Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SAREXLiM r1GL�'DA BILL NO. eC; DA7"" . 3-17- i 82 DEPAI7n,=: Community Development SU"J,'CT: A -808, V -571, Dr. A Mrs. Vernal, 13030 Houston Court Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. Issue Sunrury Applicant has requested variance and design review approval to construct a second =story addition to their existing one -story home which would maintain an existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 32'. The subject site is nonconforming in size and irregular in . shape. The Planning Commission approved the variance and design revi .ew. The adjacent property owner has filed an appeal based on the contention that the information ,submi_tted was.,inaccurate. Recc=.endation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal or set a hearing de novo. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review and Variance. 5/5: Adopt Resolution No. Fiscal Imoacts None noted. E: hi!:)i_ts /Attachnrnts 1. Letter of Appeal 2. Staff report dated 2/1/82 3. Planning Commission minutes dated 2/10/82 4. Exhibits B & C 5. Resolution Council Action 3/17: Mallory /Jensen moved to set for de novo hearing as requested by appellants on 4/7. Passed 5 -0. 4/7: Jensen /Mallory moved to continue to 4/21. Passed 5 -0. 4/21: Clevenger /Callon moved to uphold the appeal and deny the application without prejudice. Passed 5 -0. 5/5: ' Clevenger A to amend resolution on findings. Passed 4 -0. .TAncon /('1 ocronrrnr Ymvcrl i-n zr1nrYF racnl iYtinn 1 0AAA ac aYnanrlcO Pacc=A A -0 RECEIVED FFB 19 1982 1970 Fierce Rd. Saratogar Ca. 95070 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Feb rua ry 18Y 1982 City Council City of Saratogar California Dear Citw council members#' We are appealing the Planninil commission's design review approval of the Public hearing iteir, A -808 for the following reasons: 1. The Plot Plan submitted with the Proposal is inaccurate. The Plan is not drawn to scaler and the orientation of the house on the lot is shifted. For this reasonr we are reauesting a de novo hearing. 29 The contractor spoke at the Plannin-i commission hearing stating that the rear windows face east and thus do riot affect our Privacw. This statement is riot truer as observation from out back..ward shows: unfortunatelwr this combined with the inaccurate Plot Plan caused the remainder of the discussions to concentrate on the bathroom windowr which is not an issue of importance. 3. The Proposed deck, at the rear of the addition overlooks our ward directly with unobstructed views into our master bedroom windows. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. Sincerelwr Matt Christiana 9. U&L Sallie J. Calhoun C11 Cr `'era aaa 0 g, REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION *(amended 2/10/82) GATE: 2/1/82 Commission Meeting: 2/10/82 SUBJECT V -571, A -808, Dr. & Mrs. Raul Vernal, 13030 Houston Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Variance for the rear yard setback and Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition to an existing one story single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption 15103(a) PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been noticed by advertising in the news- paper, posting the site and mailing notices to 33 surrounding property owners. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single family residential SITE SIZE: 16,988 SITE SLOPE: 3% HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: Single story: 14'. Second story: 22' SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing: 2,700 sq. ft. New: 640 sq. ft. Total: FLOOR AREA RATIO: This project complies with R -1- 15,000 F.A.R. criteria. 3,600 sq. ft. + 6% = 3,949 sq. ft. allowed by ordinance. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Complies SETBACKS: Front: 60' Rear: 32' 3,340 sq. ft. _ Report to Planning Commission 2/1/82 V -571, A -808, Vernal Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to construct a bedroom and bathroom addition over the southeastern portion of the home. The exterior materials to be used include off white stucco and a shake roof which will match the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling maintains non - conforming setbacks due to the irregular size and shape of the lot. Upon site inspec- tion Staff found it appropriate to call the eastern portion of the lot the rear yard. Therefore, the addition requires a variance because it will maintain the existing non - conforming rear yard setback of 30 feet where 60 feet is required. The 5 findings for the variance will follow the analysis. Although the existing dwelling is not adjacent to other two story dwellings, Staff has found it does meet the criteria established in the design review ordinance. The site vegetation includes a solid 6'+ evergreen hedge along Houston Court and the eastern propertly line, as well as some evergreen trees which would effectively screen the addition. The addition is not oriented toward rear yards of adjacent properties, so privacy impacts are not a problem. In terms of compatabflity with adjacent structures and the appearance of height and bulk, Staff feels the addition will not have negative impacts. FINDINGS V -571 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship The physical hardship associated with the site is its non - conforming size and irregular shape, which is required to comply with the zoning_ regulations applicable to properties with a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances In addition to the irregular size and shape of the lot, it does contain mature evergreen vegetation which does effectively screen the structure from view. 3. Common Privilege If the ordinance is literally enforced with the required setbacks the applicant would have great difficulty adding to the existing structure. Other applicants in similar situations with the benefit of vegetative screening and absence of privacy impacts have been granted reduced setbacks. 4. Special Privilege The granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the site. 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. to Planning Come, lion 2/1/82 A-808, Vernal = Page 3 z_ commendation: j�ariance: Approve per Staff Report dated 2/1/82 and Exhibits "B" and "C ". Design Review: Approve per Staff Report dated 2/1/82 and Exhibits "B" and "C", subject to the following condition: * 1. The window in the bathroom area facing north will be opaque glass. Approved: SL:jd 1. P.C. Agenda: 2/10/82 Sharon Lester Planning Aide *as amended at Planning Commission meeting 2/10/82 r , Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 2/ , /82 C* Page 4 The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this item be continued, along with A -806, to a study session on February 16, 1982 and the regular meeting of Februa- ry 2.4 1982. :,..; 6 A -808 R. Vernal, Request for a Variance to reduce the rear yard 6b. 1 - setback from 60 feet to 32 feet and Design Review Approval for a second story addition to an existing one -story single family residence at 13030 Houston Court Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Matt Christiano, 12970 Pierce, expressed his opposition to this develop - ment, objecting to the single -story design because of the impact on his privacy. Joe Butler, the contractor for the project, described the design. tie indicated that there was only one small window that faces Mr. Christi - ano's property. He also noted that there were many large trees on A -806 (cont.) Commissioners Monia, Bolger and Crowther agreed that they felt the home is too large and too high for that particular lot, and they feel it will be quite visible. They indicated that they would prefer to see a single story or ranch style home on this lot. Commissioner Zambetti suggested that the Land Use Committee meet with the applicant regarding this application and A -810, at which time the whole subdivision could be. considered. It was noted that if these designs are brought to a study session, it would be appropriate to bring the conditions of the subdivision and whatever design review was conditioned under the - subdivision approval. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like to see the geologic data obtained and the City Geologist's comments received as part of any design review. Commissioner Laden pointed out that, if the Commission is going_to ask the applicant to go through a very long, extensive and expensive activity regarding these lots, they should give the applicant clear direction as to the design of the houses. After further discussion, it was determined that these applications should be considered by the entire Commission at a study session. The Deputy City Attorney was requested to look into the issue of ' ' insurance of the structure. He commented that he did not see how the '' ` <`''+" - °= `'' =:' = -•' City could enforce a condition requiring the homeowner to maintain coverage on his own home. Commissioner Crowther indicated that this type of insurance had been required in the Los Angeles area to protect the communities that have had tremendous expense from homes that slide. The.Deputy City Attorney indicated that he would bring information on liability nsurance to adjacent Y ) property owners or public property. Mr. Charlesbois commented that they have complied with the ordinances and have worked with Staff. He stated that they did want to work with the Commission, and feel these homes fit the lots. Richard Van Enna, the project architect, discussed the foundations of the homes. It was directed that this item will be continued to a study session on February 16th, at which time the Commission would like to see how the different homes are integrated. At that time Staff was requested to bring the specific geologic information from the tenta- tive map for the Commission's review. This item will be continued to the regular meeting of February 24, 1982. 5. A -810 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two -story single family residence on a hillside lot on Vintage Lane The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this item be continued, along with A -806, to a study session on February 16, 1982 and the regular meeting of Februa- ry 2.4 1982. :,..; 6 A -808 R. Vernal, Request for a Variance to reduce the rear yard 6b. 1 - setback from 60 feet to 32 feet and Design Review Approval for a second story addition to an existing one -story single family residence at 13030 Houston Court Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Matt Christiano, 12970 Pierce, expressed his opposition to this develop - ment, objecting to the single -story design because of the impact on his privacy. Joe Butler, the contractor for the project, described the design. tie indicated that there was only one small window that faces Mr. Christi - ano's property. He also noted that there were many large trees on L � Plahning Commission Pfccting Minutes - 2 /10�J "L Page 5 A -808 d V -571 (cont.) Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the windows and the setbacks of the house. It was determined that if the window in the bathroom area facing north was opaque glass, it would protect the privacy of the neighbor. Com- missioner Crowther commented that he would prefer to see the other window eliminated; however, there was a consensus to leave that window in to provide sufficient light. It was noted that the large setbacks would also help to mitigate the impact on the neighbor's privacy. Commissioner Laden moved to approve A -808 and V -571, per the Staff Report amended to reflect the condition relative to the opaque glass for the window facing north; making the findings. Commissioner :Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. 7a. V -570 - V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance 7b. A -809 to erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at 18570 Prospect Road Staff described the proposed sign, stating that they were recommending denial of the variance and design review. The public hearing was opened at 9:03 p.m. Ms. Danielski, 18570 Prospect Road, stated that she was a merchant in Westgate Corners. She explained that it was very difficult for customers to find her. store, since they cannot find the existing sign for Westgate. Corners. She described the area and passed out photos showing the current signs. Commissioner Laden commented that she feels this shopping center has greater visibility than most centers within Saratoga. She added that she feels very strongly that the Commission must adhere to the signage requirements in the City. She suggested that perhaps the total allowed square footage is being inappropriately used, and perhaps the sins on the buildings need not be as. large as they are. The applicant.Etated that it would be very expensive to change the individual signs. She pointed out that they must compete with the shopping centers in the area, and perhaps the zoning should be changed. Commissioner Monia commented that he felt this was a unique situation and he would favor a larger sign allocation there. However, he added, he would like to see a different design. He stated that he felt the City has an obligation to make the commercial ventures viable. Commissioner Crowther stated his concern regarding a domino effect, with everyone else. along the same side of the street asking foz the same variance. He noted his Particular concern regarding encroachment into the setback. Commissioner Bolger agreed that he felt the City does have an obliga- tion to the merchants. He suggested that the sign be primarily recog- nition for Westgate Corners, and not have a number of different names on it as proposed. Commissioner 2ambetti stated that he would vote against the variance, since the center is already over the allotted square footage for signage, and he feels it will have a domino effect on the adjacent area and also the other commercial areas of Saratoga. Commissioner Laden commented that she hates to see the City make regu lations and then not have them enforced. She stated that she feels commercialism is important to.the City, and if the applicant came back with a sign in a natural tone that has the name of the center and the address, she would be more happy to consider that type of variance -. than what is being proposed tonight. After further discussion, there was a consensus that the applicant could withdraw this sign and propose a new design, which the Commission will then consider. It was suggested to the applicant that the new sign be reduced by approximately one -half, in natural tone, with the Plahning Commission Pfccting Minutes - 2 /10�J "L Page 5 A -808 d V -571 (cont.) Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the windows and the setbacks of the house. It was determined that if the window in the bathroom area facing north was opaque glass, it would protect the privacy of the neighbor. Com- missioner Crowther commented that he would prefer to see the other window eliminated; however, there was a consensus to leave that window in to provide sufficient light. It was noted that the large setbacks would also help to mitigate the impact on the neighbor's privacy. Commissioner Laden moved to approve A -808 and V -571, per the Staff Report amended to reflect the condition relative to the opaque glass for the window facing north; making the findings. Commissioner :Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. 7a. V -570 - V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance 7b. A -809 to erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at 18570 Prospect Road Staff described the proposed sign, stating that they were recommending denial of the variance and design review. The public hearing was opened at 9:03 p.m. Ms. Danielski, 18570 Prospect Road, stated that she was a merchant in Westgate Corners. She explained that it was very difficult for customers to find her. store, since they cannot find the existing sign for Westgate. Corners. She described the area and passed out photos showing the current signs. Commissioner Laden commented that she feels this shopping center has greater visibility than most centers within Saratoga. She added that she feels very strongly that the Commission must adhere to the signage requirements in the City. She suggested that perhaps the total allowed square footage is being inappropriately used, and perhaps the sins on the buildings need not be as. large as they are. The applicant.Etated that it would be very expensive to change the individual signs. She pointed out that they must compete with the shopping centers in the area, and perhaps the zoning should be changed. Commissioner Monia commented that he felt this was a unique situation and he would favor a larger sign allocation there. However, he added, he would like to see a different design. He stated that he felt the City has an obligation to make the commercial ventures viable. Commissioner Crowther stated his concern regarding a domino effect, with everyone else. along the same side of the street asking foz the same variance. He noted his Particular concern regarding encroachment into the setback. Commissioner Bolger agreed that he felt the City does have an obliga- tion to the merchants. He suggested that the sign be primarily recog- nition for Westgate Corners, and not have a number of different names on it as proposed. Commissioner 2ambetti stated that he would vote against the variance, since the center is already over the allotted square footage for signage, and he feels it will have a domino effect on the adjacent area and also the other commercial areas of Saratoga. Commissioner Laden commented that she hates to see the City make regu lations and then not have them enforced. She stated that she feels commercialism is important to.the City, and if the applicant came back with a sign in a natural tone that has the name of the center and the address, she would be more happy to consider that type of variance -. than what is being proposed tonight. After further discussion, there was a consensus that the applicant could withdraw this sign and propose a new design, which the Commission will then consider. It was suggested to the applicant that the new sign be reduced by approximately one -half, in natural tone, with the RrSOLIMON NO. V - 5 71- 1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CCM\1ISSI0,1j STATE OF CALIFOMIA iZLE 110: V-571 T-711E .LAS, the City of Saratoga Planning CcMUSsi,on has reccivcd the application of R. VERNAL fora Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 60 feet'to 32 feet at 13030 Houston and Court 1.11LREAS, THE applicant (has) - (hmsxxocto -net the burden of proof required to support his said application; VOW, TIM-M -FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful" consideration of reaps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the .application for the Variance be, and the same is hereby (granted) j . Q), subject to the follo-vring Conditions-: Per the.Staff Report dated February 1., 1982, as amended, and Exhibits "B" and "C ". t BE If r. it'EnER RESOLVED that the Report of Findiugs attached hereto -be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify the parries aifccted by this decision. PI:S QED AIM ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning CC^L tiSSj pn9 State Of Cal:iforni_a, this 10th. day of February 19 82 , by t]le follo;eing roll c211 votc: AY]:S: Commissioners* Bolger, Laden, Monia and. Zambetti VOI'S: Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer ABSI_:.`,'T: Commissioner King / T T. aaJl, 1 ;:I1i11I:� l,O:;J:1J. :J.UIl cretary, lanning Commission ............. FINDINGS V -571 r 1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship The physical hardship associated with the site is its non - conforming size and irregular shape, which is required to comply with the zoning regulations applicable to properties with a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances In addition to the irregular size and shape of the lot, it does contain mature evergreen vegetation which does effectively screen the structure from view. 3. Common Privilege If the ordinance is literally enforced with the required setbacks the applicant would have great difficulty adding to the existing structure. Other applicants in similar situations with the benefit of vegetative .screening and absence of privacy impacts have been granted reduced setbacks. 4. Special Privilege The granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the site. 5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. i 112D @0 ' tnk36 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 April 12, 1982 Dr. and Mrs. Raul Vernal 13030 Houston Court Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Vernal: Please be advised that the Saratoga City Council, at its meeting of April 7, 1982, continued the public hearing on your application for variance and design review approval. The appellants appeared at the.meeting, but neither you nor your representative appeared, and we have received no written con- firmation of your expressed intent td withdraw this application. Please send to this office written confirmation of your intentions. If we receive no written confirmation, the Council may decide to continue the public hearing again (which would be purposeless if you intend to withdraw your appli- cation), or they may grant the appeal. The City Hall is open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:OO p:m., Monday through Friday. It is the building across from the Post Office which faces on Fruitvale, not the building which faces on Allendale. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk cc: Matt Christiano /Sally Calhoun .Community Development Department P.S. The date to which the hearing was continued is April 21, 1982. vyl E �f. s o� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 a , o (408) 887 -3438 February 22, 1982 Mr. Matt Christiano and Ms. Sallie J. Calhoun 12970 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Christiano - and Ms. Calhoun: Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1982 concerning the appeal of the approval by the Planning Commission on February 10, 1982 of Design Review Approval for a second -story addition at 13030 Houston Court (application A -808). The $30.00 appeal fee has been received by this office. The public hearing on this matter has been set for March 17, 1982. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sin erely, .1 obert S. Shoo Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk (Applicant: R. Vernal) RECEIVED FEB 19 1982 12970 Pierce Rd. Sarato ,gar Ca. 95070 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Feb rua rw 18y 1982 City Council City of Saratogar California Dear Citw council members; We are appealing the Planning commission's design review approval of the Public hearing item A -808 for the following reasons#* 1. The Plot Plan submitted with the Proposal is inaccurate. The Plan is not drawn to scaler and the orientation of the house on the lot is shifted. For this reasons, we are reauesting a de novo hearino. 2. The contractor spoke at the Planning commission hearing stating that the rear windows face east and thus do riot affect our Privacw. This statement is not truer as observation from out back ward shows; unfortunatelwr this combined - with the inaccurate Plot Plan caused the remainder of the discussions to concentrate on the bathroom windows, which is not an issue of importance. 34 The Proposed deck at the rear of the addition overlooks our ward directlwp with unobstructed views into our master bedroom windows. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated. Sincerelwr Matt Christiano 9. &Vd� Sallie J. Calhoun 4 09UT Qq 0&iB& 9000 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 March 30, 1982 Mr. Matt Christiano and Ms. Sallie J. Calhoun 12970 Pierce Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Christiano and Ms. Calhoun: The City Council, at their meeting on March 17, 1982, moved to set a de novo hearing for your appeal of the Design Review Approval for a second -story addition at 13030 Houston Court (Application A -808, Vernal) . This de novo hearing has been set.for April 7, 1982. Please be advised that the City Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for your presentation on this appeal. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd cc: Deputy City Clerk Mr. and Mrs. Vernal, 13030 Houston Court, Saratoga, CA 95070 R AGENDA BILL NO. 42 43 DATE: March 17, 1982 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Resolutions Honoring Cities in Japan Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. It is appropriate for the City of Saratoga to adopt resolutions honoring the cities of Kyoto and Muko -shi who will be hosting Japanese Garden Specialist, Jack Tomlinson, during his stay in Japan. Jack will take the resolutions with him and present them at the appropriate time along with a gift of framed pictures of Saratoga. Recommendation Adopt Resolutions and honoring the Cities of Kyoto and Muko -shi, Japan. Fiscal Impact None Attachments /Exhibits Resolutions Council Action 3/17: Resolutions 1069 and 1070 approved on Consent Calendar. RESOLUTION NO. COMMENDING AND THANKING THE CITY OF MUKO -SHI AND ITS CITIZENS WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is proud of its municipal Japanese garden, known as Hakone Gardens, which is among the largest and best developed representa- tion of Japanese garden style in America; and WHEREAS, Saratoga is grateful to the City of Muko -Shi for past support of Hakone Gardens, and recognizes that the Rotary Club of Muko -Shi has become the sister Club of the Rotary Club of Saratoga, further strengthening the ties of friendship and good will between our communities; and WHEREAS, the City of MUKO -SHI is further supporting the development of Hakone Gardens, by hosting Jack Tomlinson, Japanese Garden Specialist, and assisting in his training and education in the skills and methods of Japanese garden arts; and WHEREAS, between the cities of Muko -Shi and Saratoga there exists a bond of mutual friendship and desire to continue the exchange of cultural activities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Saratoga, on behalf of all its citizens, expresses sincere thanks to the City of Muko -Shi and its citizens for their generous and gracious participation in our exchange. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga sends greetings and best wishes to the City of Muko -Shi and all its citizens, through our representative Jack Tomlinson. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting on the 17th day of March, 1982, by unanimous vote. Councilmember Martha Clevenger Councilmember Cheriel Jensen Councilmember John Mallory Councilmember Dale Watson ATTEST: City Clerk, J. Wayne Dernetz Mayor Linda Callon v .y Councilmember Cheriel Jensen Councilmember John Mallory Councilmember Dale Watson Mayor Linda Callon ATTEST: City Clerk, J. Wayne Dernetz Qtp of Saratoga RESOLUTION NO. COMMENDING AND THANKING THE CITY OF KYOTO AND ITS CITIZENS WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is proud of its municipal Japanese garden, known as Hakone Gardens, which is among the largest and best developed representa- tion of Japanese garden style in America; and WHEREAS, Saratoga is grateful to the City of Kyoto for past support of Hakone Gardens, including the gift of a stone lantern which now enjoys a place - of prominence in Hakone Gardens; and WHEREAS, the City of Kyoto is further supporting the development of Hakone Gardens, by hosting Jack Tomlinson, Japanese Garden Specialist, and assisting in his training and education in the skills and methods of the Japanese garden arts; and WHEREAS, between the cities of Kyoto and Saratoga there exists a bond of mutual friendship and desire to continue the exchange of cultural activities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Saratoga, on behalf of all its citizens, expresses sincere thanks to the City of Kyoto and its citizens for their generous and gracious participation in our exchange. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga sends greetings and best wishes to the City of Kyoto and all its citizens, through our representative Jack Tomlinson. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting on the 17th day of March, 1982, by unanimous vote. x ;,:i.: ' .: *:' - -s ''' =• Councilmember Martha Clevenger Councilmember Cheriel Jensen Councilmember John Mallory Councilmember Dale Watson Mayor Linda Callon ATTEST: City Clerk, J. Wayne Dernetz CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: X Initial: Dept. Head DATE: March 17, 1982 City Atty DEPARTMENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maintenance Services City Mgr - - - - -- SUBJECT: Agreement with Saratoga Community Garden for Purchase of Materials For Installation of Irrigation System Issue Summary The Capi.tal Improvement Budget provides an allocation of $1,500 for the purchase of material and equipment for installation of an irrigation system at the Commmunity Garden. In order to implement the project an Agreement is proposed between the City and Saratoga Community Garden. The Agreement requires Community Garden to install and maintain the system, to comply with requirements of use of Revenue Sharing Funds and to provide City with an accounting of expenditure of funds. Recommendation Approved the Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Saratoga Community Garden for the purchase of materials to install an irrigation system in Saratoga Community Garden. Fiscal Impact Agreement calls for the sum of $1,500 to be paid to the Saratoga Community Garden for implementation of the project. Attachments /Exhibits Agreement. Council Action 3/17: Jensen /Mallory moved to approve agreement and authorize Mayor to sign. Passed 5 -0. r r s AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY GARDEN FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY GARDEN The City of Saratoga agrees to provide funds to Saratoga Community Garden for purchase of materials and equipment necessary to install an irrigation system at Saratoga Community Garden. Requirements are as follows: 1) Community Garden agrees to provide labor and materials to install irrigation system. 2) Community Garden agrees to complete within 120 days of signing of Agreement the irrigation system, to be installed at Community Garden's cost and expense. 3) City agrees to contribute the sum of $1,500 to Community Garden to be used to defray cost of expenses of such improvement, and payment to be made within 30 days of the completion of the Agreement. 4) Within 30 days from completion of work and improvements, Community Garden shall render to the City a full and complete accounting of the expenditure of City funds for the improvement. Any City funds not used for the approved project shall be returned to the City. 5) Community Garden is advised that the project is being financed by Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, and that therefore, anything to the contrary in the - City's prevailing wage scale notwithstanding, if any City money is used for wages, minimum wages for laborers and other construction workers shall be as determined by the Secretary of Labor, a copy of which schedule for minimum wages is on file with the City of Saratoga. If wages are paid from City funds, Community Garden is required to complete the Federal forms stating employee and salary paid. 6) Community Garden agrees to comply with the Office of Revenue Sharing requirements regarding secondary recipients which includes a clause on non-discrimination and meeting the Davis -Bacon Act requirements. 7) Community Garden agrees at all times during the.progress of work to carry with insurance carriers approved by the City, full coverage or worker's compensation and public liability and property damage insurance, and to furnish the City with a certificate from said insurance carriers acknowledging full liability on account of any and all injuries to workers and other, and against all property damage caused directly or indirectly by the performance or execution of this Agreement. 8) Community Garden hereby releases City of any and all damages which may be sustained by Community Garden or any person on said property during the term of this Agreement, and does hold City free and harmless from and against • .. any and all claims, actions, demands, suits, losses or liabilities arising or resulting at any time from injury to or death to any person or persons, and /or damage to any property, occurring as a result of the project performance or execution of this Agreement. Mayor, City of Saratoga For Community Garden City Clerk, City of Saratoga Date.