Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-06-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CI'I "I OF SARA11CGN 2 2 Initial: �'3 AGEi DA BILL NO. Dept. f1d. DATE. October. -, G , ..19 8 2 DEoAJM1=. Community Development C. Atty. C. Mgr. SU -JECT: A -832, V -589 Steven Scialabba, 12501 Woodside Drive Issue SL-=ary Applicant requested variance and design review approval to construct a major addition which exceeded the allowable floor area by greater than 5% (17.5% total). The addition is a two -story addition to a single story. dwelling in a predominantly single story neighborhood.(However, there are two (2), two story dwellings within 500 feet). Staff has received correspondence on this project from a non - adjacent neighbor.. Reccmnendation 1. Conduct a public hearing on the appeal. 2. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny. 3. Staff recommended denial of the variance and approval_ of the design review subject to deleting the non- conforming square footage. Fiscal Imcacts None noted Exhibits /Attachments 1. Letter of Appeal 5. Resolutions 2. Staff Report dated 7/27/82 6. Correspondence received on the project 3. Planning Commission Minutes 8/11/82 4. Exhibits B & C Council Action 10/6: FANELLI /MDYLES moved to deny variance without prejudice. Passed 3 -1 (Clevenger opposed). Fanelli/Mallory moved to approve design review under conditions of staff report and reduction of square footage according to floor area ratio requirements. Failed 2 -2 (Moyles, Mallory opposed). MOYLES/MALLORY moved.-to send to Planning Commission for review. Passed 4 -0. M RECEMED AUG 2 1982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OIT71" OF 33�`- CIA -?ATO Ck� 2TlrI!'G CC-' 7I�7STCITS I ',CLTD LIKE, TO APPE-2L, TH... IPL .,, r D' !IA.L OF VA2I.-' C.71 :/IV-5,839 �,',-YD D] S I Coll, R LEV 12 El 7 8 A R, R 0 r0 DE 1�11' G U L LC .—i. I.. CMG. �/ Re: Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1982 TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL kugust 25, 1982 & � r� I appeal the variance denial of the Planning Commission, denial of Variance #V- 589,and the denial of De:l'ig'n Review #A -831, because (a) other similar variances have been approved, (b) the neighbors on either side of my residence have not objected to the size of the proposed addition, and (c) I believe your allowed house square footage vs. lot size is too small. - I appeal the second story design review because the Planning Commission could have approved a smaller addition, as was suggested in the staff recommendation. The reduced addition could be a smaller addition and included in the footprint of the proposed addition. It was my understanding that I had ten (10) working days to appeal the Planning Commission denial, since the denial letter did not spell out "calendar days ". Steven Scialabba RECCJV —r) 12878 Arroyo de. Arguello Saratoga, Calif. AUG 25 1982 C0P.1 "1UNITY DEVELOPMENT f- H�I�T�y 1 1.5 SO T. "r"s k T REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/27/82 Commission Meeting: 8/11/82 V -589 SUBJECT A -831, Steven Sciallabba, 12501 Woodside Dr. REQUEST: Design Review and Variance Approval to construct a two -story addition to an existing one -story single family dwelling, thereby causing the residence to exceed the maximum allowed floor area. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this project has been posted on site, mailed to surrounding property owners and advertised in the newspaper. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 10,000 Medium Density Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Dwellings SITE SIZE: 10,000 sq. ft. SITE SLOPE: 3% HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 22 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing: 2,365 sq. ft. 2nd Floor Addition: 1,044 sq. ft. Total: 3,409 sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO: This project exceeds the standard F.A.R. by 17.5 %. Standard F.X.R. 2,900 sq. ft. + 5% = 3,045 sq. ft.) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 45% (60% allowed by ordinance standards). SETBACKS: Front: 34' Right Side: 35' Left Side: 10' Rear: 31'6" By Planning Commission Policy, the rear yard setback will not be non - conforming because there is less than a 100 sq. ft. encroachment within the addition). Report to Planning d-dission A -831, Steven Sciallabba 7/27/82 Page 2. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to. add a second story addition to an existing single story structure which exceeds the standard floor area by 17.5 %. The findings for the variance follow the Staff Analysis. The structures immediately surrounding the structure are'all one story. How- ever, there are three (3) two -story structures withi:n500'feet which appear to be approximately the same square footage. The site contains a solid 12 ft. bamboo hedge along the southern and western boundaries as indicated on Exhibit "B ". The northern boundary is also well screened with various types of shrubs. Also indicated on Exhibit "B" are two 12 inch trees, a sycamore (deciduous) and a loquat (evergreen). These trees along with the existing hedge, create an adequate screen to protect the privacy of the adjacent neighbor to the rear. Staff recommends that the proposed window on the rear elevation be fixed, and no second story deck be constructed which could increase privacy impacts. No windows are located on the southern elevation and the windows on the northern elevation will not pose an impact due to the distance and the obstruction of the existing single story roof. The design of the proposed structure will match the existing structure, also using the same materials (stucco & lap siding) and color (light brown). Located in the front yard of thesubject dwelling is a 14 inch diameter eucalyptus tree (evergreen) which would help mitigate the visual impact of the proposed addi- tion. Also along the common property line between the subject site and the adja- cent site to the north is a mature walnut tree (deciduous) which also provides screening. It should be noted that Staff could not locate a building permit for the existing patio addition which maintains a setback of 15 ft. where 25 ft. is required. FINDINGS (VARIANCE) 1. Physical Hardship: Staff noted no physical hardships associated with the site in terms of size, shape or topography which would warrant a variance from floor area requirements. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: There is an exceptional cir- cumstance associated with the property in that there is vegetation on site which tends to mitigate privacy and visual impacts. 3. Strict or Literal Interpretation: The privilege of exceeding the standard floor area by 437 sq. ft. was approved in the R -1- 10,000 Zoning District (V -573, V.ivona, Emanuel Ct.). With that application, another two -story structure was adjacent and the site also abutted vacant State -owned property. 4. Grants of Special Privilege: Granting of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege, since another variance for floor area, which was de- termined to.not have significant visual or privacy impacts, was approved. � c Report to Planning Commission 7/27/82 A -831, Steven Sciallaba Page 3. 5. PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE: Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially in- jurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: Since Staff cannot make all of theflLndi;ngs for the variance, Staff recommends denial of the variance, but approval, .'of the design review subject to the deletion of the square footage in excess of the allowable 5% which is 364 sq. ft. COMMENTS: If the Commission wishes to approve the variance and design review, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Any modification to the approved plans require the review and approval of the Permit Review Division. 2. No second story deck located in the rear shall be allowed. Approved: �- Sharon Lester Planner SL /dsc P.C. Agenda 8/11/82 Planning Commission ( g' Pa e 4 Meeting Minutes 8/11/32 UP -523 (cont.) Warren Jacobsen representing One World Montessori, discussed Conditions 2 and 3 of the S aff Report regarding parking spaces and Building Site Approval. Discu Sion followed on the needed parking spaces for the various uses and taff. A possible alternative for parking spaces for staff people, i.e , oil and screening, was discussed, and it was the consensus that thi temporary parking could be provided without requir- ing paving. Commissioner Siegfr ed moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the otion, which was carried unanimously. The Deputy City Attor ey commented that the code section pertaining to conditional use permi s allows the Planning Commission to vary require- ments for parking. He explained that if the Commission makes the inter- pretation that for pur oses of the use permit they will allow the appli- cant on a temporary bass to oil and screen the side area, a reasonable interpretation could be made that it would not be paving and the appli- cant would not need Buil ing Site Approval. He suggested that a sentence be added to Condition No. 2 to read: "The Planning Commission reserves jurisdiction to review th parking, and if circumstances so require, to direct that the parking a a be paved and the applicant obtain Building Site Approval at that time." It was determined that Condition 3 would be deleted. It was also determined that the following conditions be added: "Noise or traffic which causes sever safety or other problems in the neighbor- hood shall not be permitted." "The approval of this use permit cancels and supersedes UP -510.11 "Therle shall be an 18 -month review of the use permit." Commissioner Siegfried moved toy pprove UP -523 per the Staff Report, amended to include the above con itions. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried una imousl.y 5 -0. S. UP -S24 - Raymond Jacobsen, Request for Use. Permit to construct a struc- ture (solar panels) over ft. in height (12 ft. max.) in the required rear yard at 1435$ Old Wood Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district \ Staff described the proposal. Commisl¢ioner Nellis gave a report on his on -site visit. The public hearing was opened at 9:37 R.M. Mr. Jacobsen, the applicant, gave a rep esentation on the proposal, describing the neighbor's site and visib.1ity of the structure. Com- missioner Crowther expressed concern tha there will be a major legal problem created between the applicant and the neighbor by permitting this structure to be located so close to the property line. Staff discussed the Solar Shade Act. k Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was Carr N d unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP -S24, per the Staff Report and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion. Com- missioner Crowther suggested a condition whicl\ requires appropriate plantings that minimize the visible impact of the structure. Commis- sioner Siegfried Nellis accepted that amendment. The motion was carried unanimously 5 -0. a. :1 331 - Steve Scialabba, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval 6b. 9 to construct a two -story addition to an existing one -story structure which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 12501 Woodside Drive in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district The project was described by Staff. Thev stated that they cannot make all of the findings for the variance and recommend denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconforming floor area. Commissioner :Dellis gave a report on his on -site visit. Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 8/11/82 -851 and V -589 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 9:54 p.m. The applicant explained the project and referenced the letter from his neighbor regarding rental of the property. He stated that he did not intend to rent the property after the project is complete. Commissioner Crowther commented that he was particularly concerned about this application because there are no two -story homes directly adjacent and because of the opposition of the neighbor. The applicant noted that there were other two -story homes in the area. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the necessary five findings for the variance could not be made. Commissioner Nellis moved to deny V -589, based on the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. Discussion followed on the design review application and the ordinance. It .gas noted to the applicant that there will be a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in October, at which time the Design Review Ordinance will be discussed. It was also noted that there had been a consensus of the Commission at their last study session on the ordinance.to increase the range of discretion on Floor Area Ratio to 20 %. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A -831 without prejudice. Commis- sioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was: carried unanimously 5 -0. It was pointed out to the applicant that he has the options of appealing to the City Council within 10 days, redesigning and deleting the square footage that is covered by the variance, or reserving the present plan until the ordinance is reviewed and revised. 7a. A -832 - Sloboden Galeb)\ Request for Variance and Design Review Approval 7b. V -590 - to construct a jingle family dwelling which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro in the R- 1- 40,000 zon- ing district \ Staff gave a report on the V roposed project. They stated that they could not make all of the necessary findings and are recommending denial of the variance and a proval of the design review subject to deletion of the nonconformin square footage. Discussion followed on the site plans under the pre%4ous owner. The public hearing was opened 4t 10:12 p.m. Marty Oakley, representing Galeb, Paving, appeared to answer any questions. Ron Mancusso, 14330 Chester Avenu , of the Emerald Hills Tesoro Home- owners Association, stated that m h planning had gone into this develop- ment, and he felt that the ordinan e, as far as this property is concerned, should be maintained and respected. It was the consensus that a lot of study had been done on this site in the past, and it should be continued o a study session to consider the size and also the grading, tree re oval, and amount of impervious coverage. It was directed that this maNtter be continued to a study session on August 17, 1982 and the regu bar meeting of August 25, 1952. 8a. A -833 - Walter Muir, Request for Design review and Variance Approval 8b. V -592 - to construct a one-story addition which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at 14156 Short Gill Ct. in the R -1- 40,000 zonin¢ district \ Staff pointed out that the plans show that th re is a second floor framing plan for an attic, and this has not be n calculated into the figures for floor area. They described the pro oral, stating that they could not make all of the findings and were recommending denial of the variance and approval of the design review subjet to deletion of the nonconforming square footage. cv��. 7�� e s r ' �- �r • f. 4' 1 t t M BIT Va. CITY OF SARATOGA .7 i 1X3�)�f12XIC `' iZL1E 110. . V - 5 8 9 RESOLIMON NO. V - 5 8 9 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLAMU NG MMISSI0,11 STATE OF CALIFOI'. UA 11HERMAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Comnissi.an has received the application of " STEVE SCIALABBA for a Variance to construct a -two-story addition to an existing one -story structure which ' exceeds the maximum allowed" floor area at 12501 Woodside.Drive EME.RUS, THE applicant (kgx) -(has not) met the burden of proof required to support his said application; =-REFOr,E, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful* consideration of .—maps, facts, v hibits and other evidence 'submitted in this matter, the -.application for the Variance be, and the same is hereby 0prmxrjK&) subject to the follo; ring conditions': BE 1T FUtnM:.R RESOLVED that the Report of findings attached hereto -be approved and adopted, and the Secretary be, -and is hereby directed to noL-ify the parties aifcctcd by this decision. and P::S 'ED hl:I) ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga PLuiuing Cc^L;1.i551o.f1, State of Cal:�fornia, thi_:. 11th day of August 1.9 82 : by t]le fojjo,.aing 2'011 c211 votc: r AYES: Commissioners-Bolger, Crowther, King, Nellis and Siegfried N01 -,$): None ABSE, r: Commissioners Monia and Schaefer ATTEST: % V Secretar, 'Planning Commission File No. V -589 (Scialabba) FINDINGS (VARIANCE) 1. Physical Hardship: Staff noted no physical hardships associated with the site in terms of size, shape or topography which would warrant a variance from „floor area requirements. 2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: There is an exceptional cir- cumstance associated with the property in that there is vegetation on site which tends to mitigate privacy arid visual impacts. 3. Strict or Literal Interpretation: The privilege of exceeding the standard floor area by 437 sq. ft. ) was approved in the R -1- 10,000 Zoning District (V -573, Vivona, Emanuel Ct.). With that application, another two -story structure was adjacent and the site also abutted vacant State -owned property. 4. Grants of Special Privilege: Granting of this variance.would not be a grant of special privilege, since another variance for floor area, which was de- termined to not have significant visual or privacy impacts, was approved. c_ 5. PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE: Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially in-. jurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. DESIai REVIEW FILE M: A-831 - RESOLUTION h0. A - 8 3 1 -1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COhMISSIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA IERFAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application - :for Design Review Approval of a two -story addition to an existing one - story structure which exceeds the maximum allowed floor area at and 12501 Woodside Drive in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district __.:MHERE S, -the applicant -(} - (has - .not)- met the .burden of proof required to --support-his said application, •NO11, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that -after careful consideration of the site .7plan, architectural drawings, landscape plans and -other exhibits submitted'in connec- -= -ion with this matter, the application of - STEVE SCIALABBA - - -for Design Review Approval be and the same is hereby Egm ) (denied) /subject to • without prejudice the following conditions: - `PASSED ADD ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Cormiission, State of -:.California, this 11th day of August 19 8 2 -by -the following roll call vote: UES Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Nellis and Siegfried • _MES: None .ABSDT: Commissioners Monia and Schaefer _ in naN, 111annaing Conunlssion ATTEST: cretar)� -, 'annin�; Oi1Ll11Sj1Qn RECEIVED TO: Planning Commission AUG 3 1982 City of Saratoga PERMIT REVIEW 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 FROM: Mr. and Mrs. James C. Buchan 12553 Woodside Drive Saratoga, CA. 95070 C1 August 2, 1982 RE: Public Hearings on Wednesday, August 11, 1982 A -8311 V -589 - Steve Scialabba (Woodside Dr. near Bellwood) We wish to direct our comments to public hearing A -831, V -589 - Steve Scialabba (Woodside Dr. near Bellwood). We ask that our letter be included as a part of this public hearing and on public record. We ask the Planning Commission to deny approval to construct a two - story addition to the existing one -story structure at 12501 Woodside Drive. We object to the construction of a two -story addition at this ad- dress because the owner of this structure does not reside at this address. The structure at 12501 Woodside Drive is currently a rental unit belonging to Steve Scialabba. We do not believe it is appropriate for a;.two -story addition to be constructed without the owner living on the premises. There have also been problems recently with tenants in this same structure causing neighborhood disturbances. It is also our belief that a two -story addition does not fit in with the general spirit and architecture of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jam /Sc. Buchan Susan C. Buchan TO: City of Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA. 95070 FROM: Mr. and Mrs. James C. Buchan 12553 Woodside Drive Saratoga, CA, 95070 RE: Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 6, 1982 (S. Scialabba - 12501 Woodside Dr.) September 29, 1982 Q�C��Od�D SEP 2 91982 We received notice of a hearing before City Council on Wednesday, October 6, 1982 to appeal the denial of a variance request and design review for construc- tion of a two -story addition to the existing one -story structure at 12501 Wood- side Drive. We wish our opposition to this construction be made known again. We responded in opposition to this project by letter to the Planning Commission on August 2, 1982 when they held the first public hearing. Our letter was to have been made a part of that public hearing. Our opposition to this project is based on our belief that the construction of a two -story addition to the already existing structure violates the general spirit and architecture of our neighborhood. We ask that you deny this appeal to construct a two -story addition. Please made our letter a part of the public hearing regarding this appeal. Sincerely, 2 u fA C,-" James C. Buchan c�� Susan C. Buchan City of Saratoga I have reviewed Mr. Scialabba's plans for the second story addition to his home at 12501 Woodside dr. I have no objection to the second story addition or the size of the addition. W__ 2��ff AGENDA BILL NO. 3i+ CITY OP SARATOGA Initial: • Dept. Hd. DATE: September 29, 1982 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Resolution Approving 1982 -1983 Plan for Law Enforcement Services Issue Summary The Law Enforcement Services Agreement for 1982 -1983 with Santa Clara County provides that the City and Sheriff will mutually.approve a Plan of Service out- lining the maximum charges, priorities and objectives for the year. Thla Sheriff has prepared and submitted a Plan of Execution to the City. On September 28, the City Council reviewed the Plan as submitted, along with suggested amend- ments by the City Manager. The Council directed certain changes and amendments be made. The changes have been incorporated into a revised Plan, attached. The revised Plan sets forth more clearly the maximum charges, priorities and objec- tives for the year. Recommendation 1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the revised Plan for 1982 -1983; 2. Direct City Manager to forward the approved Plan to the Sheriff for review . and approval. Fiscal Impacts The Plan, as recommended, would establish a limit on charges for Law Enforce- ment Services at $846,679. This amount is.provided for in the 1982 -1983 budget. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution and.Plan of Service 2. Report from County Sheriff, 9/2/82 3. Report and Recommendations from City Manager, 9/28/82 Council Action 10/6: Fanelli/Moyles moved to adopt resolution 2015. Passed 4 -0. I L M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING, WITH ADDITIONS, THE 1982 -1983 PLAN FOR LAY.' ENFORCEMENT SERVICE WHEREAS, on Auaust 4, 1982, the Citv Council approved. the Law Enforcement Services Agreement for 1982 -1983 with Santa Clara County, which agreement provides that a "Plan of Service" be pre- pared and approved by the Sheriff and the Citv, and WHEREAS, on September 2, the Countv Sheriff forwarded a proposed Plan of Service for review by the City, and on September 28, the City Council considered the Plan as submitted by the Sheriff, along with changes and additions recommended by the City Manaaer, and ?,'HEREAS, the "Plan of Service" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" includes changes and additions desired by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the 1982 -1 983 Plan for Law Enforcement Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A." be, and hereby is, auproved by the City. Further, the City Manager is directed to forward this Plan, as approved, to the County Sheriff for his review and approval. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the _ da., of 1982 bNr the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR 4 4 PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY The County of Santa Clara has submitted to the City of Saratoga a proposed "Law Enforcement Contract" for fiscal year 82 -83. Said contract requires the submittal of a plan which specifies the level and amount of services to be provided in the ensuing fiscal year. The execution of the contract and the services plan shall be the responsibility of the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, Field Operations Division and other appropriate departmental support units. The "Law Enforcement Contract," Section IA requires that the county provide police protection through its Sheriff's Department. These services include: 1. Patrol of established beats 2. Response to emergency calls 3. Investigative services 4. Other law enforcement services Historical Service Levels Attachment "A" reflects the historical service levels to the City of Saratoga, in several categories, over the last three complete fiscal years. The data source is the COPANA reports furnished monthly to the city. Attachment "B" reflects the fiscal year 81 -82 Detective Section time expenditure in case investigations of reported crime incidents in the City of Saratoga. 5 ` PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 2 Plan of Patrol The patrol of established beats will be provided for by the assignment of specific geographical areas of the city to Sheriff's patrol units assigned to the general Saratoga area. Beat respon- sibility maps will be provided to the city as updating occurs. The Sheriff's Field Operations Division, Patrol Section, employs a ten hour workday for its employees. The ten hour work- day provides for an overlap coverage in the city so that the beat patrol level basically remains constant at all times. In fiscal 82 -83 the City of Saratoga and adjacent unincor- porated areas will be served by the following Sheriff's units: Watch I 2230 hrs. - 0830 hrs. B -20 1 person unit B -21 1 person unit Watch II 0700 hrs. - 1800 hrs. Q -20 1 person unit Q -21 1 person unit T -27 1 person unit Watch III 1530 hrs. - 0130 hrs. S -20 1 person unit 5 -21 1 person unit The responsibility of the noted assigned patrol units will be to provide for routine patrol services to the entire City of Saratoga to a level of an annualized ratio of 700 of structured patrol to the total hours of activity of the type and nature set forth in Exhibit "B" of the contract. 3 PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 3 Response to Emergency Calls for Service Experience to date indicates that the current patrol unit assignment in the City of Saratoga provides for an overall average response time to all "calls for service" of six minutes, this according to the monthly "COPANA" report (PAR004). Average response time has some value in weighing the issue of the number of patrol units assigned to an area. The average response time is affected by several factors: 1. Rounding of time to the nearest five minutes 2. Need for an immediate response based on initial reported information 3. Unit availability during peak time periods 4. Call stacking by priority /nature of reported information A strong indicator of an acceptable response time, from the Sheriff's Department viewpoint, is the level of expressed concern from the city and its citizens. Information available to this department seemingly supports a view of citizen satisfaction at this time. Investigative Services The initial case investigative responsibility for all reported crimes, misdemeanor and felony, is with the responding patrol officer. The length and /or depth of his initial investi- gation depends on the time availability of the patrol officer. Cases requiring extensive follow -up investigation are routed to the Detective Section or case assigned to appropriate beat units. Investigative services to the City of Saratoga will be provided by the Field Operations Division, Detective Section. PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 4 The Detective Section, organized by investigative case special- ization, investigates all felony and certain serious misdemeanor crime reported to the Sheriff's Department on a weighted case management basis. The Patrol Section conducts follow -up misdemeanor and traffic case investigations by case assignment to appropriate beat units. All reported felony and certain serious misdemeanor crime cases are assigned to an investigator for control purposes. Those cases showing certain case characteristics with investi- gative leads are pursued in formal investigation. Those cases showing no solvable case characteristics are case controlled and monitored by an assigned investigator. Every reported felony or serious misdemeanor case cannot be successfully investigated to a conclusion. Those cases which indicate appropriate case characteristics are focused upon so as to maximize the use of investigative time and cost. Other Law Enforcement Services The Patrol Section in fulfilling its responsibilities provides other services to the city as needed to meet its commitments, some accounted for in the established rate and others not so accounted for. The specialized services available to the city are: Traffic Investigation Unit Hostage Negotiations Unit Special Emergency Response Team Underwater Recovery Unit Search and Rescue Unit J PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 5 ' Narcotics Unit' Criminal Intelligence Unit Although such units are not routinely used, their existence and capabilities enhance the ability of the Patrol Section in its delivery of services. The City of Saratoga has evidenced interest in the devel- opment of a "Community Services Officer Program." The Sheriff's Department will provide staff assistance to the city in further developing such a program as is appropriate. The Sheriff's Department is planning the establishment of a Sheriff substation in the Saratoga area in fiscal year 82 -83. Upon establishment of the substation and as experience of its operation occurs, it may be possible to further modify the beat time /number of units structure to further control law enforcement costs to the city. The establishment of the substation may complement the development of a Community Services Officer Program in that a working relationship can be developed. Cost Projection Attachment "C" is a cost projection for the City of Saratoga developed by the Sheriff's Fiscal Division for fiscal 82 -83. =0iU1 \i4,AL ciUiIVlii "VGL,) SARATOGA COPANA 81 -82 80 -81 79 -80 ACTIVITY CODE FREQUENCY HOURS FREQUENCY HOURS FREQUENCY HOURS PART I - Felony /Serious Misdemeanor 1174 1048.5 1365 1291 1332 1217.3 100 Homicide 0 0 0 0 2 7.7 105 Kidnapping 3 2.8 5 4.2 2 2.2 110 -111 Robbery 23_ 32.8 17 31.1 10 17.9 120 -125 Assault 84 80.2 62 62,6 83 81.4 126_ Resisting /Interfering 6 9.7 12 16.8 6 5.7 130,130A Rapes 6 8.6 1 1.3 5 10.2 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 25 21.8 35 29.4 27 26.4 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 10 11.9 5 1.2 3 93.2 210 -216 Burglaries 497 496.2 642 691 562 .9 560.3 220 -222 Grand Larceny 134 99.5 158 132.2 126 112.4 230 -240 Petty Larceny 224 143.4 233 145 264 174.5 250 Auto Larceny 80 68.2 100 77.2 153 129.3 310 Narcotics, Felony 22 28.7 41 60 26 39.7 311 Narcotics, Misdemeanor 30 19 21 13.4 22 12.8 320 Weapons Off. Felony . 9 8.3 13 11.4 17 22.4 321.22 Weapons, Misdemeanor &_ Bomb Threats 91 17 -1L 9n 1A 9 1) A ,13 r TOTALS PART I 1174 1048.5 1365 1291 1332 1217.3 PART TI - Misdemeanors 330 -339 Disorderly Conduct 253 133.6 242 127.5 239 140.9 340 -349 Disturbances 991 450.6 909 403.3 956 398.7 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 554 299.5 496 285.9 583 336.2 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses _299 131 316 144.4 399 158.1 350,60; All Other Offenses 380 -431 104 80.8 120 95.1 112 93.2 TOTALS PART II 2201 1095.5 2083 1056.2 2289 1127.1 TOTALS PART I & II 3375 2144.0 3448 .2347.2 3621 2344.4 SELECTED POLICE ACTIVITIES 620 -621 Alarm Responses 1742 568.7 1263 528.8 1489 496.6 653 Report Writing 1672 1066.6 1775 1086.3 1228 836.9 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 3018 748.1 2889 704.9 3097 702.4 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstances 1039 369.4 1183 441.0 1223 439.1 703 Assist, Other 1668 624.1 2228 875.8 2086 790.6 All Other 7503 3003.7. 9398 3533.5 8135 3244.9 TOTAL CHARGEABLE 20;017 8524.6 22,184 9517.5 20,879 8854.9 800 -820 Traffic Accident 825 573.5 798 573.5 836 615.7 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 6752 2216.8 7319 2281.4 6824 2008.4 TOTAL TRAFFIC 7577 2790.3 8117 2854.9 7660 2624.1 GRAND TOTAL ATTACHMENT A lk BUREAU OF FIELD OPERATIONS DETECTIVE DIVISION FY- 1981/1082 SARATOGA CONTRACT CITY HOURS :•1011TH TOTAL hid. GR.T. SEX :"i 1J,= ASSAULT � i `:.�ui-U. GR.THEFT CHFC'KS 211 a '1 Ti -+ -EFT JUVE. NARC &_ GENERAL DRUi Y July 3492 134 11 261 11 1 1 1 2 , Aug. 3032 191 121 2 1 1 141 1 1 Sept. 274 15617 7 81 32 4 6 61 4 u 1 o Oct. 1741 871 1 121 2 1 i 81 Nov. 261 142 3 6 37 i 17 i Dec, 314 135 6 11 4 81 1 1 1 P4 1 16 p 19 2 Jan. 380; 195 81 1 14 1 41 po I 1;�': 1 Feb. 273 141 202 32 36 0 10; 22 11 221 6 I 0 I Mar. 1 347? 1481 2 15 11 2 5 8; 26 -L 302 17 352 82 0 Apr. 255 104 5; 2 4 0� 1 29 182 132 82 0 MAY 1 2732 992 142 12 91 91 13 4a 231 8 . 7; i 1 JUNE 288 - 141 2 8 13 3 47 2 5 4 12 7 2 1� ATTACHMENT B r 1982 -83 CONTRACT CITY COST PROJECTION CITY OF SARATOGA Projected Activity Hours at 0% increase over 19 81- 82 using attached +0% as base 15,345 General Law Enforcement Rate x $41.62 for 1982 -83 Z � G �og, Revenue for Patrol Service 638,659 Projected Investigative Hours for , 83 using attached with 4% ncrease 3,635 - 1 ?79% 2, Investigative Rate x $35.50 for 1982 -83 Revenue for Investigative Services $129,043 Supplemental Traffic Enforcement Days - Hours 2,080 = S Supplemental Day Rate x $37.97 Bros. Revenue for Supplemental Day T 78,978 TOTAL REVENUE $638,659 $129,043 $ 78,978 846,680 ATTACHMENT C 4 r v L'�IE�1(�)RANDt tit TO: City Council FROM: City Manager uguw @0 O&UMEX(DOZ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 II n "f1i DATE: September 28, 1982 SUBJECT: Law Enforcement Services Agreement, 1982 -1983 Plan of Service The Sheriff's Contract for 1982 -1983 provides for the approval by both the City and the Sheriff of a specific "Plan of Service" for the fiscal year. Among other things, this plan is to set a limit on the amount of charges to be billed. The proposed draft from the Sheriff's Department has been for- warded to you. I recommend we approve the draft with additions and chancres as shown on the sheet attached hereto. J. Wayne.Dernetz ck r ADDITIONS /AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED 1982 -1983 PLAN OF SERVICE UNDER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT Objectives Specified for the Law'Enforcement Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 1982 -1983 - City of Saratoga The Law Enforcement Services Agreement for 1982 -1983 between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga calls for the prepara- tion of a "Plan of Service" which is to be mutually agreed upon by October 1, 1982, for the 1982 -1983 agreement year. The "Plan of Service" specifies the limits of the amount of service to be charged to the City for the year (pursuant to Part V, Section B, Paragraph 4 of the Agreement), the levels of service to be maintained, and objec- tives that are agreeable to both parties in the provision of services for the year. This section outlines the specific understandings that are agreed to by the Sheriff and the City in accordance with the Agreement. 1. Maintenance of Average Response Time Current average response time for called -for services is six minutes. Maintain the average at or below six minutes for all called -for services. 2. Reduction of Serious Crime in Areas with above City -wide Average Incidence Analysis of reported activities by reporting district within the City shows only one district ( #333 -Quito area) to have sig- nificantly higher incidence of Part I type "serious crimes" than the average for the City as a whole. During the coming year, the Sheriff's Department will: (1) focus additional patrol activity in the Quito area in an effort to reduce the incidence of serious crime; and (2) analyze and report on possible causes of the higher incidence of reported serious crime in district #333, giving recommendations to the City Council on measures for reducing or elim- inating the effects of these causes. a 3. Maintenance of Total Effort at Prior Year Levels During recent years, the cost of Sheriff's services under con- tract has. increased at -the .,aver.ag.e rate of more than 15% per year. The co.s.t 'of .s;erv_s :ces.ATs 4a -:function of both the "price" charged by the :County an "d t „he 1 amoun ;t Hof .service” reported by the Sheriff's 'Dep-artmenft.. _-In 'the TT82 =1983 fiscal year, the price of service is estimated to increase by 12 %. This rate of increase is 4 -5 times the rate of increase in City revenues. The City has budgeted sufficient funds to provide for the price increase of 12% by reducing the amount of monies avail- able to other services. However, the amount budgeted for Sheriff's services assumes the Sheriff will not increase the total level of activity for the year above the level provided in the past year, during which the incidence crime related activities decreased below the level of the previous year. For the year, the limits of (for billing purposes) shall General Law Enforcement Investigative Supplemental Total Hours total chargeable hours by category be: 8,525 hours 3,635 hours 2,080 hours 14,240 hours The maximum charges to be billed for the year shall be: Total 14,241 4. Coordination of Community Service Officer Program $846,679.00 The City of Saratoga has investigated the use of community ser- vice officers, in conjunction with sworn law enforcement personnel, as a means of expanding the availability of law enforcement services within the community while lowering the overall costs. A preliminary analysis shows that many activities now being handled by Deputy Sheriffs under the terms of the law enforcement agreement could be handled as well by community service officers. Such use of non -sworn personnel would extend -2- Chargeable Overhead Hourly Billable Category Hours x Factor x Rate = Amount General Law Enfor. 8,525 x 1.8 x $41.62 = $638,658.90 Investigative 3,635 x 1.0 x 35.50 = 129,042.50 Supplemental 2,080 x 1.0 x 37.97 = 78,977.60 Total 14,241 4. Coordination of Community Service Officer Program $846,679.00 The City of Saratoga has investigated the use of community ser- vice officers, in conjunction with sworn law enforcement personnel, as a means of expanding the availability of law enforcement services within the community while lowering the overall costs. A preliminary analysis shows that many activities now being handled by Deputy Sheriffs under the terms of the law enforcement agreement could be handled as well by community service officers. Such use of non -sworn personnel would extend -2- AG the availability of sworn personnel for handling more diffi- cult duties and responsibilities and reduce costs of services. Successful implementation of such a program, however, depends upon full cooper.ation .and..�coordination between the Sheriff's Department and Lth:e ::C: ty -. An objective fo:r Yth.e _:bey: (1) to designate an individual in the Sheriff's Department, with sufficient command authority, as coordinator for the review and development of the Saratotga Community Service Officer (CSO) program. The individual so designated will be authorized to work out details for implementa- tion with the City on all phases of the project; (2) The CSO coordinating officer and City.represen- tatives will develop a mutually agreeable list of activities from Appendix B to the Law Enforce- ment Services Agreement that will be referred initially and routinely to available CSO staff. Along with a list of activities by type, the coordinating officer will work with City repre- sentatives to develop standard operating procedures, lines of supervision and control, communications, supplies and equipment, and other facets of the program necessary to insure the smooth and success- ful implementation of this project. -3- PLAN OF EXECUTION "LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT" CITY OF SARATOGA Fiscal 82 -83 Field Operations Division Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department i County of Santa Clara California September 2, 1982 Mr. Wayne Dernitz City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95071 Dear Mr. Dernitz: Office of the Sheriff 180 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 -9990 294 -1334 Area Code 408 Robert E. Winter, Sheriff The proposed "Law Enforcement Contract" between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga requires the development of a plan which specifies the level and amount of services to be provided in the ensuing fiscal year. For fiscal year 82 -83 this plan must be prepared and submitted by October 1, 1982. The material following is for the city's review toward completing this task. Any changes, suggestions, or information requests (if available) will be incorporated as appropriate in the final submittal. An early review and response would be appreciated. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. WINTER, SHERIFF By WESLEY E. JOHNSON, CAPTAIN Bureau of Field Operations (408) 299 -2211 WEJ : pnc ® An Equal Opportunity Employer 12-- a. 1982 -1983 Service Plan for the CITY OF SARATOGA LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT with the County of Santa Clara Administered By: Field Operations Division; Sheriff's Department Santa Clara County Y I' , 1 1982 -1983 Law Enforcement Services Plan for the City of Saratoga Part I, Section C of the Law Enforcement Contract between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga provides that the Sheriff shall develop a Plan of Service which shall be reviewed and mutually agreed upon by the City and the Sheriff. Under Part V, Section BA of the Contract, the Service Plan shall specify the maximum charges for services to be paid by the City. This Law Enforcement Services Plan is developed to satisfy these provisions of the Law Enforcement Contract. Responsibility Under the Contract, it is the responsibility of the Sheriff to pro- vide services to the City, in accordance with this Plan. The Sheriff is solely responsible for the administration and supervision of all such services provided under the Contract and for the execution of the Contract. Service Levels Service levels referred to herein are determined by the amount of hours reported to be provided and charged to the City under the terms of the Contract in each of the service categories of General Law Enforcement, Investigative Services and Supplemental Services. 1 t 1 General Law Enforcement includes the patrol of established beats and response to emergency calls and other calls for service. Historical Service Levels Attachment "A" reflects the historical service levels to the City of Saratoga, in several categories, over the last three complete fiscal years. The data source is the COPANA reports furnished monthly to the City. Attachment "B" reflects the fiscal year 81 -82 Detective Section time expenditure in -case investigations of reported crime incidents in the City of Saratoga. Plan of Patrol The patrol of established beats will be provided for by the assign- ment of specific geographical areas of the City to Sheriff's patrol units assigned to the general Saratoga area. Beat responsibility maps will be provided to the City as updating occurs. The Sheriff's Field Operations Division, Patrol Section, employs a ten hour workday for its employees. The ten hour workday provides for an overlap coverage in the City so that the beat patrol level basically remains constant at all times. In fiscal 82 -83, the City of Saratoga and adjacent unincorporated areas will be served by the folloping Sheriff's units: Watch I 2230 hrs. - 0830 hrs. B -20 1 person unit B -21 1 person unit -2- r- r Watch II 0700 hrs. - 1800 hrs. Q -20 1 person unit Q -21 1 person unit T -27 1 person unit Watch III 1530 hrs. - 0130 hrs. S -20 1 person unit 5 -21 1 person unit The responsibility of the noted assigned patrol units will be to provide for routine patrol services to the entire City of Saratoga to a level of an annualized ratio of 700 of structured patrol to the total hours of activity of the type and nature set forth in Exhibit "B" of the contract. Response to Emergency Calls for Service Experience to date indicates that the current patrol unit assignment in the City of Saratoga provides for an overall average response time to all "calls for service" of six minutes, this according to the monthly "COPANA" report (PAR004). Average response time has some value in weighing the issue of the number of patrol units assigned to an area. The average response time is affected by several factors: 1. Rounding of time to the nearest five minutes 2. Need for an immediate response based on initial reported information 3. Unit availability during peak time periods 4. Call stacking by priority /nature of reported information -3- A strong indicator of an acceptable response time, from the Sheriff's Department viewpoint, is the level of expressed concern from the City and its citizens. Information available to this department seemingly supports a view of citizen satisfaction at this time. Investigative Services The initial case investigative responsibility for all reported crimes, misdemeanor and felony, is with the responding patrol officer. The length and /or depth of his initial investigation depends on the time availability of the patrol officer. Cases requiring extensive follow - up investigation are routed to the Detective Section or case assigned to appropriate beat units. Investigative services to the City of Saratoga will be provided by the Field Operations Divison, Detective Section. The Detective Section, organized by investigative case specialization, investigates all felony and certain serious misdemeanor crime reported to the Sheriff's Department on a weighted case management basis. The Patrol Section conducts follow -up misdemeanor and traffic case investigations by case assignment to appropriate beat units. All reported felony and certain serious misdemeanor crime cases are assigned to an investigator for control purposes. Those cases show- ing no solvable case characteristics are case controlled and monitored by an assigned investigator. Every reported felony or serious misdemeanor case cannot be success- fully investigated to a conclusion. Those cases which indicate -4- r- r � � appropriate case characteristics are focused upon so as to maximize the use of investigative time and cost. Other Law Enforcement Services The Patrol Section in fulfilling its responsibilities provides other services to the City as needed to meet its commitments, some accounted for in the established rate and others not so accounted for. The specialized services available to the City are: Traffic Investigation Unit Hostage Negotiations Unit Special Emergency Response Team Underwater Recovery Unit Search and Rescue Unit Narcotics Unit Criminal Intelligence Unit Although such units are not routinely used, their existence and capabilities enhance the ability of the Patrol Section in its delivery of services. Limitation of Charges for 1982 -1983 Budgetary and fiscal constraints upon the City make it necessary to establish a limit on the total charges to be billed, according to the amount of services anticipated to be required or provided by the Sheriff. During the course of the fiscal year, if this limit on total charges appears to be insufficient, the Sheriff is responsible -5- 1 for reporting such conditions to the City Manager as soon as possible and providing recommendations for appropriate- adjustments. For 1982 -1983, the amount of service (chargeable hours) anticipated to be required, by category, is: General Law Enforcement 8,525 hours Investigative 3,635 hours Supplemental 2,080 hours Total Hours 14,240 hours The maximum charges to be billed for the year shall be: Service Priorities and Objectives for 1982 -1983 For the provision of services during the 1982 -1983 year, the following priorities and objectives are established. Sheriff and City agree to follow these priorities and pursue the objectives. 1. Maintenance of Average Response Time Maintain the average response time for "called for" services at or below six minutes. 2. Reduction -of Serious Crime in Areas with above City -wide Average Incidence Analysis of reported activities by reporting districts Um Estimated Chargeable Overhead Hourly Billable Category Hours x Factor x Rate = Amount General Law Enforcement 8,525 x. 1.8 x $41.62 = $638,658.90 Investigative 3,635 x 1.0 x 35.50 129,042.50 Supplemental 2,080 x 1.0 x 37.97 = 78,977.60 Total 14,240 $846,679.00 Service Priorities and Objectives for 1982 -1983 For the provision of services during the 1982 -1983 year, the following priorities and objectives are established. Sheriff and City agree to follow these priorities and pursue the objectives. 1. Maintenance of Average Response Time Maintain the average response time for "called for" services at or below six minutes. 2. Reduction -of Serious Crime in Areas with above City -wide Average Incidence Analysis of reported activities by reporting districts Um r within the City shows one district ( #333 -Quito area) to have significantly higher reports of Part I type "serious crimes" than the average for the City as a whole (see Attachment C). During the coming year, the Sheriff's Department will: (1) focus additional patrol activity in the Quito area in an effort to reduce the reported in- cidence of serious crime; and (2)' analyze and report on possible causes of the higher reported incidence of serious crime in district #333, giving recommendations to the City Council,on measures for reducing or elim- inating the effects of these causes. 3. Coordination of Community Service Officer Program The City of Saratoga has investigated the use of community service officers, in conjunction with sworn law enforcement personnel, as a means of expanding the availability of law enforcement services within the community while lowering the overall costs. A preliminary analysis shows that many activities now being handled by Sheriff's Deputies under the terms of the Law Enforcement Contract could be handled as well by community service officers. Such use of non - sworn personnel would extend the availability of sworn per- sonnel for handling more difficult duties and responsibilities and reduce costs of services. Successful implementation of -7- 4, / , such a program, however, depends upon full cooperation and coordination between the Sheriff's Department and the City. Objectives for the current year will be: (1) To designate an individual in the Sheriff's Department, with sufficient command authority, as coordinator for the review and development of the Saratoga Community Service Officer (CSO) program. The individual so designated will be authorized to work out details for implementa- tion with the City on all phases of the project. (2) The CSO coordinating officer and City represen- tatives will develop a mutually agreeable list of activities from Appendix B to the Law Enforce- ment Contract that would be referred initially and routinely to available CSO staff. Along with a list of activities by type, the coordinating officer will work with City representatives to develop standard operating procedures, lines of supervision and control, communications, supplies and equipment, and other facets of the program necessary to insure the smooth and successful implementation of this project. The above Plan of Service for 1982 -1983 is hereby approved. It is the intent of the Sheriff to provide services according to this Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Law Enforcement Contract. It is the intent of the City to render full cooperation and assistance to the Sheriff in providing the services called for and in meeting the priorities and objectives set forth herein. Robert E. Winter, Sheriff men City of Saratoga, by J. 'WayneyDernetz U City Manager Date: � J' r HISTORICAL ACTIVITY LEVELS SARATOGA COPANA 81 -82 80 -81 79 -80 ACTIVITY CODE FREQUENCY HOURS FREQUENCY HOURS FREQUENCY HOURS PART I - Felony /Serious Misdemeanor 100 Homicide 0 0 0 0 2 7.7 105 Kidnapping 3 2.8 5 4.2 2 2.2 110 -111 Robbery 23 32.8 17 31.1 10 17.9 120 -125 Assault 84 80.2 62 62.6 83 81.4 126 Resisting /Interfering 6 9.7 12 16.8 6 5.7 130,130A Rapes 6 8.6 1 1.3 5 10.2 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 25 21.8 35 29.4 27 26.4 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 10 11.9 5 1.2 3 210 -216 Burglaries 497 496.2 642 691 562 .9 560.3 220 -222 Grand Larceny 134 99.5 158 132.2 126 112.4 230 -240 Petty Larceny 224 143.4 233 145 264 174.5 250 Auto Larceny 80 68.2 100 77.2 153 129.3 310 Narcotics, Felony 22 28.7 41 60 26 39.7 311 Narcotics, Misdemeanor 30 19 21 13.4 22 12.8 320 Weapons Off. Felony 9 8.3 13 11.4 17 22.4 321.22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & Bomb Threats 21 17.4 20 14 4 13.5 TOTALS PART I 1174 1048.5 1365 1291 1332 1217.3 PART II - Misdemeanors 330 -339 Disorderly Conduct 253 133.6 242 127.5 239 140.9 340 -349 Disturbances 991 450.6 909 403.3 956 398.7 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 554 299.5 496 285.9 583 336.2 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 299 131 316 144.4 399 158.1 350,60; 380 -431 All Other Offenses 104 80.8 120 95.1 112 93.2 TOTALS PART II 2201 1095.5 2083 1056.2 2289 1127.1 TOTALS PART I & II 3375 2144.0 3448 2347.2 3621 2344.4 SELECTED POLICE ACTIVITIES 620 -621 Alarm Responses 1742 568.7 1263 528.8 1489 496.6 653 Report Writing 1672 1066.6 1775 1086.3 1228 836.9 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 3018 748.1 2889 704.9 3097 702.4 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstances 1039 369.4 1183 441.0 1223 439.1 703 Assist, Other 1668 624.1 2228 875.8 2086 790.6 All Other 7503 3003.7 9398 3533.5 8135 3244.9 TOTAL CHARGEABLE 20,017 8524.6 22,184 9517.5 202879 8854.9 800 -820 Traffic Accident 825 573.5 798 573.5 836 615.7 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 6752 2216.8 7319 2281.4 6824 2008.4 TOTAL TRAFFIC 7577 2790.3 8117 2854.9 7660 2624.1 GRAND TOTAL ATTACHMENT A :Y qk BUREAU OF FIELD OPERATIONS DETECTIVE DIVISION FY- 1981/1982 SARATOGA CONTRACT CITY HOURS MONTH TOTAL � hfd . GR.T. SEX l,il 1 Jij ASSAULT i ; r; . -bU ' GR.THEFT C =CKS 211 A '1 Tr =F'T JUVE. NA RC & . GENERAL DRUNK P SY�_: July 3-92 134 11 261 11 1 18 281 18 61 IP Aug. 3032 191 121 2 1 1 141 R 1 1 Sept. 274 156.1 7 .8-5 12 4 6 6 4 46 1 0 Oct. 171 871 1 121 2 1 1 81 1 Nov. 261 142 3. 6 11 i i i Dec. 314 135 6 9 11 1� gl 1 1 1 1982 Jan. I 380; 1 81 1 1 41 1 Feb. 273 141 201 2 321 36 0 101 22 11 1 221. 6 0 I Mar. 3472 1 8- 15 12 582 26 52 302 17 352 82 0 Apr. 2552 10 5� 2 0� 2 182 132 82 0 MAY 2732 992 142 12 91 91 2 131 47 231 8 71 1 JUNE 1 2882 1412 8 1 58-� 472. 5 4 12 7 2 1 1. 1 ATTACHMENT B t - - - - - - - - - - 5079-02 QElem. School O --------—-------- S A N 1 0 5 f O I P It 0 9 P i 0 A (D & ---- ------ (D ------------- - ------------ -- - ------- - 5074.01 6 e 332m 0 5074.02 > z -A 5075 A IR 0 3S4 0 501. b CIVIC CINTSP, WFS7 VAM 339 MMUNITY CO LIGE 5013.01 0 0 C 6 0 ---------- -------- - - - - - - - - - - ---------- -------- - -- --------- -------- - --- -------- 0 ---------- -------- 14, --- --- 5073-02 - ------- -- ---- - ----------- --- 0 ------- FREQUENCY OF PATROL ACTIVITIES BY DISTRICT ACTIVITY TYPE FREQUENCY OF ACTIVITY BY DISTRICT Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. TOTAL 331 332 333 334 336 338 339 DIST. Part I Current Serious YTD 196 261 207 232 78 172 7 1153 Crimes Prior YTD 229 253 171 306 104 257 8 1328 Part II Current Minor YTD 531 441 269 400 143 385 3 2172 Crimes Prior 527 404 239 382 159 332 2 2045 YTD Part I Current + YTD 727 702 476 1532 221 557 10 3325 Part II Prior 756 657 410 688 263 589 10 3373 YTD Non- Current :Crime YTD 3742 3136 2756 2619 1614 3483 317 17,667 Act. Prior 3825 2902 2650 2920 1873 3966 296 18,432 YTD Traffic Current 1079 1431 1349 2488 781 3595 19 10,742 YTD Act. Prior 1150 1494 1271 2458 934 3537 15 10,859 YTD Grand Current YTD 5548 5269 4581 5739 2616 7635 346 31,734 Total Prior 5731 5053 4331 6066 3070 8092 321 32,664 YTD 7130l�2-Z DISTRICT POPULATION AND ACTIVITY BY POPULATION (1980) Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. TOTAL 331 332 333 334 336 3�2 POPULATION 5048 6613 3192 6012 1846 6550 0 29,261 Part I Current 39 39 65 38 " 42 26 - 39 # Serious YTD Crimes/ Prior 45 38 54 51 56 39 - 45 1000 YTD Part II # Minor Current YTD 105 67 84 66 77 59 - 74 Crimes/ Prior 104 61' 75 63 86 51 - 70 1000 YTD Part I Curren + YTD 144 106 149 105 120 85 - 114 Part II Prior Crimes/ YTD 149 99 128 114 142 90 - 115 1000 Curren YTD 741 474 863 436 874 532 - 604 Non Crim. Act /1000 Prior YTD 757 439 830 486 1015 605 - 630 Curren Traffic YTD 214 216 423 414 423 549 - 367 Act /1000 Prior YTD 228 226 398 408 506 540 - 371 Curren Total YTD 1099 797 1435 954 1417 1167 - 1084 Act /1000 Prior YTD 1135 764 1357 1009 1663 1235 - 1116 DATA FROM ABAG CENSUS "80 DATA BULLENTINS 7/3ol6z DISTRICT NO. 331 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide -- -- 105 Kidnapping 0 1 110 -111 Robbery 3 2 120 -124 Assault 15 10 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering 2 6 130,130A Rapes 2 1 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 2 4 200 -203 Arson /Bombing ` 0 2 210 -216 Burglaries 81 91 220 -222 Grand Larceny 24 31 230 -240 Petty Larceny 30 35 250 Auto Larceny 17 17 310 Narcotic, Felony 4 15 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor 7 5 320 Weapons Off. Felony 2 4 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & 7 5 Bomb Threats TOTALS PART I 196 229 PART II . 315 342 653 330 -339 Disorderly- Conduct 45 63 340 -349 Disturbance 222 191 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 166 149 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 69 77 350,60; All Other Offenses 29 47 380 -431 629 792 TOTALS PART II 531 527 TOTALS PART I & II 727 756 NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 3742 3825 620 -621 Alarm Responses 315 342 653 Report Writing 253 303 671 -674 Patrol Checks 1295 880 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 724 769 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 193 240 703 Assist, Other 333 499 All Other 629 792 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 3742 3825 800 -820 Traffic Accident 164 152 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 647 795 846 -847 Traffic Monitoring 268 203 TOTAL TRAFFIC 1079 1150 GRAND TOTAL 5548 5731 I DISTRICT NO. 332 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide 105 Kidnapping 110 -111 Robbery 120 -124 Assault 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering 130,130A Rapes ' 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 210 -216 Burglaries 220 -222 Grand Larceny 230 -240 Petty Larceny 250 Auto Larceny 310 Narcotic, Felony 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor 320 Weapons Off. Felony 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & Bomb Threats 0 1 2 6 13 11 1 3 7 7 3 1 129 117 24 29 48 45 16 21 3 5 7 1 4 3 4 3 TOTALS PART I G °1 253 PART II . 991 500 408 330 -339 Disorderly-Conduct 37 36 340 -349 Disturbance 206 178 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 103 86 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 72 84 350,60; All Other Offenses 23 20 380 -431 TOTALS PART II 441 404 TOTALS PART I & II 702 657 NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 620 - 621..:: :,Alarm Responses 653 Report Writing 671 -674 Patrol Checks 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 703 Assist, Other All Other 282 163 253 246 1057 991 500 408 192 199 258 307 594 588 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 3136 2902 800 -820 Traffic Accident 115 105 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 954 1070 846 -847 Traffic Monitoring 362 319 TOTAL TRAFFIC 1431 1494 GRAND TOTAL 5269 5053 "l DISTRICT N0. 333 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide -- -- 105 Kidnapping 1 0 110 -111 Robbery 10 3 120 -124 Assault 16 7 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering ,, 0 3 130,130A Rapes 2 0 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 4 2 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 569 -- 210 -216 Burglaries 76 89 220 -222 Grand Larceny 24 13 230 -240 Petty Larceny 50 35 250 Auto Larceny 9 5 310 Narcotic, Felony 3 8 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor 9 4 320 Weapons Off. Felony .1 1 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & 2 1 Bomb Threats TOTALS PART I 207 171 PART II . 177 105 653 330 -339 Disorderly- Conduct 44 34 340 -349 -Disturbance 134 111 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 48 49 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 30 40 350,60; All Other Offenses 13 5 380 -431 505 569 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE TOTALS PART II 269 239 TOTALS PART I & II 476 410 NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 620 -621 Alarm Responses 177 105 653 Report Writing 214 241 671 -674 Patrol Checks 1006 1025 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 462 308 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 158 156 703 Assist, Other 234 246 All Other 505 569 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 2756 2650 800 -820 Traffic Accident 111 103 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 868 966 846 -847 Traffic Monitoring 370 197 TOTAL TRAFFIC 1349 1271 GRAND TOTAL 4581 4331 DISTRICT NO. 334 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide —2 —2 PART II . Kidnapping 240 105 110 -111 Robbery 5 2 120 -124 Assault 10 13 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering , 1 2 130,130A Rapes -- -- 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 3 16 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 1 2 210 -216 Burglaries 95 157 220 -222 Grand Larceny 28 22 230 -240 Petty Larceny 54 52 250 Auto Larceny 25 28 310 Narcotic, Felony 4 3 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor 1 3 320 Weapons Off. Felony 0 1 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & 3 3 Bomb Threats TOTALS PART I 232 306 PART II . 231 240 653 330 -339 Disorderly,Conduct 43 40 340 -349 Disturbance 154 170 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 121 106 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 60 49 350,60; All Other Offenses 22 17 380 -431 606 708 TOTALS PART II 400 382 TOTALS PART I & II 632 688 NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 2619 2920 620 -621 Alarm Responses 231 240 653 Report Writing 212 212 671 -674 Patrol Checks 747 813 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 403 399 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 169 179 703 Assist, Other 251 369 All Other 606 708 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 2619 2920 800 -820 830 -845 846 -847 Traffic Accident Traffic Enforcement Traffic Monitoring 145 1464 879 131 1535 792 TOTAL TRAFFIC 2488 2458 GRAND TOTAL 5739 6066 J DISTRICT NO. 336 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide -- -- 105 Kidnapping 0 1 110 -111 Robbery 1 2 120 -124 Assault 6 4 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering 2 0 130,130A Rapes -- -- 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 1 0 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 138 -- 210 -216 Burglaries 33 48 220 -222 Grand Larceny 10 13 230 -240 Petty Larceny 10 21 250 Auto Larceny 4 8 310 Narcotic, Felony 4 2 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor 1 1 320 Weapons Off. Felony 2 1 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & 4 3 Bomb Threats TOTALS PART I 221 104 PART II . 56 63 830 -845 330 -339 Disorderly-Conduct 12 22 340 -349 Disturbance 80 75 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 30 32 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 17 18 350,60; All Other Offenses 4 12 380 -431 99 138 703 TOTALS PART II 254 159 TOTALS PART I & II 221 263 Traffic Accident 56 63 830 -845 NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 555 658 620 -621 Alarm Responses 269 297 653 Report Writing 132 131 671 -674 Patrol Checks 195 190 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 316 359 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 99 138 703 Assist, Other 193 254 All Other 410 504 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 1614 1873 800 -820 Traffic Accident 56 63 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 555 658 846 -847 Traffic Monitoring 170 213 TOTAL TRAFFIC 781 934 GRAND TOTAL 2616 3070 DISTRICT N0. 338 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide -- -- 105 Kidnapping -- -- 110 -111 Robbery 1 2 120 -124 Assault .22 11 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering 1 1 130,130A Rapes 1 2 0 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 7 5 200 -203 Arson /Bombing 4 0 210 -216 Burglaries 72 126 220 -222 Grand Larceny 18 42 230 -240 Petty Larceny 29 31 250 Auto Larceny 6 19 310 Narcotic, Felony 4 6 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor 5 6 320 Weapons Off. Felony 0 3 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & 1 5 Bomb Threats' TOTALS PART I 172 257 PART II 408 405 653 330 -339 Disorderly - Conduct 66 39 340 -349 Disturbance 178 167 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass 80 65 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 48 45 350,60; All Other Offenses 13 16 380 -431 1020 1214 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE TOTALS PART II 385 332 TOTALS PART I & II 557 589 NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 620 -621 Alarm Responses 408 405 653 Report Writing 413 518 671 -674 Patrol Checks 546 577 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 556 571 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 192 210 703 Assist, Other 348 471 All Other 1020 1214 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 3483 3966 800 -820 Traffic Accident 212 222 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 2066 2011 846 -847 Traffic Monitoring 1317 1304 TOTAL TRAFFIC 3595 3537 GRAND TOTAL 7635 :m ti DISTRICT NO. 339 CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CODE ACTIVITY Frequency Frequency PART I 100 Homicide -- -- 105 Kidnapping -- -- 110 -111 Robbery -- -- 120 -124 Assault -- -- 125 -126 Resisting /Interfering 1 130,130A Rapes I -- -- 131 -150 Other Sex Offenses 0 1 200 -203 Arson /Bombing ` 1 0 210 -216 Burglaries 3 1 220 -222 Grand Larceny 1 3 230 -240 Petty Larceny Suspicious Person /Circumstance 250 Auto Larceny 1 2 310 Narcotic, Felony 11 311 Narcotic, Misdemeanor -- -- 320 Weapons Off. Felony -- -- 321,22 Weapons, Misdemeanor & -- -- Bomb Threats TOTALS PART I 7 8 PART II . PART I & II in 330 -339 Disorderly Conduct 1 0 340 -349 Disturbance 1 2 370 -375 Vandalism & Trespass -- -- 440 -442 Juvenile Offenses 1 0 350,60; All Other Offenses 15 682 380 -431 6 7 -- TOTALS PART II 3 2 TOTALS PART I & II in NON- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES (CHARGEABLE) 620 -621 Alarm Responses 1 2 653 Report Writing 155 80 671 -674 Patrol Checks 36 15 682 Suspicious Vehicle Checks 6 7 680 -681 Suspicious Person /Circumstance 2 4 703 Assist, Other 13 11 All Other 104 177 TOTAL NON- CRIMINAL CHARGEABLE 317 296 800 -820 Traffic Accident 0 2 830 -845 Traffic Enforcement 16 13 846 -847 Traffic Monitoring 3 0 TOTAL TRAFFIC 19 15 GRAND TOTAL 346 321 s CITY Or SARATOGA A ENDA BILL NO. 33.z DATE: September 30,--1982 Initial: Dept. Hd C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Annual Street Seal Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issue Summary As you know, the official call for bids on the subject project did not have any bidders. Due to the serious time constraint caused by the weather, I have been negotiating with "Mc Carthy:and Spiesman ", General Engineering Contractor, to determine a price which would be. at or below our original Engineer's Estimate. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $75,000, which included all necessary materials for the "Chip Seal ", as well as such sundry items as residence notification, traffic control, sweeping, and -- restrininq of lines and pavement messages. We have negotiated a price of fi70,404.11 to do all of the above work with the exception of painting stripes .-.arid ,,pav ®inept messages , -.- -,.Tae feel the small amount of painting required under this contract can most efficiently be done by City forces. The actual cost of paint will be less than $200.00. Approximately 80% of this work is in the Quito Area. The immediate need for this seal in order-,to protect the dig out work which has been done this summer. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to execute contract with Mc Carthy and Spiesman. Exhibits /Attachmnis 1. List and map of streets to be sealed 2. Letter proposal from Mc %Carthy and Spiesman dated September 21, 1982 Council Action 10/6: Moyles/Mallory moved to authors: -ze mayorctot._-execute contract with McCarthy and Spiesman in a aunt recommended by staff. Passed 4 -0. 0 Phone (408) 727 -0300 MCCARTHY � SPIESMAN GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS License No. 185532 Grading.6 Paving • 2770 Scott Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95050 -2577 September 21, 1982 City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Mr. Dan Trinidad Re: Seal Coating of Certain City Streets Dear Sir: We propose the following unit prices for seal coating of certain City streets in the vicinity of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue: I. Power Sweeping 834,032. SF. 2. C RS -2 Emulsion 23,168 Gallons 3. 3/8" Crushed Granite . Screens 927 Tons UNIT PRICES AMOUNT 0.009 $ 7,506.29 1.20 27,801.60 37.86 35,096.22 $70,404.11 These prices include traffic control and performance bond. These prices exclude striping and pavement markings. All work complies to the City of Saratoga's specifications. Thank you. Very truly yours, MCCARTHY $ SPIESMAN j; Joe McCarthy J M vg NAME OF STREETS SURFACE AREA DAME OF STREETS TERMINI IN SQUARE FEET Saratoga Creek Drive East of Westview - Cul De. Sac 22,200 Cosich Drive Saratoga Ave. - Saratoga Creek Dr: 69,075 todoyka San Palo Ct - Mellon Drive 85,370 4cFarland Avenue Saratoga Avenue - Devon 113,516 Montrose Street McFarland Avenue - Afton Avenue 44,220 .arrick Avenue Afton Avenue - McCoy 29,600 lartha Avenue Quito Road - Kevin Street 62,567 leath Avenue McFarland Avenue - Kevin Street 34,,595 'aseo Flores Quito Road - Bucknall Avenue 50,135 'aseo Pico. Paseo Flores - Paseo Cerro 7,371 'aseo Cerro Quito Road - Bucknall Avenue 60,643 . vlcCoy Avenue Quito Road - Paseo Presada 40,900 'aseo Presada Bucknall Avenue - Dundee Avenue 114.215 :ox Avenue Quito Road - Paseo Presada 41,885 3ucknall Avenue Quito Road - Paseo Presada .57,740 TOTAL SQUARE FEET 834,032 SP -13 7� ), �' i�� •�\ \ �'�� CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO: Dept. Head: Date: Sept. 29, 1982 City Atty: DEPARTMENT: Community Center City Mg SUBJECT: Request from Library Commission for Expenditure of Library Bond Funds Issue Summary The Library Commission has requested that several improvements be made at the Community Library. They had intended for their request to be submitted with the Capital Improvement Budget but it was received too late. Attached is the request of projects as determined by the Library Commission. The items listed in priority are as follows: 1. Replace the main entry 2. Drainage improvement o 3. Awning over book drop 4. Spotlights rear, front 5. Library sign 6. Repair stone wall Recommendation doors $ 5,500. itside storage room area 2,500 500 and side entrances 250 2,000 200 Authorize expenditure of the Library Bond construction funds to cover expenses associated with the six items above. Fiscal Impact The Library Bond Construction Fund has a balance of approximately $41,355. All items requested by the Commission are eligible expenses from the construction fund. Expenditure for the above six items would leave a balance of $30,405. A++nrhmcntc Request from Library Commission Council Action 10/6: Fanelli/Moyles moved to approve improvements on condition that #5 meet City ordinance requirements. Passed 4 -0. Q. 1 a The following request was received from the Library Commission. 1. Replace front doors $ 6,500. Complaints from patrons that the entrance doors.are heavy ".and dangerous has been received. The County Librarian had informed the Commission that the Architechural Barrier Committee (Block Grants, HUD Financing) had authorized correction of this problem. However, at the May 26 Commission meeting, Janice Yee reported that all funds had been spent and no.additional funds were available. The Saratoga Library Commission approved using .Library Bond Fund if necessary to correct the problem. Plans drawn by Architecural Barrier Committee will be made available. 2. Drainage improvement outside storage room.area $ 2,500. Damage to the storeroom floor and continuing damage in.the rainy season makes this necessary. 3. Awning over bookdrop $ . 450. The bookdrop has been relocated for the convenience of the patrons. Protection from the weather is needed for both patrons and books. 4. Spot lights for front and side entrance $ 250. The main entrance is poorly lighted. We are fortunate there has not been a serious accident. The spot li..ght will be located under..the eaves and is to be daylight - controlled. The side entrance to.the Community Room is.dark. Groups using the room use this exit to the parking lot. This under.the eaves spot is to be on a switch. 5. Library sign $ 2,000. All public buildings should identified by well placed signs. The Community Library sign is not visible to motorists. The Commission recommends a free standing sign of redwood (lighted) near Saratoga Avenue. 6. Repair stone wall $ 200. Children play on the wall and have caused considerable damage. This is unsightly. We cannot promise that the wall will not continue to be played on, but the damage now evident should be repaired. CITY OF SARATOGA 33 p Initial: �. A=A BILL NO. O Dept. Hd. DATE: September 30, 19 8 2 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services C. Mgr. Ck-. SUBJECT: Status Report on Village Library -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issue Summmary BIDS - Following the call for bids on repairs at the Village Library, only one bid was received.- The City's - estimate for repairs was $19,500,'and the amount bid was $28,000. A memo regarding the bid is attached for your review. Council direction is needed as to whether the project should be rebid in full, should the project be scaled down to stay within the $19,500, or the Council may wish to increase the appropriation level for this project. LEASE -- On August 10, 1982, Council gave direction to staff on guidelines for the lease agreement with the two groups (VITA and Friends of the Library) plan - ..ning to use the Library. Council directed staff to require a monthly rental of $300 per month from VITA. Attached is a letter from VITA indi- cating their willingness to pay $250 per month, and requesting a waiver of rent for the first few months of occupancy. Recommendation Give direction to staff as to which alternative to pursue on the repair bid. Give direction to staff as to Council's position on reduction and partial waiver of monthly rent from VITA. Fiscal Impacts In June of 1982, Council appropriated $19,,500 for repairs of the Village Library. Appropriations made in fiscal year 1981 -82 cannot be carried over into fiscal year 1982 -83. Following Council's decision on the bid issue, it will be neces- sary to appropriate the required funds from Revenue Sharing for 1982 -83 to complete the repairs planned for the Library. Exhibits /Attachments Memo from Director of Community Development Bid Summary Letter from VITA Council Action 10/6: Clevenger/Mbyles moved to reject bid. Passed 4 -0. Cbnsensus to go to bid and send letter to VITA stating rent is $300 plus utilities. i uguw @2 O&UMNODO& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 887 -3438 TO: Director of Administrative Services FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Village Library Renovation DATE: September 20, 1982 I have met with the contractor who supplied the only bid for this work to discuss the project and his bid. The contractor was extremely cooperative and open in discussing how he had reviewed and bid this project. The engineer's estimate on this work was $19,500 and the bid was for $28,000. In reviewing this with,the contractor, it became obvious that we had estimated the work more in line with new construction than with reconstruction and remodeling. Remodeling will require more demolition of existing than had.been anticipated with the associated reconstruction of a greater area.. This amounts to approximately $3,000 on the structural portion of the bid. The second major item of difference was the amount of underfloor excavation which will be required to provide appropriate access and room for underfloor repairs. This amounted to approximately $2,000 difference in the cost. This amounts to approximately 500 of the difference between the estimate and the contractor's bid. However, it is difficult for me to recommend award of this contract without comparative bids. Ro er• S. Shook Director of Community Development RSS:cd Dwre.* !2ZZ2 7-1,Ve: - _ Z,, OC) I 7 -Y OF SARAT06A e- 4 2,0 1- k�:r cct-d , L . freAl DEscRlprlolv QZIANrlry uvlr UN/7- j TOTAL 41"17' PRIc r 70 7A t P91ce rlo 7-A L ro r4 - 7 00� 666 S— 2 //,000 /Z, aaa Z, 6C)C) t C,4 C) k�:r cct-d , L . I� EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Judith Lyn Sutton BOARD OF DIRECTORS Gladys Armstrong Noorudin Billawala Jim Blakemore Roy Brant George Bunyard David Hammond Ken Leonard Donald B. Miller Bill Peck Miles Rankin Barclay Slade Judith Lyn Sutton John Swartz Dr. Phillip Warner Carolyn L. Wesenberg ADVISORY BOARD Andrew J. Beverett Cole Bridges Ellen Bridges Marjory M. Bunyard Dorothy Day Honorable Rod Diridon Peter Donat Miriam Eldridge Sandra Farris Dr. Justine Forbes Dr. Malcolm Forbes George T. Forrester Donald W. Fulp Lucille Hogan Honorable Lee Holden Sarita Kay Johnson Raisa Kocher Til Mahoney Dorothy J. Nibert Diane Paxton Victoria M. Robertson Ann S. Ryan Chuck Stauss Dr. Warren Sturla R. Maurice Tripp Mrs. R.'Maurice Tripp Jackie Welch Philip Young Tessie Young Eugene L. Zambetti A N.-Pn119 T.a [...y+ 0 p— .N" r_p" lltaa= -p.o. loom 999 ~ t oga. rA. 91071 TIt, +4$ - P7 -15 95 September 16, 1982 GL Saratoga City Council Members Saratoga City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Council Members: At our Board of Directors meeting on Tuesday, September 15, 1932, we discussed VITA's current financial condition and future prospects in relation to the rent and utilities we could afford to pay for use of the Village Library building for the coming year. At this point we feel we can pay $250.00 for the rent plus 50 -603 of the utilities, depending on usage. However, we would like to delay the rent for the initial few months in order to put money into the partitions which will be necessary to divide the space between the two groups using the building. We must have the partitions so that we can secure the separate parts, since each group will have possible use at different times. We would have excessive supervision responsibility if the space were not divided. (The partitions would not be permanent.) lie are prepared to enter into the lease with the City as soon as details are clarified. JLS /mb Sincerely, Judith Lyn Sutton Executive Director CITY OF SAP-ATOM 2 �7 Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 4y- Hd. DATE: October 1, 1982 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis SUBJECT: Appointment of Sister City Steering Committee C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue Summary On September 1st the City Council approved Resolution No. 20.12 which established a Sister City Commission. The purpose of such a Commission is to recommend to the City Council if Saratoga should establish a Sister City relationship with the City of Muko -Shi, and to identify the procedures to be followed in establishing a relationship including the further organization of the Sister City Commission for the City of Saratoga. On September 2nd the Director of Maintenance Services forwarded a letter, (Attachment #2) to individuals who have expressed interest in such a program over the last several years. As a result of the letter, staff has received approximately 26 names indicating a desire to participate in the Commission. All members on the list should be encouraged to participate in the program. However, staff finds that a five member Steering Committee to oversee'an Ad Hoc Committee is essential. Peoommendation Staff recommends that the City Council appoint a five member Steering Committee to coordinate and direct the action of the remainder of the Ad Hoc Committee. Staff is recommending the following individuals be appointed on the Steering Committee: Gene Zambetti - Rotary John Terry - Parks & Recreation Marion Card Hiroshi Haseqawa One "Councilperson All individuals listed on Exhibit 3 will next several weeks. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attactmpnts Commission be invited to a meeting within the :Exhibit.l -:Resolution 2012 Exhibit 2 - Letter from Director of Maintenance Services, dated September 2, 1982 Exhibit 3 - List of interested individuals Exhibit 4 - Resolution Council Action 10/6: Moyles appointed chairman of steering committee. Package of presents and greetings to be prepared for Muko -shi. RESOLUTION NO.2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE XITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A SISTER CITY RELATION WITH MUKO -SHI, JAPAN WHEREAS, the Sister City program was initiated in 1956 to foster people -to- people friendship and promote peace and understanding among all nations; and WHEREAS, because of its many similarities in size, economy and interests, as well as mutual interests of its people in Saratoga Hakone Garden, the people of Muko -shi, Japan, have proposed a Sister City relation with the people of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Saratoga recently was honored to receive official delegates on behalf of Muko -Shi; and WHEREAS, The City Council wishes the people of Saratoga to be fully informed on the significance and responsibilities of entering into a Sister City relationship and to be given every opportunity to accept the invitation of the people of Muko -Shi in fully open and unreserved manner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby establishes a Sister City Commission whose initial purposes shall be: 1. To review and recommend to the City Council if Saratoga should establish a sister city relationship with Muko -shi. 2. The procedures to be followed in establishin; such a relationship, including the further organi- zation of a Sister City Commission for the City of Saratoga. The Commission shall report its findings and recommendations to the City Council within 45 days. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 1st day of September 1982, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Clevenger, Mallory, Moyles, and Mayor Callon NOES: None ABSENT:Councilmember Fanelli �) Mayor ATTEST: PLC •( City C .er ✓ p) 1. l: 1:1777 �,.'/ (•�i�r3) ttt ;'l- :3.1:31 September 2, 1982 Dear Interested Citizen: The Saratoga City Council is forming a Commission to consider the invitation to establish a Sister City affiliation with Muko -Shi, Japan. The invitation has come from the exchange of learning and ideas.between Saratoga'and the people of Japan through Hakone Japanese Gardens. The success of this kind of program will depend upon strong support from the community. The purpose of the Commission is to review the invitation and to recommend to the Council whether there is sufficient support from the community for such a pro- gram to be successful. If you or a member of your organization would like to serve on this Commission, please respond by providing me with the name, address and phone number of those interested. A list of those who express interest will be presented to City Council and con- sideration will then be made to appoint the Commission. I would appreciate hearing from you by September 17, 1982, so that information can be prepared for consideration by the City Council at their October 6 meeting. If you have any questions about this program, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, Barbara Sampson, Director Maintenance Services Department ck Enclosure: Resolution 2012 SISTER CITY COMMITTEE Interested Persons CHARLES ROBBINS 19348 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 354 -8157 JOHN TAUCHI 20387 Miljevich Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -9133 Home 463 -2734 Work PEGGY CORR 19224 De Havilland Saratoga, CA 95070 253 -6564 BUD & MARION CARD 20116 Chateau Saratoga, CA 95070 867-3797 EMMETTE T. GATEWOOD, JR. (Out of town until October 15th) 19384 Monte Vista Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -3447 Work 354 -9343 Home MEL CARREROW Community Players 4135 San Ramon Way San Jose, CA 95111 578 -6392 Home HIROSHI HASEQAWA Yakata Restaurant 18830 Cox Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 379 -6011 JOHN TERRY (Official Rep. from Parks & Recreation Commission) 18675 Woodbank Way Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -4483 SUE BUCHAN 12553 Woodside' Saratoga, CA 257 -7290 ED GOMERSALL 19817 Veronica Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 996-8050 SISTER CITY COMMITTEE. - Page Two MARILYN WHITE 20811 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -9417 LOU LETO Chamber of Commerce 1655'S. Saratoga Sunnyvale Road San Jose, CA 446 -5336 - Work GENE ZAMBETTI Saratoga Rotary Club 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070, 867 -3884 NAOMI C. HOFFMAN 14571 Horseshoe Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -0268 KATHRYN YOSHIMOTO 15887 Ravine Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 354 -4645 WILLIAM NOTZ 18276 Purdue Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 379 -2418 Home s Work GLADYS ARMSTRONG AAUW 20462 Chalet Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -1090 SAM MITCHELL 14969 Jerries Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -1961 738 -7292 CHARLES SWAN 20300 La Paloma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 741 -0322 Home & Work ARTHUR F. OKUNO 21811 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -4297 ROMA RIEKER 14850 Baranga Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -9354 Home 358-2711 Work ROSS JACOBS Ross Jacob Interiors Saratoga Village Association 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -0225 - Work NORIKO YONEJI / (Japanese Teacher at Foothill) 5286 Allan Avenue San Jose, CA 264 -3455 Home FUMIYO TANE 21086 Sarahill Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -2991 - Home MIMI WILL 4042 Hamilton Park Drive San Jose, CA 95130 243 -9492 KEN COLSON 13851 Raven Court Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -2200 X 361 Work 379 -5383 Home BRUCE MCC LELLAND 20465 Saratoga -Ins Gatos Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 867 -3126 C_ xh ►b;-� 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING A STEERING COMMITTEE REGARDING SISTER CITY PROGRAM WITH MUKO -SHI, JAPEN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga approved Resolution No. 2012 establishing a committee to review and recommend to the City Council if Saratoga should establish a City relationship with Muko -Shi; and WHEREAS, the City received twenty -six qualified applicants whom are all encouraged to participate; NdW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council appoints the following individuals to serve as a Steering Committee: ..,t,. Gene Zambetti - Rotary John Terry - Parks & Recreation Commission Marion Card Hiroshi Haseqawa One City Councilperson PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City of Saratoga City Council, State of California, this 6th day of October, 1982 by the following vote; AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN• ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 33 AGF1�'DA BILL NO. 3 DATE: October 6, 1982 pE:pj,U I, : Maintenance Services SUBJECT= TRUCK PURCHASES C1 11Z OF SA1ZJ'V J N Initial: . Dept. fid. C. Atty. C. Mgr. Issue St.�rmary We have received four (4) formal bids on the two "Pick -Up.7" "trucks which are in- cluded in the 1982 -83 budget. The lowest net price bid was made by South Bay Ford of San Jose. The net price bid for the two "Pick -Ups" was $15,486.20 which includes a $500.00 trade -in allowance for each of our two old pick -ups. We have.not finally decided whether to accept the trade -in bid, or to dispose of the old trucks in another method which may further reduce the net cost to the City. To this price we will add $34.04 to cover the cost of gauges (ol.pressure, water temperature, etc.) in lieu of warning lights for one of the trucks. Reccmnendation Council to authorize the City Manger to purchase two (2) "pick- up'_trucks" from "South Bay Ford" at a total net price not to exceed $15,520.24 including "sales tax (:The City is exempt from License Fees) Fiscal Impacts The 1982 -83 Capital Improvement Budget includes $17,000.00 for these two (2) trucks. E: -.h ibits /A ttachmen is See attached bid summary Council Action 10/6: Fanelli /Clevenger moved to award bid according to staff reondation. Passed 4 -0. us } 800.00 700.00 600.00 500.00 600.00 BID SUMMARY 800.00 1,000.00 1,400.00 1,700.00 1,400.00 15,480.00 16,176.22 16,490.81 Bids received 3:00 P.M. September 23, 1982 1,100.00 1,700.00 1,400.00 14,480.00 South Bay Fremont Ron Baker Swanson 1,051.45 Ford Ford Chevrolet Ford 1. Cost of New Trucks 15,929.68 2 Ton Pick Up $8,045.00 8,580.26 8,372.80 8,548.00 Medium Utility Truck $7,435.00 7,595.96 8,118.01 7,724.00 Total Cost 15,480.00 16,176.22 16,490.81 16,272.00 II. Trade Ins 1972 Chevrolet Pick -Up 1974 Intern'1 Harv. Pick -Up Total Trade In III. Net Costs Total Cost Less Ttoal Trade In Sub -Total Sales Tax Total 500.00 800.00 700.00 600.00 500.00 600.00 1,000.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,400.00 1,700.00 1,400.00 15,480.00 16,176.22 16,490.81 16,272.00 1,000.00 1,100.00 1,700.00 1,400.00 14,480.00 14,776.22 14,790.81 14,872.00 1,006.20 1,051.45 1,071.90 1,057.68 15,486.20 15,827.67 15,862:71 15,929.68 Crry Or sl- RF `C 3 Initial: ACEZA BILL ISO. Dcpt. F1d. DATE: October 6, 1982 C. AttyIWA DEPiV%' IENT: Community Development C. Mgr. - - - -- S=.CT. FINAL MAP APPROVAL TRACT 7178 , KAMIL NAVAI, BIG BASI (8 townhouse units & 1 commercial unit) ------------------------------------------------------------ Issue SLM=ry 1. The tract 7178 is ready for final approval. 2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. Requirements of City Departments and other agencies have-been met. 4. A Negative Declaration was approved with the project.dated July 8, 1980. Reccnmendation r Adopt Resolution 1485 -2 attached, approving Final Map of Tract 7178 and authorized execution of contract of Improvement Agreement Fiscal Imcacts None E :di ibits /Attachments 1. Copy of Tentative Map approval 2. Resolution No. 1485 -2 3. Location Map 4. Report to Planning Commission Council Action 10/6: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0. ,j RESOLUTION NO. 1485 -2 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT 7178 WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of Tract 7178 Big Basin Way having heretofore been filed with this City Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor.completed, and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require- ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, and with all local ordinances applicabrle,at the time.of approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save and except as follows: None NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: (1) The aforesaid final amp is-hereby conditionally approved. Said approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance with Section (3) hereof. (2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. (3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept- ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted, and as a condition precedent.to the City Clerk certifying the approval and releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the -1- estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS-60 as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe- cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city. (4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require- ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day Of , 19 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR La^ n ruo. 1 7 t� A l ESTERLEE C 1 11 J r1 f, 3 �= < f LC GIM O ♦v E. GV f N[I�yIMAN > [EK f A ,E ! D J ZA►iGLL/ cr > F � < z F ! P �r B1G_ v \ \ f? N ' \ I. �S 1I + C OAK Zx \\ S . 'O � L t a t `o t 7 V Sol J Q 4f. •r 1 I � LOCATION MAP TRACT 7178 O 1 r C 0 0 c O � r J 7� L � � W k a r1 f, 3 �= < f LC GIM O ♦v E. GV f N[I�yIMAN > [EK f A ,E ! D J ZA►iGLL/ cr > F � < z F ! P �r B1G_ v \ \ f? N ' \ I. �S 1I + C OAK Zx \\ S . 'O � L t a t `o t 7 V Sol J Q 4f. •r 1 I � LOCATION MAP TRACT 7178 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION INE "A DATE: 5/7/81 Commission Meeting: 5/13/81 SUBJECT SDR -1485, K. Navai and M. Kermani, 14599 Big Basin Way Tentative ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Building Site Approval - 1 Lot - - - - -- Background: On August-27, 1980, the Planning Commission approved UP -448, to allow the construction of eight multi - family dwelling units and one retail store. This project also received Design Review Approval (A -721) on the same date. Grading for the project was also reviewed at that time. Previously, this property received Tentative Building Site Approval (SDR -1378) on October 5, 1978, for a restaurant use, which has since expired. (These reports are attached for the Commission's information.) At its Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of March 31, 1981, the Co:rnnission discussed the General Plan designation of the property and the issue of density. The 1974 General Plan Map shows the property as apartments which would not allow the construction of the retail building. However, the Planning Commission determined that the intent of the General Plan was to allow mixed uses in the Village area. In particular, that commercial uses be located to front on Big Basin Way and that multi- family uses be located to the rear or above such uses. Therefore, it was determined that this project is consistent with the General Plan. Project Description: The site is approximately 43,500 sq. ft. in size and has an average slope of about 18%. It is in the C -V (Visitor Commercial) zoning district. Saratoga Creek runs through the north- western portion of the site. All structures are located outside of the required Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. Proposed building pad elevations would keep the buildings free from flooding from the to flood. The units proposed are townhouse units rather than condominiums as originally indicated in the use permit. This means the owners of the units would own the ground area immediately underneath them rather than just air space. Access to the site will be provided from Big Basin Way via a 20' wide driveway. Access will also be provided from Parking District No. 1 which is designed to promote one -way traffic through the site by use Planning Ccaunisssion -2- `•... 5/7/81 of a gate and back up barriers. This will allow traffic to enter and exit the site by Big Basin Way, but the site could not be entered from Parking District No. 1 except by emergency vehicles. PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan; and all requirements of the Zoning:and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and avail- able fiscal and environmental resources. A Negative Declaration was prepared and has been filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: July 8, 1980- The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1485 (Exhibit B filed January 29, 1981) subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Depart- ment regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Construct standard driveway approach. B. Provide adequate sight- distance and remove obstructions of view as required. C. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. D. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director of Public Works. E. Obtain encroachment permit from CAL TRANS for work done within State right of way. F. Install one (1) Big Basin Way style street light on Big Basin Way. Planning Commission -3- 5/7/81 G. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit grading and drainage plans to CAL TRANS for review and approval. H. Replace existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Big Basin Way as directed by Director of Public Works. I. All access ways to be a minimum of 18 ft. wide. J. All access ways, parking areas, and other quasi - public paved areas are to be surfaced using a minimum of 23�" A.C. on 6" aggregate base. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Geology 2. Soils 3. Foundation B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued. C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities). 2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. 5. Erosion control measures. 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., .owner's name, etc.) D. Bonds required for erosion control prior to issuance of permits. E. Compliance with the City Geologists review dated 4/21/81. F. Demolition permits required for removal of existing structures. I Planning Commission -4= IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 5/7/81 A. Applicant to submit enumerated fees to County Sanitation District No. 4 in accordance with letter dated March 26, 1981, prior to issuance of permits. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet. B. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road.or_ driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. D. Developer to install 1 hydrant(s) that meet Saratoga Fire District's specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. E. As 1 of the hydrants will be on -site, the developer is to grant an easement to make these hydrants public,as per the require- ments of the Saratoga Fire District. F. Developer shall deposit a fee of $10.00 per hydrant prior to the issuance of a building permit. VI., SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Dedicate a right -of -way easement to the Santa Clara Valley Water District as shown on the map submitted by the District. B. All grading adjacent to the SCVWD right -of -way to be done in accordance with sheets 20 -20B of said agency. Details of grading to include the cross - sectional view at the right -of- way and are to be shown on the Improvement Plans. Plans to be submitted to SCVWD for review and permit issuance prior to construction. C. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. D. Any wall, curb or gate within the required right -of -way shall be maintained and repaired by the applicant. Planning Commission -5- 5/7/81 E. No overbank site drainage into creek allowed. Site Drainage shall be incorporated into an existing storm drainage system. If outfalls are required, outfall structure details and number shall be submitted for review and issuance of permit by the District. F. Improvement grading and landscape plans for District review and issuance of permit. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. The applicant shall landscape all portions of the public right -of -way that are to remain unimproved. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for review and approval. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and established within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements. B. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agree- ment with the City -for those landscaped areas within the public right -of -way and private landscaped areas. The appli- cant shall maintain these landscaped areas for a minimum of one year after which the homeowners association shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped areas. C. All individual lot owners shall be required to become members of a homeowners association for the express purpose of main- taining all landscaped areas within the public right -of -way. The C,C, &R's of the homeowners association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department, prior to final approval. D. C,C, &R's shall state that the City has the right but not the duty to enforce the C,C, &R's. The C,C, &R's shall not be amended without written consent from the City of Saratoga. E. A revised site plan showing the parallel guest parking stalls shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to final approval. COMMENTS: An implied finding of consistency with the General Plan was made during the approval of the use permit for this project. Now a specific finding of consistency with the General Plan must be made for this Tentative Building Site Approval. Approve MF /da Agenda: 5/13/81 Michael Flo e , Assistant Planner a� CI'I z OF SAIZI'llM-� f Initial: AGF%IDA BILL NO. 33�" Dept. W. DATE• October 6 1982 C. Atty. DEP.Al .�IE.1Pr: Community Development C. Mgr. SU£>7ECI': CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR - 1437 - QUITO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER Issue S��nary The public improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Reconmendation Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Building Site. Fiscal Imaacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Memo describing development and bond. Council Action 10/6: Approved on Consent Calendar 4 -0. �G l C�3 tJ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council DATE: September 27, 1982 FROM: Director of :Community Development SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1437 Name & Location: Northwest Projects, Quito Village Shopping Center Public Improvements required for .SDR -1437 have been satisfactorily completed. I,, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Northwest Project Corporation . Address: 1401 -1166 Alberni Street Vancover, B.C. 2. Improvement Security: Type: Letter of Credit Amount: $45,870.00 Issuing Company: The Mercantile Bank of Canada Address: P.O. Box 579 Vancouver, B.C.. V6C 2N4 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 04508823 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook CI1'i OF Si �I:J CG% �• Initial: AGEDA BILL NO. �. Dept. iki. DAB- October 6 1982 C. At DEP. -u :E:,,-r: Community Development C. Mgr. SU&J.Cr: CONSTRUCTION ACCEPTANCE FOR SDR - 1357 - ELVIRA STREET Issue SL^Tmary The public improvements required for the subject building site have been satisfactorily completed. This "Construction Acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. Recc=endaticn Grant "Construction Acceptance" to the subject Building Site. Fiscal Imcacts None Exhibits /Attachrrr_n is 1. Memo describing development and bond. Ccuncil Action 10/6: Mallory /Clevenger moved to approve. Passed 3 -0 (Fanelli abstaining). .f I � MOO RA 1WIS (Oguw o9 0&T2&UQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: City Council DATE: September 27, 1982 FROM: Director of :Community Development - SUBJECT: Construction Acceptance for SDR -1357 Name & Location: Wilson Development Inc., El-vira Street Public Improvements required for SDR -1357 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that yeah, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Wilson Development, Inc. Address: 14370 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA. 2. Improvement Security: Type: Surety Amount: $12,000 Issuing Company: Fremont Indemnity Company Address: 411 Borel San Mateo, CA. 94402 Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 93620 3. Special Remarks: RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook CIII z OF S�,I�YI�Cu1 3� Initial: AGE:\'DA BILL NO. Dept. Ekl. __JJ )� DATE: October 6, -1982 DEPAR';aTr: Community Development SDR -1523, Mr. & Mrs. Gerald SUBJECT: Building Site Approval - 2 C. Atty. C. Mgr. ---------------------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Jacobsen, 14960 Sobey Rd., Tentative lots, Appeal of Planning Commission Denial. Issue SL=- ary The Planning Commission denied the subject lot split on September 8, 1982 finding it inconsistent with General Plan policies relating to access. The lot split would cause a fifth lot to access onto a minimum access road while the Subdivision Ordinance only allows subdivision of 4 or less lots to front on minimum access streets if a finding of special circumstances can be made. This same proposal was denied by the Planning Commission 2 years ago and then granted by the Council on appeal (SDR- 1463), but the approval expired without request for extension. A similar proposal (Thompson, SDR -1484) was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council in the Spring of 1981. ReccmTL--ndaticn Staff recommended .denial.of the proposal. If the Council wishes to approve the application they must the Negative Declaration and then approve the project,per dated August 17, 1982 with the appropriate findings listed Project Status and the recommended conditions. Fiscal Impacts Not Applicable Exhibits /Attach7r_nis 1. Appeal Application 2. Resolution SDR- 1523 -1 3. Staff Report dated 8 -17 -82 4. Planning Commission Minutes 9 -8 -82 5. Negative Declaration 6. Memo and Map from Russ Crowther dated 9 -7 -82. 7. Exhibit "B" 8. Correspondence Received Council Action first approve the Staff Report under Draft 10/6: Fanelli/Mallory moved to approve Negative Declaration. -Passed 4 -0. Fanelli /Myles moved to approve appeal per conditions of staff report and making the finding that project is consistent with the General Plan. Passed 4 -0. IrA r I W 1 5 1982 J�1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Name of Appellant: Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: Project Description: APPEAL APPLICATION Date Received: Hearing Date: Fee CITY USE ONLY J. Decision Being Appealed: '(' =d\i �'`T'!ld.r�t'aF� r =i�.11?+�_ �. Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): T' 15.10N Off. TBEZ. P� A, �NjN� c�r��► }�� 1 Z'� DC� 1�; 7' � SvUI,DIV1510 p N THE GROU,-IDS T'H >T -rH07- a 5y THIEi ' AN7D THE o': i� N SHOO Pc TH T E -> -41= T� P i V� Vii' 6e. C % .fie' �: r0a�,`c' 1 N :°C� �!' ©e`'- -r H u- �z C. z U e �. Appellant's g- nature *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF HE DATE OF THE DECISION. u r RESOLUTION NO. SDR - 1523 -1` RESOLUTION DENYING TENTATIVE MAP OF GERALD JACOBSEN WHEREAS, application has been made to the= Aldvi2sory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative map approval of a lot, site or subdivisions of 2 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SDR -1523 of this City, and WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency he'ieby finds that the proposed sub - division, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is not consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision and land use is not compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the approved Staff Report dated August 17, 1982 ,and /or the findings.on the reverse page, being hereby made for further particulars, and WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received -and considered the _(EXU (Negative Declaration) prepared for this project in accord with the currently applicable provisions of CEQA, and WHEREAS, the conditions s:et forth in` Subsections (a) and-(b) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should not be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 21st day of July , 19 82, and is marked Exhibit "B in the here nabove referred to file be and the same is hereby denied. The rationale of said denial is as more particularly set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein be reference, and the approved minutes. The above and foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the (Planning Commission) at a meeting there- of held on the 8th day of September 19 82, at which a quorum was present, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Siegfried A ST• wip A-�CWL Secretary ADVISORY AGENCY At �l Chairman CBs Ego 0&MZUQ)0& REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City of scrc;c_aa v DATE: 8/17/82 Commission Meeting: 9/8/82 SUBJECT: SDR -1523, Gerald Jacobsen, Sobey Road, Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 lots REQUEST: The applicant is requesting subdivision approval for 2 lots on a private access road off of Sobey Road in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. This same proposal was approved by the City Council on appeal from the LDC in 1980. However, the Tentative Map expired in May, 1982. The private road presently has 4 lots taking access from it and this proposal would create a fifth lot on a private access street. Creating an additional lot on the street is inconsistent with the Subdivision Ordinance and the General Plan. PUBLIC NOTICING: Mailings to everyone within 500 feet, posting and noticing placed in the Saratoga News. PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 1.916 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very low density residential ZONING: R -1- 40,000 SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential SITE SLOPE: 15.48 SLOPE OF PROPOSED LOTS: Parcel A -12.63 Parcel B -18.52 EXISTING STRUCTURES & FEATURES: House and pool on Parcel A to remain. Existing barn on Parcel B to be removed. Drainage swale at easterly boundary. GEOLOGY: Recommended for approval by City Geologist on August 3, 1982 per attached memo. Report to Planning-Commission page 2. SDR -1523 C PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: BACKGROUND: Four residences presently take access from the minimum access road. Two sites adjacent to the road have received lot splits in the last four years - -SDR -1371, Vaccaro and SDR -1367, Call as well as the previous proposal SDR -1463, Jacsobsen. A similar: application was denied, SDR -1484, Thompson. SDR -1367, Call. The applicant received a tentative lot split on a 2.07 acre parcel off the subject access road on June 1, 1978 and final approval on November 28, 1979. The lot split created the fourth lot to take access from the minimum access road. At the time of the split, the Planning Commission defined the existing residences' setbacks and no variance was required. SDR -1371, Vaccaro. The applicant received a tentative lot split on July 20, 1978 with abandonment of the existing driveway (through the middle of the lot) to an easement on the north side of the parcel, for access to the two - parcels. This access parallels the subject access road but is 162.7' north of it; thus this split did not create additional lots taking access on the roadway. Final Approval was granted on February 14, 1979. SDR -1463, Jacobsen. The applicant received a tentative lot split on the same parcel as this application on November 5, 1980 on appeal to the City Council from the LDC. This split created a fifth lot on a minimum access road but the approval has now expired. SDR -1484, Thompson. The applicant was denied a tentative lot split on a 2.28 acre parcel off of Sobey Road by the Planning Commission on February 25, 1981 and by the City Council on appeal on April 1, 1981. BODY OF REPORT The applicant is requesting a lot split wh.ich.would cause a fifth lot to access onto a minimum access road. The General Plan policies state: "Minimum City street standards shall depend upon location, terrain, character of areas and the anticipated function of the roadway." "The City shall require adequate access in keeping with the density of development." One objective of the General Plan is to: "Relate land uses to existing street capacities." Report to Plannin Commission page 3. SDR- 1523.:'. �. The Subdivision Ordinance, written to conform to the General Plan, states in Section 13.3 -7 that: "Every lot shall either front on an accepted public street..., except that the advisory agency-may allow the following: A subdivision of 4 or less lots to front on a minimum access street... ". w Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal, finding (a) that the design or .improvement of the proposed sub- division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. If the Planning Commission determines to approve this application, then the following findings need to be made: DRAFT PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of 1974 General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property or that the access road exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner and granting an exception will not be detrimental to the.public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said subdivision is located. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said deter- mination date: July 8, 1980 Any approval of the tentative map for SDR -1523 (Exhibit "B" filed July 21, 1982 should be made subject to:the following conditions: . . ... .... .... 1. GENERAL- •CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ord- inance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Report to Planning Commission Page 4. SDR -1523 Department regulations and applicable Flood Control re- gulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF .COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval (Currently $1100 /Lot). B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City of Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking and Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three'(3) to- scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide for._a 30 ft. Half- Street on Sobey Road. D. Improve Sobey Road to City Standards, including the following: Designed Structural Section 20 ft. between certerline and flowline. Asphalt Concrete Berm Undergrouding Existing Overhead Utilities. E. Construct Access Road 18 ft, wide plus 1 ft. Shoulders using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from Sobey Road to turnaround on Parcel "B ". Slope of access road shall not exceed 122% without adhering to the following: Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% and 172% shall.be surfaced using 22 in..Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate Base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted. Note: The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface be 15 ft. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading. Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and roadside ditches. Vertical curves to be reconstructed to meet minimum safety requirements. C C- Report to Planning Commission page 5. SDR -1523 F. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling on Parcel "B". G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under access road as approved by the Director of Community Development. H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required at driveway and access road intersections. I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. J. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills. K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for: Street Improvements Access Road Construction L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans. M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval. N. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional 1. Soils ) Meet requirements of City Geologist's 2. Foundation ) Memo dated August 3, 1982 B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit being issued as required by consultant. C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - section, existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities) 2. Prior to Final Map Approval provide drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.) P.S.D.E.'s 3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 ft. or higher. 4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed. See below. Report to Planning Commission page 6. SDR -] 523 5. Erosion control measures 6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos, owner's name, etc. D. Bonds required for structure improvements per E -1. E. Other requirements: 1. All existing structures to be evaluated by licensed consultant for code conformance. Report to be provided to City. Corrections to be made or bonded for prior to Final Map Approval. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT N0. 4 A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated July 2, 1980. V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT _ A. Improve access road for fire protection vehicles to a surfaced road 18 feet wide plus one foot (1) shoulders on each side. Grade should not exceed fifteen percent (15%)..�'Inside radius of turns should be 42 feet or more. (Access road requirements should be coordinated with the Community Development.) B. Provide a safe and adequate driveway not less than 12 feet wide. Grade should not exceed fifteen percent (15 %). Inside radius of turns should be 42 feet or more. Provide adequate parking and turnaround area for four (4) emergency vehicles at site. Parking and turnaround area to be 40' by 48' un- obstructed. All road surfaces must sustain 35,000 pounds loading. (These requirements should be coordinated with Community Development.) C. The above listed conditions are for both Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to Santa Clara County Health Department standards. A bond in the amount of $400 is to be submitted to the City to insure Report to Planning Commission page 7. SDR -1523 completion of work. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS —PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission Approval. C. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by.the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the sub- division /building site. APPROVED: A))� Kathy/ Kergus ' Planner KK /bc Agenda: 9/8/82 r Planning Commission Page 3 7f_ Meeting Minutes 9/8/82 UP-522 (cot . ) Commissioner \Schaefer, Crowther and Bolger dissenting. It was explain 0 to Mr. Heid that he has the opportunity to the item reconsidered at e next meeting of the Commission when thefull Commission is nresent, or he ay appeal to the City Council within 10- .,_calendar days, since a split vote 's considered a denial subject to reconsideration. 4. A -S35 - Dr, and Mrs. over, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second -story 11dition to a single -story structure at 14473 Sobey Road near Omej,a ane in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposNj , recommending approval. The public hearing was ovenedNat 8:50 p.m. Michael Lane, representing the applicant, appeared to answer uestions. Commissioner Monia moved to clos the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was ca ied unanimously. Commissioner Bolger moved to approved -83S per the Staff Report dated August 27, 1982 and Exhibits B and C. \Commissioner Crowther seconded the m hich was carried unanimously 6 0. CIS�DR-1123 Gerald Jacobsen, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots on a private access road off of Sobey Road near Sperry Lane in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district (Negative Declara- tion Staff reported that a previous tentative map approval, which was approved on appeal, has expired. They indicated that the main issue is that there is a minimum access road which already has four sites on it, and allowing a lot split would create a fifth site on the access road. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern regarding the current provision for rounding up to permit lot splits and the discrepancies in parcel areas and methods of determining number of units. He indicated that he feels that the key issue is that this site is not big enough to split. He submitted a letter regarding this application and asked Staff to review his numbers contained in the letter. It was noted by Staff that the applicant owns the access road and it is included as part of the site. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Dick Kier, civil engineer representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and explained the background. He submitted letters from the neighbors in support of the project. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Further discussion followed on the road. Staff clarified that in the ordinance the pole portion of a flag lot is not to be considered in the net area. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt this application was in conflict with the Subdivision Ordinance. He moved to deny the Negative Declaration for SDR -1523. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny SDR -1523, per the Staff Report and based on the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. The 10 -day (calendar) appeal period was noted. 6. UP -525 - Jack and Ted Faron Request for a Use Permit to construct a structure (carport) ver 6 feet in height in the required rear yard at 14041 Sarator Ave. Staff described the proposal and i icated that the Staff Report recommends that the use permit be granted subje t to relocation of the structure to be 6 feet away from the property line They indicated that on the on- site visit there appeared to be some a ernatives that were suggested to - 3 - s- Q^= K:i:�.'0?':'ii,-.�+� tied'- t:��i?1{:J�iYx•: i Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 9/8/82 UP -52S (cont.) the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Tedd Farone, the applicant, discussed the project and confirmed that he was requesting a 2 ft. setback. He explained that a 6 ft. setback is not possible for the left stall. He noted that there are other houses in the neighborhood which have garages and carports less than 6 ft. away from the property line. The alternative of moving the entire structure 90 degrees and putting it 6 feet away from the property lines was dis- cussed, and Mr. Farone indicated that it would then be 1 ft. away from a - large tree. Staff suggested another alternative, designing the carport to have 12 ft. wide parking areas and a 3 ft. wide area between the two, creating a 27 ft. carport. They explained that this would result in a 6 ft. side yard set- back and a 2 ft. setback in the rear; however, the property falls off sharply from the rear property line and the structure would not be as imposing as it would be on the side yard. Further discussion followed on this alternative. Commissioner Monia stated that if the carport is going to be redesigned the applicant should present a new exhibit, and he felt that this plan should be dealt with at this time. He moved to approve UP -52S per the Staff Report dated September 2, 1982. Commissioner trellis seconded the motion. There was a consensus that the alternative as suggested by Staff is a good compromise. Commissioner Hlava amended the motion for approval of UP -S2S, with the condition that the applicant submit a plan showing a 6 ft side setback and a 2 ft. rear setback, subject to approval by Staff. Commissioner 'tonic accepted that amendment to his motion, and Commissioner Nellis seconded the amended motion. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously 6 -0. 7. V -593 - Gary Hansen, Request for a Variance to allow a 21 ft., 6 inch rear yard setback where 45 feet is required at 14549 Carnelian Glen Ct. Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval. They reported that during review it was noted that if the Commission were to redefine the rear and side yards from those that were defined previously, the applica- tion could be approved without the granting of a variance. Staff explained that the lot is a corridor lot; therefore, the applicant would be allowed to change the rear yard from where it was proposed on the originally approved map to that as he is now proposing. The public hearing was opened at 9:SS D.M. The applicant gave a presentation on the proposed project, discussing the energy savings. He described the site, discussing the easements and trees on the property. Further discussion followed on the equestrian easement. It was noted that it had been the intent of the Parks and Recreation Commission to have the trail be for both equestrian and pedestrian use. Mr. Hansen stated that the easement in its present location is not effective, and he felt that it should be referred back to the Parks and Recreation Commission to r determine if the pathway ought not to be oriented more to the western side. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the City cannot create an easement on private land unless it is in effect condemned for public use or it is before the Commission with an application for development; therefore, the City has no jurisdiction over the adjacent property at this time. Mr. Hansen stated that he would' talk to the adjacent property owner regarding the possibility of their dedicating a portion of their property as an easement. It was also determined that a condition should be added to the Staff Report to read: "A document shall be recorded making it clear that the easement along the northwestern property line shall be for both pedestrian and equestrian use." i Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 4 - !ir4rr�!i�!A!vx 1 EI11 -9 r File No: SDR -1463 Saratoga;;`` DECLARATION THAT- ENV I'RONMENTAL 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, Sections 15080 through 15083 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653 - of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will. have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves a lot split on a + 80,700 sq. ft. site on a minium ac°ess road off of Sobey Road in the R--1-40,000 zoning district. One residence with a. pool and septic tank presently exists on the site. A drainage swale crosses the southwesterly corner of the site. NAME AND ADDRESS Or APPLICANT Mr. Gerald Jacobsen 14960 Sobey Road Saratoga, CA 95070 REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project involves an infill situation. Property is zoned for residential use; however, the Subdivision Ordinance requires that only 4 lots access off a minimum access road. If an exception is granted the project will be found to not have a significant impact on the environment if developed in accordance with current City zoning and subdivision regulations. Further mitigation through building site conditioning should adequately address any environmental impacts associated with this property. .. Executed at Saratoga, California this 17th day of July , 1980 R. S. ROBINSON, JR. DIRECTOR OF PUI NNING AND Eh"VIROti'INIENTi'.L CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SAILn TOGA DIRECTOR'S AUTIyORIZED STAFF MEMBER September 7, 1982 Planning Commissioners /City Attorney /Staff: Relative to the Jacobsen application scheduled for hearing on 9/8/82, the Subdivision ordinance, Section 13.9 -3(a) specifies that the minimum average land area per dwelling unit is given by: a = 1 S , where S is the slopes %Lli %: - .0177-9- For S = 15.48% [Jacobsen application], a =1.23 acres per dwelling unit. The gross area [1.916 acres] divided by a gives 1.56 permitted dwellings. In recent years a change was made in the Subdivision Ordinance which permits rounding up of the permitted dwelling units from 1.56 to 2 [previous ordinances required rounding down]. The rounding up provision has created a bonanza of lot splits throughout Saratoga in subdivisions that were developed under the old ordinances which required rounding down. This is totally unfair to others in the subdivision who do not wish to split their land, is unfair to Sar.atogan's who counted on the "final maps" as being final, and has created a planning nightmare in Saratoga. For the Jacobsen application, on top of this travesty in the current ordinances, we have land areas stated in the Staff report and the map which do not check with the site dimensions indicated on the map or with planimeter integrations of site area from the map. In addition, the Subdivision ordinance requires that net , not gross area be divided by a to determine the allowable number of units and_the net area does not appear to have correctly determined for the proposed lot splits. The site areas were determined two-ways:' (1) by subdividing the site areas into parallelograms and integrating by hand and (2) by determining a scale factor for the map from the indicated dimensions and integrating with a compensating planimeter. These two approches agreed reasonably well as follows: Hand integration Planimeter Parcel A net gross 37031 40055 39880 Parcel B net gross 38358 41168 39766 The net area from the hand integration is 1.73 acres which results in 1.41 dwellings permitted. According to ordinances this must be rounded down to 1 dwelling and no lot split should be permitted. The easements indicated on Parcel B were not subtracted in determining net area but only the road was deducted [see attached]. The current provisions for rounding up to permit lot splits and the discrepancies in parcel areas and methods of determining number of units are of major concern. I request that this note be made part of the public record on this application and that, if there is any appeal of the Planning Commission decision, it be transmitted to the City Council. Russ Crowther I A 1a.0 d - a–PE Z` l 4 j / r3 pn 21�t & Ilev- YYSrtiI%w - �k �� `F's /i�J3� J 400 SSS —PCB= �I\ Novo 3q ?bb crtt Js 4116% $ — �a �• i ..r�000msz I � 15 :• � f a 7 7 j2�rrc 1ID61�G /O!4 7 R�MM 1 A. 2j$'�b «� S 3 ac S �f 3 _ 3 =_ / j8 3 1 I I'1 I i9c7 141 —►tql, rte. (((��� VIVO 3 y3o 2i� �o3sS -�4 LioV 4 1 _ 1 $ I •� GERALD C 4.*VTY L J7C09SrN /M}0 A7BY RUA 0 S4PA7C6A CA 73WO EN6 /rvEEY X 4EReWWr6HT AN 717-L6 6S w CWL - Ni6rLFERS f SRYEYL /AC Yw.+ iiSaSX)WTBLYD BLOG27. SANTA CLABO CAL/f04W/A TMS/ F . Srmoow ASPOS L : SIA✓rATJOV C67r)L*r 4 ISRS 0fM-rM YTY.' P6.C. *AMFI SAN JOSE WA7EW "CAWS ssaRA+ORAIN::SDE:.LI?1CX.79 70SMOME ZrWIAS • ,r1 #WOO AP/1L lfT Of- 6* �•Jt I 1 soFac�drrcA�cu.rriov 1 \ J" omrrrzrof,y.7e .� 'ian -a�crn au. , •aa T19 -1.Ll1 yl 14 Ys� f!Y [OL/t .u5ra..u.oT9..iE RVto = 33 3s-9 Z-3 °xl.�oa _ AA - �G )?b4t.R _GWiu,� �;I�Ea:a —�D1z- rut ikVM 'Tt.sr -...3 OLlt - Pb31 1'> L i C;7Y C-" Sr,R TG r.1 r1dQ,ea, 1,73,x.• fi4RCEL A Sf GRV9f i 4 AREA X370f - --' —,4iWA fG_tUSf. A r I A 1 h Ir I �`OL � � t A'kE 401555Of7GROSS I A �OS£SSGtfLNE ; i • � ` I �sp��7 OP /PATE 570OW WAM P vy "N,) el SE [R ESMr J raln+w 1 r J�i i j � r rcrsrvr�err'� w I LioV 4 1 _ 1 $ I •� GERALD C 4.*VTY L J7C09SrN /M}0 A7BY RUA 0 S4PA7C6A CA 73WO EN6 /rvEEY X 4EReWWr6HT AN 717-L6 6S w CWL - Ni6rLFERS f SRYEYL /AC Yw.+ iiSaSX)WTBLYD BLOG27. SANTA CLABO CAL/f04W/A TMS/ F . Srmoow ASPOS L : SIA✓rATJOV C67r)L*r 4 ISRS 0fM-rM YTY.' P6.C. *AMFI SAN JOSE WA7EW "CAWS ssaRA+ORAIN::SDE:.LI?1CX.79 70SMOME ZrWIAS • ,r1 #WOO AP/1L lfT Of- 6* �•Jt I 1 soFac�drrcA�cu.rriov 1 \ J" omrrrzrof,y.7e .� 'ian -a�crn au. , •aa T19 -1.Ll1 yl 14 Ys� f!Y [OL/t .u5ra..u.oT9..iE RVto = 33 3s-9 Z-3 °xl.�oa _ AA - �G )?b4t.R _GWiu,� �;I�Ea:a —�D1z- rut ikVM 'Tt.sr -...3 OLlt - Pb31 1'> L i C;7Y C-" Sr,R TG r.1 r1dQ,ea, 1,73,x.• fi4RCEL A Sf GRV9f i 4 AREA X370f - --' —,4iWA fG_tUSf. A r I A • � ` �sp��7 OP /PATE 570OW WAM P vy "N,) el SE [R ESMr J LioV 4 1 _ 1 $ I •� GERALD C 4.*VTY L J7C09SrN /M}0 A7BY RUA 0 S4PA7C6A CA 73WO EN6 /rvEEY X 4EReWWr6HT AN 717-L6 6S w CWL - Ni6rLFERS f SRYEYL /AC Yw.+ iiSaSX)WTBLYD BLOG27. SANTA CLABO CAL/f04W/A TMS/ F . Srmoow ASPOS L : SIA✓rATJOV C67r)L*r 4 ISRS 0fM-rM YTY.' P6.C. *AMFI SAN JOSE WA7EW "CAWS ssaRA+ORAIN::SDE:.LI?1CX.79 70SMOME ZrWIAS • ,r1 #WOO AP/1L lfT Of- 6* �•Jt I 1 soFac�drrcA�cu.rriov 1 \ J" omrrrzrof,y.7e .� 'ian -a�crn au. , •aa T19 -1.Ll1 yl 14 Ys� f!Y [OL/t .u5ra..u.oT9..iE RVto = 33 3s-9 Z-3 °xl.�oa _ AA - �G )?b4t.R _GWiu,� �;I�Ea:a —�D1z- rut ikVM 'Tt.sr -...3 OLlt - Pb31 1'> L i C;7Y C-" Sr,R TG r.1 r1dQ,ea, 1,73,x.• October 27, 1980 City Council of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California SUBJECT: Land of Jacobsen, City file #SDR 1463 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, are owners of property that is served by a common drive way across the land of Jacobsen. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having five parcels served from a common drive way. DATE DAT E 41.4 4 -'e xe+ ADDRESS 149�6v 4DDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS October 28, 1980 City Council of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California SUBJECT: Land of Jacobsen, City file #SDR 1463 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, are owners of property located within a 500 ft. radius from the Jacobsen property. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having five parcels served from a common drive way. DATE NAME ADDRESS S�keJ,;, DATE NAME- ADDRESS S�ro- CA DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAM DATE NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS October 28, 1980 City Council of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California C� SUBJECT: Land of Jacobsen, City file #SDR 1463 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, are owners of property located within a 500 ft. radius from the Jacobsen property. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having five parcels served from a common drive way. DATE J C A DA. E lo DAT DAT /I DEA NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS Q Gf 1 1 NAME ADDRESS Ja L c _._mac- /�z ke DATE N�1E ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS r � V tcee- I - ' -' ' � � October 28, 1980 City Council Of 3aratoqa City of 3aratoga. California SUBJECT: Land of Jacobsen, City file #5DR 1463 Gentlemen: _ We, the undersigned, are .owners of property located within a 600 ft. radius from the Jacobsen 'prOperty. � _ We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two Lo-:Y-s and ha no objection to having ATE ' ` October 28, ]980 ; ;x! City Council'of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California SUBJECT: Land of Jacobsen, City file #SDR 1463 Gentlemen: We, The undersigned, are owners of property located near the Jacobsen property. We are supportive of his.application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having five parcels served from a common driveway. DATE ` NA? YE ADDRESS DATE NAME 1 ADDRESS �1 w'. DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME DATE NA1,E DATE ADDRESS ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS October 30, 1980 Dear Members of the City Council, I have recently read the public notice and as a.neighbor, I have received a letter concerning the Jacobsen property at 14960 Sob�y Road. My understanding is that they have been denied a road to a lot because more than four dwellings will be using it. I am located at 14955 Sobey Rd just across the street from the Jacobsens. There are five private homes using one private road. They are the Jennings, Kelly, Grossman, Mackin, and Bennett. Last year a real estate speculator purchased the home behind the. Jacobsens. The buyer never occupied the home, but immediately subdivided and put both home and lot on the market. This immediately increased the number using the road. It seems so unfair to deny the Jacobsen' s request when they have I.i ved there fourteen years and have paid taxes on this property and when just across the street the rule has already been broken. All of the homes on my road have been their in excess of fifteen years. Please consider this matter carefully. I would hope that out of fairness you will grant the Jacobsens thei r request. Sinc r Sue Je. ings ( 14955 Sobey Rd. Saratoga, Calif. ►a c�cod�o SEP 3 01982 V- U WUAA- September 20, 1982 City Council of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California Subject: Land of Jacobsen, City file #1523 Council Members: " CA E'--- ' 1.; E a S E p 3 01992 We the undersigned, are owners of property that is served by a common drive way across the land of Jacobsen. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having five parcels served from a common drive way. y a� DATE 9 46- DATE r i --a 7 -j a �o /p 0y 4- DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME �,--- . (7 }S ADDRESS SEP 3 01982 September 20, 1982 City Council of Saratoga. City of Saratoga, California SUBJECT: Land of Jacobsen, City file #1523 Council Members: We the undersigned, are owners of property located within a 500 ft. radius from the Jacobsen property. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having ,,,- els served from a common drive way. IIA NAME ADDRESS it- September 20, 1982 City Council of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California Subject: Land of Jacobsen, City file #1523 Council Members: SEP 3 01982 We, the undersigned, are owners of property located near the Jacobsen property. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no objection to having five parcels served from a common drive way. o� ro d2 '� e DA %E ADDRESS f—� , X17-, G sO DATE NAME ADDRESS '112-6 li Z-- ",, '--'7 z L-� I I— /�–O�)Z- DA E NAME ADDRESS C< / (0 -Y DATE DATE / 14 - ADDRESS I q % 0 , o foi� 1�4 NAM Z ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS DATE NAME ADDRESS I A- SEP '3 01982 September 20, 1982 City Council of Saratoga City of Saratoga, California Subject: Land of Jacobsen, City file #1523 Council Members: We, the undersigned, are owners of property located near the Jacobsen property. We are supportive of his application to subdivide his two acre parcel into two lots and have no 'obje tion to having five parcels served from a common drive way. �17411A 76 Z"/ DATE ADDRESS DATE ADDRESS DATE DATE ,;:;P, -Z-! S-z DAT DATE tz / " �' i, NAME ADDRES'S' NAME ADDRESS E ADDRESS i 1 1-/ V z ME DRESS r 5 i t �u, )tit - /)" 4-2 DATE NAME ADDRESS Crr; OF Si'I:J=N ACEti'D,,N `BILL NO. 3� s DATE: October 6, 1982 DEPAFrr.�=: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty C. Mgr. SUBJECT: V -592 and A -833 Walter Muir, Short Hill Court Issue SLTnary At your September 15, 1982 meeting you held a public hearing on the subject applications. You subsequently directed Staff to 'prepare a resolution approving them.. Recomnendation Adopt Resolution No. if you wish to approve V -592 and A -833. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments Resoultion No. Council Action 10/6: Clevenger/Mallory moved to approve resolution 2013. Passed 2 -0 (Fanelli, Moyles abstaining) . LZ 3' RESOLUTION NO.. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MAKING REQUISITE FINDINGS, GRANTING A VARIANCE AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR V -592 AND A -833 WHEREAS, applicant Walter E. Muir has requested Design Review and Variance approval to construct an addition to an existing dwelling; and WHEREAS, said proposed addition is not in conformity with Ordinance NS -3.47, Section 5(a), regarding maximum floor area ratio; and WHEREAS, Section 6 of Ordinance NS -3.47 provides that an exception to said ordinance may be granted by the Planning Commission through the variance procedure as set forth in Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on applicants' request for Design Review and Variance approval and after said public hearing denied said request; and WHEREAS, applicants have appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.7 of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1982, the City Council held a de novo public hearing and after the closing of said public hearing reviewed and considered the applicants' request, staff reports, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 1982, and other evidence, both written and oral, presented to the Council during said public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: -1- 1. The applicants' appeal from the Planning Commission is granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is overruled. 2. The Council makes all of the findings as set out in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Having made the appropriate findings, Design Review for V -592 and A -833 is hereby approved, and a Variance to Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of Ordinance NS -3.47 is hereby granted. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -2- MAYOR i -1 k EXHIBIT "A" 1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance in that the Community College on the opposite side of the Street has constrained the full and effective use and enjoyment of the site as designated under the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. There are exeptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same Zoning District in that there exists and will be retained a very large front setback and there is no impact on the privacy of adjacent properties. 3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same Zoning District in that other properties have been granted the privilege of exceeding the standard floor area. 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same Zoning District in that other properties have been granted the privilege of exceeding the standard floor area. 5. The granting of this variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity in that it will enhance the neighborhood and there has been no testimony or evidence presented which claims or tends to show detrimental or injurious effect to the public health, safety or welfare. -1- CI'T'Y or SAI:e'Yi`OCN AGENDA BILL NO. 3z 6 DATE: October 6, 1982 DEPARZ,=r: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd: C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Speed Zone Change, Prospect Road, Blaney to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Issue SL=ary When the speed zone of 35 m.p.h. was established the roadway was only two lanes. It has now been widened to four lanes. San Jose has recently made a speed zone study which indicates the speed zone should be 40 m.p.h. They have requested that Saratoga modify its zone also for consistency. This change will make the speed zoning the same for its entire length between Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Lawrence Expressway. Recommendation Adopt Ordinance No. changing the speed limits on Prospect Road between Blaney Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road from 35 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. Fiscal Imoacts $75.00 for signing Exhibits /Attachmyants 1.0rdinance No. 2.Staff Report dated September 20, 1982 3.Map Council Action 10/6: Mallory /Clevenger moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. 10/20: Mallory /Clevenger moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Mallory/Nbyles moved to approve. Passed 5 -0.' Passed 4 -0. Passed 5 -0. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE, AND SPECIFICALLY REPEALING AND ESTABLISHING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS OF THIS CITY, BASED ON AN ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: The following portions of Subsection (c) and (d) of Section 9 -51 of the Saratoga City Code of wit: Prima Facie Rate Name of Street Subsection (c): 35mph Prospect Description From its intersection with, Stelling Road to its intersection with Blaney Avenue Subsection (d): 40mph Prospect From its intersection with Blaney Avenue to its intersection with Lawrence Expressway are hereby amended, in order to more accurately conform with and to the engineering and traffic study, to read as follows: Prima Facie Rate Name of Street To subsection (c): 35mph Prospect Rd To Subsection (d): 40mph Prospect Rd Description From its intersection with Stelling Road to its intersection with Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road From its intersection with Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to its intersection with Lawrence Expressway, exclusive of that portion of such street contiguous to any school building or grounds which shall be subject to a twenty -five miles per hour prima facie limit and in accord with, and at the time specified by, and in the manner, as provided in California Vehicle Code Section 22352(b) Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of the competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsection, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3: This ordinance will take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing ordinance and after the waiting time required by and adopted at a regular meeting of the of Saratoga held on the day of the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK was regularly introduced law, was thereafter passed City Council of the City 1982 by ItiIE�IOO R.aNDt1ti1 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Director of Community Development FROM: Engineering Technician DATE: September 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Modification of speed zone on a portion of Prospect Road The City of San Jose recently completed an engineering and traffic survey of Prospect Road. Their survey confirms that the 40 M.P.H. speed limit on Prospect Road between Lawrence Expressway and Blaney Avenue is appropriate, but the 35 M.P.H.speed limit on Prospect Road between Blaney Avenue and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road is not. The City of San Jose proposes to increase that speed limit to 40 M.P.H. as justifiied by their engineering and traffic survey. At the time the 35 M.P.H. was established on Prospect Road in this area, the roadway was narrow (2 lanes). It is now widened with a traffic signal at Blaney Avenue and protected left turn provisions at intersecting streets. Based on the City of San Jose's survey and the physical improvements on Prospect Road, I would recommend that the City of Saratoga increase the speed limit from 35 M.P.H. to 40 M.P.H. on their portion (east bound). Upon passage of the proper City Council Resolution, notification should be given to the City of San Jose. Erman Dorsey S SEED ZONE CN�NG E SRO S�EG T RO, jiomr y .4ye. TO RA — fY :s�i.�y 3S MPH tam �ilfi�q 40 MPH t orl t valid A�OpolCQ� 40.MAN1o� iatit > . s vs2,mop) O _ Z j � � U O O V ti? W V