HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDAAG&%DA BILL NO. 340
DATE: October 20, 1982
D��'rT.�vT- Community Development
SU- JEC.r- Establish a 4 way stop at Cumberland Drive and Charter
Initial:
Dept. lid
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Avenue
Issue SL=- ary
Saratoga Union School District has requested that the intersection of Cumberland
Drive and Charters Avenue be designated a four way stop intersection. This request
is prompted by the closing of Congress Springs School and relocating the students
to Argonaut School. The District has indicated they would support the removal
of the stop signs at Via Real and Glen Brae inasmuch as students no longer need
access to Congress Springs School.
Recommendation Adopt resolution MV - Designating the intersection of
Cumberland Drive and Charters Avenue as a stop intersection.
Fiscal Imnacts
$250.00
Etch ibits /Attach-rrnts
1. - Letter from Saratoga Union School District
2. - Staff report
3. - Resoluti.on MV
Council Action
10/20: Fanelli /Mallory moved to approve resolution MV-155 and request another resolution
removing another stop sign. Passed 5 -0.
J
SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
r
14675 Aloha Street
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Mavor Linda Callon, October 1, 1982
Members of the City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070 -
Dear Mayor Callon and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Board of Trustees and. many Argonaut
School parents, I wish to thank Mr. Ilan Trinidad and his
Departinent for their quick response to my request for school
crossing signs and painted crosswalks at the intersection
of Cumberland and Charters Avenues.
With the closing of Congress-Springs School, we have
200 plus students on hicvcles and walking using the back
entrance to Argonaut School. This is done on a daily basis..
In using this avenue of approach, students must cross Cumberland
Avenue'and the Avenue has blind corners in each direction.
While the caution signs and crosswalks provide some small
margin of safety, the best possible solution would be nlacing
stop signs where Cumberland crosses Charters. Although I am
well aware of the current philosophy nationwide to reduce the
number of stop signs, I do believe the safety of our children
in this instance transcends that philosophy. I an certain that
we would not forgive ourselves if a tragedy occurred because we
had failed to provide the maximum safety possible.
In view of the dangerous potential that exists at this inter-
section, I ask you to authorize the placing of stop signs at
Cumberland and Charters.
Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
EGMcN:dgr
Sillc,erely yours,
ere G: Mi�Nic olas
Superintendent
61EI�alOOR.�11D[1tiI
a 9'9 W @: T 0 &U U s'9 0 ( Mv &
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438 .
TO: Director of Community Development DATE: September 17, 1982
FROM: Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Request for 4 -way stop at Cumberland Drive and Charters Avenue
Congress Springs School on Glen Brae Drive is now closed, with
the students now attending Argonaut School on Shadow Mountain
Drive. Due to this change, there have been many inquiries and
requests, including from the school district, to install a.school
cross walk across Cumberland Drive at Charters Avenue along with
making the intersection a 4 -way stop.
On September 15, 1982 a work order was prepared, to install the
school cross walk across Cumberland Drive at the southerly side
of Charters Avenue. On this same work order the school cross
walks on; Glen Brae Drive at Via Real, Via Real at Glen Brae, and
Via Escuela Drive westerly of Glen Brae Drive, along with the signs
were ordered to be removed (with Congress Springs school closed,
they were no long applicable).
Although this intersection does not meet the minimum warrants for
a 4 -way stop, due to the crossing of school children along with
the intersection being busier than most residential intersections,
it is recommended that it be established as a 4 -way stop intersection.
Erman Dorsey
attachment
N
RESOLUTION NO. MV-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF
CUMBERLAND DRIVE AND CHARTERS AVENUE AS A STOP INTERSECTION
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: The following intersection in the City of Saratoga is
hereby designated as a stop intersection:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION
Cumberland Drive All vehicles traveling on Cumberland Drive
northbound and southbound shall stop before
entering or crossing the intersection
thereof with Charters Avenue.
Charters Avenue All vehicles traveling on Charters Avenue
eastbound and westbound shall stop before
entering or crossing the intersection
thereof with Cumberland Drive.
This section shall become effective at such time as the proper
signs and /or markers are installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
day of
CITY CLERK
1982, by the following vote:
MAYOR
CI'1'I 017 Si + ;YOM
AG-u-,,'DA BILL NO.
DATE:
DE— PA7T:T17T: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. fid.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: A -832, V -590, SLOBODEN GALEB, 19143 VIA TESORO COURT
-------------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ---- --- ---------------
Issue SL --=ary
The applicant requested site modification, design review, variance and
grading approval to construct a dwelling which exceeds the Standard
floor area. Concerns voiced by the Planning Commission was the amount
of impervious coverage (which is within ordinance limitations), and the
number of ordinance -sized trees indicated for removal. The applicant
did hire a tree specialist and as a result, reduced the number of trees
to be removed from 16 to 7.
Recc=endaticn
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 thefsite
modification, grading permit and design review subject to deletion
of the non - conforming square footage.
Fiscal Imoacts
None Noted
E:<hibits /AttacYrr nis
Letter of Appeal
Staff report dated 8/3/82
Planning Commission Minutes
Exhibits B and C-.•-
dated 8/11/82, 8/25/82'I/-? -?-P
Ccuncil Action
10/20: Mallory /Fanelli moved to deny variance witout prejudice. Passed 3 -2 (Callon, Clevenger
opposed).
Fanelli/Moyles moved to approve design review in concept per two conditions of staff
report and added condition that square footage be reduced to meet ordinance require-
ments and that application be returned to Planning Commission for reconsideration
under appeal. Passed 4 -1 (Clevenger opposed).
Galeb Paving, Inc.
General Engineering Contractors S 2 8 1982
California State License No. 325912 CC? ".11W.HY OE 111OPMENT
September 27, 1982
City of Saratoga
City Council
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Re: Lot 6, Tract 5924
Saratoga, Ca.
Honorable Council Persons,
Attached please find our appeal application for the split deci-
sion of the September 22, 1982 meeting of the Planning. Commission
concerning our application for Variance and Design Review Approv-
al for the above lot.
The decision was split 3 -3 with one member absent. We were
informed that a split decision is considered a denial and that
we could appeal to the City Council.
First of all it is very important that the Council understands
that we have exhausted numerous resources in our design approach
to this project. We are confident that we have designed a
dwelling that enhances the local environment as well as adds
greater dimension to the neighboring lots. As you know with the
economic times that are upon us, a great burden is placed on a
developer to design a marketable product. We believe that with a
delicate blend of ingenuity and experience we have designed the
product for this lot.
As you can see from the record, we have attempted to stay within
the concerns of the Planning Commission and staff with the
exception of the square footing issue. While we respect the
thoughts of the Commission regarding the Variance application we
do not agree with them. The Ordinance in question here is a good
one, as orginally intended. We agree that the City must use
control over builders in order to protect the rights of the
property owners. However, since a Variance procedure exists it
therefore must follow that exceptions must be faithfully
12340 S. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. • Suite 10 • Saratoga, California 95070 • (408) 253 -4747
considered. We believe we have that exception.
Lot 6 is a downhill lot that slopes away from Via Tesoro at
approximately 21 %. The placing of the structure on the lot was
designed to minimize the view of the structure from Via Tesoro
while preserving the maximum rear yard area. By doing this we
eliminate the concerns associated with viewing a large structure
from the adjacent streets while creating a feeling of privacy
for the homeowner. The view from the opposite side of the lot,
the rear lot line, is not considered since there is a creek at
this location and therefore, no home exists. As you can see,
there are no visual ill-effects as a direct result of building a
dwelling of the size and in the location that we are proposing.
Since the size of the dwelling is critical to our overall
objective and since the adjacent property owners rights are
preserved as outlined above we respectfully request the City
Council grant us Design Review Approval and Variance for lot 6,
Tract 5924.
Very Truly Yours,
Gal b Paving, I c
�
39
- �
Slobodan Galeb
President /
t S O
JV
„ os
OFFICE: Community Development COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
September 29, 1982 Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
Mr. Slobodan Galeb
12340 So. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Galeb:
We have received your Appeal Application dated September 28,
1982 regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial
of your variance request V -590 and design review A -832, for
construction of a single family dwelling which exceeds the
maximum allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro.
Your check #15272, in the amount of $230.00, has been received
by this office. The public hearing on this matter has been
set for October 20, 1982. Please be advised that the City
Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for
your presentation on this appeal.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
Ober S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
cc: Oakley and Associates, 3600 Pruneridge Ave., Suite 360,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Deputy City Clerk w /Appeal Application
'r'
0
ED
13777 FRUITVALE
AVENUE
• SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
OFFICE: Community Development COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
September 29, 1982 Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
Mr. Slobodan Galeb
12340 So. Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Galeb:
We have received your Appeal Application dated September 28,
1982 regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial
of your variance request V -590 and design review A -832, for
construction of a single family dwelling which exceeds the
maximum allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro.
Your check #15272, in the amount of $230.00, has been received
by this office. The public hearing on this matter has been
set for October 20, 1982. Please be advised that the City
Council will allow ten minutes during the public hearing for
your presentation on this appeal.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
Ober S. Shook
Director of Community Development
RSS:cd
cc: Oakley and Associates, 3600 Pruneridge Ave., Suite 360,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Deputy City Clerk w /Appeal Application
'r'
0
RECOVE®
1982
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
0?s
Fee : )
CITY US,gI LYh'�
�� 0/9
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: Slobodan Galeb
Address: 12340 So. Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga
Telephone : 253 -4747
Name of Applicant: Slobodan Galeb /
Project File No.:
Project Address: 19143 Via Tesoro Court
Project Description: Lot 6 - Tract 5924 - Single Family Dwelling
Decision Being Appealed: Variance and Desiqn Review Approval
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached):
Letter attached.
Appe /plant s Signature
*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
THE nATF nF THP nFFT.STnM
0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised 8/19/82
DATE: 8/3/82
Commission Meeting: 8/11/82
SUBJECT: A -832, V -590, Slobodan Galeb - Lot 6, Tract 5924 (Via Tesoro)
REQUEST: Site Development Plan Modification, Design Review, Variance and
Grading approval to construct a two -story single family dwelling on a site of
greater than 10% which exceeds floor area requirements by 20 %.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorical Exemption
PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this project has been mailed to surrouding property
owners, posted on site and advertised in the newspaper.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Undeveloped lots in the Via Tesoro Tract, and single family
residential.
SITE SIZE: 53,014 sq.-ft.
SITE SLOPE: 24% +. Slope at building 23%.
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 30 ft. maximum
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Lower Floor: 1,781 sq. ft. Main Level: 5,224 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 7,205 sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,200 + 6% = 5,981 sq. ft. This project exceeds the standard
F.A.R. by 20 %.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 21 %, 37% allowed by ordinance.
SETBACKS: Front: 51 ft. Right Side: 110 ft. Left Side: 60 ft. Rear: 65 ft.
`<"`yy"' °'�`�S` a'!k?:y"'2r _ 7+31R°"' ;':i� ��r�a"�tw; +O�k.,�:,,.'�fi�s -t�°�Rr`•F fn;,�: �,�p'Oyti•' . ��d"�;�„�
L_�]
CITY of SARATOO GA
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIO1
{ 1n A
*Revised 8/19/82
CommisNon Meeting: 8/11/8
,rte'
SUBJECT A -832, V -590, Slobodan Galeb - Lot 6, Tract 5924 (Via Tesoro)
-------------------------------------- - -- . - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- - -----------
REQUEST: Site Development Plan Modification, Design Review, Variance and
brad ng approval to-construct a two -story single family dwelling on a site of
greater than 10% which exceeds floor area requirements by 20 %..
ENCIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Catggorical Exemption
PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of this projecthhas been mailf 410of iri9 ro erty
owners, poste on site and advertised in the newspaper.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
•SURROUNDING LAND USES: Undeveloped lots in'the Via 1`064'Tract, and,single, family
residential.
SITE SIZE:_ 53,014 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 24%+. Slope at building 23 %. '
HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE: 30 ft. maximum
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: lower Floor: 1,781 sq. ft. Main level: 6,224 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 7,205 sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO: 50200 + 6% ° 5,981 sq. ft. This project exceeds the.standard
F.A.R. y 0 %. '
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 21 %, 37% allowed by ordinance.
SETBACKS: Front: 51 ft. Right Side: 110 ft. Left Side: 60 ft. Rear: 65.ft.
Report to Planning A ssion 0 8/3/82
A -832, V -590 - Slobodan Galeb Page 2
GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 360 Cu. Yds. Fill: 1,610 Cu. Yds.
Cut Depth: 5 Ft. Fill Depth: 2 Ft.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a two -story single family dwelling
which exceeds the standard floor area by greater than 5 %, therefore, requiring
a variance. In addition, the proposal requires site modification approval.
and approval of the grading permit, because more than 1,000 cu. yds.,of grading
is proposed.
The plans indicate the structure is to be located at approximately the center of
a lot which slopes 20 -23% down from the road (Via Tesoro). The finish floor will
be 12 ft. lower than the street.
Due to the slope of the site, and the applicant's desire to place a circular
driveway in front and a driveway to the side - facing garage, a substantial
amount of grading (primarily fill) is required. Staff has noted that grading
at the front and the rear of the structure indicates a 2 to 1 slope where 3 to 1
is required. This situation may be remedied by constructing a higher retaining
wall at the front of the structure (4 ft. proposed on plans) and grading out
further in the rear to create a 3 - 1 contour.
The plans indicate that 14 oaks, a eucalyptus and an acacia tree will be removed
during construction (varying from 12" to 30"). This is due to the amount of
grading necessary for the driveway and main structure. The approved site de-
velopment plan shows only a garage and the potential removal of one large tree.
However, the approved development plan was not done in detail and it is difficult
to compare it with proposed development plans.
Staff noted no significant privacy impacts from the rear and right side elevations
due to existing vegetation or from the left side because it is not oriented toward
the rear of the adjacent site.
FINDINGS:
1. Physical Hardship: There are no physical characteristics 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: Staff noted no conditions
applicable to the site which do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zoning district.
3. Strict or Literal Interpretation: Strict or literal interpretation of the
design review ordinance would not deprive the applicant of privileges en-
joyed by properties in the same zoning district.
4. Grant of Special Privilege: Granting of this variance would not be a grant
of special privilege since other variances from floor area requirements have
been granted in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
5. Health, Safety & Welfare: Granting of this variance would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare.
Report to Planning Commission • 8/3/82
A -832, V -590 - Slobodan Galeb Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Since staff cannot make all of the five findings for the
variance, staff recommends denial of the variance, but approval of the site
modification and grading permit and approval of the design review subject to
deleting the square footage which exceeds the allowable 5% which is 925 sq. ft.,
* and the following conditions:
* 1. Tree removal subject to Staff review and approval. Box all ordinance sized
trees within 20' of any grading during construction.
* 2. Minimize grading for the circular driveway by lowering; or, delete the cir-
cular portion of the driveway.
Approved:
Sl /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 8/11/82
nvuil_ -
Sharon Lester
Planner
Planning Commission ( Page 5
Meeting Minutes 8/11/82
A -831 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 was 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.
A -832 - Sloboden Galeb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval
7b. V -590 - to construct a single 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 proposed project. They stated that they
could not make all of the necessary findings and are recommending
denial of the variance and approval of the design review subject to
deletion of the nonconforming square footage. Discussion followed on
the site plans under the previous owner.
The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m.
Marty Oakley, representing Galeb Paving, appeared to answer any questions.
Ron Mancusso, 14330 Chester Avenue, of the Emerald Hills Tesoro Home-
owners Association, stated that much planning had gone into this develop-
ment, and he felt that the ordinance, 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 to a study session to consider
the size and also the grading, tree removal, and amount of impervious
coverage. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study
session on August 17, 1982 and the regular meeting of August 25, 1982.
Sa. A -833 - Walter Muir, Request for Design Review and Variance Approval
81). V -592 - to construct a one - story.addition which exceeds the maximum
allowed floor area at 14156 Short Hill Ct. in the R -1- 40,000
zoning district
Staff pointed out that the plans show that there is a second floor
framing plan for an attic, and this has not been calculated into the
figures for floor area. They described the proposal, stating that they
could not make all of the findings and were recommending denial of the
variance and approval of the design review subject to deletion of the
nonconforming square footage.
- 5 -
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 8/25/82
V -541 (cont.)
Precedent setting and the requirements that have been imposed on
previous applicants were discussed. Commissioner Bolger commented
that when the Village Overlay District is accomplished perhaps this
particular problem could be addressed on a use permit basis. Commis-
sioner Nellis pointed out that during the General Plan review it has
been noted that parking is an issue in the Village.
A timeframe was discussed for a possible extension, at the end of such
time the variance would be denied if the parking requirements have not
been met. Commissioner Bolger stated that he did not feel that 3 -6
months would be enough time for the applicant to explore the parking
possibilities and it could best be handled by the Village overlay.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested a 1 -year period of time. Commissioner
Siegfried stated that he would have a problem extending the variance
for 1 year and moved to grant V -541 for a period of 6 months, commenting
that only on that basis can he make the necessary findings. He added
that, at the end of the 6 -month period if the necessary parking require-
ments have not been met, the variance will expire. Commissioner
Crowther seconded the motion. The vote resulted in a split vote, with
Commissioners Bolger, Nellis and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Bolger stated that he could support the motion if the
timeframe was extended to 1 year. Commissioner Nellis commented that
he could support the 6 -month period if he clearly understood what could
be accomplished. It was clarified that at the end of the extended
period of time the applicant must find the necessary parking, i.e.,
9 parking spaces based on no outdoor dining and 5 additional spaces if
outdoor dining continues. Commissioner Nellis stated that he could
support the motion on that basis.
The vote was taken on the motion again. The motion was carried 4 -2,
with issioners Bolger and Schaefer dissenting.
5;: 5 A- - Sloboden Galeb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval
5b. -590 - to construct a single family dwelling which exceeds the maxi-
mum allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro; continued from
August 11, 1982
It was reported that these items had been to a study session, at which
time the Commission had expressed their concerns. Staff noted that
the applicant has not submitted any modification to the proposal. They
indicated that they cannot make the findings and would recommend that
the variance be denied, and the design review be approved subject to
deletion of the nonconforming square footage. It was the consensus of
the Commission that they would like to see the revised.plans before
approving the design.
The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m.
Mr. Galeb, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposal. It was
pointed out to him that the Commission had suggested to the applicant's
representative that the proposal be altered to resolve the concerns,
i.e. tree removal and excessive grading. Commissioner Siegfried added
that he feels that this house may be inappropriate for the down -slope
lot, and he also cannot make the findings for the variance.
Marty Oakley, the architect, stated that he had attended the study
session and indicated that the grading was based on the front and rear
driveway to lessen the slope. He discussed the tree removal and the
current and previous plans for the lot.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thought the Commission had given
their concerns to the applicant; however, there is no evidence that
any of these concerns have been resolved. He added that he assumes
then that the applicant wishes the Commission to vote on his present
proposal. He moved to deny A -832 and V -590. Commissioner King seconded
the motion. Commissioner King pointed out that instructions at the
Committee -of-the-Whole were given the applicant's representative that
if he wished the Commission to vote on the application they would, or it
could be continued if he wished to work with the Commission on the concerns.
2 -
2. SDR -1447 - Marcus Bitter, Cox Ave, and Saratoga Creek, Request for One -
Year Extension
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve
the above items on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unani-
mously 4 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. A -818 - A. Berman, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a
one -story dwelling over 22' in height on Via Tesoro Court
(Lot 2) in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from May
26, 1982
The Commission accepted the formal withdrawal of this application.
4. V -541 - J. Brozda, One -Year Review of a Variance granted from parking
requirements for a restaurant /retail sales operation in the
C -C (Community Commercial) District at 14503 Big Basin Way;
continued from July 14, 1982
Staff gave the history of this project. The public hearing was opened
at 8:35 p.m.
Doug Adams, attorney for the applicant, referenced his discussions with
the Bank of America relative to using some of their parking spaces. He
indicated that written uthorization had not been obtained, but they
had stated that the3;r perking lot could be used after their regular hours
Discussions followed,on t}ie parking requirements and the efforts that
have been made to find spaces. Mr. Adams stated that he felt there were
still possibilities to be explored for the needed parking.
R. E. Kaufman, from the Gatehouse Condominiums, discussed the counts he
has made regarding parking in the Village.
Commissioner Bolger moved.to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Siegfried seconded the motion, which . was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on the general parking situation in the Village.
- 1 -
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, August 25, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
-
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Nellis, Schaefer and
"?
Siegfried (Commissioners Crowther and King arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
-
Absent: Commissioner ?Ionia
Minutes
,
It was noted that the third setence in the first paragraph under Area L
on page 2 of the minutes of August 11, 1982 should read "however, he feels
the exact type of planting or landscaping should not be specified." Com-
missioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve the
minutes as amended. The motion was carried unanimously.
t
-'"
Resolution
_ .. ._... ,...,,....�:..r.:-::..
Chairman Schaefer presented Resolution PC -144, commending Alan King for
his outstanding service to the City of Saratoga.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3
1. A -835 - Saratoga Presbyterian Church, Herriman Ave., Request for Design
Review Approval to construct a sign over 8 sq. ft. in area
2. SDR -1447 - Marcus Bitter, Cox Ave, and Saratoga Creek, Request for One -
Year Extension
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve
the above items on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unani-
mously 4 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. A -818 - A. Berman, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a
one -story dwelling over 22' in height on Via Tesoro Court
(Lot 2) in the R -1- 40,000 zoning district; continued from May
26, 1982
The Commission accepted the formal withdrawal of this application.
4. V -541 - J. Brozda, One -Year Review of a Variance granted from parking
requirements for a restaurant /retail sales operation in the
C -C (Community Commercial) District at 14503 Big Basin Way;
continued from July 14, 1982
Staff gave the history of this project. The public hearing was opened
at 8:35 p.m.
Doug Adams, attorney for the applicant, referenced his discussions with
the Bank of America relative to using some of their parking spaces. He
indicated that written uthorization had not been obtained, but they
had stated that the3;r perking lot could be used after their regular hours
Discussions followed,on t}ie parking requirements and the efforts that
have been made to find spaces. Mr. Adams stated that he felt there were
still possibilities to be explored for the needed parking.
R. E. Kaufman, from the Gatehouse Condominiums, discussed the counts he
has made regarding parking in the Village.
Commissioner Bolger moved.to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Siegfried seconded the motion, which . was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on the general parking situation in the Village.
- 1 -
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 8/25/82
A -832 and V -590 (cont.)
Page 3
Mr. Galeb indicated that he would like the Commission to continue this
matter. Commissioner Siegfried withdrew his motion to deny A -832
and V -590. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study
session on September 14, 1982 and the regular meeting of September 22,
1982. It was pointed out to the applicant that there will be a request
for Continuance Fee of $100.00.
6. UP -521 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Request for Use Permit
Approval to locate a nursery in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district
at the eastern terminus of Saratoga Ave. and Dagmar Drive
Staff explained the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 8:40
p.m.
Harry Kohl, Executive Director of the Foundation, gave a presentation
on the project.
Walter Doucett, 19131 Dagmar Drive, spoke in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner King moved to approve UP -521, per the Staff Report.
Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously
6 -0.
7. UP -522 - Cashin /Dean Turner, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow
the construction of a gas station in the C -N zoning district
at the corner of Prospect and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on September
8, 1982, in order to allow Staff time to evaluate resubmitted plans.
8. V -591 - Lewis and Nancy Franklin, Request for Variance Approval to
construct an accessory structure over 12 ft. in height in the
NHR zoning district at 13209 Padero Ct. near Pierce Road
The proposal was described by Staff. The public hearing was opened
at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. Franklin, the applicant, addressed the project and stated that he
agreed with the Staff Report.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bolger moved to approve V -591, per the Staff Report dated
August 17, 1982 and Exhibits B and C, making the findings. Commissioner
Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
9. V -594 - James Craig, Request for Variance Approval to allow the con-
struction of an addition which maintains a 21 ft. rear yard
setback where 25 ft. is required in the R -1- 12,500 zoning
district at 20524 Manor Drive
Staff gave the history of the project, adding that they cannot make
the findings and are recommending denial.
The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m.
Mr. Craig, the applicant, explained that he was not aware that a permit
was required to extend a room. He indicated that a stop work order was
placed on the project while he obtained a permit; another stop work
order was placed:i� hen it was determined that a variance would be needed
for the encroachment into the setback. The timeframe of the construc-
tion was discussed.-
Richard Drake, Gordon Court, referenced the letter he had submitted
in opposition to this project: He urged denial of the variance,
stating that he felt that the construction had continued deliberately
- 1
and illegally, and he was against any compromise.
Mr. Craig commented that he took exception to the fact that Mr. Drake
3 =
ik�`i'
. h-
J 3 S
bu.1
�� _ .n ...v ;- i�''.'�' •7 r �.�"� .. 3.....• .,_.�'n -.:.. ._ t -.r.:. .,-i ...t� -.?Lt X_...eFtil�i'�TlSU'SYJ. r?.iaf4+ �, �.�`ew'
ti
'.t' �, ..
Planning Commission Page 4
Meeting Minutes 8/2.5/82
V -594 (cont.)
had indicated that the construction had been done deliberately and
illegally. He commented that there had not been any work done during
the stop work orders, and lie would be happy to put up trees or
shrubbery. He added that the structure is now 90% completed.
Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
There was a consensus that there was an attempt in a short period of
-
time to get the structure compl -eted before a formal work stoppage
--_
was placed on the project. There was also a consensus that the find-
ings could not be made for granting of this variance.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny V -594, per the Staff Report dated
August 18, 1982. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Staff
._.
_
noted that the applicant will have to remove that portion which
-
encroaches into the setback if the variance is denied. The vote was
-
-
taken, which was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting.
It was pointed out to the applicant that there is a 10 -day (calendar)
appeal period to the City Council.
Break - 9:20 - 9:35 p.m.
10. A -834 - Carl Franklin, Request for Design Review Approval to construct
two single family dwellings on Lots 1 and 4 of Tract No. 5924,
Via Tesoro Ct. near Chester Avenue
_
Staff described the project. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Franklin, the applicant, gave a presentation on the two lots. He
:
addressed tree removal and grading and the options listed in the Staff
Report.
Ron Mancusso, Chester Avenue, expressed concerns regarding Lot #1 and
suggested considering the warped plane technique. He indicated that
_
it would be appropriate to consider this at a study session.
It was the consensus that both lots should be considered at a study
-- -
session. It was directed that they be continued to a -study session
on September 14, 1982 and the regular meeting on September 22, 1982.
11. GF -341 - Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Article 25 - Village
Overlay District to Ordinance NS -3 which would establish the
-
boundaries of the district (generally that area contained
-
-
within Saratoga Creek, Saratoga - Sunnyvale and Saratoga -Los
Gatos Roads, Oak Street and St. Charles and Sixth Streets),
allow mixed uses on properly designated lots with a use permit,
modifying the list of conditional uses to be allowed in the
district, and by allowing variations in development standards
through the use permit process per Article 18 of Ord. NS -3
Commissioner Crowther commented that it seems inappropriate to be
considering the overlay district before the General Plan is completed.
Commissioner King pointed out that a commitment had been given to an
f `
applicant that this matter would be.dealt with separately and on a
timely basis.
Staff explained the ordinance amendment. The establishment of setbacks
and parking was discussed. Commissioner Crowther commented that in an
earlier application the importance of maintaining strict standards on
parking had been discussed, and here it is being proposed to make it
-_'-
negotiable on each specific case according to criteria that are not
-
defined. He indicated that if parking and setbacks are going to be
permitted to be varied, specific criteria need to be set out in this
ordinance.
The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m.
R. E. Kaufman, a resident of the Gatehouse Condominiums, commented
that he cannot understand why Oak Street, which is fundamentally resi-
dential, should suddenly be commercial. He agreed with Commissioner
Crowther that the General Plan should be completed before this zoning
"
- 4 -
� • J
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 1982 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commis ioners Bolger, Hlava, Monia, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
Absent: Commiss oner Crowther
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to waive the
reading of the minu es of August 31, 1982 and approve as distributed. The
motion was carried, vith Commissioners Hlava and Nellis abstaining since they
were not present at he meeting. Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by
Commissioner Bolger, to waive the reading of the minutes of September 8, 1982
and approve as distri uted. The motion Baas carried, with Commissioner
Siegfried abstainin g
ince he was not present at the meeting.
Appointment of Vice - Chairman
Commissioner Schaefer nominated Commissioner Bolger as Vice - Chairman. Commis-
sioner Monia seconded t nomination. Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by
Commissioner Nellis, to close the nominations. Commissioner Bolger was unani-
mously appointed Vice - Chairman, replacing Alan King, who has resigned. Dis-
cussion followed on the possibility of rotation of the Vice - Chairman position.
BUILDING SITES
la. Negative Declaration ,- SDR -1517 - E. L. Zambetti
lb. SDR -1517 - E. L. Zambetti, Big Basin Way and Oak Street, Tentative Build-
ing Site Approval, 1 Lot
It was reported that Staff has recommended a continuance of this item.
The applicant agreed tot a continuance to the regular meeting of November
10, 1982. It was determined that there will be an on -site visit at 8:30
a.m. on Saturday, September 25, 1982.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. GF -341 - Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Article ZS - Village
Overlay District to Ordinance NS -3 which would establish the
boundaries of the district, allow mixed uses on properly desig-
nated lots with a use permit, modifying the list of conditional
uses to be allowed in the district, and by allowing variations
in development standards through the use permit process; con-
tinued from August125, 1982
It was noted that Staff has !recommended a continuance of this item.
The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No one appeared, and it was
directed that this matter be continued to the study session on October
- 51982 and the regular meeting of October 13, 1982.
34 A -832 - Sloboden Galeb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval
3b V -S90 - to construct a single family dwelling which exceeds the maximum
allowed floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro; continued from August 25,
1982
Staff gave the history of the applications, stating that the applicant
has modified the plan to address the Commission's concerns of grading
and tree removal. They indicated that they could not make the findings
for the variance and were recommending denial of the variance, and
approval of the site modification, grading permit approval and design
review, subject to deletion of the excess square footage and the conditions
in the Staff Report.
- 1 -
rya
Planning Commission Page 2
Meeting Minutes 9/22/82
A -832 and V -590 (cont.)
The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m.
Since the applicant and his architect were not present at this time,
Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to table
the item until the other public hearings had been held. The motion
was carried unanimously. The public hearing was then continued at
9:00 P.M.
Marty Oakley, the architect, described the modified proposal and sub-
mitted a sketch showing the shifting of the house, which would reduce
the amount of tree removal.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he had no problem with the house;
he has a problem with the ordinance and cannot make the findings for the
variance.
Mr. Galeb, the applicant, commented that he feels the house is appropri-
ate and urged the Commission to approve the application.
Mr. Oakley indicated that he had represented another client at the last
City Council meeting on an application based on the same issue in the
ordinance. lie stated that the majority of the City Council members did
not feel that they should deprive an applicant from modifying his, home
to suit his family needs, based on an ordinance that exists now but will
be changed in the future. He added that the Council had commented that
they did not feel they should create a problem for an applicant if there
are no other situations that infringe on privacy or impact the neighbors.
Commissioner Nellis stated that if he knew for certainty that the ordi-
nance would be changed he would not have the difficulty he is now having.
However, based on the point of view that there is a chance that the
ordinance will not be changed, he stated that he cannot make the neces-
sary findings for the variance.
Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to close the
public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava stated that she felt that the intent of the ordinance
was to ensure that houses would not be built which would have an adverse
impact on the neighborhood. She commented that this house is in an area
of generally large houses, and she felt that she could make the findings
because of the topography and size of the lot. She added that it is on
a cul -de -sac and will have no visual impact.
Commissioner Bolger agreed and moved to approve A -832 and V -S90, with
the modification that the trees will be treated in a manner that is
approved by Staff, and that the grading will also be approved by Staff.
He added that he could make the findings, i.e., Findings 3, 4 and S
as stated in the Staff Report, and Finding 1: There are significant
physical characteristics with this site and very little impact on the
neighbors. If the applicant were to develop a house that would cover
their requirements it would have to be of a single story nature and be
stretched out more on this lot; and Finding 2: There are homes in the
immediate vicinity on Chester and Leland Circle of a similar size.
Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion.
Commissioner Monia stated that he would vote against the motion, since
he has trouble making the findings, He added that even the intent
of the reconstruction and reevaluation of the numbers in the ordinance
would still not allow for a home this size.
The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split vote, with
Commissioners Monia, Nellis and Siegfried dissenting.. It was noted
that a split vote is deemed a denial of the motion, subject to recon-
sideration at the next meeting when there is a full Commission. It
was pointed out to the applicant that they can come back to the next
meeting or can appeal within the 10 -day appeal period.
- 2 -
O1A1,01CAT,ES TREE 1VVMgE1:?
SEE A7rAcyqe0 s,%F,6T
,OAK �o
ID R I \1 F WAY
L91" N0, (o
VIA 7 CT.
SARATOGA, CA,
14
(Oro GO raqe,
�. Cov e
Cri ^t OF SARJUICCi';
AGEDA BILL NO. _:5 44
Initial: J_�
Dept. lki.
DATE: October 20, 1982 C. Atty.
DERAF7I':T,T: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR 1516, IMPERIAL SAVINGS, SARATOGA-
LOS GATOS ROAD
Issue SL- , ary
1. SDR 1516 is ready for conditional approval
2. All Bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City.
3. All requirements for City of Saratoga Departments and other agencies
have -been met except Encroachment Permit from State Transporation Dept.
Recc=,endation
Adopt resolution 1516 -2 attached. approvina conditional Final Map for
SDR 1516 and authorize execution of contract of Improvement Agreement.
f
Fiscal Imnacts
None
E:ch i b i is /Attachments
1. Copy of Tentative Map approval.
2. Resolution No 1516 -2
3. Location Map
4. Status Report-for Building Site approval
5. Report to Planning Commision
Ccuncil ;--tion
10/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval-
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1516) Imperial Savings
(have) (have not) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 3 -4 -82,4
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all equ8ired
items:
Offer of Dedication None
Date Submitted
Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes
Date Submitted
10-6-82
Storm Drainage Fee 1098.00 Date. Submitted
-6-82 Receipt
# 01578
All Required Improvement Bonds 12,500
Date
Submitted 10 -6 -82
Receipt#
All Required Inspection Fees 1800.00
Date
Submitted' -6 -82
Receipt# 01578
Building Site Approval Agreement
Date
Signed 10 -6 -82
01101
Park and Recreation Fee None
Date
Submitted - - - --
Receipt# - - - --
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(Conditional) (Final) Building Site Approval for Imperial Savings
SDR- 1516 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
1. Encroachment Permit from State Transportation Dept.
Director of Community Development
1
9�
c
0
k o,,
S
CT.
9
' 6
Q. r
4
OS �
O
�.
P .
O �,
i
J 1
DV RN A►r CT.
GT
II
y
LOCATION KAP
SD Ron I sic
3
T
0
D
3
O
A
0
t
•
C]
City of Saratoga
APPROVED BY;,
r
D. 1 i
BEEN, is.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
* *Revised 4/28/82
*Revised 4/5/82
DATE: 3/4/82
Commission Meeting: 4/14/82
SUBJECT SDR -1516, Imperial Savings, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Tentative
Building Site Approval - 1 Lot (Consolidation of 3 lots)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: To receive a grant of site approval for a parcel (consolidation
of 3 lots) on which more than 1,000 square feet of paving is being placed
in order to locate a financial institution. .-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Class 5 Categorical Exemption (received with
UP -513 and A -762
PUBLIC NOTICING: This project has been advertised by posting, publication
in the newspaper, and mailings to 86 nearby property owners.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
ZONING: "C -C" (Community Commercial)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Church to the east and northeast; public buildings
to the northwest; Commercial to the southwest; Village Library building to
the south.
SITE SIZE: + 17,037 sq. ft.
SITE SLOPE: 3%+
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On November 17, 1981 the Planning Commission approved
a use permit and the design review application for the remodeling of the
existing structure on the site into a bank. .(Reports attached.) Concerns
have been expressed about the parking spaces provided and the ownership of
the alley from the site to Saratoga Avenue. Conditions 8 and 9 of the Use
Permit require:
C -,I
O Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1516, Imperial Savings
8. Applicant shall submit proof to
alley for circulation as shown
Building Site Approval.
3/4/82
Page 2
Staff that he can legally use the
on the site plan prior to Tentative
9. Applicant shall delete either space 8 or 9 to ensure one of the
spaces is usable. Revised plans reflecting this shall be submitted
at the time of Tentative Building Site Approval.
The applicant's engineer has submitted documentation on the alley which
shows the proof required by condition 8 and parking space number 8 has
been eliminated from the site plan.
Staff has reviewed the site, specifically checking for the possibility
of lowering the parking lot and combining it with the post office parking.
Unfortunately, the grade differential makes this proposal extremely
difficult.
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.
is 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.
•
A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact
of this project, if approved under this application.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1516
(Exhibit "B" filed January 15, 1982) 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 Department regulations and applicable
Flood Control regulations 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.
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/82
• SDR -1516, Imperial Savings Page 3
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required
Checking & 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 Half Street on
Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. as approved by Cal -Trans & the City Engineer.
D. Improve Saratoga -Los Gatos Road to City Standards, including the
following:
1. Designed Structural Section widened from existing edge of pavement
to flowline as approved by Cal -Trans and the... City Engineer.
2. P.C. Concrete Curb and Gutter (V -24)
3. Pedestrian Walkway (6 ft. P.C.C.)
• ** 4. - Wder- graundi- y- €y�isting-0ver� d- Uti- 14ties -. (Delete)
E. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the. "Master Drainage Plan"
and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff
to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Drain Inlets, OUtlets, Channels, etc.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach.
* G. 6epstreet- Br�e►aa�- Appreaeb- }6 -fi -- wide- at- preperty -pipe- fared- te- 24 -ft.
at- street - papa }pQ--- dse- �e�b�e- seal- eeat- ei�- apd- sEreepipgs -er- better -en-
6 - }p- -Aggregate - Base.. (Delete)
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as
required at driveway intersections.
I. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within
State Right -of -Way.
J. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
is 2. Storm Drain Construction
3. Alley Construction
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/82
SDR -1516, Imperial Savings Page 4
K. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
plans.
L. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
M. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
N. Repair and place 2" A.C. overlay on access alley to Saratoga
Avenue.
** O. Improvements to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (if within R/W or area offered
for dedication) to extend northerly to and connect with the existing
improvements approximately 75 feet north of entrance driveway.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - INSPECTION SERVICES DIVISION
* A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional may
be required fQr any change to the Foundation prior to issuance of
building permits.
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans.showing:
a1. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
2. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 feet or higher.
•
C. Structure to be evaluated by appropriate licensed professionals
for conformance to current codes. All deficiencies shall be
corrected.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be located, cleanout installed and fees paid
in accordance with requirements of County Sanitation District No. 4
as outlined in letter dated February 11, 1982.
V. 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.
4 .r
Report to Planning Commission 3/4/82
• SDR -1516, Imperial Savings Page 5
•
VI. 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.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Prior to issuance of building permits the structure shall be reviewed
by the Permit Review 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 subdivision /building site.
B. 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 Permit Review Department for review and approval.
Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed and estab-
lished within 90 days of completion of the right -of -way improvements.
C. Enter into Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City for landscaped
areas within the public right -of -way.
Approved:''
Ka Ker s
Associate Tanner
KK:jd
P.C. Agenda: 3/10/82
RESOLUTION NO. 1516 -2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF IMPERIAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
Designated the 0.102 AC, 0.162 AB and 0.128 AC Lots shown on the
Parcel Map prepared by West Fall Engineers and submitted to the
City Enginner, City of Saratoga, be approved as one (1) individual
building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 20th day of October 19 82
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
` CIYI OF
AGDA BILL NO.� Initial:.
�
Dept. fid.
DATE: October 20, 1982 C. Atty
DEPAMI TNT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJi'CT. FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR 1524, METLER;COURT
--------------------------------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ---- --- ---------------
Issue S�,ary
1. This is an addition to existing house
2. All requirements for City Departments and other Agencies have been met.
Recc:nr�daticn
Adopt resolution 1473 -2 attached
Fiscal Im^acts
None
E: _h ibits /Attachrrr�ts
1. Copy of Tentative Map Approval
2. Resolution No. -2155
3. Location Map
4. Status repor.t for building site approval
5. Report to Planning Commission
Ccuncll ;- -tlon
10/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1524 -2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF PHILLIP STOKES
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The 19,687 square feet parcel shown as Lot 4 on tract Map 1719,
prepared by McKay and Somps Civil Engineers and submitted to the
City Engineer, City of Saratoga;be approved as one (1) individual
building site
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 6th day of October 19 82
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
LOCATION MAP
SDR 1524
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SARATOGA
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval
All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1524, Phillip Stokes
(have) (hare -fret-) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for all required
items:
Offer of Dedication N.A
Record of Survey or Parcel Map
Storm Drainage Fee N.A Date Submitted
All Required Improvement Bonds N.A Date
All Required Inspection Fees N.A Date
Building Site Approval Agreement N.A Date
P..ark and Recreation Fee N.A Date
Date Submitted
Date Submitted
Receipt
Submitted
Submitted
Signed
Submitted
Receipt#
Receipt#
Receipt#
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(cf6n'F�) (Final) Building Site Approvai for Phillip Stokes
SDR- 1524 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:
Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance
Director of Community Development
r
t
1s s € 3
oEq
t 0 s
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
C'J -y o f C�y�C.ar. +re 1
APP ^O . _D
fDAT
DATE: 9/2/82
Commission Meeting: 9/8/82
SUBJECT: V -595 and SDR -1524, Phillip & Marilyn Stokes, 18729 Metler Ct•
Tentative Building Site Approval and Frontyard Setback Variance
for over 50% Expansion
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
REQUEST: Tentative Building Site Approval and Variance Approval to construct an
over 50% expansion to an existing house with a 20 ft. frontyard setback where 25 ft.
is required.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: None
NOTE: These are.two separate approvals. If the Commission determines that
they cannot make the findings for the variance, they can still act on
the building site approval since a site development plan is not being
approved with the Site Approval (less than 10% slope).
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 19,687 sq. ft.
ZONING: R -1- 10,000
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES
SITE SLOPE +2%
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Medium Density
PUBLIC NOTICING: Notice of the proposal has been
posted on site, mailed to surrounding property owners
and advertised in the newspaper.
Residential
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Vegetation has been planted which would partially
screen the proposed addition from the street. Under ordinance sized trees will
need to be removed to expand the garage. The applicant proposes additional land-
scaping with this expansion.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: The applicant built a second story addition to his home after re-
ceiving a Use Permit in August of 1979. Since this addition was constructed
within the last five years, the square footage is included with this proposed
addition to create an over 50% expansion. He now proposes to construct a
solarium taking advantage of the solar orientation.
1..
Report to Planning Commission 9/2/82
V -595 & SDR -1524, Phillip & Marilyn Stokes Page 2
SETBACKS: Front: 20 ft. Sides: 8 ft. (nonconforming width of 66.82 ft.)
Rear: 225 ft.
HEIGHT OF ADDITION: Single Story Addition
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor: 2120 sq. ft. Second Floor: 880 sq. ft.
Addition: 338 sq. ft. TOTAL: 3338 sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA: 3338 sq. ft. where 3481 sq. ft. allowed.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: Less than 30% where 60% is allowed.
COLORS & MATERIALS: Adobe and White
SOLAR: Solarium addition proposed to improve energy efficiency of existing home.
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: Applicant proposes to place additional landscaping
in front of the garage addition.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: Because of the curved configuration of
the cul -de -sac, the neighboring residence to the west will appear to be closer
to the street than the proposed garage expansion requiring a 5 ft. variance.
PRIVACY IMPACTS: The proposed single -story additions are to the front of the
house and will not impact the privacy of the neighbors.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The Saratoga Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' x 20' covered
parking area for each single family home. Since the applicant proposes to place
a solarium in the front of the existing house to take advantage of passive solar
heating, the existing garage must be expanded to the front or the solarium addi-
tion decreased in width. The applicant states a P.G.& E. audit shows the pro-
posed size of the addition to be the minimum recommended by P.G.& E.
VARIANCE FINDINGS:
Physical Hardship: The width of the lot and the existing location of the home
create constraints to development of the southern portion of the lot to take
advantage of passive solar energy. .Therefore, some variation in setback require-
ments appears to be appropriate both in terms of engery conservation and utili-
zation of the site.
Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances: There are exceptional circumstances
associated with the site such as its shape and buildable area facing south which
warrant granting of a variance.
Strict or Literal Interpretation: Denial of this variance would deny the appli-
cant the ability to construct a passive solar solarium of a size recommended by
a P.G.& E. audit which other properties in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district would
be able to accomodate.
Grant of Special Privilege: The granting of this variance would not constitute
a grant of special privilege since there are exceptional circumstances associated
with this specific site which warrant a variance.
Report to Planning Commission 9/2/82
V -595 & SDR -1524, Phillip & Marilyn Stokes Page 3
Health, Safety & Welfare: The granting of this variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the variance per the Staff Report dated 9/2/82 and
the following conditions:
1. Design of structure to incorporate features which will create a functional
passive solar addition (i.e., storage mass and insulative drapes /shutters).
2. Landscaping for screening to be planted prior to Final Building Permit
Approval.
SITE APPROVAL 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 available fiscal and
environmental resources.
A Categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of
this project. Said determination date: 8/7/82.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1524
(Exhibit "B" filed 8/6/82) 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 Department regulations and applicable
Flood Control regulations 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 where are hereby required and set forth in accord with
Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Plans for any work within pipeline right -6f -way to be sent to SCVWD
for review and issuance of permit.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Building plans to be approved by Planning Dept. prior to issuance
of permits. Individual house designs to be evaluated on the basis
of compatibility with the physical environment.
Report to Planning t.,nission 9/2/82
V -595 & SDR -1524, Phillip & Marilyn Stokes Page 4 y
IV. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Approved:
Kathy Ker s !'
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda 9/8/82
,.
AGL-,,'DA BILL NO.
- 4
CI'rz OP SARIYD N
Initial:
Dept. fid.
DATE: October 20, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPAirT,=r: Community Development C. Mgr.
------- - ---------- - -------- - ------ - --------------- -- - - - - - --- - --
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 6531, RANCHO BELLA VISTA, GALLO
Issue SL=- ary
The :.public improvements for Tract 6531 were given construction acceptance
on March 18, 1981, and have been maintained by the developer for the
required one year. Acceptance of that development will add .14 miles.
of public street to the City system. The monuments are also complete,
and the monument bond should be released.
Reccmr-- ndaticn
1. Approve Resolution 36 -B
2. Release Monument Bond
Fiscal Imoacts
Additional .14,miles of.street to be maintained
Exhibits /Attachm-ants
1. Memo dated 10/7/82 describing Tract and Improvement Security
2. Memo dated 10/7/82 describing Monument Bond
Council AResplution No. 36 -B-
10/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 -0.
f
11EI�1(��' ANDt ►� -]
0919W o2 ° ° ° 19OO @&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARA'1'OGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council DATE: October 7, 1982
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Tract 6531
Location: Rancho Bella Vista /Mendelsohn Lane
The one (1) year maintenance period for Tract 6531
has expired and all deficiencies of the improvements have been corrected.
Therefore, I recommend the streets and other public facilities be accepted
into the City system. Attached for City-Council consideration is Resolu-
tion , which accepts the public improvements, easements
and rights -of -way.
Since the developer has fulfilled his obligation..described in the improve=
ment contract, I also recommend the improvement securities listed below be
released. The following information is included for your information and
use:
1. Developer: Mendelsohn Lane Development (Nino Gallo)
Address: 13165 Via Ranchero Drive, Saratoga
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: 3/18/82
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety Bond
Amount: $125,000
Issuing Co: Fidelty and Deposit Company of Maryland
Address: None given (mail, -to Nino Gallo)
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: 6030379
4. Miles of public Street: .14 miles
5. Special Remarks:
Rober S. Shook
3
Date: October 7, 1982
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MONUMENT BOND, TRACT NO. 6531
Monuments in the above tract have been checked and
found to be acceptable.
It is recommended that Bond No. 9274262 ,
issued by Fidelty and Deposit Co. of Maryland in
the amount of $ 700.00 , be released. Developer
of the above tract is: Mendelsohn Lane Development
(Nino Gallo)
RSS /dsc
ROBE IT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 36 -B-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS
TRACT NO. 6531
It appearing that on or about 3/10/81 , the street, storm
drain and other improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to
subdivision map and on approved improvement plans therefor were completec
and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a period of not
less than an additional year from date of satisfactory completion.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves as follows:
That portion of the City's previous resolution rejecting the dedication
of certain streets, storm drains and other easements as shown on the
following described subdivision map:
Map of Tract No. 6531 recorded in Book 443 of Maps, at Page24 & 2
in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California on June 11 , 19 79 .
and as set forth in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby re-
scinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map
are hereby accepted, except the following:
and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution
are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga,
County of Santa Clara, State of California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the following described improvement bond or bonds are hereby order-
ed released:
Tha.t certain Improvement Bond No. 6030379 dated May 17, 1979
and issued by Fidelty and Deposite Company of Maryland
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the
day of 2 .19 , at a regular meeting of the City
Council of Saratoga by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO: 3� T Dept. Head:
DATE: October 20, 1982 City Atty
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services City Mgr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT: WEST VALLEY COLLEGE HALLOWEEN ROAD RUN
Issue Summary
West Valley College is requesting permission to hold a 5.2 mile long foot race on
City Streets. The proceeds will benefit the West Valley College Track and Cross
Country Teams. As shown on the attached map., the route will be on mostly low traffic
volume roads and will not require the use of "off- duty" Sheriff Deputies. The College
will provide campus police as needed on Sobey Road and Quito Road to control traffic
and runners.
Recommendation
Grant West Valley College permission to hold this road race.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter dated October 4, 1982 from West Valley College.
Map showing race route.
Council Action
10/20: Approved on Consent Calendar 5 =0.
WT VALLEY JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DKTRKT
October 4, 1982
TO: Dan Trinidad, City of Saratoga
FROM: Bill Campbell
REGARDING: West Valley College Halloween Road Run
DATE: October 31, 1982
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
DISTANCE: 5.2 miles
PLACE: Start and finish at West Valley College (Map enclosed)
ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION: 200 - 300
DIRECTORS: Bill Campbell - Instructor, West Valley College
George Wightman - Professional Footrace Director
Dan Cruz - Assistant Track Coach, West Valley College
COURSE: Map enclosed
This race course has been used in the past without any problems.
1. No intersections need control
2. No vehicle traffic will be stopped
3. No extra sheriff aid is needed
4. Multiple Sclerosis Society Race was run last spring
on this same course without any problems.
QUESTIONS: Bill Campbell Home: 353 -1843
Work: 867 -2200, Ext. 426
/avb 90��
Enc.
West Valley College / 14000 Fruitvale Avenue / Saratoga, California 95070 / (408) 867 -2200
- I L
Lo
A=DA BILL NO. ✓ g
DATE: October 20, 1982
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
CITY OF SARA`I`OGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
--------------------------- - - - - --
SUBJECT• Resolution Amending Resolution 85 -9.55
Issue Summary
Each year, the City Council reviews salaries, benefits, and other compensation
for its management employees and establishes appropriate rates and policies for
the ensuing period. During the past seven weeks, the.City Council has - .reviewed
present rates of compensation and policies with the City Manager, and has con-
sidered the expressions of management employees and various data and information
from other cities. As a result, the Council has directed that a management com-
pensation plan, based on individual performance be re- established. Such a plan
was first adopted in 1974, but in recent years has been in need of clarification
and refinement. Also, information has been provided to the City Council indi-
cating that salary levels for management employees have not kept pace with
adjustments for general employees, nor with salaries for comparable positions
:-in adjacent communities. As a consequence, the City Council has determined:
(1) to re- establish a performance -based compensation plan, (2) provide for an
adjustment to salaries and benefits for managers equivalent to 11% of total
compensation on an annual basis. The actual increases will vary, depending
upon the City Manager's evaluation of individual performance."
Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution attached which approves and authorizes the directions
given by the City Council
Fiscal' Impacts
Cost for fiscal year 1982 -1983 not to exceed $32,100 representing 11% of annual
total compensation for management personnel.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution 85 -9.
Council Action
10/20: Clevenger /Fanelli moved to adopt resolution 85 -9.56. Passed 5 -0.
Is
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 85 -9.55, ESTABLISHING
A PERFORMANCE BASED MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
AND MAKING APPROPRIATION FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has maintained the policy of
annual review of compensation policies and rates for management employees
and has fixed September 1 as the review date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed with the City Manager
various surveys and other data regarding levels of compensation for
other cities in the area; and
I+IHEREAS, the City Council has considered appropriate policies for
the compensation of its management employees and directed the City Manager
to consult with these employees as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned about meeting the needs of
management employees, and addressing_ their concerns, within a framework
of fair and objective policies that also observe practical and economical
restraints in the overall public interest;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. Establishment of Performance Based Compensation Plan
The City Manager is directed to re- establish a Performance
Based. Management Compensation Plan in keeping with the outline
draft of such a policy which was presented to and reviewed by
the City Council. The Performance Based Compensation Plan
will provide for the adjustment of salaries for management
personnel based solely on performance. The City Council shall
establish appropriate salary ranges for each management posi-
tion, within which the.salary rate to be paid will be determined
by the City Manager according to his evaluation of the indi-
vidual's performance. The City Council annually will review the
salary ranges and make adjustments as deemed appropriate. The
policies and procedures to be followed in the Plan are to be
defined in a written document which the City Manager shall pre-
pare and present to this Council for its consideration of
adoption.
2. Appropriation for Salary and Benefit Adiustments
Pursuant to establishing a Performance Based Management Com-
pensation Plan and its annual review of appropriate salary
ranges, taking all other conditions into account, the City
Council annually will determine the amount of adjustments
needed to total appropriations for management compensation, at
an annualized rate. These appropriations will be available to
the City Manager for allocation to individual management employees,
according to the Compensation Plan.
For the balance, commencing September 1, 1982, of the current
fiscal _Year, the appropriation of $32,100 is hereby made from
the appropriate Reserves set aside for this purpose in the
current adopted budget. This amount represents an adjustment of
11% of total compensation on a yearly basis.
3. Authorization for Adjustments to Fringe Benefit Programs
Pursuant to the Compensation Plan and the limits of the appro-
priation made above, the City Manager is hereby authorized to
increase auto allowance reimbursements and insurance benefits
package allowances by the amount of $25.00 and $35.00 per month,
respectively. Sections 2 and 3 of Resolution 85 -9.55 are herebv
amended accordingly.
4. Designation of Management Positions and Establishment_ of
Salary Ranges
The following classifications are designated as the management
positions of the City of Saratoga and the salary ranges for each
are established as shown:
Monthly Salary
Range
Community Development Director/
City Engineer $3,080 -3,850
Maintenance Director
(effective 11/1/82) 2,680 -3,350
Finance Director 2,840 -3,550
Planning and Policy_ Analysis
Director 2,840 -3,550
Administrative Services Director/
Deputy City Manager 2,680 -3,350
Senior Planner 2,400 -3,000
Senior Buildina Inspector 2,490 -3,050
Community Center Manager 2,200 -2,750
Section 1 of Resolution 85 -9.55 is hereby amended accordingly.
5. Next Period of Review
In order to maintain salary ranges at appropriate levels, con-
sistent with the overall needs of the City, the next period of
review of the compensation for these management positions shall
commence on or before September 1, 1983.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council on the day of
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
•'M ClYz OF SAI�AiC(1A
`AG&'DA BILL NO. SO
DATE: October 15, 1982
Planning & Policy Analysis
Initial:
Dept. W.
C. A
C. Mgr.
SUaT,CT: Resolution Regarding Appointment of Emissaries to Muko -Shi, Japan
-------------------------------- - - - - -- ----------=---------------- - - - - --
Issue SL^mary During the last month, the City Council has been exploring the
possibilities of entering into a formal Sister City relationship with the
City of Muko -Shi. At the last City Council meeting, it was made known to the
Council that residents of Saratoga will in fact be in Muko -Shi within the next
two week period of time. It was suggested by the Council that a resolution
be developed which would appoint the individuals as emissaries of good will
from Saratoga.
In addition to the resolution, there will be a letter of intro-
duction to the Mayor and Council of Muko -Shi for each one of the individuals
The letter is attached as Exhibit 2.
The individuals who will be visiting Muko -Shi include Mr. '& Mrs.
Ernest Card, 14r. Syd Dunton and Mr. Bruce McClelland.
Reeomnendations Staff recommends that the City Council formally approve the
resolution appointing the individuals as emissaries of Saratoga.
Fiscal Imxcts None
0
E:<hibits /Attach7c-nts
Exhibit 1 - Resolution Appointing Emissaries to Muko -Shi
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Introduction to Muko -Shi
Ccuncil Action
10/20: Mallory/Fanelli moved to adopt reoslution 2017. Passed 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAIMING MR. & MRS. ERNEST
CARD, MR. BRUCE MCCLELLAND AND MR. SYD DUNTON
AS EMISSARIES OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has been honored by the
invitation of Muko -Shi, Japan to join into a Sister City relation-
ship, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Saratoga has established a
committee to review the invitation and prepare properly for
acceptance, and
WHEREAS, the Committee will report to the City Council by
December 1, 1982, and
WHEREAS, a group of Saratoga residents are now traveling
to Japan and it is our desire to extend greetings and good wishes
to the residents of Muko -Shi from the residents of Saratoga,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga
appoints Mr. & Mrs. Ernest Card, Mr. Bruce McClelland and Mr. Syd
Dunton good will emissaries of Saratoga.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a Regular Meeting on
the day of , 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAI14:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
Ex6bil a �
C�B2S�
QT §&M&19Q)0Z
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
OFFICE: Planning & Policy Analysis
October 15, 1982
Mayor and City Council
Muko -Shi, Japan
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
It is with sincere pleasure that I introduce to you Mr. & Mrs.
Ernest Card to represent the City of Saratoga and all of its
residents. They bring greetings from the City Council and
residents of Saratoga to the Council and residents of Muko -Shi.
The City of Saratoga is very honored at the invitation of Muko-
Shi to participate in the Sister City Program. The City Council
and citizens are quite enthusiastic about the forthcoming relation-
ship with Muko -Shi.
The Council has formed a committee of local citizens who are
preparing a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding
the Sister City Program with Muko -Shi. The Committee is composed
of prominent residents and representatives from local government,
various civic organizations in the business community as well as
the Saratoga Bamboo Society. It is anticipated that the Committee
will forward their report to the City Council by December, 1982.
Our citizens have shown a great deal of enthusiasm and are looking
forward to establishing a long lasting relationship between Muko-
Shi and Saratoga.
Sincerely yours,
Linda C. Callon
Mayor
�.F._ . It
A =DA BILL NO.
DATE: October 20, 1982
DZPARTMENT: City Manager
---------------------------- - - - - --
,CITY OF SARATOGA
SUBJECT: Payment of Fees to Faber Johnston
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. At
C. Mgr:
Issue Summary
In 1978, the City was sued by a property owner for denial of an application to
build a tennis court. Former City Attorney Faber Johnston defended the City.
The Plaintiff, Wayne Leposavic, lost at the Superior Court level and appealled.
The Appeals Court upheld the lower court's dismissal in June, 1982. In'
September, 1982, Mr. Johnston forwarded his fees and costs to the City, which
had accumulated since 1979, in the amount of $5,097.45. We had not anticipated
this billing in the current budget and do not have sufficient appropriations
to cover it.
Recomnendation
1. Appropriate $5,100.00 from General Fund Operating Reserve to Legal Service
Program ( #150)
2. Authorize payment of fees and charges to Faber Johnston in the amount of
$5,097.45
Fiscal Impacts
Cost to City for defense of action brought by appellant is $5,097.45.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Letter of 9/2/82 from F. L. Johnston to City Council.
Council Action
10/20: Fanelli /Mallory moved to approve appropriation as recomrnxided. Passed 5 -0.
r�
f. i
FABER L.JOHNSTON (1888 -1968)
FABER L.JOHNSTON,JR.
GLENN E. MILLER
GARY V.GIANNINI
JOHN H. BLAKE
JOHNSTON, MILLER & GIANNINI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CROCKER PLAZA, SUITE 800
84 WEST SANTA CLARA STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
September 2, 1982
City Council
City Of Saratoga
1377' Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Attention: Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
Re: Wayne Leposavic v. City of Saratoga, et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court No. T8
First Appellate District No. 1Civ. 47401
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As we previously advised you, on June 1, 1982, the matter
was set for argument and argued before the First Appellate
District, Division Two, on June 16th in San Francisco,
and the Court took the matter under advisement thereafter.
I am pleased to inform you that we've just received the
Court Of Appeal's Decision, affirming our Judgment Of
Dismissal as to all counts, and several duplicate originals
are enclosed herewith for delivery to the City Council
Persons.
My records indicate that we have not billed this file
since January 9, 1979,and now that the same is concluded
(short of their petitioning for a rehearing, which I
sincerely doubt), we will either enclose herewith or
will shortly forward you our final statement in the
case, together with supporting data.
Yours very.
✓�E, . I� . JC
FLJ ; m ✓a j
Encs .
TELEPHONE
294 -9046
� c
JOHNSTON, MILLER, & GIANNINI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CROCKER PLAZA, SUITE 800
84 W. SANTA CLARA ST. n�
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 9511313 -' -
PHONE (408) 294.9046 9 / /_/ u 2
STATEMENT DATE
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
ATTORNEY FLJ
11
6748
RF WAYNE LEPOSAVIC VS. CITY OF SARATOGA, ET AL - Santa Clara County Superior
ITEM DATE
DESCRIP ION
FEES
COSTS
AMOUNT PAID
BALANCE
All services since our last
Statement of January 9, 1979,
including, without limitation:
All research on appeal; prepara-
tion of briefs (copies previouslir
furnished you in 1979); editing;
trip to San Francisco and
argument on appeal (1 day) and
securing favorable result:
(44 -1/4. hrs, research, drafting
briefs and court time)
$4,967.5
')/9/79
Copy of Clerk's Transcript
32,70
)/11/79
Osterman Transcript
22,25
Printing, Respondent Saratoga's
Brief,
75,00
$5,097045
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM BILLING DATE - 7% PER ANNUM INTEREST CHARGEABLE THEREAFTER
M
CITY OF SAP -AdOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd.
DATE: October 14, 1982 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: 1982 -85 Capital Improvement Program
Issue Summary The City Council was presented with a Capital Improvement
Program (82 -85) and a Capital Improvement Budget for F.Y. 82 -83 in May.
The Council spent numerous hours deliberating on both items during the
budget sessions. The Capital Improvement Budget was approved by the City
Council with the 1982 -83 operating budget. The Capital Improvement
Program was reviewed, but no formal action has been taken on the document.
The major item of expenditure in the Capital Improvement Program over the
next three years is for street improvements. Based on projected revenues,
it appears that the City will have a shortfall of approximately $3.8
million for street improvements. The budget figures in the Capital Improvement
Program have ben changed to reflect the Council approved Capital Improvement
Budget for 1982 -83.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 1982 -85
Capital Improvement Program.
Fiscal Impacts Total expenditure of projected funds over the next three
years is 4-6 69-87-9.0.0. t b � Z v Bj q 0-(q .
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Memo from Director of.Planning & Policy Analysis dated 10/14/82
Exhibit 2 - Resolution
Exhibit 3 - Introduction and first 7 pages (Needs and Funding) of the
Capital Improvement Program
Council Action
10/20: Moyles/Mallory moved to adopt resolution 2021 concerning Capital Improvement
Program. Passed 5 -0.
REPORT
5h,161 I *'I
1 1 11;i 1111 1 �-KGF "WIT-r- -
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 10/14/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 10/20/82
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program 1982 -85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff has not included the Needs Assessment Analysis for the
Capital Improvement Program since the City Council received this
information in May.
What staff has done is revise Schedule I of the Capital Improvement
Program which reflects all the modifications made in the budget
as a result of the Council deliberation and approval of the 1982 -83
Capital 'Improvement Budget.
The Council should replace the Schedule I and Schedule II which
have been submitted in this packet with the Schedule I and II that
they received originally during the initial budget hearing in May
and June.. It should be noted that Schedule III, Needs Assessment
Analysis for the Capital Improvement Program is identical to the
Needs Assessment Analysis which. the Council currently has in their
possession.
If any Councilmember should like additional copies of Schedule III,
staff would be more than happy to provide them.
(Y:5,
R. gS.RoB'inson, Jr.
Director of Planning & Policy Analysis
RSR /mgr
i
EXh;U��a
RESOLUTION NO. -- -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1982 -85 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga has
reviewed the Capital Improvement Program for 1982 -85 and has
determined that it is consistent with the existing 1974 General
Plan and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the contents of the
1982 -85 Capital Improvement Program during the months of May and
June at which time the public was invited to make comments on the
contents of said document and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has in fact adopted the 1982 -83
Capital Improvement Budget which is a part of the attached document
and,
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program for 1982 -85 is in
the amount of $6,698,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga that the 1982 -85 Capital Improvement Program,
attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is passed and adopted.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Saratoga at a Regular Meeting on the
day of , 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLE
MAYOR
Exbl6t3
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
F.Y. 1982 - F.Y. 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Budget Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Schedule I - Summary of Funding Source . . . . . . . . . . 1
Schedule II - Three -Year Capital Improvement Programs -
Needs & Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Schedule III - Needs Assessment Analysis — Capital
Improvement Program 1982 -85 . . . . . . . . 8
June 18, 1982
The City Council
City of Saratoga
Submitted herewith is the proposed three -year Capital Improvement
Program for Fiscal Years 1982 -83 through 1984 -85. This is the
first three -year Capital Improvement Program (as compared to a
one -year Capital Improvement Budget) that has been submitted for
Council approval since F.Y. 1978 -79. An advantage of reviewing
a three -year program is that it gives the Council the opportunity
to establish long -term objectives based on capital needs for the
City and to review the projected source of funds to meet those
needs. The Capital Budget for F.Y. 82 -83 can also be found in
the operating budget dated June 2, 1982 pages 84 -95.
There are several highlights of the Capital Improvement Program
which should be addressed this fiscal year; the continued
reduction in funds to support the Capital Program, a gradual
decline of the street system and the need to re- evaluate the
park needs.
i
The primary source of funds for street improvements over the next
three years continues to be gas tax funds with a steady decline
in revenue sharing dollars. Revenue sharing funds and gas taxes
have traditionally been used to fund street projects. The pro-
jected need for street overlay and street improvement-for the
next three years totals over $4 million. The estimated revenues
available during the same period of time is approximately $1.22
million, a shortfall of over $2.78 million. The street systems
represent a long -term investment which the City cannot afford
to allow to deteriorate due to poor maintenance.
The park system on the other hand has been able to maintain its
development and acquisition program throughout the last several
years despite a cutback in State funds and a reduction in
development. The primary source of revenues: for park acquisition
and development has been park development fees which is derived
from residential development. An issue to be addressed by the
Council in the next year is,what direction should the City take
regarding purchase of additional parkland? Currently there are
approximately twenty (20) acres of City owned or City- leased land
which are designated as park and still undeveloped. The costs
of maintaining a developed park increases yearly while the revenues
steadily decline. The monies received from park development fees
cannot be used for maintenance at this time. However, there has
been some discussion at the State level regarding a change in the
ii
law which would allow such an action. The City should analyze
the existing park plan to insure it is compatible with the open
space needs and within the financial means of the City.
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Capital Improvements are closely defined to include land, buildings,
permanent public work projects, major reconstruction, land acqui-
sition and development of park lands. The major source of
funding for capital improvement plans include gas tax funds,
revenue sharing, park development funds and various State and
Federal sources of revenues. Several of the funds are restricted
by law, such as park development, and can be used only for those
particular activities. Following is a brief explanation of the
source of funds used to finance the Capital Improvement Program.
Revenue Sharing
Revenue sharing funds are based upon a three - factor formula:
population, local tax effort and inverse relative income. During
the period of this Capital Program, the City of Saratoga expects
to receive approximately $400,000 in revenue sharing funds, with
only $10,000 anticipated during F. Y. 84 -85. Revenue sharing funds
should not be counted on as a main source of revenues in future
years.
Gas Tax Matching
The City receives a portion of the gasoline tax collected by the
iii
State. Revenues are used for construction, overlay and main-
tenance of the street system to include a certain portion for
operating expenses. Gas tax funds continue to be the main source
of revenues for maintenance of City streets.
Storm Drain Funds
This fund is derived from fees imposed on subdivisions and
building sites. The funds are used for construction of projects
as well as for maintenance. There is currently a balance of
$354,300 in the storm drainage funds with no major expenditures
expected over the next three years. This is a restricted fund
and cannot be used for other activities.
Park Improvement Fund
The major source of revenues for this fund is derived from park
development fees. State law requires that developers pay in lieu
fees or dedicate land for parks. The,City collects approximately
$1,200 - per residential lot. Other revenues in this fund include
State Park Bond and Roberti -Z -Berg monies. There is no provision
in the law which authorizes the City to use these funds for maintenance.
At the beginning of F.Y. 82 -83 this fund shows a balance of
$507,000, with expected expenditures of over $420,000.
Miscellaneous Funds
From time -to -time the City will qualify for.Transportation Develop-
iv
ment Act (TDA) funds, for bike lanes or Housing Community
Development Act (HCTA) Block Grant funds. Lastly the replace-
ment fund which totals $216,000 represents monies which
the City has set aside over the last several years to replace
equipment.
The attached exhibits show the proposed expenditures over the
next three years. Schedule I is a summary of proposed expendi-
tures by funds, while Schedule II is a complete list of projects
being proposed over the next three years. An important aspect
of Schedule II is the last column which indicates the unfunded
projects for the next three years. If revenue projections are
accurate and need assessments realistic, the City will be able
to fund about 330 (.in 1982 dollars) of the required needs. The
necessity to prioritize projects and fund only those which reflect
a true benefit to all residents will be essential.
Schedule III is the needs analysis for all projects over the next
three years. The analysis will be updated yearly to reflect the
changing economic situation.
The City faces numerous issues regarding capital project, and
this year's Capital Improvement Program attempts to highlight only
a few of them.
RS R/ mg r
Attachments
Rf. S. Robinson, Jr. /
Director of Planning & Policy Analysis
0
SCHEDULE I
FISCAL YEAR
Fiscal Year 1981 -82
• Beginning Balance
• Estimated Revenue
• 'Transfers Out
• Appropriations
• Ending Balance
Fiscal Year 1982 -83
• Estimated Revenue
• Transfers Out
• Appropriation
• Reserves
• Ending Balance
Fiscal Year 1983 -84
• Estimated Revenues
• Estimated Appropriations
• Ending Balance
Fiscal Year 1984 -85
• Estimate Revenues
• Estimate Appropriation
3 Ending Balance
SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in 'Thousands of Dollars)
REVENUE
440.3
STORM
PARK
52.8
424.7
RREPLACEMENT
SHARING
GAS TAX
DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT
TDA
HCDA
FUND
415.4
561.1
344.0
230.9
.623
14.2
216.1
181.8
375.9
90.0
107.0
0
253.9
0
0
0
(48.5)
0
0
0
0
(177.4)
(247.5)
(31.2)
(31.9)
0
(241.4)
0
419.8
689.5
354.3
306.0
.623
26.7
216.1
157.6
440.3
30.0
201.0
52.8
424.7
0
(336.9)
(32.0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(987.1) 1
(86.6) 2
429.3
(_52.8)
(451.4) 3
(141.5)
(240.5)
(20.0)
(20.0)
0
0.
0
(74.6)
0
90.7
277.7
77.7
.623
0
0
51.7
430.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
(520.9)4
0
(55.0)
0
0
0
51.7
0
277.7
22.7
.623
0
0
10.0 430.2
0 (430.2) 4
61.7 0
1
2 $783.0 C.I.P. and $204.1 Operating Budget
3 $37.0 C.I.P. and $49.6 Operating Budget
$186.1 C.I.P. and $265.3 Operating Budget
4 Approx. $200.0 Operating and Remainder in the C.I.P.
1
0 0 0 .0 0
0 0 0 0 0
277.7 22.7 .623 0 0
(Revised to reflect 1982 -83 Capital
Improvement Budget.)
SCHEDULE II
THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS & FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in Thousands of Dollars).
Current Unfunded
Category /Project
Estimate
Funding Sources)
1982 -83„
1983 -84
1984 -85 Project
I. Park Acquisition/
Improvements
o El Quito Park
400.0
Park
Imprv. &
400.0
State
Funds
o Gardiner Park Equip.
5.0
R'Z'
Berg
5.0
o Hakone Parking Lot
50.0
Park
Imprv.
50.0
• Hakone Roadway Recon.&
59.3
Park
Imprv.
9.3
50.0
Geologic Investigation
• Wildwood Park Restoration
10.Q
Park
Imprv.
10.0
• Congress Spring Phase II
400.0
Park
Imprv.
400.0
• Landscape Saratoga
Sunnyvale Road.
No Est.
Eval.l
• Demonstration Trail,
.20.0
Park
Imprv.
20.0 .
Subtotal
944.3
419.3
55.0
Eval. 470.0
1 Evaluate project commencing 1984 -85
(General Plan Action Program)
2 (Revised to reflect 1982 =83 Capital
Irrprovement Budget.)
Category /Project
II. Street /Sidewalk /Bike
• Repair Sidewalk -
Community Center
• Paul Avenue Public
Imprv.
• Quito Bridge Imprv.
• Pierce Road Imprv.
• Sarahill Road Imprv.
• Fruitvale Ave. at
Alondra Court
• Pierce Slide Repair
• Quito Bike Lane
• Fruitvale Bike Lane
THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS & FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in Thousands of Dollars) -
Current Unfunded
Estimate Funding Source(s) 1982 -83 1983 -84 1984 -85 Project
3.5 Replacement 3.5
88.6
HCDA 88.6
200.0
Gas Tax
200.0
Gas Tax
30.0
Gas Tax
50.0
Gas Tax
35.0
Gas Tax 35.0
20.0
T.D.A. 20.0
32.8
T.D.A. 32.8
3
200.0
200.0
30.0
10.0 40.0
(Revised to reflect 1982 -83 Capital
Tmr)rrytmrrumni- Riirirraf- )
THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS & FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in Thousands of Dollars).
Current Unfunded
Category /Project
Estimate
Funding Source(s)
1982 -83
1983 -84 1984 -85 Project
o
Allendale Avenue at
City Hall
18.0
Gas
Tax
18.0
o
Allendale Avenue & Cox
Reconstruction
186.0
Gas
Tax
186.0
o
Annual Resurfacing
3,000.0
Gas
Tax
544.0
281.0 190.2 1,984.8
(Est:.. )
o
Traffic Safety Imprv.
Lyle & Prospect
500.0
Gas
Tax
500.0
(Est.)
•
Traffic Safety Imprv.
4th and Big Basin Way
No Est-
Gas
Tax
Eval.l
•
Traffic Safety Imprv.
S.S'vale Road- Brandywine
No Est.
Gas
Tax
Eval.l
o Imprv. Saratoga Avenue/
Bike Lane No Est. Gas Tax & Eval.l
T.D.A.
1 Evaluate project commencing 1983 -84
(General Plan Action Program) (Revised to reflect 1982 -83 Capital
Improvement Budget.)
4
Category /Project
d Ped. Crosswalk -
Paso Lado
o Road Imprv. -Quito
Area
Subtotal
III. Storm Drainage
• Pamela Way
• Pierce Road Storm Drain
vic. Pike Road
• Quito Area Storm System
Subtotal
THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS & FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in Thousands of Dollars).
Current Unfunded
Estimate Funding Source(s) 1982 -83 1983 -84 1984 -85 Project
No Est. Gas Tax Eval.l
1,000.0 Gas Tax
(Est.) HCDA
5,363.9
12.0 Storm Drain
25.0 Storm Drain
84.5 HCDA
121.5
1 Evaluate project commencing 1983 -84
(General Plan Action Program)
927.9 321.0 230.2
1.2.0
25.0
84.5
121.5
1,000.0
(Devised to reflect 1982 -83 Capital
5 Isrprovement Budget.)
Category /Project
IV. City Building &
Eg6ipment
• Pay Loader
• Medium Pick -up
• i Ton Pick -up
• Replace Heating & A.C.
Unit - Community Center
• Data Processing Unit
o City Phone System
• Three Adrain. Veh.
• Replace Heating & A.C.
Unit -City Hall
• City Hall Remodel
• Repair Roof -City Hall
THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS & FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in Thousands of Dollars) -
Current Unfunded
Estimate Funding Source(s) 1982 -83 1983 -84 1984 -85 Project
34.0
Revenue
Sharing
8.5
Revenue
Sharing
8.5
Revenue
Sharing
9.0
Replacement
Revenue
Sharing
55.0
Revenue
Sharing
18.0
Revenue
Sharing
12.0 Replacement
30.0 Revenue Sharing
30.0 Replacement
6
34.0
8.5
8.5
9.0
• W
30.0
30.0
55.@
12.0
(Revised to reflect 1982 -83 Capital*
Inprovement Budget.)
Category /Project
o Improved Accessibility -
City Buildings
o 2 Ton Pick -up
0 1 Ton Dump Truck
o 6 Ton Roller
Subtotal
TOTAL
THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS & FUNDING SOURCES
(All Numbers in Thousands of Dollars)
Current Unfunded
Estimate Funding Source(s) 1982 -83 1983 -84 1984 -85 Project
13.2 HCDA
9.0 Replacement
12.0 Replacement
30.0 Replacement
(2st. )
269.2
$6,698.9
7
13.2
121.2 30.0
$1,589.9 $406.0
9.0
12.0
30.0
118.0
$230.2 $4,472.8
(Revised to reflect 1982 -83 Capital
Improvement Budget.)