HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. P 566
MEETING DATE: APRIL 19, 1995
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM 5-,BLS-
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD : - �` . •
SUBJECT: Final Map Approval for Tract No. 8560 (SD 91 -005)
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt Resolution No. SD 91 -005.1
granting final map approval for Phase 2 of Tentative Map
Application No. SD 91 -005 for eight lots at 13616 Fruitvale Avenue.
2. Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision
Improvement Agreement.
Report Summary: Attached is Resolution No. SD 91- •005.1 which, if
adopted, will grant final map approval for eight lots located at
13616 Fruitvale Avenue (Phase 2 of the Kerwin Ranch development).
I have examined the final map and related documents submitted to me
in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the
Municipal Code and have determined that:
1. The final map substantially complies with the approved
tentative map.
2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained
in Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 91 -005, have been
completed or will be completed concurrent with development
of the eight lots.
3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance
and all other applicable provisions of law have been
complied with.
4. The final map is technically correct.
Consequently, I have executed the City Engineer's certificate on
the final map and have filed the final map with the City Clerk
pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by
the City Council.
Fiscal Impacts: The subdivider has paid $24,205.10 in Engineering
fees and $57,120 in Park Development fees required for this
subdivision.
Follow Up Actions: The signed map will be released to the
subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording
instructions.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The final
map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If
the map is rejected, it would be returned to.the subdivider with
findings as to why the map was rejected.
Attachments: 1. Resolution No. SD 91 -005.1 granting final map
approval.
2. Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD 91 -005
approving the tentative map with conditions.
S
r
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: SD-91-005; 13616 Fruitvale Avenue
Applicant /Owner: Kerwin Ranch L.P.
Staff Planner: James walgren
Date: March 25, 19 92
APN: 389-34-001 Director Approval: .
Z)aratoga and t-ruitvale Avenues
RESOLUTION NO. 8D -91 -005
RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP OF
KERWIIN RANCH L.P.; 13616 Fruitvale Avenue
APN 389 -34 -001
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency
under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under
the Subdivision ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for tentative
map approval of sixteen (16) lots, all as more particularly set
forth in File No. SD -91 -005 of this City; and
WHEREAS, this Advisory Agency hereby finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with
all specific plans relating thereto, and the proposed subdivision
and land use is compatible with the objectives, .policies and
general land use and programs specified in such General Plan,
reference to the Staff Reports dated 3/25/92, 5/27/92 and 6/24/92
being hereby made for further particulars; and
WHEREAS, this body has heretofore received and considered the
Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accord with the
currently applicable provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Government Code
Sections 66474(a) -(g) and 66474.6 exist with respect to said
subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord
with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for the
hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated the 10th day
of September, 1991, and noted as being revised June 1, 1992, and
marked Exhibit "A" in the hereinabove referred file, be and the
same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said
approval are as follows:
1. Prior to submittal of a Final Map or phased Final Map to the
Completed by Surveyor. City Engineer for examination, the owner (applicant) shall
cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor
or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map(s) shall
show the existence of a monument at all external property
corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map(s)
shall also show monuments set at each new corner location,
angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer, all in
conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional
Land Surveyors Act.
Completed. 2• The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final
Map or phased Final Map in substantial conformance with the
approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents
File Rio. 8D 91 -005; 11616 Fruitvale Avenue
Plans submitted and 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved
approved. Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and
required in Section 14- 40.020 of. the Municipal Code, to the
City Engineer for examination. The Final Map(s) shall contain
all of the information required by Section 14- 40.030 of the
Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following
items:
a. one copy of map checking calculations.
b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within
ninety (90) days of the date of submittal of the Final
Map.
C. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map.
d. One copy of each document /deed referenced on the Final
Map.
e. one copy of'any other map, document, deed, easement or
other resource that will facilitate the examination
process as requested by the City Engineer.
Fees Paid. }
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as
determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of
each Final Map for examination.
Bond. Posted.
4• Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either
prior to recordation of a Final Map or some later date to be
specified on a Final Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to
defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later
date, then sufficient security as determined by the City
Engineer shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to
guarantee the setting of interior monuments.
All easements offered
5. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of
Dedication for all required easements
on Final Map.
and /or rights of way on
the Final Map or initial phase Final Map, in substantial
conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to any
Final
Map approval. In addition, the owner shall execute in
the Owner's Certificate on the Final Map or
phased Final Map,
a relinquishment of rights of any ingress and egress to, and
from any lot to and from Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue.
Plans submitted and 6. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved
approved. Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and
improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code.
The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public
agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and
File loo. BD 91 -005; 13416 Fruitvale Avenue
private utility providers, prior to approval of, the Final Map
or each phased Final Map.
Initial Phase 1 improvement requirements shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to:
a. Extension of Ronnie Way as shown on the approved
Tentative Map. Improvement standards to match existing
Ronnie Way.
b. Repairs to Wildcat Creek bank protection on the _project
side of Fruitvale Ave. adjacent to box culvert outlet
structure wingwalls as required by Santa Clara Valley
Water District. Prior to issuance of City permits for
this work, the plans shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Director to ensure that the work
minimizes the impacts on the existing riparian habitat
and that it is aesthetically compatible with the natural
setting.
r_.
C. Widening and improvement of Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga
Avenue frontages as shown on the approved Tentative Map
and as required by the City Engineer.
d. Construction of landscape and pedestrian path
improvements as shown-an Exhibit °B° and as required by
the City Engineer. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's
direction, the four (4) foot wide proposed pedestrian
path shall be widened to six (6) feet. Future
landscaping shall include trees and shrubs of appropriate
species, consistent with the approved-landscape plan, to
provide dense evergreen screening along the street side
of the perimeter fencing, and shall be consistent with
the City's xeriscape guidelines. Temporary access across
this strip to the existing farmhouse and for Phase 1 and
2 construction purposes, shall be permitted at the
locations indicated on the approved Tentative Map, until
construction work is completed for each associated phase
of development.
Final Phase 2 improvement requirements shall include but not
necessarily be limited to:
a. Extension and modification of Lisa Marie Court (Kerwin
Ranch Court),as shown on the approved Tentative Map and
as required by the City Engineer. Improvement standards
shall be as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal
Code, and includes abandonment of existing Lisa Marie
Court; relocation of existing driveways, as necessary, to
lots within Tract Mo. 7919; installation of landscape
Pile No. 8D 91 -005; 13616 Fruitvale Avenue
improvements in abandoned portions of existing Lisa Marie
Court comparable to the Lisa Marie Court homeowners'
existing landscaping and subject to the approval of the
Planning Director.
b. Closure of gap in Fruitvale Avenue median opposite
.driveway to existing residence to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
Acknowledged. 7. The owner (applicant) shall design and construct a realignment
of the Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue.frontages..of the
property in the vicinity of the signalized intersection as
depicted on the approved Tentative Map and as required by the
City Engineer. The required improvements are documented in
the City's Capital Improvement Plan as Capital Project No.
9105. The improvements shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to: installation of new curb, gutter and pedestrian
pathways, relocation of traffic signal and street lighting
facilities, and installation of pavement markings and
striping. The design of the required improvements shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the initial
Phase 1 Final Map. The installation of the required
improvements shall be completed prior to construction
acceptance of the initial Phase 1 subdivision improvements.
The owner (applicant) shall post a separate and sufficient
security as required by the City Engineer to guarantee
completion of the required improvements prior to approval of
the initial Phase 1 Final Map. The owner's (applicant's)
maximum responsibility for the cost of these improvements
shall be $50,000. Upon completion of the required
improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the
City will reimburse the owner (applicant) a minimum of $25,000
towards the cost of the improvements. The City shall enter
into an agreement with the owner (applicant) upon approval of
the initial Phase 1 Final Map guaranteeing the minimum $25,000
reimbursement to the owner (applicant) by the City.
Fees Paid. a. The owner (applicant) shall pay an Improvement Plan Checking
fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time
Improvement Plans are submitted for review.
Agreement Signed. 9• The. owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement
Agreement with the City in accordance with Section 14- 60.010
of the Municipal Code prior to each Final Map approval.
All Securities rovided. 10. The owner (applicant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in
p accordance with Section 14- 60.020 of the Municipal Code in. the
manner and amounts determined by the City Engineer prior to
each Final Map approval.
Fils NO. 8D 91 -003; 11616 Fruitvala Avenue
Insurance provided.
11. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity
agreement
and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Section 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code,
prior to each Final
Map approval.
Done.
12. The owner (applicant) shall file with the Santa Clara County
Recorder the requisite statement indicating
Construction schedule 18•
and traffic plan approved
that there are no
liens against the property or any part thereof
by the Planning Commission.
for any unpaid
taxes or special assessments. A copy of the statement(s)
shall be provided to the City Engineer
prior to each Final Map
approval.
All utility Commitments
13. Prior to each Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
furnish
provided,
the City Engineer with satisfactory written
commitments from all public and
,private utility providers
serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all
required utility improvements.
All permits obtained.
14. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from
the City and any other public agencies, including
public and
private utility providers, prior to each Final Map approval.
Fees paid.
15• The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and
Recreation fee prior to each Final
Map approval.
Acknowledged.
16. All public and private improvements required for each phase of
the project shall be completed and accepted by the City
Engineer, Planning Director, and/or the appropriate officials
from other public agencies, including public and private
utility providers,
prior to Zone Clearance of any Design
Review applications for any of the lots created during each
similar phase.
Done. 17.
The owner's (applicant's) engineer or land surveyor shall
prepare legal descriptions of those
portions of the Lisa Marie
Court right -of -way which the City intends to abandon
to the
property owners of Tract No. 7919. The legal descriptions
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and City
Surveyor prior to approval of the Final Map or subsequent
phase Final Map.
Construction schedule 18•
and traffic plan approved
Construction traffic associated with the development of the
subdivision improvements shall access the
by the Planning Commission.
property in a manner
impacts
Marie Courtiand Ronnie and which does notscreate traffic
or pedestrian safety
problems along Fruitvale Avenue all as
determined by the City Engineer. The owner's (applicant's)
contractor shall submit a construction schedule and traffic
plan to the Planning Commission for
review and approval prior
to any Final Map approval.
File 110. BD 91 -003; 13616 Fruitvale i veaue
Acknowledged.,
19 •
Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents
within 500 ft. of the property at least five calendar days
prior to commencement
of construction in such form as
determined by the City Engineer.
The applicant (owner) shall
reimburse the City the full cost of providing such notice
prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence
work on the project for each phase of development.
Acknowledged.
20.
All new structures shall be connected to sanitary sewer in
accordance with the west valley Sanitation District's
requirements.
Done.
21.
The existing septic tank on the property shall be pumped and
backfilled in accordance with County Environmental Health
Division standards prior to Final ;Iap approval
of Phase 2.
Done .
22.
Abandon and seal the existing well to Santa Clara
Valley water
District standards prior to Final Map
approval of Phase 2.
Acknowledged.
23.
The owner (applicant) shall install three (3) fire hydrants
that
meet the Saratoga Fire District's specification.
Hydrants shall be installed and accepted
prior to construction
of any buildings.
Acknowledged. 24• Future development of parcels 1 through 16 shall require
design review approval and shall be limited to single story
structures not to exceed 22 ft. in height. The 22 ft. height
limit shall be measured from the pad elevations as indicated
on the Tentative Map marked Exhibit "A ".
Acknowledged. 25. Deesignhe view approvals shall only be granted upon finding
and design withethe structure is compatible
residences, that it is in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines
and that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be
made. Development proposals shall also be consistent with the
site development plan and conform with current zoning and
building regulations.
26. A requirement of design review application review shall be the
Acknowledged. submittal of a landscape plan indicating native and /or drought
tolerant tree species in conformance with the City's Xeriscape
Guidelines. This landscape plan shall incorporate street
trees at appropriate locations along the parcel frontages.
Tree reservation. work 27. Pursuant to the City Arborist's report dated February 27,
p 1992, the following tree preservation requirements shall
.comp 1 e t ed . apply:
File No. SD 91 -005; 13616 Fruitvale Avenue
Acknowledged.
19. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents
within 500 ft. of the property at least five calendar days
prior to commencement of construction in such form as
determined by the City Engineer. The applicant (owner) shall
reimburse the City the full cost of providing such notice
prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence
work on the project for each phase of development.
Acknowledged.
20. All new structures shall be connected to sanitary sewer in
accordance with the west Valley Sanitation District's
requirements.
Acknowledged.
21. The existing septic tank on the property shall be pumped and
backfilled in accordance with County Environmental Health
Division standards prior to Final Map approval of Phase 2.
Acknowledged.
22. Abandon and seal the existing well to Santa Clara Valley Water
District standards Ma rior to Final
p p approval of Phase 2.
23. The owner (applicant) shall install three (3) fire hydrants
Acknowledged..
that meet the Saratoga Fire District's specification.
Hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to construction
of any buildings.
Acknowledged.
24. Future development of parcels 1 through 16 shall require
design review approval and shall be limited to single story
structures not to exceed 22 ft. in height. The 22 ft. height
limit shall be measured from the pad elevations as indicated
on the Tentative Map marked Exhibit "A ".
Acknowledged.
25. Design review approvals shall only be granted upon finding
that the proposed structure is compatible in terms of scale
and design with the existing adjacent residences, that it is
in conformance with the City's Residential Design Guidelines
and that all of the necessary Design Review findings can be
made. Development proposals shall also be consistent with the
site development plan and conform with current zoning and
building regulations.
26. A requirement of design review application review shall be the
Acknowledged. submittal of a landscape plan indicating native and /or drought
tolerant tree species in conformance with the City's Xeriscape
Guidelines. This landscape plan shall incorporate street
trees at appropriate locations along the parcel frontages.
27. Pursuant to the City Arborist's report dated February 27,
Tree preservation work 1992, the following tree preservation requirements shall
completed. apply=
f
Acknowledged.,.
Acknowledged.
Security submitted.
^t
Fils No. BD 91 -005; 13616 Fruitvals Avsnus
a. Prior to Final Map or phased Final Map approval the City
Arborist shall inspect the property to ensure that the
following work has been properly performed:
• Fill soil has been removed from the root collars of
the Coast Live Oaks along Fruitvale Avenue.
• Pruning and cabling of tree 049 and 066 by an ISA
certified arborist.
• Installation of construction period fencing.up to
the affected trees' driplines.
• Trees suitable for transplanting within the lot 014
building envelope and within the new Kerwin Ranch
Court right -of -way have been identified.
b. Prior to construction acceptance, the City Arborist shall
again inspect the property to ensure that the following
items have been properly performed:
• Prior to acceptance of Phase 2 improvements, trees
identified above as suitable for transplanting have
been relocated.
• All tree protection measures have been followed as
required for each phase of development.
C. No ordinance protected trees shall be removed without
obtaining a'tree removal permit, with the exception of
the orchard fruit trees which may be removed once a Final
Map or phased Final Map approval is granted. If a phased
Final Map is submitted, only those orchard trees within
that particular phase may be removed. Non- orchard trees
within the Kerwin Ranch Court right -of -way which are not
suitable for transplanting may also be removed following
Phase 2 Final Map approval.
d. Prior to Final Map or phased Final Map approval, the
owner (applicant) shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Planning Director, security in an
amount deemed sufficient by the Planning Director
pursuant to a report and recommendation by the City
Arborist to ,guarantee the installation, replacement,
maintenance, and /or preservation of trees on the subject
site. This security deposit shall be released at the
time of construction acceptance for each phase of
development upon the City Arborist's finding that all
tree protection measures have been adequately followed.
File No. 8D 91 -003; 13616 hvitvale Avenne
Acknowledged.
28. Individual lot pad grading, necessary to achieve proper site
drainage,
shall be permitted to occur concurrently with road
construction improvements once Final Map or phased Final Map
approval is granted.
If a phased Final Map is submitted, only
those lots within that particular be
phase may graded. The
final grading and drainage plan for'road construction and
individual lot pads shall be
reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and the Planning Director
prior to issuance of Final
Map or phased Final Map approval.
Acknowledged.
29.. Pursuant to the City's General Plan and the
approved.. tentative
map itself, Ronnie Way shall not be linked or developed
through to
Saratoga or Fruitvals Avenues, as either an
emergency access easement or
as a through road.
Acknowledged.
30. Pursuant to the approved tentative map, marked Exhibit "A ",
no
more than eight (8) new homes shall access Ronnie way.
Acknowledged.
31. If a phased Final Map is submitted, the development phases
indicated on the approved tentative
map shall occur in their
numerical order; is. Phase 1 first and Phase 2 second. This
will allow the initial development
phase to include those lots
necessary to guarantee compliance with Condition
029 above.
Acknowledged.
32. Construction hours shall be restricted to between 7 :30
a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in the event of
anngiem
which imperils the public safety. The City
Y grant an exemption his
upon /her determination of
an emergency. No construction work shall be permitted on
legal holidays.
Acknowledged.
33• Private subdivision entrance gating and /or signage is
prohibited.
Done.
34. Prior to any Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall
record a 5 ft. wide private landscape easement along both
sides of the pedestrian
easement at the and of Ronnie way.
This will not be an additional ingress /egress easement,
but
will provide a visually/ aesthetically wider pedestrian
corridor.
Agreement signed.
35. Prior to approval of the Final Map or of a phased Final Map,
the owner
(applicant) shall execute an agreement with the City
waiving the rights the
of owner or any successive owners of
any of the lots created by the subdivision to protest the
annexation of the lots into the City's existing Landscaping
and Lighting Assessment District
for the purpose of providing
for the maintenance of the Landscape and Pedestrian
Easement
and Private Landscape Easement created by the subdivision.
The agreement(s) be
shall recorded concurrently with the Final
File No. 8D 91 -OOS; 13616 Fruitvale Avenue
Map(s) and reference to the agreement(s) shall appear in the
Owner's Certificate(s) on the Final Map(s).
Acknowledged. . 36. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and
g approve all geotechnical aspects of.the subdivision plans
(ie., site preparation and grading, surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and design parameters for foundations,
retaining walls, pools and pavement) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan -Review- shall be
summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to -the City for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to approval from the City Engineer to begin
subdivision construction.
37. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed),
Acknowledged. and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading,
demolition and removal of existing structures and unsuitable
materials, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for roadways and retaining walls prior to the
placement of baserock, fill, steel and concrete.
The geotechnical consultant shall prepare a report describing
the as -built conditions of the project construction. The
report shall include a map (e.g., corrected or revised
drainage plan) that portrays the extent of any grading (Cuts
and fills), drainage improvements, and retaining walls. This
final report shall also include the locations and data from
field density tests and any new information disclosed during
construction which may have an impact on development of any
lots within the subdivision.
A report describing the results of field inspections, and the
report of as -built conditions, shall be submitted to the City
to be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to Construction
Acceptance of the subdivision improvements.
38• a. The owner (applicant) shall, upon the City's request,
Done. defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers,
officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers
harmless from and against any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void or annul this approval, or any of the
proceedings; acts or determinations taken, done or made prior
to such approval, which is brought within the time specified
in Sec. 14- 85.060 of the Municipal Code. If a defense is
requested, the City shall give prompt notice to,the applicant
of any such claim, action or proceeding, and shall cooperate
File No. SD 91 -003; 13616 Fruitvale Avenue
fully in the defense thereof. Nothing herein shall prevent
the City from participating in the defense, but in such event,
the City shall pay its own attorney ,, s fees and costs.
b. The owner (applicant shall furnish a written indemnity
agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with
Sec. 14- 05.055 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map
approval.
Acknowledged. . 39. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
g constitute a violation of the permit: Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this
City per each day of the violation.
Section 1. Applicant shall sign the agreement to these
condition: within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said
resolution shall be void.
Section 2. Conditions must be completed within 24 months or
approval will expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen ('15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City, of Saratoga Planning commis-
sion, State of California, this 12th day of August, 1992,
following vote: by the
AYES: CALDWELL, BOGOSIAN, DURRET, FORBES, MORAN, FAVERO
NOES: none
ABSENT: none
Chair '-- � —�---
anninq Commission
ATTES
Secretary, Plan ing Commission
I
RESOLUTION NO. SD 91 -005.1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD 91 -005
13616 FRUITVALE AVENUE (VIDOVICH (K) PARTNERS)
KERWIN RANCH PHASE 2
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
SECTION 1: Lots 1 - 8 as shown on that certain map of Tract
No. 8560, prepared by Jennings, McDermott & Heiss,
Inc. dated January, 1995, and filed with the City
Clerk of the City of Saratoga on April 19, 1995,
are approved as EIGHT (8) individual parcels.
SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and
offered for dedication to public use are hereby
rejected on behalf of the public, save and except
for public utility easements; and to the limited
extent that any offers for public street purposes
either expressly or implicitly include offers for
easements for utility purposes along or beneath said
street rights of way, then as to such express or
implied offers of easements for public utility
purposes, the same are hereby accepted on behalf of
the public.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 19th day of April,
1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Burger
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Jacobs
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk' /
Fyn
y .. �►
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. „2 �% 5 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: APRIL 19, 1995 CITY MGR.:
113
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Wildwood Park Improvements, Capital Project No. 955 -
Award of Construction Contract
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to declare James A. Savattone
Construction.to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to James A. Savattone
Construction in the amount of $43,113.50. 3. Move to authorize
staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $4,500.
Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Wildwood Park Improvements,
Capital Project,No. 955, were opened on April 11. A total of five
contractors submitted bids for the work and a summary of the bids
received is attached. James A. Savattone Construction of Soquel
submitted the lowest bid of $43,113.50 which is 4.2% below the
Engineer's Estimate of $45,000. Staff has carefully checked the
bid along with the listed references and has determined that the
bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated March
21. Therefor, it is recommended that the Council declare James A.
Savattone Construction to be the lowest responsible bidder on the
project, and award the attached construction contract to this firm
in the amount of $43,113.50. Further, it is recommended that the
Council authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up
to an amount or $4,500 to cover any unforeseen circumstances which
may arise during the course of the work.
Fiscal Impacts: This project is being funded through the City's
allocation of 1988 State Park Bonds. Up to $48,000 is available to
the City to complete the project. Staff believes that the project
can be completed within the available allocation and sufficient
funds are programmed for the project in the current budget in
Capital Project No. 955.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional.
t . `,,
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: James A.
Savattone Construction will not be declared the lowest responsible
bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded to that
firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare another
bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the
bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project. However, staff
does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re- bidding
the project due to the number of firms which submitted bids and the
relatively small spread between the low and high bidders. Further,
the project must be completed by June 30 to remain eligible for the
State Park Bond Act funds.
Follow Up Actions: The contract will be executed and the contractor
will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work will most likely begin in
early May and last through mid -June assuming timely delivery of the
playground equipment from the manufacturer.
Attachments: 1. Bid Summary.
2. Construction Contract.
Wildwood Park Improwrinnb, C.I.P. No. 955
BID SUMMARY
ITEM ! I ITEM OESCRIPT1ON
1I LS II N/A
w I s40DD I
II I
sv I I s15o 1
II I
LF I I s1.a
II 25 1
SF 11 f1.
II
CY II $5500 �
12. I FETAINING WALL
I
1 251 LF
1
13. I HANDRAILS
1 LS
10. I BENCHES
I
1
3 EA
1
11. ( TALK TUBES
I
_
1 EA
1
12. I ACTIVITY WALL
I
1 1 I EA
I 1
13. I SAND BOX
I
I 11 EA
I I
11. I PRAIfiE CABIN
I
I 1 I EA
I I
12. IPICNIC TABLES
I
I 81 -EA
I 1
EUNITS
13. BARBECUE
I 31 EA
TOTAL
I
$37$00 1
I
51,2%1.00 1
I
S4m0.m
I
$7mm 1
I
mmI
I
370000 I
I
S270m I
I
I
I
I
I
WA 1
I
11 703.00 I
I
WA
.m
S4A00 I
I
I
WA
WA 1
I
381200 I
I
WA 1
I
11,700.00 I
I
WA 1
I
ssSD I
s1823.m 1
:3m 1
i1p50.m 1
1450 I
I
$asm I
I
I
ssszs.m 1
I
I
s+5m I
I
I
15525.00 I
I
I
$5758 I
1
s25o I
I
$ 1,0070
I
$1.2D
I
$5700D
I
so93
I
szso 1
I
$17$0.00 1
I
s4m I
I
szsoo.00 I
I
1283 I
1
12000 I
I
53800.00 I
1100 1
115000 I
I
11188 I
I
i3 7m I
I
-.71...j-
I
S50m
I
s9SOO.00 I
I
s43.x I
IA I
I
128800 I
I
178200 I
I
$29em I
I
WA I
I
180000 I
I
-$2
A15.m I
I
fB00m I
I
WA I
I
$1po0.m (
1
farm I
I
s97sm 1
seom I
I
szpoo.00 I
I
ssz.zl I
I
WA I
I
$4.'!800 I
I
s1 A5s.m
I
i1.T14.m 1
WA I
I
f400m I
$40000 I
I
51,210.001
I
N/A I
I
138602 1
I
51,191.001
I
17,191,00 1
I
i1 p50.m l
60
i1 p.001
31.%1.68 1
I
s5p0.00
I
1510.00
I
54,20.00 I
S4,2.00 1
I
54529.75
1
$91700 1
I
581700 I
I
S800m
I
190000 I
I
S1, x8.58
I
mm I
I
mm I
I
som 1
I
mm I
I
som I
I
it pzt.m 1
I
16.12'1.001
3e00m I
$4500.001
I
$1,1.90 1
I
19700
I
51,191.00I
I
$000 1-$7--
I
I
1374.2
I
I
I
$43,113.501
I
I
$19,460.001
I
I
I
I I I
st,lnm 1 i7eom 1 sz,�o.00 I
I I I
I I
$48587.52 1 1 i55500.m I
I I I
WA 1 $5800,00 I
I
sfiom 1
I
s7SOO.01) I
I
3200 I
I
Isom I
I
tsm I
I
S35m.m I
$1300 I
I
$1,950.001
I
s37m I
WA I I
I
17A30.m I
1
$2,9W.00 I
1
$1000001
I
i1 A00.m 1
I
tam I
I
s1 noo.m 1
I
WA I
$2,210.00 1
I
azsm 1
I
s1,275 .m 1
I
31,21200 1
I
37,21200 I
I
36Am.00 I
I
f1 p50.m I
I
ssnoo.m I
I
81 P50 OD I
I
mmI
mm1
I
$1,230.001 1
I
37aeo.m
I
s34om 1
I
slpzo.m I
I
I
I
I
sse,5420D l
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a`S- 4 4,
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: APRIL 19, 1995 CITY MGR.:.
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1;
Reauthorization for FY 95 -96, Initiation of Annexation
No. 1995 -1
Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt the resolution describing
improvements and ordering the Engineer's Report for reauthorization
of the District for FY 95 -96.
2. Move to adopt the resolution determining
to undertake proceedings for Annexation No. 1995 -1.
3. Move to adopt the resolution appointing
the Attorneys for the District for FY 95 -96.
4. Move to accept the proposal from John
Heindel dated October 5, 1994 to provide assessment engineering
services for the District for FY 95 -96 through FY 99 -00.
5. Move to adopt a minute order
acknowledging the Council's concurrence that the Quito Road
streetscape improvements contemplated by Zone 17 (Sunland Park) , if
implemented during FY 95 -96, would satisfy the obligation to the
City of the Deferred Improvement Agreements recorded against the
200 Sunland Park properties; and that 50% of the streetscape
improvement cost, up to a maximum of $40,000, will be financed for
one year by drawing from available LLA -1 fund reserves.
Report Summary: Attached are the various resolutions which the
Council must adopt to initiate the reauthorization of the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 95 -96.
A brief summary of each of the actions the Council must take
follows.
1. Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of
Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1995 -1996 - This is the
resolution required under Streets & Highways Code Section 22622 to
initiate the annual renewal process for the District for the
ensuing fiscal year. The resolution refers to the improvements
proposed to be undertaken (Exhibit A), and orders the preparation
of the Engineer's Report required under S &H 22565.
2. Resolution determining to undertake proceedings for the
annexation of territory to an existing assessment district ...
Annexation No. 1995 -1 - This is the resolution required under S &H
22585 to initiate an annexation proceeding to the existing
District. Pursuant to decisions reached by the Council at the
March Policy Development Conference, several parcels are proposed
to be annexed to the District and will be incorporated into Zones
3, 5 and 22. The resolution refers to the improvements proposed to
be undertaken (Exhibit A), a description of the areas proposed to
be annexed (Exhibit B) , and orders the preparation of the
Engineer's Report required under S &H 22565.
3. Resolution appointing attorneys for Fiscal Year 1995 -1996 - This
resolution merely appoints the City Attorney's office as the
attorneys for the District for FY 95 -96 and limits the attorney's
fees to a.maximum of $500.
4. Proposal for Assessment Engineering services - It is recommended
that the Council accept the letter proposal from John H. Heindel
dated October 5, 1994 to provide assessment engineering services
for the District for FY 95 -96 through FY 99 -00. The assessment
engineering services are well defined under "Scope of Services" in
the proposal and generally include preparation of the Engineer's
Report, preparing and mailing the notices of the Public Meeting and
Hearing, and coordinating with the County Assessor's and County
Auditor's offices to ensure placement of the assessments on the tax
roll. Mr. Heindel has served as Assessment Engineer for the
District for a number of years now and has provided exceptional
service to both my office and the District. I recommend accepting
his proposal for the next five year cycle of the District to avoid
the need to annually retain the services of the Assessment
Engineer.
5. Sunland Park (Zone 17) streetscape improvements along Quito Road
- As I discussed with the City Council earlier this week, I have
been working with the Sunland Park Homeowners Association over the
past year to develop a streetscape improvement project along the
frontage of their neighborhood along Quito Road between Baylor and
McCoy Aves. During the current year, the 200 homeowners in Sunland
Park (Zone 17), agreed to assess themselves $15 apiece ($3,000
total) to fund design development work of such a project. Local
landscape architect Jeffrey Heid was retained to develop the
project, and the project has advanced to the point where a
conceptual plan has been prepared and cost estimates attached to
it. (The plan will be available for you to review at your
meeting.)
The maximum estimated cost to bring the project to fruition is
$80,000. Meetings are currently being held in the neighborhood to
sell the project to all of the homeowners. On April 24, there will
be a meeting of the entire neighborhood to review the project and
to take a straw vote on whether the homeowners will be willing to
assess themselves $400 apiece to fund the project. The HOA Board
believes the project will receive a majority of support if the City
Council can commit to two things on April 19.
First is a commitment that the project, if implemented, will
satisfy the obligation of the Deferred Improvement Agreements
recorded against each property in Sunland Park when the area was
annexed to the City in 1981. The original Deferred Improvement
Agreements contemplated the neighborhood funding the widening of
Quito Road, however it appears that this is no longer necessary or
desirable. The streetscape improvements would be a substitute for
the widening of Quito Road and in my view, offers more of an
improvement to the road that is consistent with the overall goals
of the City.
Second is a commitment that the City, through the LLA -1 Assessment
District, will finance the project over a two year period so that
each homeowner would be assessed $200 a year for two years instead
of $400 all at once. I have determined that this can be done by
advancing the necessary funds to complete the project from
available reserves in the LLA -1 Fund (Fund 71). The current fund
balance is approximately $170,000 and is expected to be reduced to
approximately $150,000 by June 30. Even accounting for a maximum
utilization of the fund balance to offset the assessments in all of
the Zones for FY 95 -96, I believe there is sufficient capacity in
the fund balance to carry up to $40,000 of the streetscape project
costs for one year. Therefor, I recommend the Council make this
commitment at this time.
Fiscal Impacts: All of the costs associated with the Landscaping
and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 are charged against and
recovered through the District. There is no direct fiscal impact
on the City's General Fund. A more precise look at the proposed
funding of the District in FY 95 -96 will be available on May 5 when
you receive the preliminary Engineer's Report.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional at
this time. Eventually, notices will be mailed to those property
owners in the District whose assessments are proposed to be
increased, or whose properties are proposed to be annexed to the
District, informing them of the upcoming Public Meeting and
Hearing.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: This would
depend on what recommendations the Council does not vote in favor
of. Either the reauthorization or annexation processes would not
begin; or the City Attorney's office would not be appointed as the
Attorneys for the District; or the proposal from the Assessment
Engineer would not be accepted; or the Quito Rd. streetscape
improvements proposed by the Sunland Park neighborhood would not be
supported as recommended by staff.
Follow Up Actions: Work on the Engineer's Reports will begin. The
remaining schedule of events is as follows:
May 3 - Preliminary Engineer'.s Reports for the reauthorization
and annexation are received by the Council and
preliminarily approved. Council adopts Resolutions of
Intentions for the reauthorization, annexation and
detachment proceedings and schedules the Public
Meeting and Public Hearings for each. ,
May 5 - Joint Notices of Public Meetings and Public Hearings
are mailed.
June 7 - Public Meeting on reauthorization and annexation
proceedings.
June 21 - Public Hearing on reauthorization, annexation, and
detachment proceedings. Council adopts resolutions
overruling protests and ordering the assessments for
reauthorization and annexation processes, and
ordering the detachment of territory from Zone 22.
By August 10 - Assessment Engineer delivers Assessment Roll to
the County Auditor.
Attachments: 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing
preparation of Engineer's Report for
reauthorization.
2. Resolution determining to undertake annexation
proceedings re: Annexation No. 1995 -1.
3. Resolution appointing Attorneys.
4. Proposal from John H. Heindel dated October 5,
1994.
5. Information from Sunland Park HOA re: Quito Road
streetscape improvements.
6. Sample Deferred Improvement Agreement recorded
against all properties in the Sunland Park
neighborhood.
JOHN H. HEINDEL
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
October 5, 1994
Job No. 8306
City of Saratoga
Department of Public Works
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Mr. Larry Perlin
City Engineer
Ladies and gentlemen:
I am pleased to present the following proposal for providing
services relative to the City of Saratoga's Landscaping and
Lighting District LLA -1 for fiscal years 1995 -1996 through 1999-
2000.
Scope of Services
1. Revise the existing-computer program used for generating
the assessment rolls, to accommodate revisions to the
formula for spreading assessments in the Village Parking
District.
2. Consult with City staff personnel to determine costs,
contributions and carryovers for the next fiscal year,
segregated by zone.
3. Generate a preliminary roll for parcels in the existing
district, using the information determined under 2.
above and the previous year's parcel data file, to be
used for the public hearing.
4. Compile a data file, generate a preliminary roll and
prepare an assessment diagram for parcels to be annexed
to the district, if any, using current assessor's data,
to be used for the public hearing.
5. Complete the Engineer's Report, including all additional
items required by the Act of 1972.
P. O. BOX 3452 • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 741 -0159 FAX (408) 741 -5547
City of Saratoga
Attn: Mr. Larry Perlin
October 5, 1994
Page two
6. When the new assessor's roll becomes available from the
County (probably in July), update the data files,
preliminary rolls and assessment diagrams to produce
final files, rolls and diagrams which agree with the new
assessor's roll.
7. Send notices to the owners of all parcels to be annexed,
if any, and to the owners of other parcels as directed
by City staff or as otherwise required by law. A notice
will be produced for each parcel, which will contain the
following information: Owner's name and address,
assessor's parcel number, amount of the existing
assessment, amount of the proposed assessment, the
address to which property owners may mail a protest
against the proposed assessment, a statement that a
majority protest will cause any assessment increase to
be abandoned, and the dates, times and locations of the
public meeting and public hearing, respectively. This
notice, together with a copy of the Resolution of
Intention, will be sealed in a window envelope provided
by the City, stamped and mailed.
8. Attend any public meetings and public hearings that
might be held relative to the proceedings, to explain
the methods of spreading the assessments and to answer
any questions relative to the above services.
9. Produce and file with the county auditor a computer tape
of the assessment roll containing the assessments shown
on the final roll.
10. Perform any services requested by the City which are
additional to those described above.
Fee for Services
I propose to perform Items 1 through 6, 8 and 9 above for a
lump sum fee of $5,650.00, plus $6.50 per parcel added to the
roll since the preceding year.
I propose to perform Item 7 above for a fee equal to $1.60
per notice ($150.00 minimum), plus cost of postage and
reproduction of the resolution.
JOHN H. HEINDEL - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
City of Saratoga
Attn: Mr. Larry Perlin
October 5, 1994
Page three
I propose to perform Item 10 above for a fee equal to $110.00
per hour expended by me, plus 115% of the cost of any outside
services and expenses incurred by me.
I propose that each year, beginning with the 1996 -1997 fiscal
year, the above fees be escalated proportional to the May
value of the San Francisco - Oakland -San Jose Consumer Price
Index, as published by the U. S. Department of Labor.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Very sincerely,
H. E NDEL
JOHN H. HEINDEL - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
Sunland Park Civic Improvement Association, Inc. 4!111
(Sunland Park Homeowners Association) by °l��
18241 Purdue Dr., Saratoga, CA 95070
� I 4..4L j i
e
Sunland. Park Landscaping Meeting
January 17, 1995
Saratoga City Building
The Sunland Park Landscaping Committee met with Saratoga Public Works
Director Larry Perlin and Landscape Architect Jeff Heid to share ideas on
improving Quito Road. The goal of the meeting was (1) to meet Jeff, (2)
to discuss city involvement and (3) to set up a time line. We also spent a
good deal of time talking about ideas and problems (4).
(1) On meeting Jeff
The Committee seemed to be unanimous in feeling that Jeff is right for
the job of designing the landscaping along Quito Road. He has done similar
jobs before, and brought plans from other projects for us to look at. Jeff
has been in business as a landscape architect since 1980. He is a one man
business with offices in downtown Saratoga.
Jeff thought that the $3000 dollars we have to spend on the design phase
would be enough to create conceptual plans, and there might be extra
money to start construction plans. He says he can develop fairly accurate
cost estimates from conceptual plans, but actual bids have to come from
construction plans. We told him that we also need cost estimates on
yearly maintenance of the plans.
The committee asked Jeff to create several different conceptual plans at
different cost levels. His preliminary view is that spending $40,000
would only create an economy landscape and that more would need to be
spent for a quality job. (if homeowners agree to assess themselves $200
each, it would create $40,000. $300 each would raise $60,000.]
(2) City involvement
Larry told the committee that Saratoga is interested in contributing to
the project by widening Quito Road slightly. He says by widening it by 5
or 6 feet, a bike lane could be put it and shoulders could be added. Most
,importantly from a landscaping perspective, drainage and inlet boxes
could be moved from the existing ditch onto the road itself.
Larry is undertaking several steps to get the landscape design process
started. He is ordering a survey or Quito Road because no plans exist now
that are good enough to use. Jeff can use the resulting topo to create his
landscape design.
Larry is contacting the utilities to find out about their requirements. We
wondered if PG &E and Pacific Bell can compromise on their access to the
lines. This would leave more landscaping options. Ideally we'd like the
wires to be put underground, but we all agreed that wasn't going to
happen.
He's also contacting the bus company to see if the bus stops at Clemson
and Baylor can be merged into one stop half way between the two streets.
We want to know if the bus company might pay for any work around this
potential new stop, especially some sort of shelter.
Larry said the city could help us acquire free soil to fill the ditch once
drainage is moved onto the street. Money to spread it out and regrade,
though, would come from Sunland Park homeowners.
He also told us that he is rearranging the slurry coat schedule so all
streets in Sunland Park get a new coat this year, rather than over the next
5 years as originally planned. At the same time he said the city's
contractor could slurry seal the sidewalk along Quito Road.
He also suggested that it probably would be possible for the city to
finance our project for us. We would have to pay interest, but if desired
homeowners could spread the assessment out over several years.
1 � i
(3) Time Line
STEP 1
Get topo, contact
Underway now
utilities and bus
company
STEP 2
Jeff starts design
mid February
work
STEP 3
Jeff meets with
mid March
landscape committee
with early ideas
STEP 4
Jeff finishes plans and
mid to late April
gets estimates
STEP S
Homeowners meeting
May
to unveil plans & costs
STEP 6
Homeowners vote on
May or June
whether to proceed
STEP 7
If yes, Jeff makes
summertime
construction plans &
city gets bids
STEP 8
Construction begins
summer /fall
(4) Ideas and problems
One idea we all liked a lot was putting traffic islands in at both Clemson
and Baylor. This would look attractive, and would provide safety for
pedestrians by slowing traffic down as it enters the neighborhood.
As mentioned earlier, we also like the idea ' of moving the bus stop to the
midpoint between Clemson and Baylor. The home next to the bus stop at
_y
Baylor hates it, so it would help them. In addition, pavement could be
added so buses could pull off the road to pick up passengers. It could be
made very attractive by incorporating it into our plans. Vandalism
remains a concern, though, since bus stops are a favorite haunt of vandals.
We briefly discussed extending the sidewalk from Baylor north a short
distance to connect with San Jose's sidewalks. This makes sense, and
._`Larry said there is enough room next to the big pine trees along the edge
of the yard.
We also agreed that the curb which runs along the sidewalk should be
removed because it's ugly. This could be done in conjunction with
regrading so there won't be drainage problems for homes backing up to
Quito.
We noted that the property owner with the RV gate would need to be
approached so he /she is aware of our plans.
We talked briefly about getting the neighborhood to pitch in and do some
of the work to save money. No decision was reached about this, but we did
agree that we might want to poll the neighborhood to see what interests
and skills people have to help. One concern about planting things
ourselves is that any warranty would be voided.
Larry suggested that overall we not restrict Jeff too much during the
design phase. As he put it "come up with a look, then see what it costs."
He also said that this is the sort of project that city council likes. He
believes they'll be gung ho. For one thing, he says the area has been
neglected for years, and community involvement like this could be trend
setting.
Sunland Park Landscaping Project
The Sunland Park Homeowners have elected to study the potential cost of installing
landscaping along the frontage of the development bordered by Quito Road. The
plans and cost estimates will be used to decide what project the homeowners might
finance in an attempt to cancel the Deferred Improvement Agreement attached to
each homeowner's deed. At this time the agreement requires Sunland Park
homeowners to pay for the improvements between McCoy and Baylor if the City
elected to widen Quito Rd.
In order for the project to be consistent with the interest of the homeowners, a
landscape committee has been assembled. Listed below are the goals and objectives
the committee has identified to help develop a successful plan.
Goal
To have the City produce a detailed design and cost estimate for installing
landscape along the frontage of the Sunland Park Development.
Objectives (not listed in order of importance)
To maintain the existing level of privacy, security and sound suppression
presently experienced by the homeowners whose properties back up to the
frontage.
To develop a plan that is inexpensive while meeting the needs of the
homeowners.
To develop a plan that focuses on water conservation and low maintenance.
To develop a plan that is acceptable to the City
To develop a plan with enough detail to estimate the cost of installation within
15% of the total cost. Also, to be able to estimate the yearly maintenance
and City cost for the next 5 to 10 years.
To develop a plan that includes an acceptable time line for installation. Time line
should include acceptance of the project by the homeowners and City Council,
as well as setting up a vote to see if homeowners approve of fees to be paid
through their property tax bill.
page 2
Ideas
In reviewing the frontage, the committee has listed the following items of concern to
be discussed with the City's contractor and the City in developing the landscape
design.
1. ' Truck access along existing sidewalk seems important for companies
maintaining overhead wires. Note that trucks are wider than the sidewalk, so they
also need space on either side. While the existing sidewalk seems to be in excellent
shape and might not need replacing, what about adding a brick border (or something
else) to make it classier? A curved path would be nice but it might be too expensive,
especially considering removal of the existing sidewalk.
2. The large bushes adjacent to properties (Pyracantha) are probably expensive
to remove. Should they remain, as they provide privacy and a sound barrier? They
also certainly prevent vandalism on the fence itself. We have undertaken to talk with
the people who live in homes adjacent to Quito Road -to discover their views. One
problem is that bushes are different along much of the frontage between Clemson and
McCoy.
3. Should landscaping efforts be concentrated on the strip between the road and
the sidewalk as a cost effective way to improve the area? Then just low maintenance
ground -cover or shrubs could be put on development side of sidewalk, saving money.
4. What about the drainage ditch now between the sidewalk and road. Must it
stay? Is it too expensive to fill in, regrade, etc? Water does collect during heavy or
prolonged rains, and one homeowner says before the ditch was put in homes
adjacent to Quito Road would flood.
5. Where will the water for irrigation come from? Cost estimates must include
water usage.
6. The plan should provide for - -and help improve -- pedestrian safety where Quito
road intersects with both Baylor and Clemson. Now (especially at Baylor) these are
dangerous to walk because of high shrubs and bushes that block motorists views. In
addition, the Baylor intersection has curbs, but they are set way back from road, so
drivers come around the corner quickly, making sweeping wide turns that leave little
room for pedestrians. Maybe moving the curbs and lines to make both intersections
appear less broad would improve safety. McCoy, by contrast, is wide open, and
seems to be much safer.
page 3
7. Specific to the Baylor Road entrance are two huge wooden structures on
either side. These may not block much view, but they are not pretty.
8. Signs are a problem as they are now. There are a lot, and if possible they
might be consolidated.
a. Existing signs (both street names and "no parking" signs) will
need to be relocated at edge of road. Now they are at the
edge of the sidewalk.
b. "Sunland Park" signs may want more prominence. Do we want to light it
up? Presumably electricity would be available from sprinkler system.
9. Some homeowners whose property backs onto Quito now use the road
for special access. Several have gates in their rear fences. One has a large RV gate.
10. Should the plan include the portion of Quito Road North of Baylor?
11. Could the county provide an improved bus stop with bench or shelter at
Clemson? Right now the bus stop is exposed .
12. We may want to contact power company about large pieces of black wire
covering that frequently fall onto the sidewalk and nearby bushes, creating an
eyesore.
13. Should we put allow for some sort of bus shelter at the stops? If so, would
the bus company be willing to pay for it if we provide the spot?
F 943 ?!',:209
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
x.
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avent.e NO FEE
Saratoga, California 95070 )
4~�
:- ,6996961
tihR G i � 10 rill ��'
UP:7`
iiEr.i,3if"%,.;' .Lci)„E)ER-.
AGREEMENT RELATING TO FUTURE WIDENING
AND IMPROVEMENT OF QUITO ROAD
F 943 ?:::209
This,-�s an agreement between the City of Saratoga
� n ,
(City) and 4:-.' (Owner)
relating t widening and improvement of Quito Road.
WHEREAS, Owner's real property - more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein - is located within a residential subdivision known
as the Sunland Park Tract. Sunland Park is about to be
annexed into the City of Saratoga pursuant to proceedings
now pending before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Owner and other owners of real property
within Sunland Park have previously accepted the condition
of the City Council that an agreement relating to widening
and improvement of Quito Road along the frontage of Sunland
Park be entered into with City as a prerequisite to annexa-
tion; and
WHEREAS, City has no immediate intention to widen
and improve Quito Road along the frontage of Sunland Park; and
WHEREAS, by this agreement City and Owner desire to
set forth their respective rights and obligations relative to
possible future widening and improvement of.Quito Road.
D
N ® FEE TO BE CHARGED
IN WITH
GOV''. CODE SEC. 6103,
CITY nr SARgTOGA
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: F 943 210
1. Participation in assessment or other taxing
district.
Owner agrees to participate in any assessment .
district, special taxing district or other financing
mechanism desired by .City as a method for financing the
improvements described below. This agreement shall con-
stitute a waiver by Owner of any right to protest the
establishment of such assessment, taxing or financing
mechanism. For its part, City agrees that any such method
for financing said improvements shall be spread equitably
among all the owners of real property in Sunland Park as
of the date such district or funding mechanism is established.
Additionally, prior to undertaking project, City agrees to
explore and consider any alternative or supplemental means
of financing the project through federal, state, or county
funding sources.
2. Description of Sunland Park.
As used in this agreement, "Sunland Park" consists
of the residential area included in the annexation proceedings
now pending before City. A precise legal description of
Sunland Park is attached as Exhibit "A" to the RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INITIATING PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE ANNEXATION OF AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS SUNLAND PARK
adopted on December 3, 1980.
3. Description of project.
The project covered herein consists of the widening
and improvement of Quito Road to the center line along the
frontage of the Sunland Park Tract only. Said frontage is
approximately 1,640 feet in length. Widening and improvement
of Quito from the center line along the side opposite from
0
-2-
. F 343 211
Sunland Park is not covered by this agreement. The project
contemplated herein is a one -time widening project covering
all work and costs associated therewith including grading,
paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and reconstruction of the
drainage system within the above - described Sunland Park
frontage. The decision whether to undertake this project
and, if so, the scope of the work is completely within the
discretion of City.
4. Limitation on obligation of Owner.
owner's obligation hereunder is limited solely to
payment of his or her prorata share of the project cost -
including a prorata share of legal and administrative
expenses relating to the formation of the assessment district,
special taxing district or other financing mechanism and
all costs relating to performance and supervision of the
work - said share to be determined by City in accord with
paragraph one above.
In all other respects, Owner's responsibility for
maintenance of Quito or liability of any kind associated
with Quito Road including liability for claims arising
directly from the widening project itself shall be no greater
and no different from the responsibility /liability of any
other resident and /or owner of real property within City.
City shall defend and hold Owner harmless from any liability
arising out of widening /improvement of Quito as the result
of this agreement.
5. Agreement binding on successors in interest.
This agreement is an instrument affecting the
title or possession of the real property described in Exhibit
"A ". All the terms, covenents and conditions herein imposed
.-3-
F 943 ?i:212
shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the successors in interest of Owner. Upon
the 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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City has executed this
agreement at Saratoga, California on JAN 71981
Ap r d o rm:
ity Attorney
City of Saratoga
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this
agreement at California on`Z �L.. /, //j
Owner
Address:
J
le 'ire
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA)
On this e7� day ofoU-%c.:"e= in the year
one thousand nine hundred and' - flighty t efore me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public, State of California, duly
commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
r / �,� N -1L' 41 , 5 L, i' known to
me to be the person whose name /7 subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that :;executed
the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my official seal in the County of Santa Clara
the day and year in this certificate first above written.
PAT BOESIOER Notary Public, State` of Ca. fornia
NOTARY PUSLIC•CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
j My
6M-18W- GXPIM Nov. 11, 1981
i
-4-