HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-1985 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSAGENDA BILL N0: 9/(0
DATE: March 20, 1985
DEPARTMENT: Parks & Buildinas
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
SUBJECT: Hakone Gardens Donation
Issue Summary
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace White of Saratoga have contributed 1 Azalea
and 1 Rhododendron, for a total value of $200, to be planted at
Hakone Gardens.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Donation of $200.
Attachments
None.
Council Action
4./3: Accepted 5 -0.
1
5
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE:
DEPARTMENT:
P 2-
3/20/85
City Manager
CITY OF SARATOGA
Dept. Hd . ...._ ...... .
City Attn .
City Mgr.
SUBJECT: Law Enforcement Services Contract: Adjustment to Rates;
Approval of Plan of Service for 1984 -85; Approval of
Added Traffic Enforcement Services
Issue Summary The City of Saratoga contracts with Santa Clara County
ie 3�Ts Department for law enforcement services. Under the contract,
rates for various types of services are reviewed and adjusted annually and
the Sheriff submits a proposed annual plan of service to the City for
review and approval. During this past year, the negotiations on rates have
taken longer than normal because of a number of complex issues raised by
the cities. Because of this and also due to turn over of key personnel in
the Sheriff's Department at a critical time, both the rate review and the
preparation of the annual plan. of service have been delayed. The process
is now complete and the results have been beneficial.
Rate Review: Rates for the current year have been adjusted downward and
reflect an overall reduction of about 3.5% from the previous year. This
adjustment will result in a credit or refund of about 516,200 for the first
half of this fiscal year and, overall, a savings of about $94,000 from the
original proposed rate increase.
Plan of Service: The plan of service proposed for the current year con-
tinues the level of service provided during the prior year, with a 5%
increase allowed for normal growth. Current experience is running slightly
ahead of that rate, but due to the delay in submitting the plan, the
Department has agreed to hold this level. This 'cap' represents the level
of cost beyond which the City is not obligated to pay.
Additional Traffic Enforcement: the Sheriff's Department has analyzed
recent traffic accident data and recommends the City add traffic enforce-
ment at the .rate of 6 hours per evening. The net cost is about $45,000'
annual.
Recommendation 1. Approve the Plan of Service and authorize the City Man-
ager to execute on behalf of the City. 2. Approve the addition of traffic
enforcement at the rate of 6 hours per day for the remainder of the current
fiscal year.
Fiscal Impacts: 1. The recommended plan of service places a cap on the
City s obligation for payment at $902,052 for the current year. Antici-
pating a rate increase, the current budget provides $1,040,000.
2. The recommended additional traffic enforcement will cost approximately
$23,431 to the end of the fiscal year. Some of this cost will be offset by
additional revenues from fines and forfeitures.
Exhibits: 3/12/85 Memo from City Manager; 1984 -85 propose Plan of
e�e;�1984 -85 Appendix " "A" Attachment to the Contract; Proposa for
additional Traffic Enforcement Service.
Council Action:
3/20: Approved new plan of service 4 -1; approved 7 -day extended service 5 -0.
A
CSR
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
March 12, 1985 Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
TO: City Council Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
From: City Manager David Moyles
Subject: Adjustments to Billing Rates for Law Enforcement
Contract; 1984 -85 Plan of Service; Proposed Addition
to Traffic Enforcemnt Service
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ADJUSTMENT TO BILLING RATES FOR SERVICES
I am now able to report to you on the effects of the negotiations
between the cities of Saratoga, Cupertino and Monte Sereno last
July and August on the proposed rate adjustments for County Law
Enforcement services. You may recall that in the Spring of last
year we received a proposed adjustment in the current rates for
the various law enforcement services for an approximate 10%
increase. I reported this to the City Council at that time. The
Managers from the other two cities and I met with the Sheriff's
Department representatives to review the formulae and assumptions
used in deriving the cost figures used to develop the proposed
rates.
As a result of that review, and with the cooperation received
from the Sheriff's Department, we have been able to make changes
in both operations and the cost formulae producing a reduction in
overall rates of about 3.5%. Under the terms of the agreement,
this reduction will result -i-n a refund, or credit of about
$16,400 for the first half of this year. Compared to the
original proposed increase of 10 %, the annual savings are approx-
imately $94,000. The new rates will remain in effect for the
balance of this fiscal year. A copy of the billing statement for
the month of February, which shows the new rates and their
effects on charges already incurred, is attached. The warrant
for this invoice appears on the warrant list for March 20th.
I am delighted with this outcome and want to commend to you the
work and cooperative attitude of the Sheriff's Department
personnel during these meetings.
1984 -85 PLAN OF SERVICE
A copy of the Plan of Service for the current contract year is
attached for your review. This proposed plan was received from
the Sheriff's Department on January 27, 1985. I have not
forwarded this to you sooner because of other pressing and
unforeseen matters.
r
To: City Council
March 12, 1985
Page 2
In addition to the general description of services to be provided
by the Sheriff during the contract year, the Plan of Service
contains two important elements. These are the estimated amount
of services required, which determine the total cost of services
for the year, and the priorities or objectives to be sought in
the provision of service. These elements are found in the Plan,
beginning on page 6.
The Amount of Services proposed by the Sheriff's Department for
the coming year reflect an appropriate increase of 5% over the
preceding year for General Law Enforcement. In effect, this
would maintain services at current levels.
The service priorities, or objectives for the current year are
listed beginning on page 6. These objectives are similar to the
prior year and I believe are appropriate for current conditions.
In my opinion, the Sheriff's services have continued their steady
improvement during the past year. The department has been
impacted by turnover in key positions but seems to have settled
down in recent months. Communications with departmental
supervisors has been excellent.
I am most gratified at the positive response received from field
personnel, supervisors and management alike to the City's
Community Service Officer Program. At the end of one year of
operation, the program is working smoothly and without any
noticeable problems from the City's point of view. I believe the
Sheriff's Department should be commended for their support and
cooperation during the inception of the program. As I have made
known to the City Council, without the active support and
cooperation of the Department, the program could not have worked
as intended. I recommend that you approve this Plan of Service
at the next available opportunity.
t -
1983 -84
1984 -85
Percent
Hours
Hours
Change
Category
Planned Actual
Planned
(to actual)
General Law
Enforcement
8,525
8,745
9,182
+ 5.0%
Investigative
3,635
2,491
2,491
0.0%
Day
Supplemental
2,080
1,987
2,080
+ 4.7%
TOTAL
14,240
13,223
13,753
+ 4.0%
The service priorities, or objectives for the current year are
listed beginning on page 6. These objectives are similar to the
prior year and I believe are appropriate for current conditions.
In my opinion, the Sheriff's services have continued their steady
improvement during the past year. The department has been
impacted by turnover in key positions but seems to have settled
down in recent months. Communications with departmental
supervisors has been excellent.
I am most gratified at the positive response received from field
personnel, supervisors and management alike to the City's
Community Service Officer Program. At the end of one year of
operation, the program is working smoothly and without any
noticeable problems from the City's point of view. I believe the
Sheriff's Department should be commended for their support and
cooperation during the inception of the program. As I have made
known to the City Council, without the active support and
cooperation of the Department, the program could not have worked
as intended. I recommend that you approve this Plan of Service
at the next available opportunity.
t -
To: City Council Page 3
March 12, 1985
PROPOSED ADDITION TO TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
The Sheriff's Department has recently concluded an analysis of
its traffic enforcement effectiveness. The results of that study
indicate a need for additional traffic enforcement coverage
during evening hours. Traffic accident rates have begun to climb
in recent months during this time frame. The City of Monte
Sereno has already determined to add part of a traffic unit
during this time period for the same reasons as given here. The
City of Saratoga can benefit by sharing the balance of the
additional unit with Monte Sereno. A copy of the Sheriff's
Department proposal is attached.
Under the new rate schedule in effect for the balance of this
year, if implemented by April 1st, the cost of additional traffic
services of six hours per day would amount to $23,431 to the end
of the current fiscal year. On an annual basis, at current
rates, the cost would be about $95,000. Some portion of this
additional cost would be recovered through traffic fines and
forfeited bails received as a result of the additional enforce-
ment. While cost recovery is not a prime purpose of the service,
currently the City is recovering about 50% of the cost of the
present traffic enforcement coverage. Additional enforcement
during evening hours where the need has been shown should result
in cost recovery to the same or greater degree.
With the savings realized from the result of our negotiations
over rates, the net cost of additional traffic enforcement ser-
vices (estimated at about $45,000 per year) can be met at no
overall increase in costs anticipated for this year and for the
anticipated costs in the year ahead.
I support the Sheriff's proposal and recommend that you approve
the additional traffic enforcement service at the amount of six
hours per evening at the first opportunity.
)J.Wayv e Dernet
cc Lt. R. Wilson, Sheriff's Department
Saratoga Public Safety Commission
Attachments: 1.February, 1985 billing statement with adjustments.
2. Recommended Plan of Service, 1984 -85
3. Approved Plan of Service, 1983 -84
4. 1984- 85Appendix'A'Attachmenttothe Contract
5. Proposal for additional Traffic Enforcement Service
PLAN OF EXECUTION
"LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT"
CITY OF SARATOGA
FISCAL 84 -85
ATTACHMENT 2.
FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPART?1ENT
PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY
Part, I Section C of the Law Enforcement Contract between
the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga provides that
the Sheriff shall develop a Plan of Service which shall be re-
viewed and mutually agreed upon by the City and the Sheriff.
Under Part V, Section B.4 of the Contract, the Service Plan shall
specify the maximum charges for service to be paid by the city.
This Law Enforcement Services Plan is developed to satisfy these
provisions of the Law enforcement Contract.
Responsibility
Under the Contract, it is the responsibility of the Sheriff
to provide services to the City, in accordance with this plan.
The Sheriff is solely responsible for the administration and
supervision of all such services provided under the Contract.
for the execution of the Contract.
As provided in the California Government Code (Sections
36501, et seq.), the City may designate the Sheriff or his
designee as its Chief of Police. During the term of this agree-
ment the City agrees not to contract with or purchase from any
other entity, public or private, for law enforcement services
without the express consent of the Sheriff.
Service Levels
Service levels referred to herein are determined-by the
amount of hours reported to be provided .and charged to the City
PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 2
under the terms of the Contract in each of the service categories
of General Law Enforcement, Investigative Services and Supple-
mental Services. General. Law Enforcement includes the patrol of
established beats and response to emergency calls and other calls
for service.
Historical Service Levels
Attachments reflect the historical service levels to the
City of Saratoga, in several categories, over the last three
complete fiscal years. The data source is the COPANA reports
furnished monthly to the City.
Attachments reflect the current fiscal year 83 -84 Detec-
tive Section time expenditure in case investigations of reported
crime incidents in the City of Saratoga.
Plan of Patrol
The patrol of established beats will be provided for by the
assignment of specific geographical areas of the City to
Sheriff's patrol units assigned to the general Saratoga area.
Beat responsibility maps will be provided to the City as updating
occurs.
The Sheriff's Field Operations Division, Patrol Section,
employs a ten hour workday for its employees. The ten hour work-
0
PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 3
day provides for an overlap coverage in the City so that the beat
patrol level basically remains constant at all times.
In fiscal 84 -85, the City of Saratoga and adjacent unincor-
porated areas will be served by the following Sheriff's units:
Watch I 2230 hrs. - 0330 hrs.
B -20 1 person unit
B -21 1 person unit
Watch II 0700 hrs. - 1800 hrs.
Q -20 1 person unit
Q -21 1 person unit
Q -22 1 person unit
T -27 1 person unit
Watch III 1530 hrs. - 0130 hrs.
S -20 1 person unit
S -21 1 person unit
The responsibility of the noted assigned patrol units will.
be to provide for routine patrol services to the entire City of
Saratoga to a level of an approximate annualized ratio of 70%
of structured patrol to the total hours of activity of the type
and nature set forth in attachments to this contract.
Response to Emergency Calls for Service
Experience to date indicates that the current patrol unit
assignment in the City of Saratoga provides for an overall
average response time to all. "calls for service" of six minutes,
this according to the monthly "COPANA" report (PAR004).
PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 4
Average response time has some value in weighing the issue
of the number of patrol units assigned to an area.
The average response time is affected by several factors:
1. Rounding of time to the nearest five minutes.
2. Need for an immediate response based on initial reported
information.
3. Unit availability during peak time periods.
4. Call stacking by priority /nature of reported
information.
A strong indicator of an acceptable response time, from the
Sheriff's Department viewpoint, is the level of expressed concern
from the city and its citizens.
Investigative Services
The initial case investigative responsibility for all re-
ported crimes, misdemeanor and felony, is with the responding
patrol officer. The length and /or depth of his initial investi-
gation depends on the time availability of the patrol officer.
Cases requiring extensive follow up investigation are routed to
the Detective Section or case assigned to appropriate beat units.
Investigative services to the City of Saratoga will be
provided by the Field Operations Division, Detective Section.
The Detective Section, organized by investigative case special-
ization, investigates all felony and certain serious misdemeanor
crime reported to the Sheriff's Department on a weighted case
management basis. The Patrol Section conducts follow -up
PLATT OF SERVICE DELIVERY - PAGE S
misdemeanor and traffic case investigations by case assignment to
appropriate beat unit.
All reported felony and certain serious misdemeanor crime
cases are assigned to an investigator for control purposes.
Those case showing no solvable case characteristics are case
controlled and monitored by an assigned investigator.
Every reported felony or serious misdemeanor case cannot be
successfully investigated to a conclusion. Those cases which
indicate appropriate case.characteristics are focused upon so as
to maximize the use of investigative time and cost.
Other Law Enforcement Services
Traffic investigations shall be handled by the two investi-
gators assigned to the Westside Station. Refer to Appendix "A"
M page A13 for hourly cost. These costs shall be prorated among.
the four contract cities based on the number of accidents, to
cover 100% of the investigators cost.
The Patrol Section in fulfilling its responsibilities pro-
vides other services to the City as needed to meet its commit-
ments, some accounted for in the established rate and others not
so accounted for. The specialized services avail.able to the city
are:
U
C
PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 6
Hostage Negotiations Unit
Sheriff's Emergency Response Team
Underwater Recovery Unit
Search and Rescue Unit
Narcotics Unit
Criminal Intelligence Unit
Canine Unit
f 1
Although such units are not routinely used, their existence
and capabilities enhance the ability of the Patrol Section in its
delivery of services.
Special events which are mutually identified by the Sheriff
and the city shall be charged at the actual cost of the event.
Limitation of Charges for 1984 -1985
1.
Budgetary and fiscal constraints upon the city make it nec-
essary to establish a limit on the total charges to be billed,
according to the amount of services anticipated to be required or
provided by the Sheriff. During the course of the fiscal year,
this limit on total charges appears to be insufficient, the
Sheriff is responsible for reporting,such condition to the
City Hanager as soon as possible and providing recommendations
for appropriate adjustments.
For fiscal year 1984 -1985, the amount of service (chargeable
hours) anticipated to be required by category is:
PLATS OF SERVICE DELIVER. - PAGE 7
tstimatea Current Current
Chargeable Overhead Hourly Billable
Category Hours X Factor X Rate = Amount
General law 9,182 x 1.8 x 43.79 $ 723,744
Enforcement
Investigative 2;491 x 1.0 x 36.26 90,324
Day .
Supplemental 2,080 x 1.0 x 42.30 87,984
Total 13,753 9022052
Service Priorities and Objectives for 1984 -1985
For the provisions of service during the 1984 -1985 fiscal
year, the following priori tes and objectives are established.
Sheriff and Cite agree to follow these priorities and pursue the
objectives.
1. Maintenance of Average Response Time
Maintain the annualized average response time for
"called for" services at or below six (6) minutes.
1. N,cnitor Serious Crime
The Sheriff shall monitor the incidence of serious crime
within the City by reporting districts and will:
a. Focus additional patrol activity in areas of sign -
ficantly higher activity in an effort to reduce such
incidence level; and
b. Report to the City such developments, including re-
commendations on measures to reduce these levels.
0
PLAN OF SERVICE DELIVERY - Page 8
3. Coordination of Community Service Officer Program
The City and Sheriff have implemented a Community
Service Officer (CSO) Program. This program is in-
tended to expand the availability of law enforcement
services within the community while lowering the overall
costs.
The Sheriff shall continue to assist the City in
supervising the program with the intent of achieving
following goals:
a. The CSO's will expend approximately 1/3 of their
activity time assisting or relieving the Sheriff.
One of the objectives in this program is to reduce
Law Enforcement Contract costs by a ratio of 1:1,
or better, to the cost of the CSO Program; and
b. The CSO's will expend 1/3 to 1/2 of their activity
time enforceing' City Municipal Code violations.
4. Review of Priorities and Objectives
Review, on a quarterly basis, service priorities and
objectives with the City or its representative.
r
1984 -1985 CONTRACT CITY ESTIMATED COST PROJECTION
CITY OF SARATOGA
Projected Activity Hours
with 5% increase over
1983 -1984
General Law Enforcement Rate
for 1984 -1985
Revenue for Patrol Service
Projected Investigative Hours
for 1984 -1985 with 0% increase
Investigative Rate
for 1984 -1985
Revenue for Investigative Services
Supplemental Traffic Enforcement
Days - Hours
Suppplemental Day Rate
Revenue for Supplemental Day
TOTAL REVENUE
*This figure does not include traffic invest-
igators costs, as there is insufficient back-
ground data available. Also not included is
warrant service costs, as agreed to by the
Sheriff for the remainder of this current
fiscal year.
+ 50
16,528.
c 43.79
723,761
2,491
x 36.26
2,030
s 42.30
S 87,984
$ 723,761
$ 90,324
$ 87,984
902,069*
The above Plan of Service for 1984 -1985 is hereby approved.
It is the intent of the Sheriff to provide services according to
this Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Law En-
forcement Contract. It is the intent of the City to render full
cooperation and assistance to the Sheriff in providing the
services called for and in meeting the priorities and objectives
set forth herein.
Robert E. Winter
City of Saratoga,
by
Date.
Wayne De me tz
City :tanager
r
The above Plan of Service for 1984 -1985 is hereby approved.
It is the intent of the Sheriff to provide services according to
this Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Law En-
forcement Contract. It is the intent of the City to render full
cooperation and assistance to the Sheriff in providing the
services called for and in meeting the priorities and objectives
set forth herein.
Robert E. Winter
City of Saratoga,
by
Date.
Wayne De me tz
City :tanager
e
i
Attachment 4.
APPENDIX A
PROJECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1984 -85
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Assumptions Used in Calculation 'of Projected Costs
A -1
to A -3
Summary of Projected General Law Enforcement Costs
A -4
Salaries and Benefits
A -5
Salaries and Benefits (Patrol Deputy)
A -6
Westside Patrol Unit Costs
A -6
Patrol Car and Communication Costs
A -7
Patrol Division Overhead Costs
A -8 to A -9
Personnel and Training Overhead Costs
A -10
Fiscal Division Overhead Costs
.
A -11
Records Section Overhead Costs
A -12
Traffic Investigation Officer Costs
A -13
Supplemental Patrol Costs
A -14
Supplemental Patrol Costs - Overtime Rate
A -15
Park Patrol /Prisoner Transportation Costs
A -16
Summary Projected Detective Costs
A -17
Salaries and Benefits - Detective
A -18
Detective Car and Communications
A -18
Detective - Average Salaries /Overtime
A -19
Detective Division Overhead
A -20
Maximum Chargeable Hours
A -21
A -1
`
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN
COMPUTATION OF
1984 -85 LAW ENFORCEMENT RATES
1.
The "Ten Plan" (ten hour day, four day
week_) will continue to apply to
the
Patrol Division through 1984 -85.
2.
Scheduling of patrol cars will be as follows:
Car Shifts
Shifts
Shift Staffing Countywide
%
kestside Only
Day 1 Deputy 7,300
37.0
3,650
35.7
Swing 1 Deputy 7,665
38.9
4,380
42.9
Swing 2 Deputies 1,095
5.6
-0-
-0-
Mids 1 Deputy 2,190
11.1
2,190
21.4
Mids 2 Deputies 1,460
7.4
-0-
-0-
19,710
100.0
101220
100.0
3.
In accordance with past practice, the rates charged
to contract cities
will
not include costs for:
a. Radio dispatching
.
b. County general overhead
4.
The Salary ranges for badge and non -badge personnel
are documented in the
Salary
Ordinance.
5.
On the average, deputy sheriffs in the
Patrol Division
are in step 5 of
the
salary range and receive 5% career incentive pay. Holiday
and overtime
hourly
rates are computed as follows:
Deputy Sheriff - Bi- weekly salary,
Step 5, 5% career incentive pay,
Fringe $
1,330.37
Divided by hours per pay period
= 80 hrs
Hourly Rate
•$ 16.63
Overtime Rate Factor
X 1.5
Overtime Hourly Rate
$ 24.95
Basic
Shift
Shift O.T. Rate
Differential
Total
Day $ 24.95
-o-
$ 24.95
Swing $ 24.95
$ 0.75
$ 25.70
Midnight $ 24.95
$ 1.00
$ 25.95
A -1
7. Salary fringe benefit costs are as follows:
a. Retirement (Badge Personnel) - 31.114% of salary plus career incentive
and night shift differential.
b. Retirement (Non- badge) - 17.624% of salary plus night shift
differential.
c. Health Insurance - $2,098 per year each employee.
d. Workers' Compensation - 8.86% of salary, career incentive, night
shift differential, holiday pay and
overtime.
e. F.I.C.A. - 7.05% of the first $37,800 of salary of
non -badge employees for 1984.
f. Unemployment Insurance - .4% of salary, career incentive, night
shift differential, holiday pay and overtic
A -2
6. Average holiday hours and overtime
requirements
for deputy sheriffs in the
Patrol Division are computed as
follows:
Holiday Hours:
Total Actual Holiday Hours
for 1983 -84
5,283.3
hours
Divided by holiday staffing
factor
= 117
45.16
hours
Operational Overtime:
Total annual operational OT
for 1983 -84
51.1
hours
Divided by working strength
of patrol
Average annual operational OT per deputy
44
hours
Court Overtime:
Total annual court overtime
for 1983 -84
3,000.3.
hours
Divided by working strength
of patrol
= 117
I Average annual court OT per
deputy
25.64
hours
7. Salary fringe benefit costs are as follows:
a. Retirement (Badge Personnel) - 31.114% of salary plus career incentive
and night shift differential.
b. Retirement (Non- badge) - 17.624% of salary plus night shift
differential.
c. Health Insurance - $2,098 per year each employee.
d. Workers' Compensation - 8.86% of salary, career incentive, night
shift differential, holiday pay and
overtime.
e. F.I.C.A. - 7.05% of the first $37,800 of salary of
non -badge employees for 1984.
f. Unemployment Insurance - .4% of salary, career incentive, night
shift differential, holiday pay and overtic
A -2
8. On the average, a deputy sheriff in the Patrol Division will work 1,852 hours
per year as shown below:
Number of days available per year - 365.0
Days not worked:
3 days per week x 52 - 156.0
Sick leave 8.9
Vacation 13.7
Military leave .4
Training time .8
Total days not worked 179.80
Number of days worked. 185.2
185.2 days x 10 hours per shift = 1,852 hours per year
9. On the average, an investigator in the Detective Division will work 1,796 hours
per year as shown below:
Number of days available per year - 365.0
Days not worked:
2 days per week x 52._- 104.0
Sick leave 9.2
Vacation 22.0
Military leave 1.0
Training time 4.3
Total days net worked 140.5
Number of days worked 224.5
224.5 days x 8 hours per shift = 1,796 hours per year
A -3
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GENERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1984 -85
1.
Salaries and Benefits (A -6)
$ 27.11
2.'
Patrol Car (A -7)
2.94
3.
Communications (A -7)
.24
4.
Patrol Division Overhead (A -8)
7.34
5•
Records Section Overhead (A -12)
4.48
6.
Fiscal Division Overhead (A -11)
.12
7.
Personnel and Training Division Overhead (A -10)
1.56
Hourly Rate for General Law Enforcement
$ 43.79
A -4
A -5
WORKERS'
RETIREMENT
UNEMPLOY.
POSITION
STEP
ANNUAL
SALARY
COMP.
8.86-
BADGE
31.1]4'
NON -BADGE
FICA
INSURANCE
INSURANCE
SUB-
NN U
POSITION
POSITIO`;
Chief Deputy
17.624
7.05:
$2,098/YR
L;
TOTAL
TOTAL
5
$33,660
52,982
$10,473
__
--
$ },291
5 135
548,541
Chief Deputy
5
21,879
1,938
6,807
--
$80,060
Captain
5
31,291
2,772
9,736
__
--
807
88
31,519
Captain
5
20,339
1,802.
--
1,291
125
45,215
74,572
16 PP
Lieutenant
5
+ 7J CIP
26,341
•
2,334
8,196
--
--
807
81
29,351
10 PP
Lieutenant
5
+ 7; CIP
17,221
1,511
5,327
--
1,291
105
36,267
63,107
16 PP
Sergeant
5
+ 7; CIP
22,759
2,016
7,081
-_
807
68
24,840
10 PP
Sergeant
5
+ 7; CIP
14,793
1,311
4,603
--
__
1,2.91
91
33,238
54,811
16 PP
Deputy Sheriff
5
+ 5 CIP
19,187
1,700
5,970
__
--
507
59
21,573
10 PP
Deputy Sheriff
5
+ 5 CIP
12,471
1,105
3,880
__
__
1,291
77
28,25
46,538
Clerk Typist
3
16,530
1,465
__
807
50
19,313
Adv. Clerk Typist
4
18,381
1,629
--
$2,913
Sl,165
2,098
66
24,237
24,237
Supr. Pers. Svc. Clk.
5
22,173
1,965
--
3,239
1,296
2,098
74
26,711
26,717
Personnel Svc. Clk.
4
19,263
1,707
--
3,908
1,563
2,098
89
31,796
31,796
Fiscal Officer
5
43,695
3,871
--
3,395
1,358 'S
2,096
77
27,896
27,898
Accountant III
5
--
7,701
3,080
2,093
175
66,620
60,620
Account Clerk II
35,056
3,106
--
6,178
2,471
2,09S
1' v 0
49,049
49.0,9
5
20,193
1,789
__
3,559
1,424
2,098
81
29,144
Supr. L.E.C.
5
22,920
2,031
--
41039
1,616
2,098
0;
24,14:
L.E.C. II
3
18,626
1,650
--
3,283
32,709( ,
32,796
L.E.C. I
3
1,313
2,098
75
21.0:;
27.045
Storekeeper
16,969
1,505
--
•2„994
1,198
2,098
68
24,F52
24,852
16 PP
Deputy Sheriff
5
19,806
1,755
--
3"',491
1,396
2,098
79
28.625
28,625
5 +
7i DIFF.
+
5 CIP
20,626
1,827
6,418
--
10 PP
Deputy Sheriff
5 +
71 DIFF.
--
2,291
,
83
30,245
49.872
+
5 CIP
13,407
1,188
4,171
--
--
807
54
19,627
A -5
PROJECTED 7984 -85 LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
PATROL DEPUTY
1. Salary at Step 5 includes 5% CIP
2. Shift Differential
3. Holiday'Pay (45.16 hours)
4. Operational Overtime (.44 hours)
5. Court Overtime (25.64 hours)
6. Workers' Comp. - 8.86, of Items 1 -5
7. Retirement - 31.114% of Items 1 -2
8. Health Insurance
9. Unemployment Injur. - .4% of Items 1 -5
10. Uniform Allowance
Total Annual Salaries and Benefits
for one Deputy Sheriff
DAY SWING MIDS
$31,658
$31,658
$31,658
-0-
1,389
1,852
1,031
1,065
1,076
10
10
10
585
605
611
2,949
3,077
3,119
9,850
10,282
10,426
2,098
2,098
2,098
133
139
141
450
450
450
$48,764 $50,773 $51,441
Hourly Cost (Annual Cost - 1,852 hours) $26.33 $27.42 $27,78
The hourly cost of providing a Westside Patrol Unit is calculated as follows:
Average cost of Salaries and Benefits per Patrol Car hour:
$2,770,423 - 102,200 = $27.11
A -6
ANNUAL NO.
ANNUAL NO.
ANNUAL NO.
COST PER
SHIFT
STAFFING
OF PATROLS
OF CAP, HRS.
OF DEP. HRS.
DEPUTY HR.
TOTAL
Day
1 Deputy
3,650
36,500
36,500
$26.33
$ 961,045
Swing
1 Deputy
4,380
43,800
43,800
$27.42
1,200,99E
Swing
0 Deputies
-0-
-0-
-0-
$27.42
-0_
Mids
1 Deputy
2,190
21,900
21.900
$27.78
608,382
10.220
102,200
102,200
$2,770.427,
Average cost of Salaries and Benefits per Patrol Car hour:
$2,770,423 - 102,200 = $27.11
A -6
LAw ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1984 -85
PATROL CAR AND COMMUNICATIONS
AVG. MILES
wESTSIDE
PER HOUR
GSA RATE
HOURLY
PETROL UNITS
1983 -84
PER MILE
COST
Regular Patrol
8.9
$ 0.33
$ 2.94
Supplemental Patrol
6.8
$ 0.33
$ 2.24
Reserve Units
10.8
$ 0.33
$ 3.56
COMMUNICATIONS:
Radio Maintenance,
Installation
and Removal - $
46,359
Projected Patrol Car Hours Countywide - 197,100 hours
Communications Cost Per Hour
$46,359 - 197,100 hours = $ 0.24
A -7
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1984 -85
PATROL DIVISION OVERHEAD
R.C. 3904
I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS:
NO. OF
POSITION POSITIONS
Captain .5
Lieutenant 2
Sergeant 14
Deputy Sheriff 8
Law Enforcement Clerk I 1
Clerk Typist 4
Total Salaries & Benefits 29.5
II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES:
Clothing and Personal Supplies
Telephone Communications
Small Tools and Equipment
Overtime Meals
Maintenance of Equipment
Office Expense
Professional Services
Rents and Leases - Equipment
Membership Dues
Printing
Transportation and Travel
Data Processing
Services and Supplies - Other
Total Services and Supplies
III. TOTAL SALARIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
ALLOCATION OF FATROL DIVISION OVERHEAD
Amount chargeable
Number of Patrol Deputy Sheriffs
Cost per Patrol Deputy Sheriff per year
Number of hours per year
COST PER
POSITION TOTAI
$74,572
63,107
54,811
46,538
24,852
24,237
Overhead cost per hour - Patrol Deputy Sheriff
A -8
$ 37,286
126,214
767,354
372,304
24,852
96,948
$1,424 958
$ 7,131
10,169
5,311
79
5,550
10,327
36,997
4,217
45
.10,894
2,300
70,876'
895
$ 164,791
I, -
$1,589,749
117
$13,588
1,852 hrs
$7.34
SUPPLEMENTAL DAYL1G!,T PATROL:
The preceding calculation is the amount of Patrol Division overhead chargeable. to
one (1) deputy sheriff for each hour worked. Since daylight patrols have one (1)
jperson per car, the division overhead cost for supplemental daylight patrol is
$7.34 per hour.
M
M
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1984 -85
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING OVERHEAD
R.C. 3905
I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS:
NO.' OF
COST PER
POSITION POSITIONS
POSITION
TOTAL
Lieutenant 1
$63,107
Sergeant 2
54,811
$ 63,107
Deputy Sheriff 4
46,538
109,622
Supr. Pers. Svc. Clerk 1
31,796
186,152
Pers. Svc. Clerk 1
••27,898
31,796
Advanced Clerk Typist l
26,717
26,898
Clerk Typist 2
24,237
26,717
48,474
Total Salaries & Benefits 12
$493,766
II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
Premium Pay
Clothing and Personal Supplies
$ 3,731
Insurance
20,922
. ...
Maintenance of Equipment
609,939
Office Expense
3,909
Professional and Special Services
5,276
Rents and Leases - Equipment
104,463
Small Tools and Equipment
5,192
Education Expense
1 �5
Membership Dues
40,997
Printing
35
Transportation and Travel
1,968
Automobile Services
1,021
Advertising
33,864
Ammunition
66
7+,036
Total Services and Supplies
$ 905,544
III. TOTAL PERSONNEL AND TRAINING OVERHEAD
51.39 °,310
Percentage to be allocated:
611 contract cities / personnel = 922 authorized codes =
X 6.94%
Allocated Overhead-- Personnel & Training for the year =
$ 97,112
Overhead cost per hour - Personnel and
Training:
$97,112 - 62,150
$ 1.56
A -10
LAW ENFORCEMENT
COSTS FOR 1984 -85
FISCAL DIVISION
OVERHEAD
R.C.
3901
I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS
NO. OF
COST PER Z
TO BE
POSITION POSITIONS
POSITION ALLOCATED
TOTAL
Fiscal Officer 1
$60,620
5
$ 3,031
Accountant III 1
49,044
5
2,452
Account Clerk II 1
29,144
5
1,457
Total Salaries and Benefits
S 6,940
II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
$ 305
TOTAL OVERHEAD - FISCAL DIVISION
$ 7,245
Maximum General Law Enforcement Hours
including Supplemental Cars
62,150 hours
Hourly Cost - Fiscal Div.i.sion Overhead:
$7,245 62,150 hours =
$.12
A -11
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR
1964 -85
RECORDS SECTION OVERHEAD
R.C. 3909
I. SALARIES AND BENEFITS
NO. OF
COST PER
POSITION POSITIONS
POSITION
TOTAL
Lieutenant 1
$63,107
$
63,107
Supr. Law Enforcement Clerk 5
32,796
163,980
Law Enforcement Clerk II 19
27,045
513,855
Law Enforcement Clerk 1 31
24,852
770,412
Total Salaries and Benefits
$.1,511,354
II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
Overtime - Holiday Pay
$
26,893
Premium Pay
41,990
Overtime Meals
9
Maintenance of Equipment
16,054
Miscellaneous Expense
- 4
Office Expense
10,983
Professional and Specialized Services
78,001
Rents and Leases - Equipment
2,014
Small Tools and Equipment
2,182
Membership Dues
15
Printing
2,678
Transportation and Travel
1,038
Automobile Services
2,848
Total Services and Supplies
$
184,709
III. TOTAL OVERHEAD - RECORDS SECTION
$2,696,063
Percentage to be charged to Contract Cities x
16.4
Allocated Overhead - Records Section to Contract
Cities
$278,154
Hourly Cost. - Records Section:
5278,154 62,150 = $4.48
A -12
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1984 -85
TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION OFFICERS
SALARIF:, AND BENEFITS:
1. Deputy Sheriff - Step 5, 5% CIP
2. Workers' Compensation - 8.86%
3. Retirement - 31.1141Z
4. Health Insurance
5. Unemployment Insurance - .4%
6. Uniform Allowance
Annual Salaries and Benefits
Hourly Cost ($46,988 ; 1,852 hrs)
HOURLY COST - TRAFFIC INVESTIGATORS:
1. Salaries and Benefits
2. Patrol Division Overhead
3. Records Section Overhead
4. Fiscal Division Overhead
5. Pers. & Trng. Div. Overhead
Total Hourly Cost
A -13
$ 31,658
2,805
9,850
2,098
127
450
L46,988
25.37
$ 25.37
7.34
4.48
.12
1.56
$ 38.87
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1984 -85
SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
1. Deputy Sheriff - Step 5, 500 CIP
2. Shift Differential
3. Holiday Pay (45.16 hours)
4. Court'Overtime (25.64 hours)
5. workers' Comp. - 8.86% of items 1 -4
6. Retirement - 31.114% of Items 1 -2
7. Health Insurance
8. Unemployment Insur. - 4% of Items 1 -4
9. Uniform Allowance
Annual Salaries and Benefits,
one (1) Supplemental Deputy Sheriff
Hourly Cost (Annual Sal. /Ben. : 1,852 hrs)
HOURLY COST' SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL
I. Salaries and Benefits
2. Patrol Car (Page A -7)
3. Communications (Page A -7)
4. Patrol Division Overhead (Page A -8)
5. Records Section Overhead (Page A -12)
6. Fiscal Division Overhead (Page A -11)
7. Pers. & Trng. Div. Overhead (Page A -10)
Total Hourly Cost
A -14
DAY
SWING
MIDS
$31,658
$31,658
$31,658
-0-
1,389
1,852
1,031
1,065
1,076
585
605
611
2,948
3,076
3,118
9,850
10,282
10,426
2,098
2,098
2,098
133
139
141
450
450
450
$48,753 $50,762 $51,430
$26.32 $27.41 5.27.70
DAY I SWING MIDS
$26.32
$27.41
$27.70
2.24
2.24
2.24
.24
.24
.24
7.34
7.34
7.34
4.48
4.48
4.48
.12
.12
.12
1.56
1.56
1.56
$42.30
843.39
$43.68
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR
1984 -85
SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL (ONE DEPUTY) - OVERTIME
$29.00
$29.2£
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
Patrol Car (Page A -7)
2.24
DAY
SWINGS
MIDS
1. Deputy Sheriff - Step 5, 5; CIP
$47,487
$47,487
$47,48'
($31,658 x 1.5)
4.
Patrol Division Overhead
2. Shift Differential
-0-
1,389
1,85;
3. Holiday Fay (45.16 hours)
1,031
1,065
1,07!
4. Court Overtime (25.64 hours)
585
605
61:
5. Workers' Comp. - 8.86 of Items 1 -4
2,444
2,515
2,532
6. Unemployment Insur. - .4% of Items 1 -4
196
202
M
7. Uniform Allowance
450
450
4 -(
Annual Salaries and Benefits
$52,193
$53,713
554 21£
Hourly Cost - (Annual Sal. /Ben. - 1,852 hrs)
$28.18
$29.00
$29.2£
HOURLY COST - SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL - OVERTIME
DAY
SWINGS
MIDS
1.
Salaries and Benefits
$28.18
$29.00
$29.2£
2.
Patrol Car (Page A -7)
2.24
2.24
2.21
3.
Communications (Page A -7)
.24
24
4.
Patrol Division Overhead
(Page
A -8)
7.34
7.34
.21
7.32
5.
Records Section Overhead
(Page
A -12)
4.48
4.48
4.4£
6.
Fiscal Division Overhead
(Page
A -11)
.12
.12
.11
7.
Pers. & Trng. Division Overhead
(Page A -10)
1.56
'1.56
�,5(
Total
Hourly Cost
544.16
$44.98
545.2(
A -15
LAM' ENFORCEMENT COSTS FOR 1.984 -85
PARK PATROL /PRISONER TRANSPORTATION
I. Salaries (See Note 1)
2. Patrol Car (Page A -7)
3. Communications (Page A -7)
4. Reserve Section Overhead (Below)
5. Records Section Overhead.(Page A -12)
6. Fiscal Division Overhead (Page A -11)
7. Pers. & Trng. Div. Overhead (Page A -101'
Total Hourly Cost
Note 1: Reserve deputy sheriffs receive $1.25 /hour
for each ten (10) hour shift worked. All
Reserve units are two persons. No benefits
are provided to Reserves.
RESERVE SECTION OVERHEAD
SALARIES AND BE14EPITS
POSITION
Lieutenant
Sergeant
Clerk Typist (Temp. Help)
Total Salaries and Benefits
SERVICES A14D SUPPLIES
Total Overlica(l
OVF.R11F,AD COST PEP. RESERVE HOUR
Annual Reserve Hours for FY 1984
Hourly Cost
HOURLY
.COST
$ 2.50
3.56
.24
3.85
4.48
.12
1.56
$16.31
NO. OF COST PER
POSITIONS POSITION TOTAL
112 $63,107 $31,554
1 54,811 54,811
1 24,237 24,237
$110,602
S 1,500
5•i 12, 102
A -16
j.29,308 hours
S 3.85
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DETECTIVE
COSTS FOR 1984 -85
1. Salaries and - .Benefits (A -18)
2. Detective Car (A -18)
3. Communications (A -18)
4. Detective Section Overhead (A -20)
Hourly Rate for Detective Services
A -17
$ 30.51.
1.71
0.12
3.92
$36.26
COMMUNICATIONS
Radio Maintenance, Installation and Removal $7,480
Projected Detective Hours (34 deputies x 1,796 hrs) = 61,064 hours
Hourly Cost per Detective $7,480 61,064 = $0.12
A -18
DETECTIVE COSTS FOR
1984 -85
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
COST
1.
Average Salary (A -19)
$36,931
2.
Operational Overtime (18.45
hours)
491
3•
Court Overtime (.8 hours)
4.
Workers' Comp. - 8.86p
of Items 1 -3
21
3,317
5.
Retirement - 31.114% of
Item 1
11,491
6.
Health Insurance
7.
Uniform Allowance
2,098
450
,.
Total Annual Salaries
and Benefits
$54 799
Hourly Cost - $54,799 ;
1,796 hours /year
$30.51
DETECTIVE CAR
AVERAGE MILES
GSA RATE
WESTSIDE DETECTIVE UNITS
PER HOUR
PER MILE HOURLY COST
Detective Cars
5.9
$.29 $1.71
COMMUNICATIONS
Radio Maintenance, Installation and Removal $7,480
Projected Detective Hours (34 deputies x 1,796 hrs) = 61,064 hours
Hourly Cost per Detective $7,480 61,064 = $0.12
A -18
DETECTIVF COSTS FOR 1984 -85
AVERAGE SALARIES
POSI TIO14S
Deputy Sheriff'
Sergeant
Average Salary = $1,255,654 - 34 positions
OVERTIME RATE - AVERAGE
Biweekly Salary - Average
$36,931 = 26 Pay Periods $1,420
Divided by hours per pay period = 80 hrs
Hourly Rate $17.75
Overtime Rate Factor X 1.5
Overtime Hourly Rate $26,63
A -19
ANNUAL
TOTAL,
NO. OF. COST PER
ANNUAL
POSITIONS POSITION
SALARY
6 $34,033
$ 204,19E
28 37,552
1,051,v5E
34 e, .),C� rC:i
DETECTIVE. COSTS FOR 1984 -85
DETECTIVE OVERHEAD
R.C. 3903
i. SALARIES ANI) BENEPITS:
U0. OF
POSITION POSITIONS
Captain .5
Lieutenant I
Adv. Clerk Typist 3
Storekeeper l
Total Salaries and Benefits
II. SERVICES AND SUPPLIES:
Overtime Meals
Clothing and Personal Supplies
Maintenance of Equipment
Office Expense
Professional and Specialized Services
Small Tools and Equipment
Membership Dues
Printing
Transportation and Travel
Telephone and Communication.
Total Services and Supplies
III. TOTAL OVERHEAD - DETECTIVE SECTION
ALLOCATION OF DETECTIVE SECTION OVERHEAD:
COST PER
POSITION
$74,572
63,107
26,717
28,625
Number of Detectives to absorb overhead
Detective cost per year
Detective cost per hour $7,033 = 1,796 hrs. /year
A -20
ANNUAI,
TOTAL
$ 37,286
63,107
80,151
28,625
$209,169
$ 158
482
2,545
11,347
1,232
1,367
156
2,023
3,478
7,159
$ 29.947
$239.116
$239,116
34
$7,033
$3.92
RECEIVED
Attachment 5.
MAR 4 19y1,
CITY MANAGER
PROPOSAL
SWING SHIFT TRAFFIC OFFICER - CITY OF SARATOGA
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
For the past three years the city of Saratoga has contracted
with the Sheriff's Department for one full time traffic unit
whose duty hours are; Monday thru Thursday - 7am to 5pm. A
recent study of the 1984 major injd}y and fatality accidents for
the city of Saratoga has shown important data that may cause the
city to consider the institution of an additional part time unit
during the evening hours.
FACTS: DATA GATHERED FROM ACCIDENTS REPORTED IN 1984
1.
The city of Saratoga has had seven fatal injury
accidents in
1894 as comparedto four in 1983.
2.
The number of reported traffic accidents in 1984
have in-
creased 107 over those reported in 1983.
3.
47.9% of all accidents occurred on Friday, Saturday
or Sunday
'
(currently no supplemental traffic unit on duty
during this
time period).
4.
73% of those occurring on Friday, Saturday or Sunday
occurred
between 4pm and 4am.
5.
62.3% of all major injury and fatality accidents
occurred
after 4pm and prior to 4am.
6.
35.9% of all major injury and fatality accidents
occurred
after 5pm and prior to 2am.
7.
28.5% of all major inj.ury.and.fatality accidents
occurred
after 7pm and prior to 12 midnight.
The above statistics clearly indicate a substantial increase
in traffic accidents during the past year. The best and most
effective method of battling this upward trend would be to in-
crease direct traffic enforcement accordingly. Even though reg-
ularly assigned patrol deputies investigate accidents as they
occur, because of an extremely heavy workload, particularly on
swing shift, aggressive traffic enforcement is virtually
impossible during those periods in which the one assigned traffic
officer is not on duty.
C f1T T 7 T T llU
The city manager of Monte Sereno, Don Wimberly, has
requested an additional four hours coverage of patrol services
seven nights a week. If, on the basis of the above statistics,
the city of Saratoga sees a need to add additional traffic
enforcement to their city, particularly during the evening hours,
by
combining their efforts with Monte Sereno.a full time position
could be established which would handle the needs of both cities.
The proposed traffic unit would work in the city of Monte Sereno
four hours and in the city of Saratoga six hours a night. The
unit's primary objective would be to provide the needed services
to both cities on the basis of selective enforcement.
Enforcement in Saratoga may not be accomplished in a continous
six hour block each night but staggered between the two cities as
activity dictates.
The attached line graphs indicate peaks in traffic accidents
by time of day and day of the week. The graphs clearly show a
continuing need for daytime traffic" enforcement as well as a
completely separate need for additional supplemental traffic
enforcement, particularly between the hours of 7pm and 12
midnight.
The continuing increase in the number of traffic accidents
that are occurring in the city of Saratoga is of primary concern
to the Sheriff's Department. This proposal is being submitted as
a recommended solution to that problem.
-11L v o /v b �
.2q 1 1
I Vj
v
V
y/
.L
6
J
F
i
S ,f ,e 4
Ja it r.2 i ry rr rC r ; iJ r5 zc .2i 1z may'
iY
C
a
rr
�l
7
6'
r"
L
f
4
s
D
12 1 ? I r.f 14 /7 i/ rP 1c 7i J7 7; IV
y
I
�i
i
7 /' a 1e s
- -2 7
j
J� 1 2 3 -, S 1 7 P y /0 a 12 /? /: rr /! /' r j4 1, sr 72 73 7y
to
ell
VI
lyl
�o
/s
0
E
r
_F/51r0/;7;
17-_Z- /--/ /- 4 /-- D /, iJ
.:1
�I
Vil
�y
Q�
V
O
Af
n
,4-
9
r
3
i
O
1 0 0
�� ,�; c o ,G D 4 f,
I
4
^v
1�
O
O
i
r
n
t
a
E
S
i
G
/j,i o c o el /,-- / � E
191
c/ � � y S' G .' � 9 /✓ /� i� i9 IJ i1" iG i9 �.�' i? >c 7 i » �3 J Y
•i0ounty of Santa Clara
California
March 14, 1985
City of Saratoga
Wayne Dernetz, City Manager
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95050
Dear Mr. Dernetz,
Office of the Sheriff
180 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110 -9990
294 -1334 Area Code 408
Robert E. Winter, Sheriff
;'3tCE1VE�
%AR 1 1915
In response to the requests made to you by the City Council
Tuesday night, 3/11/85, I reviewed the data concerning the
Sheriff's Department proposal for increased traffic enforcement
submitted to you on 2/27/85.
The recommended increase in service is accurate and in accordance
with the cities needs. In order to maintain the current level of
service or have any hopes of stabilizing the increasing injuries
and deaths occurring within Saratoga's jurisdiction, it is
recommended that the proposal be accepted in its entirety.
Per your request, below you will find cost factors relating to
reduced options to the proposal:
#1 Three nights of increased service at six hours per night =
eighteen hours per week at $43.39 per hour = $40,613 per year.
#2 Four nights of increased service at six hours per night =
twenty -four hours per week at $43.39 per hour = $54,151 per year
The attached graph will perhaps assist you and the City Council
in analyzing the current trends of evening hour traffic
accidents.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E WINTER, SHERIFF
Santa Clara County
By
Sergeant G ry Medlin, Administrative Sergeant
Westside Station
14374 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 867 -9715
GM /ts
An Equal Opportunity Employer
?�i
:�
.. �. i '
i �;.
`��.,
r;���
��'�::'
. f a� ��y ,�,�
�t i
tf.'''a ��•:
v i ,''.
%' . �:.:'
• �t.i�.
.. • •,�
. it{�'.7'.�� �
�r
;` � ;ly.
.F
.�„ fi�
•�S.L,��.
(' {�:��Tff ri'
��:� A
�1,: '.
SS : 'e{ . i£
'i
eta�l�'ti
•.�'•
r �:(2.t
{.. �
_
si.�
L. �.
1
Y(
r' .
S
&:ir {
77777
.7
pjJ
�.� .
y}..
.i'�S•z,
o.
°��.
j
91
U.•
••���J
it,3�.�,�
•^
''i
r
�h Jv
�.i�'."
9.
_',:.�
_
� '•'J
;,�;'•g
.d
of t�
' Arc
'•.1 .1 �
1: '�,� t1i�!��
t i
. 4'..
�
. it ; , _ 1.,
,.;,:,
Y.:3 •.:.
�
�
h •
` A
�
yf1r7 �., �
'
!
t c �
,.�. yy
,1
?�i
:�
.. �. i '
i �;.
`��.,
r;���
��'�::'
. f a� ��y ,�,�
�t i
tf.'''a ��•:
v i ,''.
%' . �:.:'
• �t.i�.
.. • •,�
. 1.
ACo%DA BILL ��. Fog
DATA: March 20, 1985
Dg'AM`TZ;T• Community Services
CITY OC SARA =%
suwECr: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Initial: r
Dept. fki.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Surrmary
At the February 12, 1985, Study Session of the - Council, staff was
directed to develop project alternatives which focused, on
benefitting the Village Area of the City and /or senior citizens.
Toward that objective, staff has developed three categories of
projects (referred to as "options" below) for Council to
consider. The first category assumes all available funding is
used to provide improvement -to the Village Area. The second
category assumes benefits to both senior citizens and the Village
Area. The third alternative, a new senior citizen center, would
only benefit the seniors.
Reccmmer:daticn
Staff seeks Council direction concerning the expenditure of $470,000 of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City has approximately
$320,000 in CDBG funds which can be reprogrammed, and expects to receive an
additional $150,000 during the next fiscal year.
Fiscal Imoacts
Council action on the programming of 'the grant will result in the City
receiving $150;000-in program funds and at least $30,000 for administrative
purposes during Fiscal Year 1985 -86.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Report Slunnary
2• Report by unity Services Director
3. Previously proposed projects (Sumrnazy)
4. Supplementary Senior Citizen /Center Data
Council Action
3/20; Approved Clevenger proposal 5-0 (see minutes) .
Summary
CDBG Application Development
11th Program Year
CDBG Revenue Available
Previous Years $320,000
Next Fiscal Year 150,000
TOTAL $470,000
Expenditure Alternatives
I. Option ONE: Village Area Improvements
A. Parking District No. 3 Financing $300,000
B. Village Area Commercial
Rehabilitation Program $150,000
C. Village Library Access
Improvements $ 7,000
II. Option TWO: Benefits both Village & Seniors
A.
Scaled -down Commercial
Rehabilitation Program
$
67,000
B.
Design of Parking District No. 3
$
30,000
C.
Village Library Access
Improvements
$
7,000
D.
Existing Senior Center Expansion
$
20,000
E.
SACC Program Funding
$
26,000
III. Option THREE: New Senior Center
A. Additional Potential Funding Sources
1. Recovery of CDBG revenue
City paid back to County $250,000
2. Private Foundation Grant $ 75,000
3. "Prop. 30" Grant $ 75,000
TOTAL $400,000
B. Shortfall, assuming all CDBG funds used on
project ($470,000), would be $1.7:0-,.000.
$457,000
$150,000
$640,000
�i
A
A •�
t" CITY of = ' ATOGA
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CDBG Allocation of Funds
-------------------------------------------
PURPOSE
DATE: 3/20/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/20/85
------------------ - - - - --
Staff seeks Council direction concerning the expenditure of
$470,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The
City has approximately $320,000 in CDBG funds which canbe re-
programmed, and expects to receive an additional $150,000 during
the next fiscal year.
ANALYSIS
At the February 12, 1985, Study Session of the Council, staff was
directed to develop project alternatives which focused on
benefitting the Village Area of the City and /or senior citizens.
Toward that objective, staff has developed. three categories of
projects (referred to as "options" below) for Council to
consider. The first category assumes all available funding is
used to provide improvements to the Village Area. The second
category assume benefits to both senior citizens and the Village
Area. The third alternative, a new senior citizen center, would
only benefit the seniors.
Option I: Improvement to the Village Area:
Activities listed under this option assume the Council wishes to
put the focus of the CDBG program toward improvements to the
Village Area. Full funding of all activities in this option
would nearly eliminate the Saratoga Housing Assistance
Rehabilitation Program (SHARP). This could result in the County
objecting to the changes in that the City would not be spending
any revenue on a housing activity. The City would not know of
the County's response until a formal reprogramming request was
made pursuant to a Council action.
Option Activities:
A: Parking District No. 3 financing $300,000
B: Village Area Commercial Rehabilitation
Loan Program 150,000
C. Village Library Access Improvements 7,000
Total $457,000
Activity A: Parking District No. 3, $300,000:
If fully funded, this project would utilize CDBG funds to
complete Parking District #3. With the completion of District
#3, an additional 12,000 square feet of new commercial space
would be allowed.
In order to use CDBG funds for this activity, it would be
necessary to make provisions for the creation of new jobs by
project beneficiaries (participants of the District). The recom-
mended level, following State guidelines, is one full time job
per each $10,000 increment of funding. A legally binding
mechanism would have to be created to assure compliance with this
condition.
Activity Benefits (I -A):
1. Completion of the Parking District No. 3 project which has
been contemplated for the past 25 years.
2. Provide necessary additional parking in the Village Area.
3. Encourage less parking on Big Basin Way.
4. Address a number of concerns cited in the Village Task Force
Report.
5. Provide economic stimulation of the City's largest commercial
area through increased business activity.
6. Create 30+ full time permanent jobs for unemployed low -to-
moderate income individuals (assuming the District is fully
CDBG funded).
Negative Concerns (I -A):
1. There may be reluctance on the part of the Parking District
participants to agree to the job generation condition (i.e.,
one job for every $10,000 in funding).
2. Significant administrative time would have to be expended to
develop the legal instruments ensuring compliance with the
job generation condition, enforcement of the condition, and
the marketing of the program.
Activity B: Village Area Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program,
$150,000:
The 1977 Village Task Force Report recommended the "Creation of
interesting and visually pleasing frontal facades for those older
structures in need of a facelift. Additionally, a similar treat-
ment to the rear of those existing structures that have, or will
have, exposure to parking districts ". The report goes on to say
addition of new facades, facilities, and structures is invaluable
relative to the increased awareness for the downtown and the
merchants reinforced interest in making a viable community,
serving the interests of the tourist and the resident alike ".
2
A Commercial Rehabilitation Program could be developed for the
Village Area. It is envisioned that such an activity could
address the above needs including historic preservation. In
order to be a CDBG - eligible activity, either the loan recipients
would have to be of low -to- moderate income or the loan recipient
would have to commit to the creation of new jobs for low -to-
moderate income individuals as a condition of the loan, (i.e.,
one permanent full time position for each $10,000 increment of
funding).
Activity Benefits (I -B):
1. The activity has the potential for meeting previously stated
Village Task Force objectives.
2. Enhancement of Village facades could result from the program.
3. Correction of existing building code violations.
4. Possible expansion of existing businesses.
5. Generation of new jobs.
6. Commercial Rehabilitation could tie into the City's existing
residential rehabilitation program (SHARP) by providing
assistance to residential uses predominantly found on the
second floor of commercial buildings and by utilizing many of
the existing SHARP procedures and documents.
Negative Concerns (I -B):
1. There may be some resistance to the job generation conditions
associated with the loan program.
Activity C: Village Library Access Improvements, $7,000:
This project would provide an accessible restroom facility within
the Village Library building and also give the building primary
wheelchair access. Additionally, there would be some upgrading
of the building as a result of these improvements.
Activity Benefits (I -C):
1. The Village Library building will be made handicapped
accessible and other related improvements would be
accomplished.
2. The current leasees of this building have expressed concerns
relative to the inadequacy of the restroom. Planned accessi-
bility improvements would address these concerns.
Additionally, the current front door would be brought up to
code and the primary entrance would be ramped and railed.
Negative Consideration (I -C):
There are no negative factors identifiable at this time.
3
Option II: Benefits to both the Village Area and Senior
Citizens::
The most significant characteristic of this funding option is
that it would not require the reprogramming of any existing CDBG-
funded activity. All activities proposed in this category could
be funded with the CDBG revenues the City anticipates receiving
next fiscal year. The other significant characteristic of this
Option is that it provides benefits to both the Village Area and
the senior citizen community.
Option Activities:
A. Scaled -down Commercial Rehabilitation
Loan Program
B. Design of Parking District No. 3
C. Village Library Improvements
D. Expansion of Existing Senior Center
E. Saratoga Area Coordinating Council
Program Funding
Total
$ 67,000
30,000
7,000
20,000*
26,000
$150,000
*$10,000 allocation to project and $10,000 allocation
to a contingency fund.
Activity A: Scaled -down Commercial Rehabilitation Program,
$67,000:
This activity would involve the provision of below- market rate
interest loans to businesses in the Village Area wishing to
upgrade or expand their facilities. This activity is identical
to Activity B described under Option I; the only difference being
the size of the allocation which was reduced from $150,000 to
$67,000. As previously indicated, loan recipients would probably
have to provide one job for each $10,000 increment in financing
they received.
Activity Benefits (II -.A):
1. Responds to Village Task Force objectives.
2. Enhancement of Village facade.
3. Correcting of building code violations.
4. Existing business expansion.
5. New job generation
6. Compatible with SHARP Program
4
Negative Considerations (II -A):
1. As previously stated, there may be some resistance to the
job - generation requirements assocciated with this activity.
Activity B: Design of Parking District No. 3, $30,000:
This activity would involve a contribution to the Parking
District No. 3 project in the Village Area; specifically, the
financing of design costs. It is identical to Activity A under
Category I except that the latter activity would involve the
complete funding of the project (design and construction).
Activity Benefits (II -B):
1. Furtherence of Parking District No. 3 project and associated
benefits.
2. Generation of three new full time jobs.
Negative Considerations (II -B):
1. If CDBG funds were to finance the design phase of the
project, the City would have to pay back the contribution
should the project not, for some reason, proceed through the
construction phase.
2. Possible reluctance of parking district participants to
agree to the job - generation requirement.
Activity C: Village Library Improvements, $7,000:
As previously referenced, this activity would provide
improvements to the Village Library by making the restroom
accessible to the disabled.
Activity Benefits (II -C):
1. Improvement of the Village Library.
2. Uphold lease obligation of City to maintain structure.
Negative Considerations (II -C):
None identifiable at this time.
Activity D: Expansion of Senior Center, $20,000:
The SASCC has requested $10,000 of 1985 -86 CDBG funds to modify
the existing lounge /fireplace area of the Community Center to
expanded Senior Center usage, i.e., removal of the non-
operational fireplace, raising the sunken lounge area floor,
creation of two office /counseling type spaces with a connection
to the Senior Center. Staff feels that if the City Council
chooses to fund this request, that an additional $10,000 be
allocated to a contingency account in the probable event of costs
being higher than anticipated. Any funds not utilized can be
reporgrammed at the Council's discretion.
5
Activity Benefits (II -D):
1. The SASCC has, for the past several years expressed an
increasing need for additional office, storage and classroom
space. Modification of the effectively unused
lounge /fireside area could provide the seniors with an
additional 420 square feet of office area consisting of one
14 x 30 space with a center folding partition to allow two
separate rooms.
2. As with the Community and Senior Centers, the City can
utilize space that is not in use -- on a reservation basis;
thus, additional meeting room space could be available to
the City.
3. The proposed modification appears to be an effective use of
Community Center space which has, in recent years, gone
essentially unused since the removal of pinball machines.
Negative Considerations (II -D):
1. The project provides what could be perceived as a short term
quasi- solution to the space requirements of the seniors.
2. The modification removes space from the Community Center
that could be utilized for other purposes.
3. Further CDBG investments into the existing senior facility
has the effect of discouraging the construction of a new
senior center in the future. If the existing facility was
no longer used as a senior center, all CDBG funds invested
in the project would have to be paid back to the County. It
is not known to what degree the City would be able to
recover the amount paid back.
Activity E: Saratoga Area Coordinating Council Program Funding,
$26,000:
This activity would involve the financing of the administrative
functions of SASCC so they can provide a broad variety of
services to the elderly. Included in this request is $3,000 for
the acquisition of a micro computer.
Activity Benefits (II -E):
1. Continuation of the SASCC programs which benefit the senior
citizen community.
2. Effective utilization of the existing senior center
facility.
Negative Considerations (II -E):
None known.
Option III: New Senior Center, $640,000
Using total construction costs, exclusive of land, of $83.33 per
square foot for the Saratoga Center in 1981, and using $80,00 as
the projected per square foot cost of a new facility, an 8,000
sq.ft. Center would cost $640,000, with the cost of a 10,000 sq.ft.
facility escalating to $800,000. The reason the square footage
cost for a new facility actually decreases from the cost the City
experienced in 1981 is due to the economy of scale realized through
the construction of a larger facility.
City -owned land that could be utilized for a new Senior Center
includes, but is not limited to: a) Central Park (Saratoga
Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue) ; b) land between Wildcat Creek and
the City offices fronting on Fruitvale Avenue; c) land on Allen-
dale Avenue, between the Civic Theatre and the Community Center
Parking lot; and d) the Cox Avenue property (Saratoga- Sunnyvale
Road and Cox Avenue). Development of this site could require
acquisition of the adjacent, privately -owned parcel in that Rodeo
Creek flows through both properties somewhat constraining
development potential.
Activity Benefits:
1. Construction of a new Senior Center would provide additional
space for the growing membership, services and programs
offered to the Saratoga elderly community by the SASCC and
other senior citizen groups and service providers. With an
ever increasing adult population, a new center of the size
propsed would be sufficient to meet senior needs well into
the future.
Program expansion into Adult Day Care and Nutrition Site
development could be accommodated with a larger facility.
2. A new Senior Center facility could provide the City with
additional meeting and conference space, as is currently the
case with our existing Center. As with the Community
Center and Senior Center, space could be rented out during
periods of non -use to generate revenue.
3. The 3,000 square foot existing Senior Center space would be
available to the City as an addition to the Community Center
or for other purposes as the City Council may determine.
Negative Considerations:
1. Assuming the effective relocation of Senior Center
operations, and use of the Center for other City purposes,
it is likely that the City would be required to reimburse
the CDBG program for the amount of CDBG funds expended on
the Center or the current appraised value, whichever would
be greater. Staff estimates this amount to be $250,000.
The repayment would be considered as "program income" to the
Urban County CDBG Program and thereby subject to
reprogramming within the Urban County. The City would be
eligible to apply for use of these funds.
7
2. Additional funding would have to be identified in order to
build a new senior facility. An additional $170,000 would
have to be secured if all CDBG resources ($470,000) were
used on this project; and if the 8,000 sq —ft— _ project were built on
City -owned land. There is a possibility that additional
grants could be obtained to help finance the remaining costs
associated with this project. Alternatives being explored
at this time include:
(a) Recovery of a portion or all of the CDBG revenue paid
back to the County for the existing Senior Center, as
referenced in item #2 above. $250,000
(b) A grant from the Marcella Joslyn Foundation in Southern
California. The private foundation was established
specifically to help build senior centers.
(c) A "Prop. 30" grant. Proposition 30 was approved by the
voters in 1984, and made available $50 million State-
wide for senior programs, including the construction of
new senior centers. $1,824,900 will be made available
to jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, with the
maximum grant to each applicant being $75,000.
Funding awards will be announced in April of 1986.
Total
4. Since Option III would require the reprogramming of all
existing CDBG funds, and would result in nearly eliminating
the SHARP program, it is possible that County could object
to this action because the City is no longer contributing to
the County -wide Housing Assistance Plan (HAP).
CONCLUSION
Staff has attempted to provide the Council with three
comprehensive funding programs which respond to Council's goal
to improve the Village Area and /or benefit the senior citizen
community. A funding decision should be made in the context of
who the CDBG program beneficiaries should be, and to what degree
the Counil wishes to affect existing CDBG allocations (i.e.,
reprogram previously allocated funds). Some of the alternative
funding programs may have complications which are not inherent in
the projects themselves. For example, Options I and III would
require a reprogramming of funds from the SHARP program. This
could result in the disapproval of the County which is
responsible for managing a Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) per
Federal regulations. Specific reactions cannot be known until
the funding of certain activities is attempted by the City.
91
$ 75,000
$_75,000
$400,000
The grouping of activities within each Option is intended to
present the Council with suggested ways activities can be
organized to achieve Council- identified objectives. Other
aggregations of projects are also possible.
Once Council indicates which activities it feels should be
funded, staff will communicate Council's intentions to the
County, including the reprogramming of existing revenue as may be
required.
PREPARED BY:
Todd W. Arrow Q'` - -
Community Services Director
jm
O
Previously Submitted Projects
Summary
Eleventh -Year CDBG Application Development
o Saratoga Area Coordinating Council (SASCC)
A. Administration and provision of services
and programs for the elderly $ 23,000
1. A supplementary request submitted by
the SASCC requests an additional $3,000
for the acquisition of a micro computer 3,000
Total Request $..26,000
B. Remodel Community Center fireside /lounge
area for additional Senior Center office/
meeting space $ 10,000
1. Staff suggests that an additional
$10,000 be allocated to a contingency
account should the Council fund this
activity 10,000
Total Request $ 20,000
COMBINED SASCC TOTAL REQUESTS $ '4f,000
o Los-Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District
A. Handicapped access improvements at
Saratoga High School $ 14,460
City Proposed Activities
o Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP) $ 32,760
• Construction of accessible restroom facilities
at E1 Quito and Congress Springs Parks $ 60,000
• Street tree removal and replacement (including
curb and gutter) program. ( *Jobs Bill funds
$75,100 and 1984 -85 Quito Curb & Gutter $25,000) $1001100*
• Village Library Handicapped Access Improvements $ 6,780
• Rental Unit Inspection Program (SHARP related) $ 3,000
SUPPLEMENTARY SENIOR CITIZEN /CENTER DATA
Monte Sereno 3,434 600 17.47 no sr. center -0-
Morgan Hill 17,060 2,016 11.81 data not available --
Mt.View 58,655 11,250 19.17 19,000 1.68
Palo Alto 55,225 13,710 24.82 20,000 est. 1.45
San Jose 629,442 80,840 12.84 8 centers, .84
total sq.ft.
approx. 68,000
Santa Clara 87,746 15,582 17.75 15,000 .96
Saratoga 29,261 5,617 19.19 3,000 .53
Sunnyvale 106,618 19,757 18.53 30,000 est. 1.52
former elem.
school site
S.C.County
1,295,071 202,270 15.61 not available --
*The average Senior Center square footage per senior citizen countywide
of cities with senior centers is 1.12 square feet per senior citizen.
Notes: In computing this matrix, the following information was obtained:
1. Per T. Eberhardt, Director of the City of San Jose's
Office of Aging, the minimum size of a new senior
center for a population of similar size and age as
Saratoga is 10,000 square feet.
a) most recent City of San Jose Senior Center construction
experience shows a total construction cost per square
foot of $120.
2. The Burbank Senior Center recently (1983) constructed
by the County cost approximately $87.50 /sq.ft. including
landscaping.
* *Data Source 1980 Census
** Total
Sr. Pop.
Senior
Current Sr.
Sq.Ft. per
City-
Population
Aqe 55+
% of Total
Center Size
Sr. Citizen*
Campbell
27,067
3,300 est.
12.19
3,500 sq.ft
1.06
new center
planned
Cupertino
34,015
4,722
13.88
5,500
1.16
Gilroy
21,641
3,322
15.35
7,500/10,000
2.25/3.70
add. planned
Los Altos
25,769
6,939
26.92
5,000 est.
.72
shared school
site
Los Altos
Hills
7,421
1,426
19.21
no sr. center
-0-
Los Gatos
26,906
5,700
21.18
9,196
1.61
Milpitas
37,820
3,295
8.71
10,000
3.03
Monte Sereno 3,434 600 17.47 no sr. center -0-
Morgan Hill 17,060 2,016 11.81 data not available --
Mt.View 58,655 11,250 19.17 19,000 1.68
Palo Alto 55,225 13,710 24.82 20,000 est. 1.45
San Jose 629,442 80,840 12.84 8 centers, .84
total sq.ft.
approx. 68,000
Santa Clara 87,746 15,582 17.75 15,000 .96
Saratoga 29,261 5,617 19.19 3,000 .53
Sunnyvale 106,618 19,757 18.53 30,000 est. 1.52
former elem.
school site
S.C.County
1,295,071 202,270 15.61 not available --
*The average Senior Center square footage per senior citizen countywide
of cities with senior centers is 1.12 square feet per senior citizen.
Notes: In computing this matrix, the following information was obtained:
1. Per T. Eberhardt, Director of the City of San Jose's
Office of Aging, the minimum size of a new senior
center for a population of similar size and age as
Saratoga is 10,000 square feet.
a) most recent City of San Jose Senior Center construction
experience shows a total construction cost per square
foot of $120.
2. The Burbank Senior Center recently (1983) constructed
by the County cost approximately $87.50 /sq.ft. including
landscaping.
* *Data Source 1980 Census
Suggested Allocation of FY 1985 -86
HCDA Funds ($150,000) - by M. Clevenger
> Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council:
a) Administration & Programs
b) Senior Center Addition (modification of
fireside /lounge area of Community Center
to office space with connection to
Senior Center.
> Senior Center Feasibility Study:
Needs assessment;.space requirements
analysis, site and /or facility identifi-
cation, preliminary design, financial
package development, etc. for possible
construction or lease of new senior
citizens center.
> Village Library Access Improvements : �jt G Yhr�
> Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP)
Continuation of the City's res.idential.'
property rehabilitation efforts. Funds
allocated to SHARP could also be utilized
for Village Area Commercial Rehabilitation
and /or reprogrammed to another eligible
HCDA activity as the City Council may
direct during the year.
TOTAL ALLOCATION SUGGESTED
sk2
$26,000
$20,000
$ . 5, 000 J0
$ 7,000
$92,000
$150,000
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL N0. 8 lo
DATE: 3/11/85 (3/20/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept:.Hd.�
C.
C.
S[A3.TDC.T: UP -573 (D) - Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way
Appeal of Use Permit denial to allow use of an outdoor deck for seating
Issue Sunmary
1. A Use Permit is required for a restaurant with outdoor seating in a C -C district.
2. The schedule for-off-street parking (Section 11.2) requires one.parking.space for
every three seats in the outdoor area.
3. The applicant has indicated that seating within the restaurant can be reduced when the
outdoor deck is in use. Staff would not recommend such a condition since it would
be difficult to enforced
4. The project will provide parking at a ratio of 1 :380 or 12 spaces for the commercial
structure. (The ratio is permitted as part of an agreement to join Parking District
No. 3 when it forms as conditioned under SDR- 1388.) Two spaces will be provided
for the dwelling unit (UP- 573(A)) in accord with Section 11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance,
5. On -site parking would not be adequate if seating were to occur both on the deck and
within the restaurant.
6. The City is interested in forming Parking Assessment District No. 3, and.grant of
any variances within the district may make this process more difficult.
'Recommendation:
1. Determine the merits of the appeal and approve or deny UP- 573 -(D)
2. Staff recommended denial of UP -573 (D).
Fiscal Impacts.,,
None
Exhibits /Attachirnnts
to Appeal application
2•. Staff report .dated 2/5/85
3. Resolutions 573 A -1, B -1, C -1, & D -1
4. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearing 2/13/85
5. Exhibits
6. Correspondence received on project
Council Action
3/20: Approved appeal with conditions 3 -2.
RECEIVED..
FEB 2 51985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant: JOSEPH MASEK
14600 Granite Way
Address: Saratoga, CA 95070
Telephone: (408) 867 -5275
Date Received: . S_
Hearing Date:
Fee T v�
CITY USE ONLY
/Os-
Name of Applicant: JOSEPH MASEK
Project File No.: UP- 573(D)
>,:. Project Address: 14467 Big Basin Way
Project Description: Use permit to allow use of an outdoor deck .
for restaurant seating.
Decision Being Appealed: The denial of the use permit request to
allow use of outdoor deck for seating.
Grounds for the Appeal' (Letter may be attached):.
Applicant requests permission to use the deck.for restaurant
seating in a manner within the meaning of the City parking
requirements, i.e., never to exceed the maximum seating
capacity for the entire restaurant.
*Please do not
City offices.
appeal please
Appella is Signature
sign this application 't is presented at the
If you wish specific people to be notified of this
list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
• tlF'.i b..> �.w�F
r�K n o e n
F � V
V
0 G
ISO!. ,.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Saratoga
APPRO'Y'F) BY.
Date: 2/5/85
COmmi.ssion Meeting: 2/1.3/85
APN: 503 -24 -42
APPLICANT: Joseph Masek PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph Masek
APPL.TCATION NO. & LOCATION: UP -573, 14467 Big Basin Way
-------------------•------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION REQUESTED: Use Permit Approval to allow:
A. Operation of a dwelling unit above a restaurant.
B. A 0 ft. side yard setback where 7.75 ft.is required.
C. The use of 4 compact parking spacea.
D. The use of an outdoor deck for restaurant seating.
OTHER APPROVALS RECEIVED: The Planning Commission granted Design Re-
view Approval for the structure on December 12, 1904 (A- 1042).
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building Permit. Design Review Modification
Approval for signage and lighting for the restaurant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Negative Declaration was approved for the
project (SDR- 1388).
ZONING: C- C(Community Commercial GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant (former service station).
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Commercial
Report to Planning Commission
UP -573, Joseph Masek, Big Basin Way
PARCEL SIZE: 9,000 sq. ft.
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: N/A
W
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 3 -4% AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3 -4%
GRADING: Minor amounts
1/31/85
Page 2
PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 16 ft.(To main structure) Rear: 19 ft.
Left Side: 0 ft. Right Side: 25 ft.
HEIGHT: 37 ft. maximum; 29.5 ft. at midpoint of roof to average fin-
ished grade.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 95%
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: First Floor
(Including Cellar): 4,560 sq. ft.
Second Floor: 1.491 sq. ft.
TOTAL: 6,051 sq. ft.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements
and standards of the Zoning Ordinance, in that it maintains a 0 ft. side
yard setback where 7.75 ft. is required and 4'6ompact parking spaces are pro-
posed. A use permit is required for the proposed apartment and for the front
deck to be used for outdoor dining. The use permit application covers each of
these items.
MATERIALS & COLORS: Exterior: Horizontal wood siding and stucco stained
or painted in earthtones. Redwood trim. Roof: Fire proofed wood shakes.
A condition of the Design Review Approval is that the originally proposed
exterior elevations be revised to provide more detailing to add interest to
the large stucco areas on the northern and eastern elevat.ions. A rectangular
window with redwood trim has been added to the eastern elevation. No revi-
sions have been indicated on the northern elevation.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A. Dwelling Unit: A multiple family residential use in a C -C district
requires a use permit. The apartment is to be located above the com-
mercial use. Staff and Commission have made the interpretation that
the proposed single apartment is a multi - family dwelling even though
it is not precisely consistent with the ordinance definition of multi-
family dwelling.
B. 0 ft. Side Yard Setback: The required left side yard setback of the
structure is 7.75 ft. as required per Section 7.10(d) which requires
a 1 ft. setback for every 2 ft. of structure height above 14 ft. The
Report to Planning Commission 1/31/85
UP -573, Masek, Big Basin Way Page 3
setback requirement can be modified through the Use Permit procedure. The
adjacent building maintains a 0 ft. setback from the same property line;
such setbacks are common in the Village. The second story of the structure
is setback 10.5 ft. from the left side property line. The setback on the
the upper portion of the structure serves to provide some separation and
to limit the massiveness of the structure.
C. Compact Parking: The project will provide parking at a ratio of 1:380
or 12 spaces (4,560;380 = 12), for the commercial structure. The ratio
is permitted as part of an agreement to join Parking District No. 3 when
it forms as conditioned under SDR -1388. One of the 12 spaces will be
designated for handicapped accessibility in compliance with State re-
quirements. Two spaces will be provided for the dwelling unit in accor-
dance with Section 11.2 of the Ordinance. The Ordinance requires that
one of the two spaces be located in a carport or garage. The requirement
can be modified through the Use Permit process. Staff notes no concerns
if the two required spaces are uncovered.
Of the 14 spaces, the applicant is proposing to provide 4 compact parking
spaces, or 28.57% compact parking. The City does not currently allow com-
pact spaces. However, the Commission is considering the adoption of an
ordinance that will allow compact parking to provide up to 25% of the re-
quired parking. If the number of compact spaces was reduced by one, the
project would provide 21.42% compact parking which would be consistent
with the proposed parking ordinance. However, the Commission revised a
condition of the Design Review Approval to allow 4 compact parking spaces.
D. Use of the Deck for Seating: A restaurant with outdoor dining in a C -C
district requires a Use Permit. The schedule for off - street parking
requirements (Section 11.2) states that if a restaurant has outdoor dining
then one parking space shall be provided for every three seats in the out-
door dining area. Therefore, additional parking would be required to
allow for the outdoor seating. At the Planning Commission Meeting on De-
cember 12, 1984, the architect during the project presentation suggested
that the seating in the dining room could be reduced when the seating on
the deck was being used. Staff would not recommend that such a condition
be used since it would be difficult to enforce. On -site parking would not
be adequate if seating were to occur on the deco: and within the restau-
rant with the parking as proposed.
FINDINGS:
1. A, B, & C. The proposed location of the apartment, 0 ft, side yard set-
back, use of 28% compact parking and an uncovered parking space for the
dwelling unit are in accord with the intent of the zoning ordinance and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Sufficient
parking will be provided for the dwelling unit and the unit will not in-
terfere with the other use on site. The 0 ft. setback: is common in the
Village area. The design of the structure, with the second story set-
back from the left property line, provides separation between the adja-
cent structure and limits the massiveness of the proposed structure.
Report to Planning Commission 1/31/85
UP -573, Masek, Big Basin Way Page 4
D. The proposed outdoor seating is not in accord with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the C -C district in that suffi-
cient parking will not be provided on site to accommodate the use of the
outdoor deck. —
2. A, B, & C. The proposed location of the dwelling unit, a 0 ft. side yard
setback, use of compact parking and an uncovered parking space for the
dwelling unit and the conditions under which these would be operated or
maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or wel-
fare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vici-
nity.
D. The proposed location of the outdoor dining and the conditions under
which it would be operated could be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare of materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity since adequate parking would not be provided.
3. A, B, & C. The proposed apartment, 0 ft. setback, use of compact parking
and an uncovered space for the apartment will comply with the applicable
provisions of the Ordinance and General Plan.
D. The proposed outdoor dining will not comply with applical1fte provisions
of the Ordinance in that adequate parking would not be provided.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Use Permit for D) the
outdoor seating, having been unable to make the necessary findings. If the
Commission wishes to approve the Use Permit, the necessary findings must be
made and Staff has recommended conditions.
Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit for A) the apartment unit, B)
0 ft. sideyard setback and C) use of compact parking and an uncovered parking
space where one is required for the dwelling unit per the Staff Report dated
1/3/85, Exhibits B, C and D, subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditions in the Design Review Approval, A -1042; remain in effect.
2. Two parking spaces at the rear of the site shall be designated for apart-
ment use only.
3. Conversion of the dwelling unit space to office or retail use is not
permitted.
4. If the compact space at the northwestern corner of the site is to remain,
the applicant shall submit evidence showing that the space can be pro-
perly used.
5. The northern exterior elevation shall be revised to provide more detailing
to add interest to the large stucco area.
7
Report to Planning Commission 1/31/85
UP -573, Masek, Big Basin Way Page 5
B. The location of the covered dumpster shall be shown on revised plans and,
submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issu-
ance of a building permit.
7. A sign shall be posted in the side of the building towards the rear indi-
cating clearance height for vehicles using parking at the rear of the
site.
APPROVED:
P.C. Agenda
PY
2/13/85
.94 lr� 41�0
Lucille Hise
FILE NO.: UP- 573(A)
USE PERMIT '
RESOLUTION NO. UP-573-
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of "JOSEPH MASEK for a Use Permit to
allow the construction of an apartment unit above a restaurant at
14467 Big Basin Way '
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (hazcQ=) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after'careful..consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence. submitted in this matter,
the application for.the Use Permit ;be, and the same is hereby
(granted) (denivid) subject to the following conditions:.
Per the Staff Report dated February.5, 1985 and Exhibias'
:B, C and D.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that -(the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) (tK6XF11KKJhJx n3 YO d' t j
xxxx.y���
and the Secretary be., and is .
.hereby directed to notify'..the•parties' affected by this decision:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga. Planning Commission.,
State of California, this 13th_ day of February 19 85 ,
by.the following roll call .vote:
AYES:. Commissioners Burger, J. Harris, .B.. Harris, McGoldrick, Schaefer
and. Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT:Commissioner Peterson
ATTEST
YoTii
1
�8 FILE NO.: UP-573(B)
USE PERMIT '
RESOLUTION NO.. UP- 573(B) -1.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF.CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of 'JOSEPH MASEK for Use Permit
to allow the building to maintain a 0 ft.. side yard setback where ;
i.75 ft. is required at 14467 Big Basin Way.
and
WHEREAS,. the applicant, (has) (kzzxm met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful, consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted''in this matter,
. the application for .the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby
(granted) (danxed) subject to the following conditions:
Per the Staff Report dated February 5,' 1:985 and Exhibits
B-, C and D.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that-(the Report of Findings attached
hereto b. e approved and adopted) ( XRx =AiXgXg§ S1SA='
BCX�xxX�ixK�xX��
and the Secretary be, and is
...hereby directed to..notify..the- parties affected by this.decision.
:. PASSED AND ADOPTED-'by the City. of Saratoga. Planning Commission,..
State of California,; this 13th day of February 19 85
by .the following roll call .vote::.
AYES.: Commissioners Burger, J:' Harris, 'B. HarrisMcGoldrick, Schaefer
and .Peterson :. .
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Peterson
ATTEST.
� Y
USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION NO. UP- 573(L� -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: UP- 573(C)
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of JOSEPH MASEK _ for a Use Permit to
allow the use of compact parking spaces where currently standard size ;
spaces are required at big Basin.Way
: and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) ( &av,,mmc) met the burden.of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for -the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby
(granted) WRA subject to the following, conditions
Per the Staff Report dated February 5, .1985 and Exhibits
B, C and D.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that-(the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) �CM�Ex &g��xXa<YnYn`Q�sXz'C3�xdxt
�x�k�x�g$x�Xxx�4s�GXr) , and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to.notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City, of Saratoga. Planning Commission,.
State of California, this 13th day of February ,
19 85
by.. the following 'roll call :vote:
AYES.: Commissioners Burger, J.,.Harris, B.. Harris, McGoldrick, Schaefer
and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Peterson
ATTEST:
airman, anning nission
• zry
USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION NO. UP-573(D) -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FILE NO.: UP -573(F
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of "JOSEPH MASEK fora Use Permit
to allow the use of an outdoor deck for seating at 14467 Big Basin
Way
WHEREAS, the applicant tkxs� (has not) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after'careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
f
the application for.the Use Permit be, and the same is hereby
(;ga�nex (denied) subject to the following conditions:.:
Per the Staff Report dated February 5, 1985 and. Exhibits
B, C and D:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that-(the Report of Findings attached
.hereto be approved and adopted)
xx�XXfhdh� , and the Secretary be, and is
hereby directed to.notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City.of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 13th . day of February 1985
by the following roll call.vote:
AYES: Commissioners Burger J. Harris, B. Harris, McGoldrick., Schaefer
and Siegfried
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Peterson
ATT ``T•
Secretary
lair nan, annzng oaij„ission
Planning Commission Page 6
Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85
SM -14 and V -683
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SM -14 and V -683, based on those
findings, and per the conditions in the Staff Report, with the added
condition for additional landscaping along the front and northerly
property lines. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was
carried 5 -1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. She stated that
she feels the Commission is granting a special privilege here because
the work has been done. She added that it bothers her to see something
cane in after the fact because it was a mistake, and have the Commission
grant a variance.
13. UP -573 - Joseph Masek, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow
the construction of an apartment unit above a restau-
rant, to allow the building to maintain a 0 ft. side
yard setback where 7.75 ft. is required, to allow the
use of compact parking spaces where currently stan-
dard size spaces are required and to allow the use of
an outdoor deck for seating, at 14467 Big Basin [gay,
in the C -C zoning district
------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Staff explained the use permit, recommending denial of the request for
outdoor dining because of lack of adequate parking, and approval of the
other three portions of the use permit. They noted a letter submitted
by the applicant from a neighbor regarding parking spaces; however, they
stated that the letter is inadequate to ensure that in fact parking
spaces would be available.
The City Attorney explained that the City is in the process of trying to
establish Parking District #3 under a proposal whereby land would be
contributed and basically the City would just be raising the cost to
build the improvements and avoid all the additional expense of an
assessment district. He commented that part of this arrangement
involves the generation of development rights from those people who are
donating property; in effect they would have extra parking spaces that
they would be able to use to put additional improvements on their own
property or sell those spaces to other people. He indicated,that
discussions are taking place with the one largest property owner of the
proposed district, who has not been inclined to participate in it. He
commented that if the district moves forward a parking space may become
a marketable commodity. Therefore, to the extent this Commission grants
parking variances or any relaxation of the parking requirements, they
are basically destroying market value of what could become the incentive
of.the largest property owner to join the district. He added that Mr.
Masek's property has been developed in accordance with the parking
district ratios, even though the parking. . district is not in existence.
Therefore, what the applicant is asking for is parking over and above
what he would get under that ratio. He commented that there may very
well be parking spaces available for him to purchase at a future date,
which could assist in solving his problem of dining on the balcony.
The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m.
Herb Cuevas, the architect, explained the use permit request. He
indicated that the deck is intended to be used for waiting and
cocktails; it is not intended as a food- serving area. He commented that
they would submit to the City a letter stating that if the deck was
used for dining a equal number of indoor dining places would not be
used; however, Mr. Masek does not intend to use it for that purpose.
Discussion followed on the use of the deck. Staff stated that they
have no objection to the deck itself, but noted the difficulty of
controlling the :use. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she is
against the deck being used at all. She stated that she thinks the
restaurant's reputation stands by itself. She added that the
possibility for the outdoor dining in the future is there.
Mr. Masek commented that he has never mentioned that the deck would be
used for dining or cooking. He stated that he had been told in a
previous meeting that if he had two more parking spaces, there would be
no objection to the deck. He explained that he has found these two
spaces from a neighbor. The City Attorney explained that the letter Mr.
Masek submitted, from a legal enforceability point of view, is totally
meaningless. He commented that the neighbor may change his mind if he
is part of the district and is aware that those two spaces that he is
at�c. °if
Planning Commission Page 7
Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85
UP -573
now offering for free may have a market value with the district being
formed. fie added that, assuming that's not an impediment, the applicant
would need some sort of a recorded easement which permanently takes from
that person's property those two parking spaces. He stated that the
neighbor could come forward and state that he is willing to relinquish
parking on his own site, but the letter does not do that.
Residents of 20616 Brookwood Lane expressed concern regarding the noise
associated with living close to the Village. Staff clarified that the
deck will be on the front of the building-on.-Big Basin Way. After
commenting that they had not been noticed of the application, Staff
explained the legal noticing procedure to them and advised them to
inform the County of the fact that they are the legal owners of their
property. Chairman Siegfried described the use permit request and Staff
described the location of the deck.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP -573, per the Staff Report
dated February 5, 1985, for the apartment unit, the 0 ft. side yard
setback, and the use of compact parking spaces, and denying the request
to allow the use of an outdoor deck for seating. Commissioner Harris
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0.
DESIGN REVIEW
14. A -1042 - Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way, Request for Design
Mod. ---
- Approval for Signage and Lighting
-- -- ------------------ ----------------- ----- --- -- - ---
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A -1042 Modification for the
signage only, per the Staff Report dated February 5, 1985 and Exhibit
"C ", and a plan shall be submitted by the applicant for the lighting.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 6 -0.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. Letter from Central Fire District regarding conditioning on
Owen property. Staff explained that a condition regarding the Early
Warning System that the Saratoga Fire District has in operation had been
placed on this project. They stated that it is the Central Fire
District's desire to not have the property interconnected with that
system. After discussion of the system Staff was requested to invite
the Central Fire Chief to the next meeting to discuss this matter.
Oral by Commission
1. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending the
meeting and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. The
meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
RSS:cd
Respectfully submitted,
Robert S. Shook
Secretary
- 7 -
U
14455 BIG BASIN WAY f� ,Q ���� OPEN
SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA ��,(Y ((� WED. -SAT. 11 -Fp5
ACROBB FROM THE �I RF`�Nx'
VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER (406) 867 -7055
2 -4.85
To The City of Saratoga
It is underst -)od that, R4r. Joseph ',Ia,sek intends to
build a. restaurant adjacent to our property.
Mr. Masek has requested the use of two par'_ki.ng
spaces on an emergency basis when the restaurant spaces
are fully utilized.
The use of two equivalent spaces as stated herein
will be acceptable to the Psynes.
eorge M'. a.y
A W
4
ACL'DA BILL M. -7
DATE: March 20, 1985
DEPARTMENT:— Community Services
CITY Or SAIL Ica%
SUBJECT: American Red Cross Agreement
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue Stmmary
The attached Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the
American Red Cross clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the
two agencies during disaster periods, and is consistent with existing
law.
0
Recomrendation
Approve Agreement
Fiscal Impacts
None
i %h i.bi is /Attacrmien is
1. Report to Council from Community Services Director
2. Agreement
Council Action
3/20:. Approved 5 =0.
i
o A �
O
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
PURPOSE
American Red Cross Agreement
DATE: 3/20/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/20/85
Council approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City and the American Red Cross is requested. The MOU
clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies
during times of a disaster toward the objective of delivering
emergency services.
ANALYSIS
The format of the attached MOU was developed by the Santa Clara
County Management Association in behalf of participating cities.
The Red Cross derives its responsibilities from Public Law 4
while the City derives its responsibilities from the California
Emergency Services Act, the California Master Mutual Aid
Agreement, and its own Municipal Code. The attached MOU
consolidates the roles and responsibilities for all of the above
into one easy -to- understand document. The agreement, therefore,
is actually a summary of existing law and does not propose any
new responsibilities for either agency.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the attached MOU because it is
consistent with existing law and provides for the smooth and
coordinated delivery of emergency services during times of a
declared disaster.
PREPARED BY:
Todd W. Argo
Community Services Director
jm
CITY OF SARA=
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 3/11/85 ( 3/20/85)
DEPARIVENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C.
C.
SUBJECT: SDR -1517, Zambetti, Oak Street - Deferred Improvement Agreement
Issue SumTary
Property subject to 7/6/83 Deferred Improvement Agreement.
Adjacent property being developed and constructing municipal
improvements.
Recommendation
Direct Zambetti to-make- improvements now in conjunctiQn. with adjoining
development per the terms of the Deferred Improvement Agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Staff Report
2. Deferred Improvement Agreement
Council Action
...3•/20:. Deferred until Zambetti submits draw�mgs. (Drawings were to be ready for 4/17
meeting but were not available as of 4/12.)
4/17: To be agendized 5/1. for information on street improvement requirements.
5/15: Deferred improvement agreement called 4 -0.
r
f
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 3/11/85
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/20/85
SUBJECT: SDR -1517 Zambetti, Oak Street - Deferred Improvement
Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
On July 6, 1983 Mr. Zambetti entered into a Deferred Improvement
Agreement delaying certain municipal improvements (paving, curb &
gutter, sidewalk etc.) until the City of Saratoga determined the
appropriate time for construction. Circumstances indicate that now
is the time to have these improvements constructed.
The adjacent property is being developed by Mr. Floyd Gaines who
will be providing the same improvements along Oak Street to the
southerly corner of Mr. Zambetti's property. This would result
in the following:
1. A longer portion of the street could be im-
proved.
2. Fewer disruptions to Oak Street.
3. Probable savings to Mr. Zambetti to do work
in conjunction with Mr. Gaines now, rather
than alone at some later date.
I recommend that the City Council, under the terms of the Deferred
Improvement Agreement, direct Mr. Zambetti to construct the munici-
pal improvements across the frontage of his property (SDR -1517) on
Oak Street.in conjunction with Mr. Gaines' project (SDR- 1540).
. �V
Robert . Shook
Director of Community Development
DrF• 1i rD I V17,MEN,r nc Rrrt.runr 13Y 1111111711 ORQf
SUCC ;ORS 1N'Cl'.ItES'1' TO CONSTRUCT ,1D
Di:V['1.0I'MfENT TMPROVEMEENTS 773721
Project identification: SDR -1517
This agreement between the CITY OF SARATOGA, hereinafter referred
to as CITY, and Eugene Louis Zambetti
%J
hereinafter referred to as "Owner ". ur
M >- C:0
WHEREAS, Owner desires to develop the property des"- in,Fxhib'-ta
"A" but wishes to defer construction of permanent improver "% eyond tl �,
N
time limits otherwise required and City agrees to such de &rn}*srt gB vid �
-u"�,,* ,=, un N:o
Owner agrees to construct improvements as herein provided �
M:Cr.,
C11 _4M
+,�. b
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: o =ate � �c
-4
ao
I. AGREEMENT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and posses-
sion of the real property described-in Exhibit "A ". All the terms, cove-
nants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon any sale or division
of the property described in Exhibit "A ", the terms of this agreement shall
apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed
to the obligations imposed on Owner by this agreement.
II. STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
A. City and Owner agree that the improvements set forth in this ^-
section may be deferred because :"
The public interest is served by having all
area at one time. -The time to be determine
B. Owner agrees to construct the following
perty described in Exhibit "A" as well as required
the manner set forth in this agreement:
r..a
improvements in
d in the future.
improvements on the prop.-.;.` = J
off site improvements ire. ""
Improvements required by City Department of Public Works are g
erally described on Exhibit "3 ". (Cross out improvements that are not
quired.)
1. Curb and gutter
2. Sidewalks
3. Driveways
4. Street grading, base and
paving
5. Storm drainage facilities
6. Eresibn-eont-iel-p-l-afAln&s-
and facilities
7. Eleet -teli &i-s
8. Undc2ground conduit with
wi.:-ing and pull boxes
9. Barricades and'other improve-
ments needed for traffic safety
10. Street trees and other improve-
ments between curb and property
11. Ba1oc a Linn_ a f
signs and utilities'
12. Payrreft >_- of- e- fro -- rates- sl�a�a -�f ��' ='
MM
Deirt: -e€-- rbli� -tlo ks- of- a- s4c�cm A
cir- c�i�a�1�r- stsa,et- ic��rav�iaeutc
prO -,r-j le4JL)-y- ewu42-4--aad- 44ticxs
�A+o- re_&w- 4.Sac.- tom_hcrx_Eits_the_
p•r- c�{>e.�t��i.c:scri hnri iu rY1,; hit_'A'
C. When the Director of Public Works determines that the reasons
for the deferi, t oC improvements as set fr jth ction II no longer
exist, he shal`k! noti caner in writing, to cone( ,ZCe r installation and -
construction. The notice shall be mailed to the current owner or owners
of the land as shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll. The
notice shall describe the work to be done by owners, the time within which
the work shall commence and the time within which it shall be completed.
All or any portion of said improvements may be required at a`specified
time. Each Owner shall participate on a pro rata basis in the cost of the
improvements to be installed. If Owner is obligated to pay a pro rata
share of a cost of a facility provided by others, the notice shall include
the amountto be paid and the time when payment must be made.
III. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK
Owner agrees to perform the work and make the payments required by
City as set forth herein or as modified by the City Council. Owner shall
cause plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared by com-
petent persons legally qualified to do the work and to submit said improve-
ment plans and specifications for approval prior to commencement of the
work described in the notice, and to pay City inspection fees. The work
shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the
improvement plans are submitted for approval. Owner agrees to commence
and complete the work within the time specified in the notice given by the
Director Of Public Works and to notify the City at least 48 hours prior to
start of work. In the event Owner fails to construct any improvements re-
quired under this agreement, City may, at its option do the work and collect
all the costs from Owner, which costs shall be a lien on all the property
described in Exhibit "A" hereof. Permission to enter onto the property
of the Owner is granted to City or its contractor as may be necessary to
construct such improvements.
IV. JOINT COOPERATIVE PLAN
Owner agrees to cooperate upon notice by City with other property
owners, the City and other public agencies to provide the improvements
set forth herein under a joint cooperative plan including the formation
of a local improvement district, if this method is feasible to secure the
installation and ponstruction of the improvements.
V. REVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS
If Owner disagrees with the requirements set forth in any notice
to continence installation of improvements he shall, within 30 days of the
date the notice was mailed, request a review of the requirements by the
City Council. The decision of this Council shall be binding upon both
the City and the Owner.
VI MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
City agrees to accept for maintenance those improvements specified
in Section II which are constructed and completed in accordance with City
standards and requirements and are installed within rights -of -way or'ease-
ments dedicated and accepted by resolution of the City, after the expira-
tion of one year from date of satisfactory completion, Owner to maintain
said improvements at Owner's sole cost and expense at all times prior to
such acceptance by City.
Owner agrees to provide any necessary temporary drainage facilities,
access road or other required improvements, to assume responsibility for
the proper functioning thereof, to submit plans to the appropriate City
agency for review, if required, and to maintain said improvements and
facilities in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health
or damage to adjoining property.
VII. BONDS
Prior to approval of improvement
required to execute and deliver to City
a labor and materials bond in an ariount
be released by City Council in whole or
work required and payment of all person;
in the performance of the work.
VIII. INSURANCE
plans by the City, Owner may be
a faithful performance bond and
and form acceptable-to City,-to
in part upon completion of the
s furnishing labor and materials
Owner shall maintain or shall require any contractor engaged to
perform the work to maintain, at all times during the performance of the
work called for herein, a separate policy of insurance in a form and
amount acceptable to City.
IX. INDEMNITY
The Owner shall assume the defense and indemnify and save harmless
the City, its officers, agents and employees, from every expense, liability
or payment by reason of injury, including death, to persons, or damage to ,
property suffered through any act or omission, including passive negligence
or act of negligence, or both, of the Owner, his employees, agents, con-
tractors, subcontractors, or his employees, agents, contractors, subcontrac-
tors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them, or
arising in any way from the work called for by this agreement, or any part
of the premises, including those matters arising out of the deferment of
permanent drainage facilities or the adequacy, safety, use or non -use of
temporary drainage facilities, the performance or non - performance of the
work.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this agreement as of
7/6/83
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has execute
6/20/83
(This docjument to be acknowledged with signatures as they appear on
06CN of title.) /-N
VED/ AS
ATTEST:
Grace E. Cory
Deputy City Clerk
EUGENE L. ZAMBETTI
owe
/0
TT_
�� -%HIV -
'SD�2,
� � �'DU ►�iti1T�25
M 300 0
W,c�� -,zTc �{nl oN - ....._ _ � PROPD tN 5 ED C- C ZO,tI�
zt-FAO
-ro (-FU)O
III rvotb�-46-
4-6 DIJ r2o{o�Pir, 'n \ to y�
ey PARKING DIST *4 . IAL
Tc 536.1 r Sj3.0 ' PA� f5 WALL TO
ENO 51W 1 1 OCi.
TO P50 r i 141 ,F `' SO -.B +
Av 504'5
it
/onr l'FAHP....r��•y.
53'x.9 5=5.0 ` 1 I \
Tor 525.0 eC 1 \
1_0
rc EC31 "a e,yc ,g39.D 1w�FT i, '< ^T .a .. .. i.. }. Sw 3 o \ ^'h .11
534 `� rv.aic 534.6. i RAN /.� 75) f 77 ' 6RfG -
A won 01 37ePS v '_. �
A/47�<V ;4; hl ����' APPLICATION FOR
° ZONING ADJUSTMENT_`
*W1A1 Y,
�4 1 ''' j I,IS">� �4�= j }�� E.L. ZAMBETTI LANDS SARATOGA, CA.
APN 517 -09 -33 C -198 A -810 SDR 15,17
SCALE: 1" - 10' MAR 16, 1982
�i• .. r }.-. u•. asl 3tld'+���Y1.lssiiiii:��Cilll►it Ala: bQ�fl!&] ��i�li4iiG�HYiiEik�4iii' dlYw�' t» iL'Ikiii�Y!!�trt3lWii6�1t��,L" 136: :L4^.+2sc�±s«ess��iira�t- t:..�1 � ti , , ..
{
I
2 STORY
.BOG �'�
%
I
•�
oa
�
2
w000 FR. I-{OUS.E_ ...
o
��
q
7c 5--.6 g Q
LOWER Ff. ° 5z-l.6
-
-
f
'•
K4 ref
;
{ t
Y
•I I
n
\ -4 < 1
12 . C_oNC Dw
Co NC
4,7_
-
. y I __.. w
•4:.
1 \'� 1
w.
� �
rc EC31 "a e,yc ,g39.D 1w�FT i, '< ^T .a .. .. i.. }. Sw 3 o \ ^'h .11
534 `� rv.aic 534.6. i RAN /.� 75) f 77 ' 6RfG -
A won 01 37ePS v '_. �
A/47�<V ;4; hl ����' APPLICATION FOR
° ZONING ADJUSTMENT_`
*W1A1 Y,
�4 1 ''' j I,IS">� �4�= j }�� E.L. ZAMBETTI LANDS SARATOGA, CA.
APN 517 -09 -33 C -198 A -810 SDR 15,17
SCALE: 1" - 10' MAR 16, 1982
�i• .. r }.-. u•. asl 3tld'+���Y1.lssiiiii:��Cilll►it Ala: bQ�fl!&] ��i�li4iiG�HYiiEik�4iii' dlYw�' t» iL'Ikiii�Y!!�trt3lWii6�1t��,L" 136: :L4^.+2sc�±s«ess��iira�t- t:..�1 � ti , , ..
{
I
... . , %- '+1.".'-?➢"A'11r:1 ,l' �1, M_ A .'!°K,'?4Y"S9f°,;•.. -
rT� �,• I �2d ��-�J l�c`��� ICE I� �11n �or✓t'cuc -. r\'� .��2c' e�GKt`�'! • --
�Q{�jn E 3%2M PPOPD -5 ED C- C ZO�tIE
W AfiC-K w i I o ou) i n-a }la - - - -- -- - - --
�sEnT FI«� -IIr►E d�
I
!4g- Prwp� 4oAc kA St
�, l�blc �k 44b PA
i P�. "3�° �,6 �o� oh �ROr y PARKING DIST *4
NOl-
7 c "a r- x533.0 pA� TO 1 _
e r° s/w 1 141 dc�5 mp5 4�.�. T
t raPSO g
1 + 04 5
y �` Avey G� 5— --- ,
V) v J r .,•,�n.P -Y r
i
SiS25- j S �): .•'5l3.9 o-1 W q DECK I
- -- - Y \\ S'` 7 Tal°
2 — 2 STORY o
�6
WooOFR.r10U5E -ec - �I. 1, :D O
-7-c sis y� 2 — `:.i h t n r) I 1
LOWER FF :521 -b I� y Q 1 "�� -t`{` Brace
t I rLl
¢ 2• �ONC• CA-ZT ill
V) A
ly ; O f •'1 , \ ` `x�
w� ,. 4 534.7 /•\ • �y I ~ 1 `l
I
TC E 0 f11.7
554.63
Wriot s34.c'
i r - `�
,2, I ror sacs' s4P x.
t .. rte--
IV 47 °w ;¢� hl ���� APPLICATION FOR
ZONING ADJUSTMENT
o !1
E.L. ZAMBETTI LANDS SARATOGA, CA.
ST I APN 517 -09 -33 C -198 A -810 SDR 1517
SCALE: 1" - 10' MAR 16, 1982
CITY OF SARATOGA
b D Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. D Dept. Hd.
DATE: 3 -11 -85 (3- 20 -85) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT 6605, SPRINGBROOK LANE /SOBEY RO D
MARKO GERA
Issue Summary .
The public improvements for Tract 6605 were given construction acceptance
on December 7, 1983, and have been maintained by the developer for the
required one year. Acceptance of that development will add 0.11 miles
of public street to the City system.
Recommendation
1. Approve Resolution 36 -B
2. Release Bond
Fiscal Impacts
Additional 0.11 miles of street to be maintained
Exhibits /Attachtmnts
1. Resolution No. 36 -B
2. Memo dated 3 -11 -85 describing Tract and improvement security.
Council Action
3/20:. Approved 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO 36 -B-
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF STREETS Springbrook Lane
It appearing that on or about 12- 7-83 the street, storm drain and other
improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdiviiion map and on approved
improvement plans therefore were completed and thereafter were maintained by the sub-
divider 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. 6605 recorded in Book 442 of Maps, at Page 2 7, 2 8 , in the
office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California
on May 29, 19 7 9 .
and as set forth.in the Clerk's certificate on said map, is hereby rescinded and the
previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the
following: 15' wide Public Storm Drain Easement
and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby de-
clared 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 ordered released:
That certain . Improvement Bond No. 2106367 dated 4-3-79 and
issued by Continental Insurance Company
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on the day of
, 19 at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
•fuil'Z�3 7
y
r.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070
►+.�� r: (408) 867 -3438
TO: City Council DATE: March 11, 1985
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance for Tract 6605
Location: Springbrook Lane /Sobey Road
The one (1) year maintenance period for Tract 6605
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 36B , 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: I Mr. Marko Gera
Address: 19120 Springbrook Lane, Saratoga
2. Date of Construction Acceptance: Dec. -'.7, 1983
3. Improvement Security:
Type: Surety Bond
Amount: $32,000
Issuing Co: Continental Insurance Company
Address: 1600 Willow Street
San Jose, CA. 95125
Receipt, Bond or
Certificate No.: BOND 2106367
4. Miles of Public Street: 0.11
5. Special Remarks:
Robert S. Shook
r,C _ is r -..
CITY OF SARATOGA
Q
AGENDA BILL No. p O I Initial: Dept. Hd.
DATE: 3 -11 -85 (3- 20 -85) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development .
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR -1527 MONTE VISTA DRIVE
DR. WILLIAM JOHNSON (2 LOTS)
Issue Summary
1. SDR -1527 is ready for Final Map Approval
2. All Bonds,'fees and Agreements have been submitted to the City
3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have
been met.
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1527 -02 attached approving the final map.of
SDR -1527 and authorize execution of Building Site Approval Agreement
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachrmnts
1. Resolution No. 1527 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map
Council Action
3/20: Approved 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1527 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF Dr. William Johnson
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION l: The 48,661 S.F. and 68,538 S.F. Parcels shown as
parcel A and B on the Parcel Map prepared by Craig W. Howard,
land surveyor and submitted to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga
be approved as two (2) 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
t
meeting held on the day of. 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
ITY CLERIC
MAYOR
90) 0& 90)0& C� o0 O&M&
i
x K
n
.csx.�a a •�<ttx aaiz a:.:uME, u, �..f�amt
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Sa 7 atoaa
APPROVED GY
DATE:
Revised 3/2/83
Exhibit "A"
DATE: 2/2/83
Commission Meeting: 3/9/83
INIi: _
SUBJECT SDR -1527, Dr. William . Johnson, 18935 Monte Vista Drive
Tentative Building Site Approval - 2 Lots
*REQUEST: Applicant is requesting to split a 2.74 acre.parcel on Monte Vista Drive
into 2 lots.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: If the Planning Commission wishes to grant this request.
they must first grant the exception to a11Qw more than 4 lots-on a'. minimum' access road
and to allow a cul -de -sac greater than 400 in length , making the appropriate findings,
PLANNING DATA:
*.PARCEL SIZE: Lot A - 1.•1 7 ac. (net) ZONING: R -1- 40,000
Lot B - 1.57 ac. (net)
.GENERAL PLAN.DESIGNATION:
SITE DATA:
Very Low Density Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Residential
SITE SLOPE: 20.4% SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 8%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Fruit orchard with several significant trees
oaks & eucalyptus that are not being•removed.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
HISTORY: A tentative approval (that later expired) was given by the Planning
Comm ssion for a similar lot split in October, 1958.
Seven homes take access on Monte Vista Drive east of E1 Camino Grande; five of
these onto the private road /minimum access portion of the street. The proposal
would create a sixth lot taking access from a minimum.'access road.
The site to the south and east (Foley) of this parcel also has the potential
for a lot split - into 2 or 3 lots. If the existing Foley residence and
additional unit(s) take access from the other side of Monte Vista Drive, the
Report to Planning Comm' in
SDR -1527, Dr. William A ;juinnson
3/2/83
Page 2
number of residences taking access on the private roadway would be reduced by
one and this lot split, would not create additional units. The Voleys are in the
process of currently applying for a-lot split and require land from the.Johnson
parcel to create these 3 lots.. The Jons.on map now shows this deduction.
The Planning Commission has denied requests for fifth lots on minimum access
roads, although the Council on appeal recently allowed the Jacobsen (Sobey Road)
lot split. The Butler subdivision allowed more than 4 lots on the private/
minimum access portion of Vickery Ave. since eventually the Olavarri residence(2)
would take access from Montalvo Road.
SETBACKS: Setbacks shown are for a corridor lot whose average width exceeds its
average depth which allows for a revision of the yards.
RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: Building site looks over residence to the
north. The pad elevation of the garage is proposed to be 532, while the existing
residence below is at approximately 510 - 515.
DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: The proposed residence will enter the site in the same place
as the existing driveway.
GEOLOGY: The site, as proposed, has been recommended for your approval by the City
Geologist (letters attached).
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR'COMMENTS: Since the site takes access on a minimum access
road on which 5 homes already take access, the following policies, objectives
and ordinances apply:
The General Plan policies state:
"Minimum City street standards shall depend upon location, terrain, character of
areas and the anticipated function of.the roadway."
"The City shall require adequate access in keeping with the density of development."
One objective of the General Plan is to:
"Relate land uses to existing street capacities."
The Subdivision Ordinance, written to conform to the General Plan, states in.Section
13.3 -7 that:
"Every lot shall either front on an accepted public street.........., except that the
advisory agency may allow the following: A subdivision of 4 or less lots to front
on a minimum access street..:..."
** An. exception to the design requirement of only 4 lots on a minimum access road re-
quires a finding "that there are special circumstances qr conditions affecting said
property, or that the..exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment'of
the substantial property rights of the petitioner, and in either event that the
granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health,,
safety or welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said
subdivision is located to allow more than 4 lots on a minimum access road "..
The length of the cul -de -sac from El Camino Grande to the site is 700'. However,
the length of the minimum access road - (private) to the site is approximately 270'.
Report to
SDR -1527,
Planning Commi, -.-on
Dr. William A. Johnson
3/2/83
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal,
finding a that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not con-
sistent with applicable General Plan.
DRAFT PROJECT STATUS: If the Planning Commission determines to approve this appli-
cation, the following findings need to be made:
Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 Generol Plan, and all re-
quirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against
the public service needs of its residents.and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
** There are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property, or that
the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial
property rights of the petitioner, and in either event that the granting of the
exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
or injurious to other property in the territory in which said safety or welfare or
injurious to other property .in the territory in which said subdivision is located
to allow more than 4 lots on a minimum access road.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the_County of Santa Clara
Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved
under this application. Said determination date: December 16, 1982.
* * The Planning Commission approval of the tentative map for SDR -1527, Exhibit "B— 3"
filed March 8, 1983 , is 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.
II: SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using double seal
coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base from E1 Camino Grande
to within 100 ft. of the proposed dwelling.and across the entire frontage
of +kn ---n.. v. i+.. C'1 --- -.0 - - - - - ___1 J .- -- -- - - - . - - . . .
Report to Planning Comm in 3/2/83
SDR -1527, Dr. William A. — Johnson Page 4
A. Access roads having slopes between 122% and 15% shall be surfaced
using 22 in. Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base.
B. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced
using 4.in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. aggregate
base. Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length'.
C. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted.
III:
Note: 0The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
0The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft.
Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain
35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and
roadside ditches.
5. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal
coat oil and screenings.-or better on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of
proposed dwelling.
6. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under driveway as
approved by the Director of Public Works.
7. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
at driveway and access road intersections.
8. Watercourses must be kept.free of obstacles which will change, retard or
prevent flow.
9. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
10. Engineered Improvements Plans required for:
A. Storm Drain Construction
B. Access Road Construction.
11. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
12. Enter into Im rovement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1 year of receiving Final Approval.
13. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
SPFCTFTC rONnTTTnNC - nTVTSTnN (1F TNCPFCTTnN UPI1Tf FC
1. Geotechnical investigation report by licensed professional.
A. Soils
B. Foundation
2. Plans to.be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
Report to Planning Commas "ion 3/2/.83
SDR -1527, Dr. William A. Johnson Page 5
3. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
A. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross- sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
B. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
C. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for walls 3 feet or higher.
D. Erosion control measures.
E. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers and easements to be provided and fees paid in accordance
with requirements of Sanitation District No.'4 as outlined in letter
dated November 26, 1982.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Provide 15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building
site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
B. Developer to install one (1) hydrant that meets Central Fire District's
specifications. Hydrant to be installed prior to issuance of building
permits.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected
by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation
District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted
.with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
C. Existing septic tank to be pumped and backfilled to County Standards.
A $400.00 bond to be posted to insure completion of work.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER'DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and.intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review
and certification.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW
A. Public Hearing; Design Review Approval required on project prior to' issuance
of permits.
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to
Plannina Commission.
deport to Planning Comm in
SDR -1527, Dr. William A.- Johnson
.3/2/83
Page 6
C. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be
reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for
solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities
on /in the subdivision /building site.
** D. -Go1't'''a-1- -t --be-i- emgved- 'j71'9-01�-'�0 ' ` I- fT@- 1-- �pp1' OVcrl -.--- ��t'TS'�QCdted- wttITTR -3Q'
of - existing - 14Gme) . ( de 1 e to )
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless.in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
Approved:
Kathy Kerd
Planner
KK /dsc
P.C. Agenda 1/12/83
* ** Planning Commission amended 3/9/83
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- 1527, Dx:. William Johnson
(have) (have-Ret) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 5 -11 -83
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for,all required
items:
Offer of Dedication None
Date
Submitted
Parcel Map yes
Date
Submitted
3 -8 -85
Storm Drainage Fee $2200 Date Submitted
3-8itt
Receipt
7165
All Required Improvement Bonds
q P yes
Date
Submitted
3 -g -85
Receipt
All Required Inspection Fees $720.00
Date
Submitted
3 -8 -85
Recei t#
P 7165
Building Site Approval Agreement yes
Date
Signed
3 -8 -85
Park and Recreation Fee $2600
Date
Submitted-3-8-85
Receipts 7165
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(C-oi e rti-o t-1) (Final) Building Site Approval for Dr. William Johnson
SDR- 1527 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
TL s. bnoox
ctor of Community -Development
;•MwVw
T
NNACL
Svaw
C 6ROb '
APW
f
w.
2
I
a
a; l
J
MAYO A v o
0
A ..
r WE
1:
� 4
/ tlAiN [R (/ LANCASTtA
S
p
r r F
5DR
C// J iii i��ot•ri�!•'�
r/ 1{ fi ya
d
CITY OF SARA`t'OGA
AGENDA BILL N0. (p Initl3l: Dept. Hd.
DATE: 3 -11 -85 (3- 20 -85) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL, SDR -1533, MONTE.VISTA DRIVE
JAMES FOLEY, (3 LOTS)
Issue Surmary
1. SDR -1533 is ready for Final Map Approval
2. All bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the City
3. All requirements for City Departments and other agencies have been
met except Design Review for Emergency Access Gate.
'Recomendation
Adopt Resolution No. 1533 -02 attached approving the Final.Map of SDR -1533
and authorize execution of Building Site Approval Agreement
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1533 -02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Status Report for Building Site Approval
4. Location Map
Council Action
3/20: Approved 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO. 1533 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING /BUILDING SITE OF James Foley
.CONDITIONAL
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION l: The 49,193 S.F., 39,091 S.F. and 46,08'3 S.F. Parcels
shown as Parcel A, B, C on the Parcel Map prepared by Craig W.
Howard Land Surveyor and submitted to the City Engineer, City of
Saratoga be approved as three (3) individual building sites.
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 day of. 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: -
CITY CLEIU�
I .:
t
I7 y
u?e � 0
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
* *Amended 3/9/83
*Revised 3/2/83
DATE: 2/4/83
PAT E: _ Commission Meeting: 3./9/83
SUBJECT: SDR -1533 James & Michael Foley, 18927 Monte Vista Drive
Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 lots
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Approval of a Tentative Map for 3 lots.with access from
Monte Vista Drive and Sobey Road.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Variance to continue existing garage with
0 side setbacks where 20' is required and 23' rearyard setback
where 50' is required.
PLANNING DATA:
* PARCEL SIZE:
Total (including property from Johnson's) - 3.3 acres
Lot A 51,020
Lot B 41,354 (excludes min. access road)
Lot C 46,200
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density
ZONING: R -1- 40,000
*LOT YIELD: 2.64 lots allowed rounded up to 3.
SITE DATA:
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Very Low Density Residential
* SITE SLOPE: 16.2%
* SLOPE OF PROPOSED LOT.: Parcel A 18.1%
Parcel B 13.70
Parcel C 16.5%
NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: Orchard and grasslands with
some significant trees around the existing house.
�a
Report to Planning Commission Page 2
SDR -1533 3/2/83
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
* HISTORYr The applicants are proposing to split a 3.3 acre parcel
which includes a portion of the neighboring property (Johnson).
A.barrier has been constructed on Monte Vista Drive so that through
public access does not exist with a 1' strip reserved to the City.
This parcel takes access from the private portion of Monte Vista
Drive but has the option to take access from the public portion
on the southerly side of the barrier. The applicants propose 2
lots (including that with the existing residence) to take access,
from the public portion of Monte Vista which would reduce the
lots taking access from the private road by one. (The.neighbors,
the Johnsons, hope to take advantage of this reduction by splitting
their lot and adding one additional home to the private road).
The application's third lot would take access from Sobey Road
from an easement on'which 3 homes presently take access..
Two lots of record are located on the proposed site, although
a swimming pool straddles the common property line.
SETBACKS: Existing garage requires a variance for its 23' rear and
10' side setbacks.
*DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: The applicants are proposing to revise the
access for the existing house to Montewood /Monte Vista. Thus the
access for the 3 lots is:• one residence from Sobey Road, and two
from Montewood /Monte Vista. The Staff Report conditions an emergency
access to El Camino Grande from Monte Vista. The access from Montewood/
Monte Vista is located along an existing easement partially on the
property to the south. Standard conditions would require a.cul -de -sac
at`the end of Monte Vista Drive (at the barrier) but the aggreement
on this barrier may preclude this condition.
GEOLOGY: Cotton has recommended this application for,your action.
(attached)
* ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: Each net lot is required to contain
40,000 square feet of site area, (which is to now'.be exclusive of
minimum access .road). The slope density calculations, however, include
the entire parcels to be subdivided. The applicants' map has now been.
revised to show that they have required site area. However, with a
condition for a cul de sac at the end of Monte Vista, the site area
would then be less than the required amount.
VARIANCE FINDINGS:
1. The property has no physical hardship associated.with it for
location of the garage since there are viable option for its
relocation.
2. Exceptional circumstance applying to the lot and setbacks relate
to the construction of the garage done with ,a permit from the
City in '1957, allowing the'10' side setback. Privacy impacts
caused by the side setback of the garage are minimal since it's
elevation is lower than the adjoining property. The 23' setback
Report to Planning Commission page 3
SDR -1533 3/2/83
in the ;:rear is caused by a new proposed lot line (where 50' is
required).
3. Denial of this variance for the garage would not deprive the
applicant of the right to develop the property similar to others
classified in the same zoning district since there are viable.
options.
4. The granting of this variance would not be a grant of special
prig ilege since exceptional circumstances exist.
5. The use will not be detrimental to the community or injurious
to the properties in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
*Staff recommends denial of the variance for the garage setbacks since
.all of the required.findings cannot be made; and denial of the sub-
division application since the reauir.ed site'area._is_not.adequate
in-Parcel "B ".given the standard practice of requiring a cul de sac
at the end of Monte Vista Drive. A denial of the map is required if
the Commission makes one or more of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed den=
sity of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements
are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or sub -
stantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their.
habitat.
(f) That the design of
likely to cause se
(g) That the design of
will conflict with
for access.through
_".subdivision.
the subdivision or type of improvements is
rious .public health problems.
the subdivision or the type of improvements
easements, acquired by the public at large,
or use of, property within the proposed
* DRAFT PROJECT STATUS:, If the Commission determines that the cul-
de -sac at Montewood is not necessary, the following findings and
conditions are recommended:
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.
Report to the Planni. ;ommission
SDR -1533
t' Page 4
3/2/83'
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been
balanced against the public service needs of its residents and avail-
able fiscal and environmental resources.
Any approval of the tentative map for SDR -1533 (Exhibit "B -1." filed
March 2,. 1983) "should be 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 Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No..60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
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).
** C. 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,
— -----=-- -- -wi -th -specific-- attention on access °'to_'Sobe Road _-
y.._
* * D.
Construct Access Road 18 ft. wide plus 1 ft. shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screenings or better on6 in. aggregate
base from Sobey Road to within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
Slope of access road shall not exceed 12�% without adhering
to the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between �12k% and 15 %~shall be
surfaced using, 2h% and 15% shall be surfaced using, 2k in.
Asphalt Concrete on 6 in. Aggregate Base.
21. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 17�% shall be
surfaced using 4 in. of P.C.C. Concrete rough surfaced .using
4 in: Aggregate Base. Slopes in.excess of 15% shall not ex-
ceed 50 ft in length..
3. Access roads having slope in excess of 17�% are not permitted.
a. The minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
b. The minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall
be 15 ft.
C. Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to
sustain 35,000 lbs. dynamic loading.
d. Storm Runoff shall be controlled through the use of
culverts and roadside ditches.
Report to Planning Commission Page 5
SDR -1533 3/2/83
E. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal
using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in.
aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling.
F. Construct Standard Driveway Approach
G. Construct "Valley Gutter" across driveway or pipe culvert under
driveway as approved by the City Engineer.
H. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view
as required at driveway and access road intersections.
I. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
J. Protective Planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
K. Engineered Improvement Plans required for:
1. Storm Drain Construction
2. Access Road Construction
L. Pay Plan Check and Inspection Fees as determined from Improvement
Plans.
M. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be
completed within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
N. Post bond to guarantee completion'of the,required improvements.
0. Emergency Access Gate at north end of Monte Vista Drive.
III.. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building
permit being issued.
B. Detailed on- -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E.
for wall 3 feet or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures
•C. $400 bond required fo backfill of septic tank.
D. Comply with City Geologist letter dated 1/17/83.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with
requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in
letter dated January 20, 1983.
Report to Planning Commission Page 6
SDR -1533 3/2/83.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot
shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better
on 6 inch aggregate base from public street or access road to
proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12k%
without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 1231% to.15% shall be
surfaced using 24 inches of A.C. on 6 inch.aggregate
base.
2.- Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17-�% shall,be
surfaced using 4 inches of'P.C.C. concrete rough sur-
faced on 4 inch aggregate base and shall'not.exceed
50 feet in length..
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not
be accepted.
B. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling.sites more
than 150' from the street having a 32 foot inside radius.
Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of
the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans.
C. Driveway shall be a minimum inside curve radius of 42 feet.
D. Proposed dwelling must have a minimum recongnized. water
supply capable of delivering 1000 gallons per minute for
2 hours. This is based upon the Insurance Service Office
grade for determining a required Fire Flow to maintain a
Grade Five (5) rating. Minimum required fire flow for.the
.subject facility shall be 1000 gallons per minute from.any
three hydrants flowing with 20 psi residual.
E. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway
(vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or
other obstacles.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANITATION DISTRICT NO.'4
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.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA'CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells
to the SCVWD for review and certification.
Report to Planning Commission Page 7
SDR -1533 3/2/83
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. House locations and driveway designs to be reviewed and
approved by Central Fire District.
B. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance
of permits.
C. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be
subject to Planning Commission approval.
D. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate
the-potential for solar accessibility. The developer shail
provide, to the extent feasibile, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the.sub-
division /building site.
E. Agree to participate in any future private road maintenance
association prior to Final Approval.
F. Design Review of Emergency Access Gate required prior to
Final Map Approval.
G. Comply with requirements of action on variance application
for location of garage on Parcel "A ".
** H. Design Review Approval required for barrier and driveway
access onto Monte Vista Drive.
IX. COMMENTS
A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable
City Ordinances.
Approved:
KK /bjc
P.C. Agenda 1/25/83
Kathy Kerd 's, planner
**As amended by the-Planning Commission pn 3/9/83
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- 153.3 James Foley
(have) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 3 -9 -83
Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for.all required
items:
Offer of Dedication None Date Submitted - --
Record of Survey or Parcel Map yes Date Submitted 3 -8 -85
Storm Drainage Fee $3300 Date Submitted 3 -8 -85 Receipt 0 7166
All Required Improvement Bonds yes Date Submitte 3 -8 -85 Receipt - --
All Required Inspection Fees 720.00 Date Submitted 3 -8 -85 Receipt# 7166
Building Site Approval Agreement yes_ Date Signed 3 -8 -85
Park and Recreation Fee $3900.00 Date Submitted 3 -8 -85 Receipt# 7166
It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that
(fond= .t o.nala) (Fi *a -l) Building Site Approval for James Foley
SDR- 1533 be granted.
If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become, un-
conditional upon compliance with the following conditions:,
Conditions)
Reason for'Non- Compliance
1. Design Review. Approval of Emergency Access Gate
xobe . Shook
D.ir ctor of Community Development
CITY OF SARA=
Initial:
A=A BILL NO. P ®3 Dept. Hd.
DATE:-3-12-85 (3- 20 -85) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: ALLENDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Issue Summary
On July 18, 1984 the City entered into the Contract for the Allendale
Avenue Improvements, with Calhoun Brothers Grading & Paving for;the
contract amount.of $59,600.00. Of this contract amount the U.S. Postal
Service's share was $42,256.22, with the City's share amounting to
$17,343.78. The City's.share was increased due to some extra work out-
side the limits of the project.
Recomnendation
1.
2.
Approve the final acceptance and file the Notice of Completion on the
above project.
Approve the attached appropriation increase-resolution
Fiscal Imoacts Cit
Final Contracts
Change Order #1:
Change Order #2;
Total Contract:
Misc. other_ costs:
Total.Amounts;
of Saratoga
18,785.78
1,764.20
20,549.98
339.12
20,889.10
U.S. Postal Service
$42,297.22
1,661.75.
43,958.97
Total Project: $64,848.07
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Notice of Completion
.2.. Change Orders # 1 & #2
3. Appropriation increase resolution
Council Action
.3/20:.�p final acceptance and Resolution 2151.17,' 5 -0.
�
`
^
�Add....��
���
L
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
-��.
��x���V��
~"`°~�°�� °-� Im�rlefi--~-
`
�
J. Wayne Deroatz
Lrh*mby�o ^ha/---I-� --- ' the undersigned ~-.—.-..-~_^~.
..,
. ----------- -----------------_---------.------.—.'_--
----------. ' /h ~ */ho /h ............. *:,�� 6o�--.....piexv----..' or,
%���������
parcel
. J m6in/hv-Cit'.. -----.
County
ALLENDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
That ........... City.. !of ... ....................... : ..........................
..........................
- uvomnx/--o{x�d�n6��,o^Um',������-.
------'��---------------.���' into Juy^{ �� ....................................... /�'�'''. /* oovn�^ot -------'
---^~ ��i�� {� _� ' for
---_--_- .-______
�------�--.----.-----....._--.--~---''
-----^-^
-------------------.------------'-----...-..—.'.-..
--------`--------------------------_------
upon the� land above described, which contract was filed in I the office of I the county recorder of lite'
county
tire said contract or work of improvement as a whole, was actually completed by the said ...................
Calhoun Brothers Grading ...
That tile name ...... arid address ...... ./ all the owner ...... ,"property are
CITY OP SADAI0G&
13777 Fruitvule Avenue �
Saratoga, California 05070 -`
^'
�
arid the nature o{ ....................................... title /^ said property is ..................................... ...................
-.-.-...---.--.-..--,-~-.-.
----------.-----'-.-':-~-----.-- .
.............................. .............................. -r--'.
� -.-..��--..� � .�
.a r �---.---------
' r� ---'�� ..... Owner ............
STATE OFC4LIF08N1.4
,s. ^y---------------.
| it
County v{----'---------------] J'Wuvng]}eroetz
-----^---------------------------..---.------.-...�—....---.
v���
6o�gJu� sworn �---------'-----------------------------''
Ium ---. //boageo/ ofj*/ho vmnor .-. of the property described in have
mod /6,/6mgnin& notice oo6 know the 000/onw /hore^/ "odmoomnois true Of my own x,ommogo
'
Subscribed and sworn /o before rite /6�
----.--..day o/-..~-~--1y'-- .-^~-~^~^^-'~'`.'�'`z~-'-^--��''----'
_______~,,__________----.| ' `
�
-------------------------'
^ Delete, words in brackets z owner signs. '
/
CITY OF SARATOGA
CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
PROJECT: ALLENDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
CONTRACTOR: CALHOUN BROTHERS, GRADING AND PAVING
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1984
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:
Relocation of catch basin and installation of 12" R.C.P..
REA501; FOR CHANGE: change in design grade of curb & gutter to
accommodate adjacent pavement (existing)
grades.
TIME CHANGE: 2 days
COST OF CHANGE: $ 1,661.75
AP PROVED
Cont a or
RECOMMENDED:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP14ENT
APPROVED COPY TO:
Engineer of Work
Inspector
Bond Counsel
C I TYAK.KN AGER
400 REED STREET, SUITE 210
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
. (408) 727 -4895
SOLD TO City of Saratoga
ADDRESS 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
CITY Saratoga, CA 95070
INVOICE'
A Finance Charge of 1%%
per mo. (18% per annum)
will be charged on all past
due accounts.
SHIP TO Allendale Ave. Improvements
ADDRESS
CITY
CUSTOMER ORDER NO. SALESMAN TERMS SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. FREIGHT
Job No. 8415 Net 30 Days. 10PREPAID ❑COLLECT
Install Catch basin per Extra Work Order: $1,445.00
15% Markup: 216.75
TOTAL: $1,661.75
REMARKS
TOTAL
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
CALIFORNIA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
PROJECT: ALLENDALE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
•
CONTRACTOR: CALHOUN BROTHERS, 400 REED ST., SANTA CLARA
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE: November 19, 1984
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Excavate & Pave 8" Depth, Overlay 2"
East side of Fruitvale Avenue on Allendale
Avenue at crosswalk.
REASON FOR CHANGE: Extreme failed pavement area (outside of area
of construction)
TIME CHANGE: 1 day
COST OF CHANGE: $ 1,764.20
0
APPROVED: C
0 Contra t r
RECONLMENDED:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED COPY TO:
Engineer of pork
Inspector
Bond' Counsel
APPROVED
CALHOUN BROTHERS
DAILY EXTRA WORK RECORD
PROJECT: Allendale Street Improvements DATE: November 19, 1984.
CONTRACTOR: . City of Saratoga PROJECT: Allendale Street Improvement
AUTHORIZED BY: Erman Dorsey CONTRACT NO.:
DESCRIPTION ' Excavate and Pave 8" Depth, Overlay 2" CONTRACT CHANGE
nF WnRK- Depth @ Intersection. ORDER NO.: #3.
Resident Engineer orlMictai
DO NOT WRITE IN SPACE BELOW
OFFICE USE ONLY
#
HOURS
HRATEY
EXTENDE
AMOUNTS
SUBTOTALS
LABOR
- NAME CLASSIFICATION
Larry Flores Laborer
5.5hr
28.00
154.00
David Calhoun (Foreman)
5.Ohr
1$32.00
160.00
Fred Queral (Laborer)
3.5hr
$28.00
98.00
SUB TOTAL WAGES
LABOR MARKUP
SUBTOTAL
PLUS 20%
SUBTOTAL
•412.00
$ 412:00
EQUIPMENT
(Complete Decri tion
Massey Ferguson Tractor (Operated)
4hrs
$5.x.00
$ 220.00
Layton Vibratory Roller (Operated)
5hrs
$48.00
240.00
Bobtail Truck
6hrs
$45.00
270.00
Compresser Rental
L.S.
$125.00
125.00
SUB TOTAL EQUIPMEN
PLUS15%
—0—
SUBTOTAL
855.00
855.00
MATERIALS
AND /OR OUTSIDE WORK
$ 497.20
Ss -1h Tack Oil
L.S.
$80.00
$ 80.00
Asphalt Concrete
13.5To
$26.10
$ 352.35
SUBTOTAL
432.35
PLUS 15%
64.85
SUBTOTAL
$ 497.20
TOTAL THIS REPORT
1,764.20
Resident Engineer orlMictai
0 RESOLUTION NO. 2151.17
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING
APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1984 -85 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
WHEREAS, it is recommended that. the following adjustment be made
increasing the present budget appropriations:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of
Saratoga adopted by Resolution .2151. and 2151.1 be amended as
follows:
Transfer: $890.00 from general ledger account 45 -2900 Gas Tax
fund balance available, to general ledger account 45 -2940 Gas Tax
appropriations.
Subsidiary:
Fund 45 - Gas Tax
Program 942 - Allendale Avenue Improvements
• Purpose:
To increase appropriations for change orders pertaining to the
Allendale Improvements project.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the
day of _ ,by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Mayor
is City Cler
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 8 O
DATE: 3/13/85 (3/20/85)
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
Initial:
Dept. Hd..
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: SDR -1259, POLITI, PIKE ROAD, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
Issue Summary
Applicant has requested a one -year extension to the Improvement Agreement.
Applicant has Final Site Approval for a single lot on Pike Road. No work
of construction, either on the home or the improvements, has begun. Lack
of these improvements being constructed does not adversely affect other
properties.
Recommendation
Approve the one -year extension to the Improvement Agreement for SDR -1259.
Fiscal Impacts
None
W
Exhibits /Attachments
Request from applicant dated March 4, 1985-
Council Action
3/20: Approved 5-0.
t':1- )'�:.. _
RECEIVED
MAR 0 6 1985
COMMUNITY I DEVELOPMENT
4 March 1985
14447 Deer Canyon Lane
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Services
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Ca. 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
The purpose of this letter is to request a one year extension to
the Improvement Agreement for 5DR -1259, Pike Road,.1 lot.
We are still negotiating with the owners of the Pike Estate to
acquire an easement over an existing private road which would
obviate the need for the work specified in the Improvement
Agreement.
Once again,thanking you for your consideration, we are,
With Reg s,
Sandra and Joe Politi
AGENDA BILL N0: 80,5,—
DATE: March 6, 1985
DEPARTMENT: Parks & Buildings
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
SUBJECT: Donation for Azalea Plants at Hakone Gardens
Issue Summary
Mrs. Bobbie Palangi of Saratoga has given the City a $25.00
contribution to be used to plant Azaleas at Hakone Gardens as a
living memorial to George Simons a long -time Saratoga resident.
Recommendation
Accept and acknowledge this donation by way of a letter from the
Mayor.
Fiscal Impact
Donation of $25.
Attachments
None.
Council Action
1
CITY OF SARIYPOGA
A=TDA BILL M. O` Q
DATE: 3120185
DIa'ARTMENT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Blossom Festival
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Issue SLmmary
Council action is necessary on a request from the Saratoga Village
Merchant's Association to sponsor the annual Blossom Festival on Sundag,
June 23, 1985. The all -day event would involve the closure of three .
blocks of Big Basin Way between Fifth Street and Saratoga-Los-Gatos Road
from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
n
Reccar endation
Approve request subject to conditions outlined on the attached report.
Fiscal Impacts
None
ixhihits /Attachments
Report by Community Services Director.
Council Action
3/20: Approved w /conditions 5 -0.
c'
U
A
A•
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE
COUNCIL MEETING:
SUBJECT: Blossom Festival
PURPOSE
3/20/85
3/20/85
Council action is necessary on a request from the Saratoga
Village Merchant's Association to sponsor the annual Blossom
Festival on June 23, 1985. The all -day event would involve the
closure of three blocksof Big Basin Way between Fifth Street and
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
ANALYSIS
On February 6, 1985, the President of the Saratoga Merchant's
Association approached the City Council requesting permission to
close Big Basin Way on Mother's Day, May 12, 1985.
Appropriately, the matter was referred to staff for a recommenda-
tion. Following the Council presentation, opposition to holding
the event and closing Big Basin Way on Mother's Day developed
among some Village area merchants which ultimately resulted in
the Chamber of Commerce formally opposing the event on that
specific date. This caused the Merchant's Association to change
the proposed date of the event from May 12, 1985, to June 23,
1985.
Shortly after receiving the request to sponsor the Blossom
Festival, staff notified the Sheriff's Department (both
headquarters and the Saratoga Substation), the California Highway
Patrol, both Saratoga and Central Fire Districts, and the Santa
Clara County Transit Authority requesting comment on the
Association's proposal. No objections to the event have been
made so long as the traffic control problems are handled by the
Sheriff's Office.
In light of this, staff recommends approval of the Saratoga
Merchant Association's proposal to close Big Basin Way on Sunday,
June 23, 1985, from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. subject to the
following conditions:
Report to Mayor and City Council
Subject: Blossom Festival
Page 2
I. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of an
ordinance similar to the City's new parade permit ordinance
which will be in effect by the time the Blossom Festival is
held (the other ordinance will address "festivals" in public
right -of -ways and is otherwise identical to the parade per-
mit ordinance).
a. Applicant will pay the City a $50 non refundable filing
fee.
b. Applicant will provide the City with a $250 fully
refundable cleanup deposit.
C. Applicant will provide the City with a certificate of
insurance naming the City of Saratoga as additionally
insured with liability coverage of not less than
$300,000.
d. Applicant will provide security during the event.
II. Traffic Safety concerns.
a. Applicant agrees to develop a traffic -flow plan and
obtain the written approval of the plan by the
Sheriff's Offie (Saratoga Substation Commander) .
b. Applicant agrees to use Sheriff's personnel for all
traffic control matters unless otherwise advised by the
Sheriff.
C. Applicant agrees to be responsible for all costs
incurred by the City of Saratoga and the County of
Santa Clara necessitated through the Merchant Associa-
tion's sponsorship of the event on June 23, 1985.
d. Applicant understands that the City's approval of the
Blossom Festival and associated road closure is subject
to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit by the State
of California's Department of Transportation.
III. Applicant agrees to work with Village merchants to minimize
any adverse effect the Festival may have on any individual
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 3
Subject: Blossom Festival
CONCLUSION
The Saratoga Village Merchant's Association has requested
authorization to close Big Basin Way on Sunday, June 23, 1985,
from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. to hold a Blossom Festival. Staff
recommends conditional approval subject to compliance with the
provisions of the City's new parade permit ordinance, required
measures to protect public safety concerns relative to traffic
control, the granting of an Encroachment Permit by the State, and
a good faith effort to work with other Village area merchants to
minimize any adverse impacts the event could have on any
individual businesses.
PREPARED BY:
Todd W. +Argo
Community Services Director
jm
CITY 017 SARI CCA
�O 7 Initial:
GL'�'DA BILL I�`0. Dept. Hd.
I�
�� • 1 • S
DCPt'1R`I UZ: - nmmuni tv gPrvi ces
S= -CI': Parking Prohobition on Lexington Court
Issue Stmrnary
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
Last year, Council adopted a "no parking while school is in
session" restriction on a 500' portion of Lexington Court to
resolve a public nuisance situation occurring there. Council
also requested that staff evaluate the effectiveness of the
restriction after it had been in effect for four months and
determine to what degree it was resolving the problem and
inconveniencing the neighborhood. The Lexington Court parking
restriction has now been in effect for four months, and this
report constitutes the evaluation.
Rece mrendati on
Continue parking restriction.
Fiscal Imoacts
None. Enforcement costs should be offset by fine revenue when
enforcement is required.
7xh ibi is /Attach -men is
1. Report by Director of Community Services
2. Memo from Community Service Officer to Community Service Director
3. Letter from Community Service Officer to Lexington Court residents
4. Letter fran Saratoga High School to City Council
5. Reccmnpndations of two Sheriff's deputies assigned to Saratoga
6. Lexington Court resident surveys
Council Action
3/20/85: Approved continuation 5-0.
l
U
O�
A •�
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
PURPOSE
Lexington Court Parking Prohibition
DATE:
COUNCIL MEETING:
3/20/85
3/20/85
Last year, Council adopted a "no parking while school is in
session" restriction on a 500' portion of Lexington Court to
resolve a public nuisance situation occurring there. Council
also requested that staff evaluate the effectiveness of the
restriction after it had been in effect for four months and
determine to what degree it was resolving the problem and
inconveniencing the neighborhood. The Lexington Court parking
restriction has now been in effect for four months, and this
report constitutes the evaluation.
ANALYSIS
In the Fall of last year, residents of Lexington Court approached
the City complaining about a chronic problem involving students
(and their non - student friends) from the adjacent high school
loitering• on the street and being inconsiderate of the
neighborhood residents. To resolve the problem, the City
prohibited parking in the area while school was in session. A
parking permit program was determined not to be feasible for
Saratoga since the City would be in effect obligated to issue
permits for other neighborhoods if it did so for one, and the
administration and enforcement of such a program could quickly
exceed staff resources.
Initially, the City encountered problems with the parking
restriction effort. Most of the metal no- parking signs were
stolen within twenty -four hours of being erected. The City then
resorted to the use of paper signs which were considerably less
expensive to replace. Ultimately, metal signs were again used
with special locking bolts which made their theft difficult. The
City has not lost a single sign since the new sign hardware was
employed.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
Subject: Lexington Court Parking Prohibition
Over the long term, the parking restriction effort appears to
have been a success. Students no longer loiter in the area, and
the problem has not moved down the street or to another
neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the parking restriction be continued
indefinitely, at least through the school year. The return of
warm weather could cause a re- emergence of the original problem,
and next year's class of students could easily return to the
habit of meeting on Lexington Court. High school officials and
Saratoga Sheriff's deputies also recommend that the parking
restriction program be continued indefinitely in view of its
effectiveness. Of the eight residents affected by the parking
restriction, six favored continuing it indefinitely, one favored
removing it at the end of the year, and one didn't care one way
or the other.
CONCLUSION
The parking restriction on Lexington Court appears to have been
effective toward eliminating the problem of loitering teenagers
who were causing a neighborhood disturbance. There is no
evidence that the problem has moved to a different location,
either. City staff, the Sheriff's Department, school district
officials, and area residents all agree that the parking prohibi-
tion should be continued.
PREPARED BY:
Todd Argow
Community Services Director
3:Report6
9
Qq
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -3438 Community Service Officer
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
March 13, 1985 Martha Clevenger
Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
MEMORANDI UM TO: T. Argow, Community Services Director David Moyles
REF: Review of the Lexington Court parking prohibition
On October 17, 1985 the City Council adopted a aesolution restricting
parking on Lexington Court. Parking was prohibited between the hours of
8 :00 am to 4:00 pm on days that school is in session. The Council requested
that we report back on the effectiveness of the parking restriction in re-
ducing juvenile problems effecting the residents.
It is my perception that this resolution has greatly reduced the pro-
blems on Lexington Court. Is is my recommendation that the parking limita-
tions be continued, in it's present form, indefinately. This perception and
recommendation is shared by Mr. Henry Rogalski, the Vice Principal of Saratoga
High School, Deputy Harley Arrants (Day -shift beat officer) and Deputy Warren
Finch (Day -shift traffic officer). Written communications from them are
attached.
On March 6, 1985 1 sent a survey and cover letter (attached) to the
involved residents of Lexington Court to obtain their recommendations. To
date, five (of thirteen) surveys have been enclosed. Four of the five re-
spondants favor continuing the resolution indefinately. The fifth respondent
indicated that they 'do not care'. Three of the five expressed concern over
parking for service persons and guests. However, during the four month trial
period, this has not been a problem. CSOs and Sheriff Deputies who have seen
gardners parked on Lexington have contacted them, explained the need for fair
and equal enforcement, and have had them voluntarily park in the driveways.
Once during the trial period the City was contacted by a resident who had a
number of out of town relatives staying with him because of a death in the
family. Parking enforcement was suspended for.three days with out incident.
in summary, this resolution has effectively dealt with the juvenile pro-
blems on Lexington Court, and has not caused a hardship for the residents.
It is my recommendation that the parking restrictions be continued indefinately.
Respectfully submitted
7DAV API C
Community Service Officer
o
o� o X0000
5 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
0 (408) 867 -3438 Community Service Officer
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
March 6, 1985 Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Laden Fanelli
Joyce Hlava
David Moyles
Dear Lexington Court Resident
As you recall, in October 1984 the Saratoga City Council adopted
a resolution restricting parking on the first 550 feet of your Court.
The purpose was to decrease the incidents of vandalism, loitering,
littering and public nuisances.
The council directed staff to report back on the effectiveness of
the parking restriction in lessening these problems. This report is
now due.
Please complete the enclosed survey and return it to Saratoga City
Hall as soon as possible. The returned surveys will be included with
my report to the city council.
Thank you for your prompt response.
Sincerely
DAVID M. LAPI C
Community Service Officer
enc.
441
My•
WN•
SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL 20300 Herriman Avenue • Saratoga, CA 95070 -4999 PHONE 408/867 -3411
Los Gatos Joint Union High School District • Dr. Tod Likins, Principal
March 8, 1985
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA
Gentlemen:
It has been approximately six months since the no parking
zone was established on Lexington Court.
Initially there was a problem with the signs being stolen shortly
after they were installed. However, since the signs were replaced,
no further problems have occurred to my knowledge.
We have been monitoring students assembling on Lexington and
are pleased that the-problem seems to have been eliminated. We have
received no complaints from the residents on Lexington since the
no parking zone went into effect.
From Saratoga High School administrations' perspective, the
problem of student loitering on Lexington Court has been eliminated.
We support continuing the no parking zone.
HR /kkb
Yours truly,
4/A.- - / V
Henry Z lsky
Asst Principal
0
P.,
County of Santa Clara
EMPLOYEE'S REPORT
Sheriff's Department
Case No.
To: (Rangy, Name, Assignment, Division)
Location of Occurrence
Dave Lap ic (via Lt. WiIson)
Lexington Court, Saratoga
Subject
Date S Time Occurred
No parking signs
N/A
DETA I LS:
Since November of 1984 the problems related to the parking of the vehicles of
the Saratoga High School students on Lexington Court have not only decreased, but
have been virtually non- existant. I believe that this is directly related to the
"No parking" posting on this street. Also related to this prior problem were ram -
pent calls of druo useage-,.•traffic, alcohol useage, littering, and various distur-
bances caused by the students while being in or around their vehicles. These types
of calls have also dropped dramatically.
I feel that continued posting of this city "No parking ordinance will be a
real help to the Sheriff's Department controlling problems relating to students
around Saratoga High School.
Supervisor Approving 5acoe F
Employee(s) Reporting (Print or Type) badge # Divn.
Date & Time Reported
Harley ARRANTS #1520 Patrol
3/12/851400 hrs
5 (. -'a? FFv L /E<
1 65.10
County of Santa Clara
g,�L �' /, Y 4� , /�r— 4
ee 4 10.A Ae rkcc%�e..
EMPLOYEE'S REPORT
. Sheriff's Department
Case No.
To: (Hank, Name, Assionment, Division)
Location of Occurrence
Dave Laric via. Lt. Wilson
Lexington Court Saratoga
Subj ct
o Parking signs
Date E Time Occurred
R
DL TAILS:
The no parking signs on Lexington Court seem to have been
effective in reducing the number of people loitering in the area.
Before the signs were erected there was a large number of
students that parked on Lexington Court. During lunch, before
and after school the students would congregate on the street and
the lawns of residents of Lexington Court. As a result of this
there was several complaints from the residents to both the'
school and the Sheriff's Department.
Since the signs have been in place there has been very
little if any loitering on Lexington Court. To my knowledge
there has been no further complaints by the residents of students
on their lawns or of damage to their property.
Si-r:ce the eians have been in place I have not had to issue any
citations after about the first two weeks.
I
Supervisor Approving eadae r
em9ioyee(s) Repory�Prir.t;ior Type) Badce C;vr.
Date b Time Reported
Warren- D. Flrc = -1 Fa.trol.
C ?.i 12/b5 1 C
a t,97 RGv b /64
10:. J to
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently exist.
favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
I.favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
Comment: <,::) '�, zs ;, k
n
Lexington Co rt resident
Street address
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
/I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
t
as they currently exist.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
I favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
Lexington Court resident ,,tt
Street address
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
/favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently exist.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
Comment: r K—t-f ck r� J2—Q . env. �cs r�r,c
r
I A n A AI
c
t
Lexington Court resident
`3 7-- � .
Street address
i
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently- exi st.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
I favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
Street address
I
i
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
j
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently exist.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
I favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
C�C.IC..
Lexingt Co resident
13 U.5 C .
Street address
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently exist.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
I favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
Comment: Tke 111yk61 'f'eS -`vI C.*1oln - rP
IN ode,-* Pm 9Yiok7e Ir
/L'exington Court resident
L.xo,ac.,�, CS�
Street address
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently exist.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
%--At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
favor
Comment:
v I�AMAti �' -�-
�.
�i c (Awk
W Ak. WM
Lexington Court resident
Street address
r
LEXINGTON COURT SURVEY
March 1985
TO: Saratoga City Council
Attn: D. Lapic, Community Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
I favor continuing the parking restrictions on Lexington Court
as they currently exist.
I favor removing the parking restrictions:
At the end of the current school year (June 1985)
As soon as possible
I favor modifying the parking restrictions in this manner:
T DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO WITH THE RESTRICTION,
BUT TF YOU MAINTAIN THEM I WOULD LIKE PERMITS TO
RE TSSUED FOR THE HOME OWNERS AND THEIR GUESTS .
M
Comment:
Lexington Court resident
Street address