,831
2,147
2,147
1,120
13,797
2,602
263
435
1,054
3,096
P.2
Tree No.
DBH
Existing
Condition
City Value
Appraised Value
(yes, No)
(Percent)
(Dollars)
(Dollars)
21
20.0
Yes
- --
22
13.8
Yes
65
- --
-__
23
12.4,
Yes
75
- --
___
16.7
(22.9)
Av. 50.7
66,632
7,450
LOT 2
24
16.6,
Yes
70
- --
-__
20.4
(28.7)
25
11.5,
Yes
70
- --
11.9,
13.8,
31.6,
(50.2)
26
28
No
65.
6,889
5,403
27
30
No
50
22,329
4,771
28
24
No
50
6,889
3,054
29
29
No
70
3,367
4,275
30
12.8,
Yes
80
- --
___
13.5,
14.0,
21.8,
(42.0)
31
13.8,
Yes
25
- --
-__
15.0
(21.9)
32
31
No
90
- - - - - --
22,329
9,170
Av. 63.3
----- - - - - --
66,632
- - - - - --
26,673
LOT 11
33
28
No
28.8
13,518
2,394
34
18
No
28.8
13,518
989
P.3
Tree No.
DBH
Existing
Condition
City Value
.Appraised Value
(yes, No)
(Percent)
(Dollars)
(Dollars)
35
30
No
28.8
13,518
2,748
36
12
No
28.8
440
37
24
No
28.8
13,518
1,759
38
20
S tump
30
13,518
1,221
39
12.3,
Yes
40
---
13.0
(19.1)
40
13.0,
Yes
20
- --
___
20.0
(26.5)
41
20
No
28.8
13,518
1,221
42
18
No
28.8
13,518
989
43
36
No
28.8
13,518
3,958
44
28
No
25
13,518
2,078
45
26
No
28.8
13,518
2,064
46
12
No
28.8
- --
440
47
16
No
28.8
13,518
781
-- - - - - --
Av. 28.8
------ - - - - --
148,698
--- - - - - --
21,082
WILLIAMSON ACT
48
16.5
Yes
80
- --
49
14.3
Yes
60
- --
50
11.9
Yes
45
- --
51
19.4
Yes
50
- --
52
20
No
55
13,518
1,400
53
11.5,
Yes
30
- --
___
12.6
(18.4)
54
6.7,
Yes
- --
- --
9.5,
10.3
(18.4)
Tree No.
DBH
Existing
(yes, No)
55
12.1,
Yes
12.7,
13.2,
13.2,
17.0
(42.6)
56
11.5,
Yes
12.3
16.2
(28.1)
57
12
No
58
18
No
59
21.7
Yes
60
20
No
61
18
No
62
18
No
63
18
No
64
13.4,
Yes
18.0,
18.8
((34.5)
65
13.1
Yes
66
8.8,
Yes
21.6
(26.0)
Condition
(Percent)
50
65
60
35
85
67 24 Yes 75
Av. 55
GRAND TOTALS
City Value
(Dollars)
13,518
13,518
13,518
13,518
13,518
13,518
$148,698
$519,116
P.4
Appraised Value
(Dollars)
504
1,334
1,440
1,334
1,334
1,334
$8,860
$77,682
f a� �1✓" 4
SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA w1
14380 SARATOGA AVE. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Telephone: (408)867 -9001 Fax: (408)867 -2780
July 19, 1990
F.L. Stutzman, Mayor
City of Saratoga
15195 Park Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Stutzman,
The Commissioners of the Saratoga Fire District would like to
stress the importance of fire and life safety as it relates to the
Mt. Eden Estates /Chadwick Place (Cocciardi /Chadwick Developement)
1979 Environmental Impact Report. Drawing your attention to an
"emergency access road ", I would like to include excerpts from the
1979 E.I.R, pages 31, 32, and 33 entitled:
"FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
Setting
Fire protection service to the project sites is provided by the Saratoga Fire
Department. The Department has one station, located in downtown Saratoga at the
intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, about 3.5 miles from
the sites. Response time to the sites is estimated to be about six to eight
minutes. The station is equipped with five engines, one rescue truck, and two
sedans. It employs nine firefighters and has an on -call volunteer force of 32
people. Additional backup service is provided by the Central Fire District,
located approximately two miles from the sites. The project sites are located
within a hazardous fire area as defined by City ordinance and the State Public
Resources Code. According to a recent estimate by the Saratoga Fire Department's
Fire Chief, development of 50 percent of the western hills area of Saratoga would
require an additional fire station to be located somewhere near the intersection
of Mt. Eden and Pierce Roads. /2/
Mt. Eden Estates
Impact
The driveways shown for Lots 1, 2, 4, 6 and 11 are longer than 100 feet; the map
does not show a turnaround on them. Further, the driveway for Lots 1 and 2 would
be extremely steep and would exceed the 50 -foot maximum length required by
ordinance for driveways with an 18 percent grade. this means that provision of
fire protection to the houses on these lots would be difficult. The house on Lot
11 would be situated above a brush - covered hillside. The brush has poison oak
in it which means that toxic fumes will be present in the smoke when the brush
burns. This will make fire fighting hazardous especially if the fire fighters
1
are on the top of the ridge; there would be very little fire access to the lower
slopes of this brushy area.
Mitigation
- See Traffic mitigation regarding driveway turnarounds.
- Delete plans for a house on Lot 11. (The alternative "mitigation" of brush
removed would have secondary adverse effects of increased erosion and possible
reactivation of an ancient landslide.)
CHADWICK PLACE
Impact
The driveways shown for Lots 4, 7, 8, 15, and 16 are longer than 100 feet; the
map does not show a turnaround on them. Further, the driveways for Lots 4, 7,
15, and 16 would be extremely steep and would exceed the 50 -foot maximum length
required by ordinance for driveways with an 18 percent grade. This means that
provision of fire protection to the houses on these lots would be difficult. The
houses on Lots 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 would be located above brush - covered
hillsides which means they could become involved when fire occurs in the brushy
slopes below. The situation on Lot 4 is of special concern as a fire in the brush
could cut off access to the building site. Finally the excessive lengths of cul-
de -sac streets and the lack of secondary access means that a single accident
could block all emergency access to the site.
Mitigation
Suggested by this report:
- See the Ecology mitigation section regarding the establishment of a fire fuel
management program.
- See Traffic mitigation regarding through- street construction and driveway
turnarounds.
- Require that the proposed houses on Lots 3, 4, 5, 71 8, and 16 be constructed
with nonflammable exterior building materials.
- Require that brush clearance around the buildings in excess of 30 feet be
accomplished if deemed desirable by the Fire Chief.
- Require brush clearance along the driveway to Lot 4 to the satisfaction of
the Fire Chief.
- Require that landscaping plans for the houses on Lots 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16
use low -fuel vegetation and that the landscaping plans be approved by the Fire
Chief.
2
CUMULATIVE
IMPACT: The projects, in combination with other proposed subdivisions in the
western part of the City, would contribute to the need for another fire station
in the vicinity.
Mitigation Suggested by this Report:
- Require the applicants to contribute financially to the cost of establishing
a new fire station in the vicinity."
A dead end road in a hill area during a conflagration can trap
citizens, fire crews, and emergency equipment. Investigative
results would prove the intent of the Environmental Impact Report.
Respectfully,
Milo R. Klear, Chairman
Board of Fire Commissioners
Saratoga Fire District
cc: William Kohler, Vice Mayor
Karen Anderson, Councilmember
Martha Clevenger, Councilmember
Victor Monia, Councilmember
Harry Peacock, City Manager
file
3
K
.V
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
/C) C-
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793
LICENSED FORESTERS • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
0
KENNETH D. MEYER 23 SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE
PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 522
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON SAN MATEO, CA 94401
VICE PRESIDENT July 23, 1990 TELEPHONE: (415) 3443860
Mr. Richard Murray
Richard Murray Associates
1000 Eighth at Camino Aguajito
Suite 2000
Monterey, CA 93940
Dear Mr. Murray:
There is a substantial difference between the appraisal of tree losses on the
Cocciardi property given in the Coate report of June 8, 1990 and my report to
you, also dated June 8, 1990. In reviewing both reports, I believe the following
distinctions can be made.
1) Coate appraises all tree locations on the non Williamson Act parcels as
70% to 100 %. An unmanaged natural wood area is rated 10 - 30 %. If we
consider this to be rural residential, the rating is 50% - 90 %. I am enclosing
a table used for determining location values from the publication
Valuation of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Other Plants, the same guide that
Coate uses. Please note that that 95 or 100% is not given to any residential or
street area. Furthermore, as the companion guide Manual for Plant
Appraisers (copy of significant pages attached) states, the location value
includes the a) aesthetic, b) functional and c) site factors in equal amounts.
How can one evaluate the functional and site values when no residences are
yet constructed? And, if one or two trees were to purportedly satisfy the
functional and site values, how could they all? A tree on the south side of a
house and offering shade would certainly be rated higher than a tree on the
north side.
As for a rating of 40% for the Williamson Act parcel, I am confused. The guide
states the highest allowable value is 30 %, the figure I used.
2. No allowance is made for the tree removal that is necessary for roads
or for the homes. Some trees would also have to come down because their
condition is bad and they are a liability. For example, tree number 11 is 40 %,
12 is 35 %, 39 is 35 %, 40 is 20 %, 53 is 30% and 55 is 25 %. I would not want some
of these trees on my property. Yet, nowhere in the Coate report do I find
condition ratings for nonexisting trees lower than 54% and most are 70%
or higher.
r
�t
Murray 7 -23 -90 P. 2
3. The Coate report takes into account partial tree losses to the sum of $9,685.00.
I was not asked to do this and question whether it is appropriate. This is
private property and if someone wants to remove a limb from their own
tree, should they be charged for the possible devaluation of that tree?
Maybe so on public land or in trespass situations, but in relation to one's
own private land I would differ.
4. Finally, having made many tree appraisals and having been accepted as
an expert witness in court appearances, in defense of my appraisals, it is
my opinion that the grand total of $77,682, as appraised by me, truly reflects
the value of the trees removed.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth D. Meyer
KDM:dcr
CC: Excerpt from Valuation of Trees, etc.
Excerpt from Manual for Plant Appraisers
r
.,Y 4' t •.fY ..Y'. - r?t.�. ••':,. ice. ', .+��_ __ �> .i...�:d1"..1�h_:..:..:Y'�
NA
Valuation of T ancascape Trees,
Shrubs, and OthE 'lants
A Gi ide to the Methods and Proced ores
for Appraising Amenity Plants '
T 1
0 C"I C
Ar007'ZCUI11tUI
An Of`:c a' icat on eF the
interrw::r. «:_ Socie v ci ..- boriculture
Seventh Edition
r
1
�L
= w.�iw3Gi��'•'• � „ .: c_ ' �9e�. fi6if; lFii ~•ti,'- `&NP��'dw►pE�', ".`Y °'` �ptr�i:.r- ._.�_, � �. :.w _... ...._ - .�.wl��
Table S. Determining location values.
Plant:
Suggested rating Your Percentaf
Locatioll (10 — 100 percent) rating Aesthetic, functional, and site factors or check -c
Arlxlretum
60— 100
Ccmcicry
60 —
90
Commercial
60 —
90
Curlxlruc or SClI(xll campus
Grp —
90
1Ilduslrial
GO—
90
Malls
(i0—
90
Rct Ic:It ional :u cats:
Goll ( oil] scs
60 —
100
(::nn;)t;roulid ur rt•cicationa! pal k
50—
70
Pau kS :out wildlife preserves
•10 —
Picnic
r
1; Resort
50—
90
— Zoo
Go—
90
Rcsi(9cntial.u'ca1:
l : :ncl- C;ndu'batt
30—
90
subin-5an
60 —
90
Rtual
50—
90
' tilrt'('I /roar! :a'(• :a:
(:San(!I'esi(h•tltial
50—
80
C, iv11(( III ring)
20—
50
11ccwaV%
a0—
GO
Wool: •I. :n (• :1\:
or ol)cll (t'olltrolled
Illattltellatlm) -
20—
60
Unmanaged (natural w(xxled area)
10—
N
IM up
Aesthetic factors
Attract wildlife
Bark
Branching habit
Flowers /fragrance
Foliage
Fru itS
Functional factors (environmental and climatic)
Air purification
Erosion control
Dirt and dust filtration
\uisse abatement
Wintcr sun permitted
Prevention of drifting snow
Shade /cooling effect
Windbreaks (hedges and screens)
Site factors (architectural and a ngincerigg)
Accent buildings
Control vChicular and pedestrian traffic
(:!Cane vistas
!irl inc space
l•rallle views
Light shield
Provicic prlvacv
Crcaie safety barrier
Screen undesirable views
Unusual
Other factors
H iaoric, rare• or unusual specimen
a
C
IC
13
LPWRM
�
670 "MI,
4.nn-
A Handbook of -Methods, ',3r,-o,.e,'!jres and P.-ob,',--=.s
o,
f X T3 'ant Apr,.raisall
4%,_# _7 -
F,
An Official Publication
of the
Council of '.r,-ee & 'Landscape Appraisers
First Edition
1986
r
23
there may be other extenuating circumstances, such as a healthy exterior but
a damaged interior.
To determine twig elongation, be prepared to climb the tree if necessary.
Lower limbs may not be accessible from the ground (even with pole .
pruners) or may not show average twig
growth for the specimen, and binoc-
ulars may not be powerful enough to determine the
twig growth well up in
the tree. Couple twig growth with general observatic ^s foliage,
::f branch
and trunk to ::letermine condition.
If the extent of twig growth indicates a deteriorating condition with pro-
gressively less growth for the
past several years, stress factorF may be in-
volved. To determine the nature and cause of the stress,
prod : - .0 analyze
the conditic:, .' actors outlined in the - T LA F: � d Report Form or as given in
the Guide (Table 7,
page 22).
Observe the general condition of other trees in the area; are there symp-
toms of general decline? Symptoms of infestation or injury high up'in the
tree may not be easily detected from the ground. Don't overlook t! e fact
that the declining condition of the tree
may be related to a soil or root prob-
lem so the use of a soil probe or soil excavation ma:., be
necessary to de-er-
mine soil profile and root condition.
In.casualty cases, it is necessary to determine the extent of the !oss. If the
plant has been completely destroyed its
or aesthetic value has been so dimin-
ished as to require the
plant's removal, then the difference between the
before and after percentage rating obviously
is complete. However, if the
casualty resulted in only partial injury, then a condition rating both before
and after the casualty must be determined.
Consider
such points as the percentage of major branches that have !peen
lost or broken beyond repair. is it a species that develops growth readi v a. a
will it rct<::: a reasonably
normal growth habit in a :`e:; years? What is the
extent of bark cambium injury? A diminution
in percentag- of condition
value as rciated to partial injury of bark and cambium has
been suggested
by A. Bernatzky (1978). (See Table 9, page 25 of the Guide.)
Table 10 of the Guide !ists recommended
percentage ratings for various
condition factors. The recommen_ations given in the f•o_ lowing table reflect
additional studv of `e subject.
Location
To evaluate the location factor, consideration must be given not o- .o
the type of area in which the
plant is local_ _ (such as arboreta, indestr :a: i ^-
stallations, malls, streets, recreation and residential areas,
to na.^.:? a few),
but one must also take into account the various aesthetic,
site factors. : _ : :ctional and
A recommended procedure would first be to determine the locatic
::ate -��
gory given in Table 11, page 27 of the Guide.
For example, if the tree or other plant to be evaluate_ is in a s.burar.
residential .area, the Guide suggests a rating for such 60-1^0 -per-
plants -t
cent. The evaluator must decide :`:ow w(.7 :! :he tree or r!� ^_satisfies ..: C aes-
thetic, functional and factors.
site
Does it possess outstanding characteristics of bark color, unique b -a- ch_
ing habit,
outstanding foliag_, flower or fruit? It could be con• :-erect that
23
r
1
v
t
the plant —to he rated highly from. the aesthetic standpoint — should possess
at icast two outstanding characteristics such as bark or branching habit,
flower or foliage, or fiower and fruit. _
r
There may be occasions where outstanding tower alone wc. d be given a '
hi-.h rating; however, flowers are often effective for only a few weeks dur-
ing the year, so the piant should have something else to offer when not in
:,ower.
Consic... :hat bark color anc branching ahit are effec :_ e during 12
months of the gear, w:;ereas deci ,4uous pla nt fo:iage, in northern darts of
the country, is effective seven or eight months, and fruit from two weeks to
six months.
Thc.n proceed to evaluate the piant from the s!ar.dnoint of its functional
and sire vaiues. Does it provide shade, a cooling effect, abate noise, prevent
erosion., f':er dart and dust, or help to conserve energy?
The consuc.ant should then study the cffcc6vcnc� the plants on the
basis of the various site factors. (See Table 11, page 2i; o('thc Guide.) Plants
may be used fo- various architectural and engineering purposes such as: en-
framement of `. :_ :i. ::;s and o,.hler ar :. :cctural features; enframcmcnt of
vistas; background for builclin2S, garden features; sculptures, and even as
specific or in :eresti -, plant ,:. _r is . They serve as boundaries and borders
provide priva: define space, circct vehicular and pedestrian traffic in
addition to various other site factors.
The consultant should be well versed in t1c functional and site spectrum
of p'.an ts. to make a comp;-:: and rczlis.:. � sisal.
in the final analysis of the location factor, su '1posc, for exarn - :, the pro-
fessiona consultant arrives at a rating of 80 percent for the aesthetic fac-
tors, 90 percent for the functiora: factors and 70 percent for the site factors.
The result would be an average of 80 percent for the combined factors for a
plant or plants in a given situation in a suburban residential area.
The three location Factors could, and usually would, have an entirely dif-
ferent rating in ciif:. ::tt position areas, but the same general procedures
can be followed. Furtherr,iorc, the suggested area ratings given in Table 11
of the Guide have a fairly broad range for each type of location so the
evaluator can modify a given rating according to existing factors.
Other Factors Affecting Determination of Value
Historic, Rare or Unusual Specimens: Fundamentally, the appraisal of
the value of historic, rare or unusual specimens does not differ from the"
usual method. Size, species, condition and location are the major points to
consider.
However, the appraiser should keep in mind the extent and cost of past
and current maintenance practices, insurance coverage for worthy speci-
mens, recognition by national, state or local organizations, ctc.
Historic, rare or unusual specimens may increase the species value. For
example, unique branching habit, unusual characteristics, availability of
replacement, or other features will influence the species rating.
Printed on recycled paper.
L
13777FRU1 "i'V,°\L.E: \�'E: \�l'L • S:-\ f=;:\" I� :)(J:�.C;� \LiF<)IZNI:- \�)�O7r)
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Martha Clevenger
Wlllem Kohler
Viclor Monra
Francis Srutzman
July 30, 1990
Mr. Paul Kelker
13783 Fortuna Ct.
Saratoga, California 95070
rz�ar .Mr. Kelker:
The Saratoga City Council, at its meeting of July 24,
accepted your generous donation of a flat -beef trailer.
The condition you placed on it, the once - yearly use by the
Rotary Club for the Art Show weekend, is acceptable to the
Council.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Cle k
w
h
SAAR—A]TOGA CITY COUNCIL
J �I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / y /� AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: July 24 1990 CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
-K��7
SUBJECT: DONATION OF FLAT BED TRAILER
Recommended Action:
Authorize staff to accept the donation of a flatbed trailer from Mr. Paul
Kelker.
Summary:
Mr. Paul Kelker of 13783 Fortuna Court in Saratoga has offered to donate a
Haywagon -type flatbed trailer, manufactured by Electric Wheel Company, Serial
#J- 330 -772, License F4 1392 to the City of Saratoga.
After inspection of the trailer, staff has determined that the Corporation
Yard would deem it an asset to have this unit as part of its pool of
equipment.
Mr. Kelker requested that, once a year, the Rotary Club of Saratoga be
allowed to make use of the trailer, which is acceptableto staff.
Fiscal Impacts•
None
Attachments:
Letter from Mr. Kelker
Motion and Vote:
Printed on recycled paper.
July 3, 1990
Mr. Harry Peacock
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Harry:
:
JUL 51990
CITY OF SAi1:4'r^GA
CITY NIANAG�R'5 OFPCE
I would like to make the following donation to the City of
Saratoga for their use, and once per year, for the use of the
Rotary Club of Saratoga, during the Art Show weekend; a "Hay -
wagon Type" flat bed trailer manufactured by Electric Wheel
Company, Serial #J- 330 -772, License #F4 1392.
The original cost was approximately $2500.
Sincerely,
Paul Kelker
13783 Fortuna Ct.
Saratoga, CA 95070