HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2001 City Council Agenda Packet AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 17, 2001
OPEN SESSION -6:00 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM - 13777 FRUITYALE AVENUE
COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
6:00 p.m. David Robertson Finance Commission
6:10 p.m. Continue discussions regarding Saratoga Community
Foundation appointments
CALL MEETING TO ORDER- 6:35 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:35 P.M.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - THREATENED LITIGATION:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b):
(3 potential cases).
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
KEEP ONE YEAR
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
October 12, 2001)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Communications frOm Boards and Commissions
None
Written Communications
None
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
lA.
Commendations for Judy Alberts, Sheila Ioannou, and Barbara Olsen, Parks and
Recreation Commission
Recommended action:
Present commendations.
lB.
Appointment and Oath of Office of Parks and Recreation Commission Members
Angela Frazier, Logan Deimler, Gregory Gates
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution of Appointment.
lC.
Appointment and Oath of Office of Finance Commission Members Alex Tennant
and Jim Hughes
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution of Appointment.
1D.
Proclamation - Supporting Federal Funding for Cleanup of Mount Umunhum
Recommended action:
Read proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
2A.
Review of Check Register
Recommended action:
Approve check register.
2B.
Review Planning Commission Action Minutes
Regular Meeting - October 10, 2001
Recommended action:
Note and file.
2C.
Claim of Ling, Lavina; Claim No. GL-052984
Recommended action:
Authorize settlement.
2D.
Claim of Fitzsimmons, Ann and Kathleen; Claim No. G1-052777
Recommended action:
Reject claim
2E.
Dais Chairs in saratoga Civic Theatre
Recommended action:
AuthoriZe purchase and adopt resolution.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of
ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on
any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance
are subject to Council's approval at the Council meeting)
o
Capital Improvement Program and Environmental Impact Assessment
Recommended action:
Open public hearings for CIP and Environmental Impact Assessment; close public
hearing; accept report; direct staff accordingly on CIP; adopt Environmental
Impact Assessment.
OLD BUSINESS
Request for Reconsideration of the City Council Action Referring DR-01-007 &
BSE-01-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN, 19751 Versailles Way back to the Planning
Commission
Recommended action:
Consider redluest for reconsideration and adopt resolution.
Authorize Expenditures for Utility Connections to Library Buildings
Recommended action:
Authorize City Manager to execute agreement with PG&E and pay engineering
deposit to San Jose Water.
Congress Springs Park Donation Update
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
NEW BUSINESS
o
Ordinance Enabling City Manager and City Attorney to Process Claims filed
Against the City
Recommended action:
Introduce and waive first reading of ordinance.
o
Legal Review of Personnel Rules and Policies
Recommended action:
Authorize City Manager to execute agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.
Consider Requests to Join Friends of the Court Briefs in Lowenstein v. City of
Lafayette
Recommended action:
Approve requests to join amicus briefs.
3
AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Government Agency
Assoc. of Bay Area Gov't.(ABAG)
Chamber of Commerce Board
County Cities Assn. Leg. Task Force
County HCD Policy Committee
Emergency Planning Council
Hakone Foundation Liaison
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Library Joint Powers Authority Board
No. Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Committee
Peninsula Div., League of Calif. Cities
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
Santa Clara County Cities Assn.
SASCC Liaison
Saratoga Business Development Council
Sister City Liaison
West Valley Solid Waste JPA
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
West Valley Sanitation District
Silicon Valley. Animal Control JPA
Representative Alternate
Mehaffey Baker
Waltonsmith Streit
Streit Bogosian
Baker Waltonsmith
Baker Waltonsmith
Mehaffey/Streit
Baker Mehaffey
Bogosian Streit
Bogosian Waltonsmith
Mehaffey Streit
Streit Baker
Mehaffey Baker
Waltonsmith Bogosian
Mehaffey Waltonsmith
Waltonsmith Mehaffey
Streit Baker
Waltonsmith Mehaffey
Baker Mehaffey
Bogosian
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
OTHER
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
· assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II)
4
November 7, 2001
November 21,2001
December 5, 2001
December 11, 2001
December 19, 2001
SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Adjourned Meeting - Council Reorganization
Civic Center Master Plan Study Session
Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING D?~T~nager CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: 1 DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Commission Interviews for Finance Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council conduct interviews.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The following person has been scheduled for interviews:
6:00 p.m. David Robertosn Finance Commission
There is one (1) vacancy to be filled on the Finance Commission.
Finance Commissioner Ernest Brookfield resigned.
October 1, 2003.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appointment will not be made to the Finance Commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Adopt resolutions and administer Oaths of Office at scheduled Council Meeting.
The terms for this vacancy will expire on
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Application of the above named applicant.
FROM
: DAVID ROBERTSON
PHONE NO. : 4888689652
Oct. 81 2881
89:14RM
CITY OF SARATOGA
_CO_~SSION APPLICATION, FORM
DATE: September 28, 2001
COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: Finance
MS.
M~.S. David Robertson
408 868 9239
408 953 9195
HOME
,~oo~ss: 14350 Douglass Lane
WOKK
YEAR YOU BECAME A SARATOGA RESIDENT: 1996
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO AT'rEND DAYTIME MEETINGS? yes
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND EVENING MEETINGS? yes
BRIEFI~, y DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMRNT IN EACH OF THESE AREAS
CURRENT OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
CFO VP Finance Alacrity Networks, May 2001 to Present
CFO VP Finance Com21 April 1995 to May 2001
1983 to 1995, various CFO positions with public and private companies
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
MBA University of Califomia, Berkeley
BA University of Washington
4
FROM : DAUID ROBERTSON PHONE NO. : 40886896S2 Oct. 01 2001 09:14AM P4
' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:
REFERENCES:
]. Peter Fenner, prior CEO Com21 650 321 8479
Kathy Mulligan neighbor 408 741 0463
Peter Osborne former audit partner Deliotte 510 897-5234
PRINT NAM'E:
SIGNATURE:
David Robdertson
FROM
DRUID ROBERTSON PHONE NO. : 4088689652 Oct.
01 2001 09:13AM P2
For David L. Robertson
Special Skiil.~
I am an experienced Chief Financial Officer with over 20 years of experience working at
both public and private companies. I have a CPA and worked in public accounting as
both an auditor and a consultant primarily implementing organizational changes and
process improvements. I have assisted senior managemem in setting goals, allocating
resources, establishing measures ofperfommn~, formulating budgets and measuring and
acting on outcomes. I have worked with investment bankers in public and private
financings and in the structuring o fcapital instruments. My responmq~ilities have
included the management of finance and accounting; information technology; hnman
resources; customer support and manufacturing functions.
Preliminary budget review
I would understand: the targeted goals, the resources that are avaxqable, the priorities of
the goals, underlying eos~ structures, the political realities, and desired outcomes. I
would mesh all this together and compare it to the budget being proposed and make
appropriate recommendations. I would also look for opportunities to reduce costs by
streamlining and consolidating operations, getting rid of needless work, improving
efficiencies and introducing productivity tools.
Long termfinaneing
I am in favor of using long term financing for the building of capital stock, and to even
out revenue shortfalls and surpluses in times of abnormal business cycles. I am not in
favor of incurring long-term debt without a realistic plan for repayment of debt principal
I believe taxpayers that receive the benefit should incur the cost and not push it out to
later generations for payment of the obligation in which, no benefit is received.
Auditors
It comes down to the service level of the audit partner and his/her commitment to the
account. The assigned staff should bare prior relevant experience. There should be a
commitment to provide for continuity of personnel assigned to the account. Obviously,
other impo -rtant fiactors to be considered are costs and the reputation of thc audk firm
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING/D~PT: City-Manager
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Commendation for Judy Alberts, Sheila Ioannou, and Barbara Olsen
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present Commendations.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the commendations for Judy Alberts, Sheila Ioannou, and Barbara Olsen
outgoing Parks and Recreation Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Copy of commendations.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
BARBARA OLSEN
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Barbara Olsen has served on the Parks and Recreation
Commission since November 1996; and
WHEREAS, Barbara served as Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
from November 1998- November 1999; and
WHEREAS, Barbara has participated in the planning, designing and
implementation of the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project and the Azule
Park Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, Barbara was instrumental in the E1 Quito, Wildwood, and
Congress Springs Park Restroom Improvement Projects and the Gardiner and Kevin
Moran Park Playground Improvement Projects; and
WHEREAS, Barbara has been a dedicated and hard working Parks and
Recreation Commissioner, her contributions are greatly appreciated by the City
Council and the staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, .that Barbara Olsen is hereby
commended and thanked for her hard work and dedication on the parks and
Recreation Commission; and ~
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
17th day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
-' RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
JUDY ALBERTS
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Judy Alberts has served on the Parks and Recreation Commission
since November 1998; and
WHEREAS, Judy served as Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
from November 1999-November 2000 and Site Coordinator for the 2000 Creek
Cleanup; and
WHEREAS, Judy has participated in the planning, designing and
implementation of the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project and the Azule
Park Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, Judy was instrumental in the E1 Quito, Wildwood, and Congress
Springs Park Restroom Improvement Projects and the Gardiner and Kevin Moran
Park Playground Improvement Projects; and
WHEREAS, Judy has been a dedicated and hard working Parks and Recreation
Commissioner, her contributions are greatly appreciated by the City Council and the
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Judy Albertsis hereby
commended and thanked for her hard work and dedication on the parks and
Recreation Commission; and
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
17th day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
SHEILA IOANNOU
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Sheila Ioannou has served on the Parks and Recreation
Commission since November 1997; and
WHEREAS, Sheila served as Sub-Committee Chair of the Trails
Subcommittee Chair for the years 2000-2001; and
WHEREAS, Sheila has participated 'in the planning, designing and
implementation of the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project and the Azule
Park Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, Sheila was instrumental in the E1 Quito, Wildwood, and Congress
Springs Park Restroom Improvement Projects and the Gardiner and Kevin Moran
Park Playground Improvement Projects; and
WHEREAS, Sheila has been a dedicated and hard working Parks and
Recreation Commissioner, her contributions are greatly appreciated by the City
Council and the staff; and
· WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Sheila Ioannou is hereby
commended and thanked for her hard work and dedication on the parks and
Recreation Commission; and ,
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
17th day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
ORIGINATING }~!;~P~__T.: Ci~nager
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Appointment of Parks and Recreation Commission Members and Oath of
Office.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council approve the attached resolution appointing Angela Frazier, Logan Deimler, and
Gregory Gates to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The terms for this commission will
expire on 10/01/05.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the resolution appointing Angela Frazier, Logan Deimler, and Gregory Gates to the
Parks and Recreation Commission. The Oath of Office will be administered and signed by the
Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appointments will not be made to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Update City's Official Roster.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Resolution of Appointments
Attachment B - Oath of Office
-- I
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO
THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, vacancies were created on the Parks and Recreation Commission resulting from
expired terms of Judy Alberts, Sheila Ioannou, and Barbara Olsen; and
WHEREAS, a notice of vacancies was posted, applications were received, interviews have been
conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancies.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following
appointments were made for one term expiring October 1, 2005
Angela Frazier
Logan Deimler
Gregory Gates
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Angela Frazier, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Angela Frazier, Member
Parks and Recreation Commission
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 17th day of October 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--'-
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Logan Deimler, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I'wiil well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 17th day of October 2001.
Logan Deimler, Member
Parks and Recreation Commission
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Gregory Gates, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Gregory Gates, Member
Parks and Recreation Commission
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 17th day of October 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING ~PT: C,,~anager
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Appointment of Finance Commission Members and Oath of Office.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council approve the attached resolution appointing Alex Tennant and Jim Hughes to the
Finance Commission. The terms for this commission will expire on 10/01/05 except for the
unexpired term of Ernest Brookfield which will expire on 10/01/03.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the resolution appointing Alex Tennant and Jim Hughes to the Finance Commission.
The Oath of Office will be administered and signed by the Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appointments will not be made to the Finance Commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Update City's Official Roster.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Resolution of Appointments
Attachment B - Oath of Office
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CouNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE
FINANCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, vacancies were created on the Finance Commission resulting from expired terms of
Richard Carlson, Ching-Li Cheng, Robert Gager, and Michael Gordon and the unexpired term of
Ernest Brookfield; and
WHEREAS, a notice of vacancies was posted, applications were received, interviews have been
conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancies.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following
appointments were made for one term expiring October 1, 2005 and one term expiring
October 1, 2003
Alex Tennant
Jim Hughes
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Alex Tennant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 17th day of October 2001.
Alex Tennant, Member
Finance Commission
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Jim Hughes, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear tree faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Jim Hughes, Member
Finance Commission
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 17th day of October 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING D~ · ' Manager
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Proclamation - Supporting Federal Funding for Cleanup of Mount Umunhum
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Read proclamation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
In September 2001, Councilmember Bogosian was invited by the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District attended a tour of the former Almaden Air Force Station atop of Mt Umunhum to
learn about and appreciate its open space values and to identify cooperative opportunities to
obtain cleanup to open mountaintop to the public for low-density recreational use.
Prior to September, as part of the District's efforts to identify a funding source for the cleanup of
toxins and other materials left behind by the U.S. Air Force, staff members provided a site tour
for U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer's Field Representative Adrienne Bousian. Senator Boxer's
office, which was instrumental in obtaining similar funding for the cleanup of Mr. Tamalpais,
indicated an interest in assisting the District in determining if appropriate funding from the
federal government might be available for cleanup of the Mt. Umunhum site. The District
continues its conversations with Senator Boxer's office regarding the recommended nest steps
for the cleanup.
By approving this proclamation the City of Saratoga would be supporting the District's efforts to
obtain federal funding for Clean up of all toxic materials at the former Almaden Air Force
Station.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
City Clerk to mail proclamation to L. Craig Britton, General Manager/Mid Peninsula Regional
Open Space District.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proclamation
2 of 2
CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAMATION
SUPPORTING FEDERAL FUNDING
FOR CLEANUP OF MOUNT UMUNHUM
WHEREAS, the mission of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is to acquire and preserve a
regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; and to protect and restore the natural environment;
and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education; and
WHEREAS, in keeping with its mission, the Midpeninsula Regional Open. Space District purchased the
former Almaden Air Force Station and all if its remaining facilities on Mt. Umunhum in 1986 with the
intent of restoring it to natural conditions, and providing for low-density public access to the 3,486 foot
high peak, the South Bay's sister mountain to Mr. Tamapais and Mr. Diablo; and
WHEREAS, this purchase was at Fair market Value, with no discount for remnant military
contamination; and
WHEREAS, the District has, over the past 20 years, purchased nearly 200 parcels on and around Mt.
Umunhum in an effort to preserve the mountain area for open space, environmental, and public
recreational opportunities in the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Umunhum and the District's surrounding Sierra Azule preserve area comprise critical
habitat for a number of endangered or special status wildlife species, including the California red legged
frog and the southwestern pond turtle; and these lands also provide important uninterrupted range for
mountain lion, as well as bobcat, deer, coyote, and many other animal species; and
WHEREAS, some 63 plant communities are found on and around Mt. Umunhum, along with the
headwaters of Guadalupe and Los Gatos Creeks, which provide an important component of the water
supply.for the Santa Clara Valley; and
WHEREAS, Mt. Umunhum offers spectacular panoramic vistas, from Monterey Bay to Mt. Diablo to
San Francisco, providing a place extraordinary perspective for South Bay visitors, only a few miles from
San Jose, the nation's 11th largest cities; and
WHEREAS, the .District's studies have found high levels of toxic materials in the abandoned Air Force
facilities on Mt. Umunhum, including lead, lead-based paint, and asbestos, which have made cleanup and
restoration of the site prohibitively expensive for the District to accomplish, and which coupled With
decrepit and unsafe structures, have precluded any public access to a significant portion of the area; and
WHEREAS, the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, in its Annual Report to Congress in Fiscal
Year 1998, estimated that the Federal government had yet to allocate at least $2.5 million dollars toward
completion of the promised cleanup at the former Almaden Air Force Station. ~."
NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
support the efforts of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to obtain Federal funding for clean
up of all toxic materials at the former Almaden Air Force Station and, further, urges the local
Congressional delegation and the Federal Government to appropriate the funding necessary for removal
and cleanup of all hazardous materials at this site, including not only current below-ground contamination,
but also all lead, led-based paint, and asbestos. This appropriation will make way for returning this area to
a spectacular public open space and recreational area.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
SUBJECT: Check Register:
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve the Check Register.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the Check Register.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
None
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
None
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Register Certification.
IFund# Fund Name Date Manual Void Total
9/28/01 Checks Checks
AP CHECKS A86503-86658
1 GENERAL
100 COPS-SLESF
110 Traffic Safety
150 Streets & Roads
160 Transit Dev
170 Hillside Repair
180 LLA Districts
250 Dev Services
260 Environmental
270 Housing & Comm
290 Recreation
291 Teen Services
292 Facility Ops
293 Theatre Surcharge
300 State Par,k
310 Park Develpmt
320 Library Expansion
400 Library Debt
410 Civic Cntr COP
420 Leonard Creek
700 Quarry Creek
710 Heritage Prsvn
720 Cable TV
730 PD #2
740 PD #3
800 Deposit Agency
810 Deferred Comp
830 Payroll Agency
990 SPFA
Isubtotal
PAYROLL CHECKS: B27167-27201
TOTAL
Prepared by
586,822.72 10,436.04
50,842.96
4,853.97
7,128.51
81,632.40
7,832.95
2,100.00
26,435.64
2,701.46
251.96
294.36
23,841.00
794,737.93
4,050.00
14,486.04
Date:
PREPARED 09/28/z001, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA ..............................................
VEND NO VENDOR NAME ~ EXPENDITURE ~/~D-ISSUED
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000003 A & M MOTOR SUPPLY
7780 001405 20025 09/26/2001
0000010 ABAG POWER PURCHASING POOL
· 100016020 001360 20035 09/26/2001
0000011 ABLE RIBBON TECF. NOLOGY
113516 001300 09/25/2001
113792 001301 09/25/2001
0000019 ;tLLIED LOCK & KEY
66480 001257 19942 09/21/2001
0000020 ALPINE AWARDS
131805 001242 09/19/2001
0000005 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC.
8778 001335 09/25/2001
0001528 AMERIC~N TRAFFIC SUPPLY
20336 001347 09/26/2001
20335 001348 09/26/2001
0002422 ANDERSON SUPERSTORE
CTCS62689 001462 20096 09/27/2001
0000005 ARRIAGA, JUI~N
627229 001318 09/25/2001
0001180 AT&T
741-1527 001302 09/25/2001
0000005 AXELSEN, NANCY
860 001262 09/21/2001
0001568 BAKER, EVAN
001304 09/25/2001
001-1035-512.30-01 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES 31.08
VENDOR TOTAL * 31.08
001-1060-513.40-23 NAT. GAS/POWER POOL 1,610.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,610.00
001-1050-513.30-01 TONER CARTRIDGES 387.34
001-1050-513.30-01 TONER CARTRIDGES 263.22
VENDOR TOTAL * 650.56
001-1060-513.~0-14 BROKEN LOCK/PLANNING 57.02
VENDOR TOTAL * 57.02
290-6005-564.30-01 SOFTBALL/BASKETBALL AWARD 140.28
VENDOR TOTAL * 140.28
001-1045-513.40-40 ASST. PLANNER ONLINE AD 100.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 100.00
150_30152532.30-01 WHITE TRAFFIC PAINT 410.40
150-3015-532.30-01 GLASS BEADS, CHALK LINE 86.40
VENDOR TOTAL * 496.80
001'-1035-512.40-14 EMERG. REPAIR VEH. 95 800.65
VENDOR TOTAL * 800.65
001-1045-513.40-01 SPRAY TEST CLASS REIMB. 85.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 85.00
001-1050-513.40-20 LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHGS. 15.01
VENDOR TOTAL * 15.01
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 44.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 44.00
001-1005-511.20-04 EXP. ALLOWANCE 10/01 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
0002318 BARRY, CYNTHIA
PREPARED 09/28;z001, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE DL~.ND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
........................................................... L ........................................................................
0002318 BARRY, CYNTHIA
001310 09/25/2001
0002415 BAY DELTA CHARTERS
2807 001394 20125 09/26/2001
0001078 BAY TELECOM
13558 001319 09/25/2001
13703 001320 09/25/2001
13704 001321 09/25/2001
15242 001332 09/25/2001
0000005 BEACHLER ENTERPRISES, INC.
1291 001273 09/21/2001
0000005 BEJAR, TERESA
53309 001280 09/25/2001
0000052 BOGOSIAN, STAN
001305 09/25/2001
0000054 BOISE CASCADE
278505 001244 09/19/2001
0001422 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPA/~Y
24467 001294 09/25/2001
0000005 BRADY, SHERYL
50997 001424 09/26/2001
0001523 CALISTOGA MOL~AIN SPRING WATER CO.
0110020103842 001282 19943 09/25/2001
0110019822873 001374 09/26/2001
0002326 CAPORICCI, CROPPER & LARSON, LLP
091701 001276 20003 09/25/2001
0000005 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
10/5/01 001329 09/25/2001
250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW. 150.00
VENDOR TOT;kL * 150.00
290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 10/1801 1,766.46
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,766.46
001-1050-513.40-20 DIGITAL PHONES/PHONE CARD 1,824.92
001-1050-513.40-20 RECONNECT CORP YARD 242.50
001-1050-513.40-20 RECONNECT SR. CENTER 115.00
001-1050-513.40-20 ONSITE TECHNICAL HELP 157.50
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,339.92
001-1030-5~1.40-41 SOLID BRASS KEYS TO CITY 190.00
VENDOR TOTAL * ' 190.00
292-6000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 300.00
001-1005-511.20-04 EXP. ALLOWANCE 10/01 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
001-1045-513.30-01 PAPER/RECRUITMENT FLYERS 49.55
VENDOR TOTAL * 49.55
001-1030-511.40-41 CITY CODE CD 36.61
VENDOR TOTAL * 36.61
292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00
VENDOR TOTAL * .300.00
001-1060-513.40-15 MONTHLY SERVICE 38.83
001-1060-513.40-15 MONTHLY RENTAL-FILTER 38.83
VENDOR TOTAL * 77.66
001-1040-513.40-10 PROFESSIONAL SVCS. AUDIT 19,350.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 19,350.00
001-1020-511.40-04 DEP. CITY CLERK WORKSHOP 15.00
PREPARED 09/28/z001, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
VENDOR TOTAL * 15.00
0000085 CITY OF SARATOGA/PETTY CASH
9/20/01 001483 09/27/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 MAYOR/CITY MGR. LUNCH MTG 20.00
9/4/01 001476 09/27/2001 001-1040-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPFLIES 5.13
9/19/01 001481 09/27/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 PEST CONTROL REG. 10.00
8/30/01 001475 09/27/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.18
9/10/01 001477 09/27/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 COFFEE SUPPLIES 5.38
9/16/01 001478 09/27/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 COFFEE SUPPLIES 9.20
9/17/01 001479 09/27/2001 001-1050-513.40-21 PRIORITY MAIL EXP. 3.50
9/19/01 001480 09/27/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 COFFEE SUPPLIES-TORRES .3.19
9/25/01. 001482 09/27/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 COFFEE SUPPLIES-TORRES 18.29
VENDOR TOTAL * 85.87
0000701 CO. OF SANTA CLARA SHERIFF'S DEPT.
2408 001411 20048 09/26/2001 001-2015-523.40-10 LAW ENF. SVCS. 8/01 245,090.91
2511 001412 20048 09/26/2001 001-2015-523.40-10 LAW ENF. SVCS. 9/01 245,090.91
VENDOR TOTAL * 490,181.82
0000005 COLE, TRUDY
952 001286 09/25/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 129.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 129.00
0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION
001400 09/18/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 CREDIT UNION #19-01 CHECK #: 86505
VENDOR TOTAL * .00
0000078 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES
001249 09/19/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 QRTRLY DONATIONS #3/01 78.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 78.00
0000434 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES INC
25377 001324 20068 09/25/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 PROF. SVCS.-HAKONE 417.03
VENDOR TOTAL * 417.03
0002266 COUNTRYWIDE AUCTIONEERS
53317 001279 09/25/2001 292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND .300.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 300.00
0000099 COUNTY OF SANTA CbARA
9/01 001255 09/19/2001 001-0000-202.10-01 BUS TICKET REIMB. 44.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 44.00
0000005 CRANE, LILLIAN
52253 001281 09/25/2001 292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 300.00
0002335 CUMMING HENDERSON
96793 001352 20037 09/26/2001 001-1035-512.40-14 REPAIRS 169.13
3,588.42
3,588.42
PREPARED 09/28/z001, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4
PROGP~: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002335 CUMMING HENDERSON
96792 001353 20037 09/26/2001
0000005 DAVIS, JOE PAY
53474 001409 09/26/2001
0002106 DESIGN FOCUS LANDSCAPING
91301 001278 19958 09/25/2001
0000005 DOSS, COLINE
985 001290 09/25/2001
0000005 DOUGHTY, MARIE
905 001253 09/19/2001
932 001284 09/25/2001
0001988 DUFFY & GUENTHER
20059 001466 09/27/2001
0000135 DURAN & VENABLES, INC.
001343 20067 09/26/2001
0002416 EAST BROTHER LIGHT STATION
001395 20124 09/26/2001
0000005 EASTFIELD MING QUONG
50140 001416 09/26/2001
0002404 EDDY, MELISSA
92101 001274 09/21/2001
0001814
0000146
I010802
0000150
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMET DEPT.
001251 09/19/20'01
ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE
001243 09/19/2001
EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY
001-1035-512.40-15 MAINTENANCE 2,092.40
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,261.53
001-1040-452.01-00 CITATION S103199 REIMB. 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 50.00
001-9010-522.40-10 PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 1,500.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,500.00
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFD-ND 120.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 120.00
290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 64.00
290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 50.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 114.00
001-1025-511.40-12 WARFEL MATTER 258.50
VENDOR TOTAL * 258.50
320-9010-522.40-10 CONSTRUCTION-TEMP. LIB. 1%604.58
VENDOR TOTAL t 1,604.58
290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 10/18/01 450.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 450.00
001-3030-443.08-00 BA~ER RENTAL REIMB. 150.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00
001-1040-513.40-10 PROP. SVCS-INTERIM AS DIR 11,112.50
VENDOR TOTAL * 11,112.50
001-1045-513.20-01 REIMB. BENEFIT CEARGES 1,440.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,440.00
001-1030-511.40-40 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 107.74
VENDOR TOTAL * 107.74
PREPARED 09/28/~U01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND°ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000150 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 2,565.00
35514 001357 20093 09/26/2001 125.00
35710 001366 09/26/2001
2,690.00
0001002 FEDEX 16.90
5-885-41682 001474 09/27/2001 14.96
5-885-41682 001473 09/27/2001 19.12
5-885-41682 001472 09/27/2001 22.50
5-885-41682 001469 09/27/2001 31.46
5-885-41682 001471 09/27/2001 196.88
5-885-41682 001470 09/27/2001
301.82
0002427 FERRARI, RICHARD 76.81-
001458 09/27/2001
43875 001457 09/27/2001 8,841.00
8,764.19
0000005 FOBAR, JAMI 109.00
951 001285 09/25/2001
001-3030-532.40-15 PESTICIDE APPLICATION
001-3030-532.40-15 TREE SPRAYING-HARTMAN OAK
VENDOR TOTAL *
001-1040-513.30-01 FEDEX-CITY ATTY.
001-1045-513.30-01 JOBS AVAILABLE
001-1050-513.30-01 FEDEX-CITIBANK
001-3035-532.30-01 SAN JOSE WATER CO.
290-6005-564.30-01 FEDEX-CITY ATTY.
320-9010-522.40-10 FEDEX-LIBRARY
VENDOR TOTAL *
250-4010-444.02-00 ARBORIST FEES
800-0000-260.10-00 TREE BOND RELEASE
VENDOR TOTAL *
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFIIND
VENDOR TOTAL *
001-1035-512.30-20 GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM
001-1035-512.30-20 GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM
001-1035-512.30-20 GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM
VENDOR TOTAL *
001-3030-532.40-15 CIVIC CENTER
150-3025-532.40-15 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS
180-3040-532.40-15 bIANOR DRIVE
180-3040-532.40-15 FREDERICKSBURG
180-3040-532.40-15 MCCARTYSVILLE
180-3040-532.40-15 AP, ROYO DE SARATOGA
180-3040-532.40-15 LEUTAR CT.
180-3040-532.40-15 BONNET WAY
180-3040-532.40-15 BEAUCHAMPS
180-3040-532.40-15 SUNLAND PARK
180-3040-532.40-15 BELLGROVE
180-3040-532.40-15 TRICIA WOODS
180-3040-532.40-15 KERWINRANCH
180-3040-532.40-15 TOLLGATE
180-3040-532.40-15 PRIDES CROSSING
VENDOR TOTAL *
109.00
0000005 FONG, SHIN 84.00
1050 001338 09/25/2001
84.00
0000162 G. N. RENN, INC. 1,300.23
428594 001346 20030 09/26/2001 204.93
428409 001406 20030 09/26/2001 997.09
430273 001407 20030 09/26/2001
0001794 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
31751 001437 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001438 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001425 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001426 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001427 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001428 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001429 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001430 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001431 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001432 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001433 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001434 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001435 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001436 20040 09/26/2001
31751 001439 20040 09/26/2001
2,502.25
1,035.00
3,477.00
155 00
258 00
204 00
83 00
83 00
243 00
78 O0
322 00
1,892 00
210 00
326 00
88 O0
432 00
8,886.00
0001807 GALEB PAVING
PREPARED 09/28/~001, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROV;LL LIST PAGE 6
PROGP. AM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF S~ATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O.~ CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001807 GALEB PAVING
39334 001325 09/25/2001
0002321 GARAKANI, MO}~ED
001311 09/25/2001
0000168 GFOA
0030165 001277 09/25/2001
0002066 GREG G. ING & ASSOCIATES
i 001461 20072 09/27/2001
11 001342 19363 09/26/2001
2 001460 20073 09/27/2001
i 001464 20073 09/27/2001
O00000S GRUBE, CD,ROLE
1081 001422 09/26/2001
0000181 H.T.HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
14697 001344 19878 09/26/2001
0000005 HAGHSHENAS, MRS.
1060 001339 09/25/2001
0000005 HAIDAR, KATIE
819 001265 09/21/2001
0000005 HOLLENSTEIN, MELANIE
884 001246 09/19/2001
0000034 HORIZON
5274331-00 001413 09/26/2001
0000005 HOWMILLER, CYNTHIA
988 001380 09/26/2001
0002386 HUNTER, JILL S.
001309 09/25/2001
0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS
800-0000-260.10-00 BOND RELEASE 15,000.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 15,000.00
250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW. 150.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00
001-1040-513.30-30 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 185.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 185.00
150-9010-522.40-10 LNDSCAPE ARCH-SARA-S'V~LE 28,976.93
310-9010-522.40-10 LA/qDSCAPE ARCH.-C.SPR PRK 6,279.28
310-9010-622.40-10 L;LNDSCAPE ARCH.-AZULE PRK 8,424.70
310-9010-622.40-10 L~SCAPE ARCH.-AZULE PRK 11,731.66
VENDOR TOTAL * 55,412.57
290-6005-445.04100 CLASS REFUND 64.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00
260-5015-552.40-13 ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING SVC 1,209.43
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,209.43
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 64.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 139.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 139.00
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFD~ND 59.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 59.00
001-3030-532.30-01 ROUNDUP 345.12
VENDOR TOTAL * 345.12
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 142.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 142.00
250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW. 150.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00
PREPARED 09/28/z001, '8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O., CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HA/ND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS
19454 001358 19914 09/26/2001 001-3030-532.40-14 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR 58.06
18787 001465 20092 09/27/2001 001-3030-532.40-14 IRRIG. SYS. REPAIR 500.00
19455 001359 19914 09/26/2001 150-3025-532.40-14 MEDIAN REPAIR 57.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 615.06
0000005 I. H. CONCRETE
52350 001252 09/19/2001 001-3035-422.03-00 ENCROACHMENT FEE REFUND 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
001399 09/18/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 RETIREMENT PLAN #19-01 CHECK #: 86504 4,777.95
VENDOR TOTAL * .00 4,777.95
0000005 INFORNh%TION STATION SPECIALISTS
214008 001410 09/26/2001 001-2005-521.30-01 FCC LICENSE APPLICATION 490.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 490.00
0000005 INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
001384 09/26/2001 290-6005-564.40-01 EXCEL CLASS-ROBINSON 155.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 155.00
0002405 INSTRUMENT CONTROL SERVICES, LLC
4995 001408 09/26/2001 001-1035-512.40-14 CNG STATION REPAIRS 352.20
VENDOR TOTAL * 352.20
0001745 INTERSTATE TRAFPIC CONTROL PRODUCTS
20404 001420 09/26/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 YELLOW TRAFFIC PAINT 461.70
VENDOR TOTAL * 461.70
0002322 JACK]~, ERNA
001312 09/25/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW. 150.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00
0000005 JACKSON, MRS.
1042 001378 09/26/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 69.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 69.00
0001657 JAMES C. JEFFERY
67 001326 20070 09/28/2001 001-3035-532.40-13 TRAFFIC ENG. 8/5-8/17/01 2,075.00
69 001345 20070 09/26/2001 001-3035-532.40-13 TRAFFIC ENG. 9/1-9/15/01 2,700.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 4,775.00
0000213 JOBS AVAILABLE
119161 001333 09/25/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT AD PMWIII 55.20
119161 001334 09/25/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT AD ASST. PLNR 64.40
VENDOR TOTAL * 119.60
0001987 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON
91801 001327 20111 09/25/2001 001-1020-511.40-10 PROF. SERVICES 10/01 3,000.00
PREPARED 09/28~01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCBER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001987 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON
9182001 001328 20111 09/25/2001 001-1020-511.40-10 PILING FEE 1ST-2ND QTR
VENDOR TOTAL *
0001492 JOE'S TRACTOR SERVICE
2532 001397 20094 09/26/2001 001-3030-532.40-15 DISCING CITY OPEN SPACE
VENDOR TOTAL *
0000005 JOHNSON, BARBARA
72701 001381 09/26/2001 290°6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
0000005 . JOHNSON, SUSAN
886 001245 09/19/2001 290-6005-445~04-00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
0002116 JUAREZ, PABLO
627222 001317 09/25/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 SPRAY TEST CLASS REIMB.
VENDOR TOTAL *
0002423 KLEINFELDER, INC.
121390 001254 09/19/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 SOIL SAMPLING-LIB.
VENDOR TOTAL *
0002249 KNAPP, ALLISON
15 001340 09/25/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 CONTRACT PLANNER SVCS.
VENDOR TOTAL *
0002320 KURASCH, LISA J.
001313 09/25/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW.
VENDOR TOTAL *
0000772 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
83101 001330 09/25/2001 001-1025-511.40-11 PERSONNEL MATTERS
VENDOR TOTAL *
0000005 LIU, RICHARD
9501 001297 09/25/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 PA RENTAL/SETUP
VENDOR TOTAL *
0000005 MAC FHIONNLAOICH, MRS
983 001293 09/25/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
0001839 MBIAMUNISERVICES COMPANY
20000922 001275 20004 09/25/2001 001-1040-513.40-10 SALES TAX AUDIT 3/31/01
VENDOR TOTAL *
0002153 MCGRATH MOBILE MODULAR MGMT CORP.
330771 001303 19979 09/25/2001 001-1060-513.40-31 RENT 9/16-10/16/01
90.00
3,090 00
1,250 00
1,250 00
99 00
99 00
119 00
119 00
150 00
150 00
90O 00
900.00
2,981.25
2,981.25
150.00
1S0.00
377.00
377.00
75.00
75.00
94.00
94.00
130.25
130.25
496.80
PREPARED 09/28;~~01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEN-DNO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE H~/~D-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002153 MCGRATH MOBILE MODULAR MGMT CORP.
0001570 MEHAFFEY, JOHN
001306 09/25/2001
0000254 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER
2001080309 001396 09/26/2001
2001080275 001459 20112 09/27/2001
0002411
MIYAKAWA, LAURA
001331 09/25/2001
001467 09/27/2001
0002396 MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEMENT CORP.
324970 001247 20062 09/19/2001
0000005 MOORE, STEVE
0-00023638 001295 09/25/2001
0000005 MOTE, MARY ALICE
857 001261 09/21/2001
0002079 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CENTER
103258 001361 20091 09/26/2001
103108 001362 20091 09/26/2001
103113 001363 20091 09/26/2001
103166 001364 20091 09/26/2001
0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR
001402 09/18/2001
0000600 NBS-GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP
B09200150 001447 20002 09/27/2001
B09200150 001446 20002 09/27/2001
0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER
11692 001299 20051 09/25/2001
0001997 OFFICE DEPOT, INC'.
VENDOR TOTAL * 496.80
001-1005-511.20-04 EXP. ALLOWANCE 10/01 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
001-1025-511.40-11 WARFEL MATTER 64.80
001-9010-622.40-12 CITY VS. HEINZ 344.70
VENDOR TOTAL * 409.50
001-1045-513~40-01 CALPERS EXP REIMB. 137.86
001-1045-513.40-05 MILEAGE REIMB.-SEMINAR 103.16
VENDOR TOTAL * 241.02
150-3005-532.40~10 RENTAL, SEC. DEP. & DEL. 1,127.08
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,127.08
250-4015-542.30-01 ENG. BOOKS REIMB. 168.33
VENDOR TOTAL * 168.33
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 45.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 45.00
001-3030-532:30-01 WOOD FIBER MULCH/WHH 168.16
001-3030-532.30-01 WOOD FIBER MULCH/WHE 84.08
001-3030-532.30-01 WOOD FIBER MULCH/WHH 98.10
001-3030-532.30101 WOOD FIBER MULCH/WHH 168.16
VENDOR TOTAL * 518.50
001-0000-210.20-01 RETIREMENT PLAN #19-01 CHECK #: 86507
VENDOR TOTAL * .00
420~8020-733.70-03 ADMIN FEES 10/1-12/31/01 251.96
740-8010-733.70-03 ADMIN FEES 10/1-12/31/01 294.36
VENDOR TOTAL * 546.32
001-1050-~13.40-41 BUS. CARDS-TRYBUS, CONN 111.93
VENDOR TOTAL * 111.93
1,601.34
1,601.34
PREPARED 09/28/~01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 10
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001997 OFFICE DEPOT, INC.
139112561-001 001440 20052 09/26/2001
139115958-001 001441 20052 09/26/2001
0000302
ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE
001351 19975 09/26/2001
001349 19915 09/26/2001
001350 19915 09/26/2001
000000S OREGLIA, RACHEL
242 001392 09/26/2001
0000306 PACIFIC BELL
868-9099 001443 09/26/2001
868-9497 001444 09/26/2001
2372714652319N 001468 09/27/2001
867-8550 001445 09/26/2001
0000307 PACIFIC
GAS & ELECTRIC
001452 09/27/2001
001453 09/27/2001
001448 09/27/2001
001449 09/27/2001
001450 09/27/2001
001451 09/27/2001
0000738 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
001398 09/17/2001
0000005 PALMER, ANASTASIA
1059 001393 09/26/2001
0002077 PARSONS H~LAND BARTHOLOMEW &
02552516 001463 20172 09/27/2001
0000005 PECK, LINDA
1041 001379 09/26/2001
0000005 PERROTTA, EMILY
1048 001336 09/25/2001
001-1050-513.30-01
001-1050-513.30-01
001-1660-513.30-02
001-3030-532.30-01
150-3005-532.30-01
290-6005-445.04-00
001-1050-513.40-20
001-1050-513.40-20
001-1050-513.40-20
001-2005-521.40-20
001-1035-512.30-20
001-1060-513.40-23
150-3015-532.40-23
180-3040-532.40-23
180-3040-532.40-23
180-3040-532.40-23
320-9010-522.40-10
290-6005-445.04-00
001-4005-542.40-10
290-6005-445.04-00
290-6005-445.04-00
OFFICE SUPPLIES 487.17
COPY PAPER 777.76
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,264.93
SUPPLIES-BLDG. MAINT. 509.20
SUPPLIES-PARKS 583.20
STREETS-SUPPLIES 63.39
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,155.79
CLASS REFUND 98.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 98.00
DID LINES 918.66
SR. CENTERALARMS 31.73
SUPERTRUNK 180.54
EMERGENCY RESPONSE 131.13
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,262.06
TUBE TRLR & NAT. GAS VEH 31.31
BUILDINGS 2,150.17
TRAFFIC SIGNALS 89.93
· 453.06
BELLGROVE
KERWIN RANCH 7.71
TOLLGATE 19.20
VENDOR TOTAL t 2,751.38
ENG. REVIEW-NEW LIBRARY CHECK #: 86503
VENDOR TOTAL * .00
CLASS REFUND 129.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 129.00
HOUSING ELEMENT #738571 3,900.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 3,900.00
CLASS REFUND 110.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 110.00
CLASS REFUND 99.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 99.00
3,800.00
3,800.00
0002277 PIXEL USA
PREPARED 09/28/ZU01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
................................................................................................................. t ..................
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HA-ND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002277 PIXEL USA
42248 001256 20076 09/19/2001
0000952 POLLOCK, FELICIA PETERS
001266 09/21/2001
0002329 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, INC.
20566 001417 09/26/2001
0001491 ROTH CHIROPRACTIC
1000-1231C 001259 09/21/2001
0001954 ROUPE, GEORGE
001314 09/25/2001
0000338 ROYAL COACH TOURS
005630-007 001391 20123 09/26/2001
0002169 SANTA CLARA COUNTY
3/30/01 001368 09/26/2001
0000495 SARATOGA EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION
001248 09/19/2001
0000359 SAXTON ~EINRICHS, KIM
92001 001292 09/25/2001
0002179 S~INN, CORINNE A.
001376 20014 09/26/2001
0000005 SHU~, ROSE
53326 001268 09/21/2001
0001843 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
3187 001386 20113 09/26/2001
3909 001387 20113 09/26/2001
3188 001388 20113 09/26/2001
3189 001389 20113 09/26/2001
3190 001390 20113 09/26/2001
150-3020-532.30-01
001-1020-511.30-01
150-3005-532.40-10
001-1040-413.05-00
250-4010-542.20-04
290-6005-564.40-51
260-5005-552.40-71
001-0000-210.20-01
290-6005-564.40-51
250-4010-542.40-10
292-0000-260.00-00
001-1025-511.40-11
001-1025-511.40-11
001-1025-511.40-11
001-1025-511.40-12
001-1025-511.40-12
COMPUTER SUPPLIES
VENDOR TOTAL *
ARCHIVE COUNCIL PHOTOS
VENDOR TOTAL *
TRAFFIC SIG. EMERG REPAIR
VENDOR TOTAL *
PRACTICAL EXAM-1 APP.
VENDOR TOTAL *
PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW.
VENDOR TOTAL *
SR. TRIP lO/18/01-BUS
VENDOR TOTAL *
3RD QTR HHW FEES
VENDOR TOTAL *
QRTRLY MBRSHP DUES #3/01
VENDOR TOTAL *
SR. TRIP FEE REIMB. 92001
VENDOR TOTAL *
PC MINUTES 9/12/01
VENDOR TOTAL *
DEPOSIT REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
CITY ATTY MATTERS-8/01
CITY ATTY MATTERS-8/01
GEN. LEGAL SERVICES-8/01
CODE ENF. LITIGATION
WVC LITIGATION
1,311.10
1,311.10
370.00
370.00
12,986 00
12,986 00
75 00
75 00
150 O0
150 O0
637.75
637.75
12,361.65
12,361.65
703.80
703.80
84.00
84.00
450.00
450.00
300.00
300.00
12,795.35
15.20
1,537.50
135.00
53.69
PREPARED 09/28/~u01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O., CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE I{AND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001843 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
0002351 SIDEMARK CORPORATE FURNITLVRE
001375 20103 09/26/2001
0000005 SILICON VIKINGS
52024 001423 09/26/2001
0000587 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
7062-31 001383 09/26/2001
0002426 SPECTOR LAW FIRM
6742 001323 09/25/2001
0001458 SPRINT
91301 001298 09/25/2001
9/16/01 001442 09/26/2001
0001569 STREIT, NICK
001307 09/25/2001
0000005 STUTZMAN, FRANCIS
53792 001322 09/25/2001
0001595 SUMMIT UNIFORMS
18087-18088 001377 20121 09/26/2001
0000005 SUNDERHAUF, JITKA
996 001291 09/25/2001
0001368 SUPER GLASS
222438 001369 09/26/2001
0002424 SURDIN, DANIELLE
62001 001269 09/21/2001
91301 001270 09/21/2001
91301 001271 09/21/2001
001272 09/21/2001
0000390 T.A.K.'S EQUIPMENT
VENDOR TOTAL * 14,536.74
250-4015-642.60-06 OFFICE FURNITURE-CD 2,010.95
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,010.95
292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 300.00
290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 77.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 77.00
001-1025-511.40-11 LEGAL SERVICES 665.79
VENDOR TOTAL * 665.79
001-1050-513.40-20 CMO FAX CHARGES 12.82
001-1050-513.40-20 LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHGS. 273.47
VENDOR TOTAL * 286.29
001-1005-511.20-04 EXP. ALLOWANCE 10/01 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
001-1040-451.01-00 FALSE ALARM REFUND 75.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 75.00
001-2010-522.30-01 UNIFORMS/SUPPLIES-TRYBUS 495.08
VENDOR TOTAL * 495.08
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 64.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00
001-1060-513.40-14 REPLACE BROKEN WINDOW 251.20
VENDOR TOTAL * 251.20
001-7020-572.40-04 SEMINAR EXP. REIMB. 25.00
001-7020-572.3.0-01 EXPENSE REIMB. 29.74
001-7020-572.40-04 EXPENSE REIMB. 10.00
001-7020-572.40-04 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 131.10
VENDOR TOTAL * 195.84
PREPARED 09/28/~01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 13
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDIT~/RE H/LND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000390 T.A.K.'S EQUIPMENT
005399 001356 20023 09/26/2001 001-1035-512.40-15 SMALL MOTOR EQUIP. MAINT. 315.48
VENDOR TOTAL * 315.48
0002420 THE RITZ CARLTON
001258 20127 09/21/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 11/8/01-LUNCH 1,727.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,727.00
0000398 TLC
001401 09/18/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 FLEX BENEFIT CLAIMS REIMB CHECK #: 86506 468.33
VENDOR TOTAL * .00 468.33
0002239 TMT ENTERPRISES, INC.
72031 001367 09/26/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 MOUND CLAY-PARK FIELDS 157.85
VENDOR TOTAL * 157.85
0001593 TONY LEM
TL1 001365 09/26/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 REPLACE FLAGS-BIG BASIN 410.40
TL1 2 001414 09/26/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 U.S. FLAGS/DOWELS 410.40
TL1 3 001415 09/26/2001 001-3030-532.30~01 U.S. FLAGS/DOWELS 410.40
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,231.20
0000005 TSANG, ANNIE
1080 001421 09/26/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 128.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 128.00
0001683 UNISOURCE MAINT. SUPPLY SYSTEMS
31122460 001260 19978 09/21/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 WIPER RAGS 112.23
31036956 001263 19978 09/21/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 HI PRO STRIP PADS 36.18
31271510 001296 19978 09/25/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 FLOOR COATING 408.24
VENDOR TOTAL * 556.65
0000412 UNITED WAY CHARITY
001250 09/19/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 QRTRLY CONTRIBS. #3/01 77.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 77.00
0000005 UONG, MRS.
991 001289 09/25/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 109.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 109.00
0000155 URI/HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES SW
202926 001354 20027 09/26/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC Co~rRoL SUPPLIES 401.22
210474 001355 20027 09/26/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 472.50
198509 001418 20027 09/26/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 52.92
211182 001419 20027 09/26/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 70.20
VENDOR TOTAL * 996.84
0000179 VERIZON WIRELESS
0304372958 001385 09/26/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 CELL PHONE CHGS. 214.53
0304586010 001372 20021 09/26/2001 001-2010-522.40-20. CELL PHONE CHGS-CSO 67.76
PREPARED 09/281-~01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 14
PROGP3tM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF S;%RATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE E~-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000179 VERIZON WIRELESS
0304264206 001371 20021 09/26/2001
0304586010 001373 20021 09/26/2001
0304264286 001341 09/26/2001
0000005 VONDRUSKA, A/TNA
72601 001382 09/26/2001
0001825 WALTONSMITH, ANN
001308 09/25/2001
0000005 WARREN, DORA
51592 001267 09/21/2001
0001396 WEST COAST LOCATORS, INC
3186 001370 09/26/2001
0000429 WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRCIT
704 001404 09/26/2001
001403 09/21/2001
0000005 WESTCOTT, BRENDA
986 001288 09/25/2001
0002428 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC.
340392 001454 09/27/2001
340627 001455 09/27/2001
340626 001456 09/27/2001
0000005 WHITE, BEVERLY
822 001264 09/21/2001
0000005 WONG, IRENE
931 001283 09/25/2001
0000005 WONG, VERNA
946 001287 09/25/2001
0000440 XEROX CORPORATION
250-4015-542.30-01
250-4015-542.30-01
260-5015-552.40-20
290-6005-445.04-00
001-1005-511.20-04
292-0000-260.00-00
001-1060-513.40~-14
260-5015-552.40-10
320~9010o522.40'-10
290°6005-445.04°00
150-3015-532.30-01
150-3015-532.30-01
150-3015-532.30-01
290-6005-445.03-00
290-6005-445.04-00
290-6005-~45.04-00
CELL PHONE CHGS.-BLDG. IN 97.76
CELL PHONE CHGSoBLDG. IN 30.00
CELL PHONE CHGS.-PW 119.28
VENDOR TOTAL * 529.33
CLASS REFUND 44.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 44.00
EXP. ALLOWANCE 10/01 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00
VENDOR TOTAL *' 300.00
LOCATE UNDERGRND UTILITY 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
STORM DRAIN INSPECTION 67,942.04
SANITATION PERMIT-LIB. CHECK #: 86508
VENDOR TOTAL * 67,942.04
CLASS REFUND 84.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 84.00
HARDWARE FOR SIGNS 230.04
ANCHORS FOR POST 167.40
ANCHORS & HARDWARE 401.75
VENDOR TOTAL * 799.19
· 69.00
TRIP REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL * 69.00
CLASS REFUND 89.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 89.00
CLASS REFUND 108.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 108.00
250.00
250.00
PREPARED 09/28/~u01, 8:14:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 15
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/28/2001
CITY OF Si~ATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000440 XEROX CORPORATION
084060180 001316
0000005 YANG, MRS.
1065 001337
0002319 ZUTSHI, RUCHI
001315
09/25/2001 001-1050-513.40-30 MONTHLY LEASE 8100A 2,442.91
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,442.91
09/25/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 139.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 139.00
09/25/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 PLILN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW. 150.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES **** 794,737.93
GRAND TOTAL
14,486.04
809,223.97
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
DEPT: Community Development
PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, October 10, 2001
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Note and file.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Planning Commission Action Minutes of October 10, 2001.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Minutes - Saratoga Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
OCTOBER 10, 2001
PAGE2
UP-01-006 (397-09-035) - MAIR, 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; - Request for Use
Permit approval to construct a 14 foot high, 450 square foot cabana. The maximum
height for an accessory structure permitted in absence of a Use Permit is 8 feet. The 2.59
acre site is located in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. (Knapp) (APPROVED 6-0)
DR-01-019 &r BSE-01-023 (503-16-024) - BAMDAD 13250 Pierce Road; - Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 4,123 square foot two-story residence. The
project would require the demolition of an existing 1,929 square foot single-story house.
The 15,682 net square foot vacant lot (18,865 gross sq. ft.) is in the R-I-40,000 zoning
district. The maximum height would be 26 feet. (Knapp) (APPROVED 6-0)
o
UP-01-010 (403-24-001) - METRO PCS, 13686 Quito Road; - Request for Use Permit
approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an existing PG&E
transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new directional antennas
mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets located below the tower.
The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The project is located in an R-I-
10,000 zoning district. (Livingstone) (APPROVED 4-2, KURASCH 8z BARRY
OPPOSED)
UP-01-009 (393-21-013) - METRO PCS, 12383 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; - Request
for Use Permit approval to locate a wireless antenna system and equipment on an
existing PG&E transmission tower. The system would be comprised of six new
directional antennas mounted on the existing tower and new equipment cabinets
located below the tower. The maximum height of the cabinets will be six feet tall. The
project is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (Livingstone) (APPROVED 6-0)
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Memo regarding Committee Assignments for Planning Issues
COMMISSION ITEMS
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of August 15, 2001
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, October 24, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
ORIGINATING D ~EPT;~ity Manager
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Claim of Lavina Ling; Claim No. GL-052984
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize ABAG to settle claim not to exceed the amount of $6,400.00.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On August 13, 2001 the claimant asserts she was stopped for a light on Saratoga Avenue when a
City employee driving a City vehicle rear-ended her car.
As indicated in the attached letter from ABAG, the statements made, records submitted and the
physical evidence of damage show that the claim for damages has been substantiated.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The claim will be paid in the amount of $6,241.16 from the Legal Services/Risk Management
Account #001-1025-511-4060.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The claim will not be settled.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONi
The City Council could decide not to settle the claim.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Process settlement of claim and notify claimant.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Supplemental Claims Report from ABAG
ASSOCIATION
OF BAY AREA
GOVERNMENTS
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
October 10~ 2001
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
A
C
BAG
o R P 0
P
L A
T I 0
N
CLAIMANT(s):
DATE OF LOSS:
CITY CLAIM #:
AI3AG CLAIM #:
LING, Lavina
8-13-01
01/02 SA-?
G[,-052984
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM REPORT
Dear Ms. Boyer:
FACTS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT:
The claimant asserts she was stopped for a light on Saratoga Avenue when a City employee
driving a City vehicle rear-ended her car.
DAMAGES CLAIMED:
The calculation for repair of the claimant's 2000 Toyota Avalon amounted to $5,045.96.
Additionally, the claimant has submitted an invoice from Enterprise showing the rental cost for
28 days amounted to $1,195.20 (a copy of this invoice is enclosed for your records). The total
damages currently anticipated on this claim amount to $6,241.16.
LIABILITY:
Probable.
According to statements made, records submitted and the physical evidence demonstrated on
the vehicles, it appears the City employee was responsible for causing these damages.
RESERVE
The property damage reserve has been adjusted to $6,400. Since the claimant has denied any
physical injuu,, we have eliminated the bodily injur~d reserve.
RECOMMENDATION:
We' recommend for the City to offer settlement on this claim. The claimant has provided
documentation to substantiate her claim for rental car reimbursement totaling $1,195.20. We
anticipate a subrogation claim will be forthcoming from 21st Century Insurance for
approximately $5,046. In order to accommodate any repair not foreseen during the initial
estimate preparation, we request authority from the City to settle this claim for up to $6,400.
Since the subrogation claim has not yet been received, we request authority to proceed
with settlement of Mrs. Ling's claim for the full amount of $1,195.20.
REMARKS:
I look forward to receiving a written response from the City regarding our request for settlement
authority. If you have any questions about this or any other matter, please contact me at 510-
Sin~ce, rely,/~
l~ri Har'G~lcre
Claims Examiner
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604~2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7989 plan@abag.ca.gov
Location: Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756
R~QUIRED DAILY TAX EQUAL 1/365TH OF THE RENTED VEHICLE'S ANNUAL LICENSE FEE
~i'N, ~"~0,i~i-~48~' 9/12/01 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF '~AN FRANCIscO RENTAL AGREEME
~Z~'OUTi'8~IGpM 8/16/01 1415A W. EL CAMINO REAL 650-96?-6800 DI744.
MOUNTAIN VIEW
· CALENDAR DAY RENTALTYPE B SOURCE
UNIT 1 RENTER
UNIT # Z83DDY LAVINA~'LING
LIC~ 4TDK696 1315 ROSSWAY CT
MODEL TRKR LOS ALTOS C~ 94084_68?8
COLOR SILVER LOCAL:
IN 69 (H) 650-967-0138 (W) 408-374-7151
CA 94040-8405 8339
501975 - 035
SUMMARY OF~,CHARGES
MILES
NO CHARGE
150 MI FREE/DA
150 MI FREE/DA~
PAGE 1 OF
uNIT e
UNIT ~ XE?8?I'
~:LI.C# 4RJG816
~MODEL CAMR
COLOR GREEN
IN 8448
OUT 7806
DR. LICENSE G544977
STATECA EXPIRE 8:/87/06
DOB 3'~87/55 HT 5 4~WT 180
EYES BRN' HAIR BLKi
S.S.# ON,FILE
,EMPLOYER~
WREK A NATION
BILL TO N CUST # 999999
8IST CENTURY-SAN JOSE'~
ATTN: UNKNOWN** ..,~
1738 NORTH,1ST STREET'~STE 350
SAN JOSE· CA
SlO-8??'s468 ~5118
1 DAYS @ 45~99
,87 DAYS @ 38.99.
* VLF .~.! ' , :
45.9'
1052.7~
8.5~
'CLAIM? !NFO
POL/CLAI M/F'O#
RE I MBUR£SEMENT
INSURED ~.
LOSS DATE
THEFT ? .,~CCIDENT
TYPE !:~.AR.:..' ~
ADDITIONAL DRIVER
SPOUSE ~''
-LICENSE #''' ..
..STATE.' EXPIRES
Y:~'PERMIS~ION TO LEAVE STATE
YES ND X
CUSTOMER SIGNATURE ON FILE
PAYMENT INFORMATION
AMOUNT PD.BY TYPE DATE
AGE 85
AUTH
SALES TAX%
TOTAL CHARGES
DEPOSITS
REFUND .
8.00 87.9(
1195.8(
~HOP PI2 COLLISION
:'HONE 650-965-1440
NAME
CLOSED TICKET PAYMENT INFO
· OPENED BY #40951( STEVE A FLAMM
CLOSED BY #5974K SIMON J HERRERA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DE Manager
PREPARED BY: f~
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Claim of Ann and Kathleen Fitzsimmons; Claim No. GL-052777
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize ABAG to reject claim.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On May 18, 2001 the claimant presented a claim for damages resulting in the death of a large oak
tree in front of the residence at 14605 Big basin Way. The claimant's asserts that in 1989 the
City permitted the contractor working on th~ adjacent Creekside Condominium development
(14599 Big basin Way) to make a deep excavation along the property line, severing the major
roots of their oak tree. The claimant contends that this damage to the tree's feeding and support
systems directly cause the death of the is tree in May 2000, twelve years after the excavation.
The damages being claimed by the claimant totals $178,510.00 (see break down in ABAG
report).
After the City's claims examiner reviewed all documents provided by the claimant and City staff
it is requested that the City Council reject the claim.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The claim will not be settled.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could decide to settle the claim.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Process rejection notice.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Supplemental Claims Report from ABAG
10/11/2001 14:35 FAX 5104647979 ;.BAG WComp
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
~ 001 ~
,?
00.
cl~epr¢%entingCity and County Governments of thc, Sen Francisco Bay Area
ctober 11,2001
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
A
C
BAG
0 RP 0
P
LAN
TION
CLAIMANT(s):
DATE OF LOSS:
CITY CLAIM #:
ABAG CLAIM #:
FITZSIMMONS, AnnandKathleen
. 5-18-2001
00/01 SA-?
GL-052777
Dear Ms. Boyer:
*'CLA ~.r~._ ACKNOWLEDGMi~.NT NOTICE~
FACTS ALI,F.~ED BY THE CLAIMANT:
Thc cia;manta presented a claim for damages resulting in the death of a large oak tree in front
of the residence at 14605 Big Bas/n Way. The cinimnnt$ assert that in 1989 the City permitted
the contractor working on the adjacent Creekside Condominium development (14599 Big Basin
Way) to make a deep excavation along the property line, severing the major roots of their oak
tree to w/thin four feet of the trunk. The claimant contends that this dnm~o~e to the tree's
feeding and support systems directly caused the death of t~his trcc in May 2001, twelve years
after the excavation occurred.
DAMAGES
Thc claimant% addendum of 7/25/200I specifics ~e d~a~s b~g ~t
ad~on to ~e $4,800 ~mt to remove ~e d~ o~ ~ee, ~e c~ns~-nt is claiming a ~ee
~uaHon of $30,700 (not ad~ess~g ~e fact ~e cl~t s~d ~e wo~d k~p aH the wood
~om ~e ~). ~e cost for ~e ~ee apprise ~po~ was $360, ~d the fee p~d to remo~ a
~ve prior to tree remov~ m~ounted W $150. F~y, ~e cl~t asses ~at
~e he,rage o~ ~ee reduced ~e v~ue of ~e $950,000 pro~ by appro~ately 15%, for
~ount of $142,500. Wi~out defini~ d~ages ~at may be ~ught for ~emofion~
over loss of ~e ~ee,~ ~e d~ages berg c~ed now ~ount to a tot~ of $178,510.
O~ ~ CI~ ~O~TION ~CE~D:
We received ~om Tom S~v~, commU~W Dc~lopment D~tor, copies of ~ a~ilablc
r~ords sWred on ~crofiche. In conj~cfion ~ the records submi~ by
c~onolo~ of cvents ap~s ~low:
s/26/19ss
11/17/1988
11/23/1988 Posting completed.
11/30/1988 Not/ce published.
12/1/1988 Mailing completed.
(date unknown?)
Applicat/on for construction project at 14599 Big Basin Way filed.
Application completed.
Executive Summary: Applicant had requested "flipping" the blueprint on
townhouse #2 in order to protect the Redwood tree on the property. The summary notes this
plan would not be in confl/ct w/th any easements, wouki be cons/stent ,~ith the zoning code
and the City's general plan. The summary specifies that the minor eleva~on change would not
affect the overall design and that no change m setbacks or height would occur.
ABAG
Ma~lmg Address,; P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (S-.. r.,~ -:~¢-7.-'~ planC,~abag.ca.gov
Loration: Joseph P. Bart MetroCenter I01 [ight'h Street Oakianci, CMifomia ~4~?-4Fs6
10/11/2001 14:34 FAX 5104647979 ABAG WComp -" ~004
C/ty of Saratoga
FITZSIMMONS
ABAG Claim # GL-052777 / # 00/01 SA- ?
October 11, 2001
Page 4
CITY INFORMATION RF~TED:
As we d/scussed this morning, I have requested copies of the minutes from City Council and
City Planning meet/ngs during 1988 through 4/30/1989. I ~m. looking for any agenda items
referencing this construct/on project, specifically to d~termine whether the claimant ever
presented any concerns to the City about the safety of her oak tree prior to the root excavation in
January 2989. Though none of the records I have examined /nd/cate such a concern was
expressed, I am interested in confirming that thc City did not m~ke any formal agreement to
protect her oak tree dur/ng th/s construction process. If a record search ca~ be made
according to subject, I would be looking for ail referenced to 1460S an~i 14599 Big Basra Way,
aa well as Stonepine Condomin/um HOA {Ann and Kathleen Fitzsimmons' property).
RESERVE
An initial property damage reserve has been set in the mnount of $4,800. Th/s reserve has
been adjusted to $50,000 to reflect the additional information obtained.
RF, COMM~NDATION:
Based upon the information provided in this letter, we recommend for the City to issue a
rejection notice on this claim. The rejection notice should be sent to the claimants using Form
/Vo. 3 out of the ABA(} PLAN Geucral Liability C~ims Manual. This notice needs to be sent
accompanied by a Proof o/Service confirmation that is also found in the ABAG PLAN Mamlal.
If the C~y concurs with this recommenda~on, please notify me prior to issuing t~ rejection nofic~
~o I may ~end not/ce to ~he claim~n~s expI~ our fimiing$ and the determination made on ~he/r
clair,.
I look forward to receiving a response from the City regarding whether rejection of this claim
will b~ forthcoming. I also look forward to receiving those documents requested for final review.
If you have any questions about this or a_ny other matter, please contact me at 510-464-7936.
Lori Hardacre
Claims
.10/11/2001 14:34 FAA: 5104647979 .A. BAG WComp ~002
City of Saratoga
FITZS]MMONS
ABAG C~{m # GL-052777 / # 00/01 SA- ?
October 11, 2001
Page 2
CLAI]MANT AND ~ INFORMATION P,F-XIEIVED (continued}:
11/25/1988 Report by Barr/e Coates followhug his 11/15/1988 report which addre~ed
damages to the Redwood tree. The damage was the result of root pruning performed during
con=Lt act/on at 14599 Big Basin Way.
1/11/1989 Memo from Steve Emslie, Pla=,~ing Director, regarding permit to remove the
damaged Redwood tree. Value of this Redwood tree is noted to be approximately $66,772.
1/16/1989 Letter from claimant to City expressing concerns about the ongoing construction
project. As of the time of this letter, excavation had already occurred within four feet of the
trunk of the oak tree. The claimant noted that "many large anchor roots have been severed
and inumerable [sic] feeder roots are cut." She requested that City officials immediately inspect
the tree to see what steps were required to save the oak tree. stating ill her letter that she was
giving notice *h~t damages would be pursued against an responsible parties if the tree did not
survive,
(NOTE: In the documents provided to us, this is the first mentlo~ of any concerns regarding
th/s oak tree at 14605 Big Basin Way.)
1/17/1989 A meeting.took place at claimant's property with Barr/e Coates, Arborist, and the
developer of the adjacent property, Tai Chi,
1/18/1989 Duke Wall, the contractor for the project, author/zed the 500-gallon deep-root
fertilizing of the oak tree as recommended by Barrie Coates_
1/24/1989 Barr/e Coates prepared a report on viewing the severe root cutting on the
claimnr~ts' oak tree. The excavation next to the tree had occurred on the prcvious Friday (ori o~'
about 1/16/1989). The roots were noted to have been ctlt within six feet of the tree
using a hand saw. Coates recommended immediate remerl~l fertil/~,er/waterLng of the tree,
noting that the soil at the base of the tree was dry at a depth of 2'_ {The contractor arranged
for this treatment to be completed on 1/18/89.) Mr. Coates also provided recommendations for
continued/rri§ation during the following winter. Mr. Coates noted that he did not believe there
would be a potential problem w/th tree death if appropriat~_.remedi_~l tre. atrnent was pursued
{emphasis mine). ' -
2/19/1989 The Claimant wrote to the City's Planning Commission: "Apparently the plans
next door called for deep excavation along our common property linc in order to erect a
retaining wall between our properties. Tbds was done with the knowledge and consent of the
City of Saratoga. The developer proceeded accord/ngly.~ This letter from the claims.ut details
the inspections made since the root cutting of the oak tree. Her letter asserts that ~l'he
purpose in bringing this subject up in this letter is not to complain about the developer but to
commend him for sharing my concern for this tree and taking appropriate and prompt act/on to
insure the survivibility [sic] of this tree" (emphasis mine).
(continued on next page)
10/11/2001 14:34 FAX $104647979
ABA¢ WComp
003
City of Saratoga
F1TZSIMMONS
ABAG Clzim # GL-052777 / # 00/01 SA- ?
October 11, 2001
Page 3
CLAIMANT AND CITY INFORMATION RECEIVED {continued):
3/14/1989 City Agreement Concerning Tree Removal and Replacement: "Asa result 'of
uuintent/onaI damage done to the root system of the tree by Owner's contractor...,~ the
contractor was instructed to remove the Redwood tree and replace trees to accommodate a
replacement value of $33,386. The only reference to the claknants' property was to note that
the Owner may remove two existing diseased trees at the front of the Fit~immons property and
may plant replacements on that property with a credit against the total replacement value
owed.
3/20/1989 City granted perm/t for removal of/he redwood tree pursuant to the conditions
for compensation.
*~* TWelve years hav~ plz.~sed ~
5/2s/2OOl
property.
The City authorized the permit for removing the dead oak tree on the claimants'
7/11/2001 The c]zlm~nt obtained a monetary appraisal report for the loss of the oak tree
from Deborah Ellis, Arborist. The monetary loss is es~-~tted at $35,500. The arborist
estimates a loss of approximately 45% of the root system in January 1989. According to Ms.
Ellis, this damage caused weakening of the tree and promoted oak root fungus, leading to the
eventual death of the oak tree.
7/11/2001 Minutes from A City of Sax~toga Planning Comm~$sion meeting. The cl~lm~uts
present this document showing the City's concern about preserving the roots of an oak tree
during a construction project at 14612 Big Basin Way. The claimants assert
precautions were not followed during the construction project in 1989.
LIABILITY:
Doubtful.
The claimants assert that the City demonstrated %allous disregard" for their property with au
intent 'to max/mize the development.=- There is no record indicating that the claimant had
concerns or objected to the adjacent construction until after the excavation had taken place on
1/16/1989. Th/s incltldes the time period when adjacent property owners were g/yen notice
about the constnlction project and could express concerns if any existed. The fact the City
may have shown concern about protecting an oak tree in a 2001 construction project simply
indicates that the City's sophistication in handling such construction issues had improved.
Under Government Code Section 830.5, the fact an action is later taken to protect prope~/is
not ev/dcnce that liability existed when the incident originally 0ccu~Ted.
As noted in our letter of 9/5/2001, we believe Government Code Section 818.4 is applicable in
thi~ case:
818.4. A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the
issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or
refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, ally permit, license,
certificate, approval, order, or similar authorlzat/on where the
p~blic entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by
enactment to determine whether or not such author/zation should be
issued, denied, suspended or revoked.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
ORIGINATING ~P~Manager
PREPARE~
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Dais Chairs in Saratoga Civic Theatre
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
In 1999 the Community Development Department upgraded the City Council/Planning
Commission dais, dais chairs, stage set, and sound system. These improvements resulted in a
more professional and appropriate setting for official Council/Planning Commission business
and improved the sound system for the theater and television audiences. The total project cost
was $15,386, which was split between the City Council's budget and Zoning Administration
budget.
At its June 20, 2001 City Council meeting staff was directed to investigate options for the
purchase of higher quality chairs for the Council dais. The existing Council/Planning
Commission chairs have started to fall apart and lack adjustments to adjust for individual setting.
Council and Planning Commission members spend several hours at each meeting sitting and
have exPressed a desire for more comfortable dais chairs with common ergonomic adjustment
features.
Staff researched a variety of chairs with approximately ten chairs available for City
Councilmembers to try. The chair receiving the most positive comments was the Via Oslo. It
would address the concerns of the Council regarding quality, durability, and comfort. The Via
Oslo is functional and ergonomic. It has unique features such as adjustable lumbar support, seat
depth, headrest, and body weight adjustments.
Via Seating has guaranteed shipment within 48 hours of order entry and comes with a ten year
limited warranty. Staff has received the following quotes:
· Creative Supports - 7 high back executive chairs ~ $1,049.95per chair
4 low back executive chairs $469.95 per chair
· Office Depot - 7 high back executive chairs ~ $1,150.00 per chair
4 low back executive chairs $550.00 per chair
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funds could be made available through the General Fund Contingency account for FY 2002-03.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Direct staff to purchase only seven chairs for the Council
continue to use staff chairs.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
If directed by the City Council staff will order the chairs.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Via Oslo brochure
Attachment B - Creative Supports/Office Depot Estimates
Attachment C - Resolution Making Budget Appropriations
and Planning Commission and
2 of 4
Every Chair
Every Option
Every Fabric
Every Leather
Ready in 48 Hours
Oslo Ergonomic Adjustments
Seat Recline Back Recline Seat
Angle: Angle: Depth:
Reclines from 5' forward to Reclines to 22' back, rocks in a Adds 2" to the seat depth
15' back 2:1 ratio,
Headrest Angle: Sent Height: Back Height:
Adjusts from: 10' back to 30' Adjusts from: 17.0" to 21" Adds 6.0" to the back height
forward
Oslo Arm Options
Cantilevered
Arm
Available in upholstered*& non-uphol*
stered.
Upholstered Panel
with Wood Cap
Available in four wood color options:
Natural Maple, Medium Cherry.
Dark Mahogany, & Custom Stained
Traditional
Upholetered Arm
Elegant detailing, appropriately
styled for any Executive application,
Wing Arm
Contemporary styling, comfortably pro-
portioned for guest or primary seating
applications.
Oslo Options
Wood capped bases, available in Natural
Maple, Medium Cherry, Dark Mahogany or
custom stained. Polished Aluminum base
also availaPle.
Carpet casters and soft casters for use on
hard surfaces including tile and wood floors
or glides for stationary applications are
available.
Please refer to our Price Ust for complete
details.
Fabrics and Leathers
Via seating may be specified from a
comprehensive range of beautiful, high
performance upholstery fabrics and supple
European leathers. Our in-stock program
includes 100 fabdcs and 19 leathers. In
addition, our partnership with Maharam and
Momentum Textiles enables us to order any
of their contract upholstery fabric patterns
and colors.
Please see our Pdce Ust for complete
details.
Our customers benefit from a very sim-
ple commitment: every chair, with any
option, specified with any Via in-stock
fabric or leather will be ready for ship-
ment within 48 hours of order entry.
This remarkable 48 hour production
schedule, however, is only one reason
that Via should be your source for
Executive, Management. Conference and
Operational Seating. Every Via chair is
designed, engineered, and crafted for
exceptional comfort and long lasting
durability. The design is timeless and
enduring and every chair is assembled
with the finest components available.
Thick, contoured, molded foam provides
all day comfort and support.
Outstanding design and quality, backed
by a 10 year, limited warranty makes
Via seating an extraordinary value.
Via Seating: world class design, first
class quality, and executive class com-
fart, ready in 48 hours.
Via is represented by knowledgeable and
experienced representatives in major
market centers throughout the World.
They are your soume for all your specifi-
cat/on needs.
For the name of your nearest representa*
rive please call our Corporate Offices.
Via Inc.
205 Vista Boulevard
Sparks, Nevada 89434
~1. 800.433.6614
775.331.6001
Fax 800.833.9094
775.331.9060
2001 Via/nc
7113
7123
7133
7173
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATIONS OF FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $9,967.81
FOR COUNCIL DAIS CHAIRS
WHEREAS, is it has been expressed by the City Council for the need of new Council/Planning
Commission dais chairs; and
WHEREAS, staff has researched a variety of chairs and the Via Oslo addresses the concerns of
the Council regarding quality, durability, and comfort.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the adjustments below to the City of Saratoga's
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget will be made using the following entries:
001-1005-611-6006
001-1010-511-50.02
250-4010-646-6006
Furniture/Office Equipment
Contingency
Furniture/Office Equipment
Development Fund Balance
Expenditures Revenues
(Debit) (Credit)
$4983.91
$4983.91
$4983.91
$4983.91
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 17th day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
3 of 4
From: Steve Vassallo To: Cathleen Boyer Date: 10/12/200I Time: &31:36 PM ' Page 2 of 2 ~
Creative Supports
2021 Las Positas Court, Ste. 151
Livermore, CA 945 50
Quotation
Date Quotation#
8/6/2001 6
Name / Address
City of Saratoga
13777 Fmitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Sales Repr...
SV
Item Description Qty Rate Total
Osl 7133 Oslo High-Back Executive Top Grain Leather Chair 7 1,049.95 7,349.65T
Osl 7131 Oslo Low-Back Executive Top Gram Leather Chair 4 469.95 1,879.80T
D/I Delivezy/Installation- Included![ 0.00
Please sign to authorize purchase and return by fax
Subtotal $9,229.45
Sales Tax (8.0%) $738.36
Total $9,967.81
0CT.18.2001 11:$0AM OFFICE DEPOT
N0.284 P.3/3
Quotation
Pago: I
202451 10/12/01 978328 CItY ~ISTOSO - S~A C~
OUOTETO: CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AV~
SARATOGA, CA 95070-5151
TO:
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE
SAR~TOC~A, CA 95070-5151
~: 1.408.868.1200 P: 1.408.868.1200
Terms~T 10TH PAOX Sales Loc.: SANTA CLARA
I 9 0SL7133 1,150.00 8,050.0~
~ OS~ L~T~
G~E 5 L~T~R
2 4 ~0SL7131 ~50.00 2~200.00
~A 0S~ L~T~R
G~E ~ L~T~R
S~ To:al 10,250.0C
S~A (~ CO~ 820.0C
Gr~d Total 11,070.0~
ACCEPTED BY TITLE DATE
7
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT: The 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan and Environmental Impact Assessment -
Public Hearings
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Receive report, conduct Public Hearings, and provide direction to staff.
2. Adopt attached Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed 2001-2006 CIP.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Please find attached an updated and revised spreadsheet containing the proposed five-year
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The spreadsheet lists each project, associated estimated cost,
project funding source, and proposed five-year expenditure plan.
On October 1, the Finance Commission reviewed the CIP and was satisfied with the plan,
however the commission could not vote on the CIP because of a lack of a quorum. On October
10, the Planning Commission reviewed the CIP for consistency with the General Plan.
Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.GP-01-001 approving a finding
of consistency (see attached Resolution and General Plan Conformity Spreadsheet).
Additionally, please find attached the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environmental
Checklist Form for the 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan, which lists the environmental
catego~ under which each project is expected to fall.
As reported at the CI~ study session in June and at the meeting in August, there are 38 proposed
CIP projects that total $13,086,350. Currently the Council has identified 26 projects, which are
proposed to receive full or partial funding for a total of $8,573,350.
The total funded amount by funding source is as follows:
· General Fund: $4,440,000
· Park Development Fund: $1,808,350
· Grant Source: $1,900,000
· Other Source: $425,000
Total: $8,573,350
Unobligated City Fund Balance Reserves available for the above (as of June 30, 2001):
General Fund: $6,491,782
Park Development: $1,050,000 ($675,000 fund balance, $375,000 Park Bond Act)
Total: $7,541,782
The unobligated fund balance for each Fund after project funding:
· General Fund: $2,051,782
· Park Development Fund: ($758,350)
Options to bring into balance the $758,350 deficit in the Park Development Fund:
1. Defer some desired projects until Park Development Fund i-eserves (via development
fees) allow full project funding (up to 5 years).
2. Supplement Park Development Fund shortfall with the General Fund unobligated fund
balance (leaving $1,293,432).
3. Allow Park Development Fund to borrow shortfall from General Fund and repay over
time (up to 5 years).
4. Partially fund some projects with Park Development Funds (design only) until additional
fund balance is attained.
The proposed next steps in the five-year C.I.P. is as follows:
· November 7th:
1. Adoption of Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget.
2. Adoption of Resolution approving a Five-Year Capital Improvements
Plan.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Unknown at this time. Depends on the final CIP project list.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Not Applicable.
2 of 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The next step in the CIP process will follow based on the schedule directed by Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CIP Project Spreadsheet.
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. GP-01-001.
3. General Plan Conformity Spreadsheet.
4. Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environmental Checklist Form.
3 of 3
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. GP-01-001
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request from the
Public Works Director to find that the Proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with
the City of Saratoga General Plan; and
WHERF-AS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the materials submitted by
the Public Works Director which include a Ii.sting of each capitol project and the corresponding
General Plan Goal and Policy, attached as Exhibit A.
Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby find
that the proposed Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the
City of Saratoga General Plan in that the various improvement projects implement the programs
and objectives outlined in the various General Plan Elements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, on October 10, 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
. NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
AT1-EST:
Secretary to the Planning Commission
NNNNN~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED 2001-2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
review of all projects proposed for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been made to
determine whether any of these projects would have a significant environmental impact. The
State CEQA Guidelines define significant effect as a "substantial or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the physical conditions...of an area."
Implementation of the majority of the CIP projects will not have an adverse impact on the
environment. Of the 49 projects under consideration (38 proposed and 11 existing) in the 2001-
2006 CIP, 35 are classified as categorically exempt. These projects involve maintenance, repair,
or minor alterations or additions to existing facilities (Class 1), replacement or reconstruction of
existing structures or facilities (Class 2), new structures of small size and are identified by CEQA
as not having a significant effect on the environment (Class 3), or minor alterations to land
(Class 4). These projects are:
1. Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal: Class 3
2. Sidewalk/Pathway Infill/Rehab.: Class 3
3. Verde Vista Ln. Traffic Signal: Class 3
4. ADA Improvements (Hakone): Class 3
5. Highway 9 Traffic Signal Modifications: Class 3
6. Playground Safety (Brookglen, E1 Quito, Wildwood): Class 2
7. Kirkmont Dr. Traffic Signal: Class 3
8. Bus Stop Shelters: Class 3
9. E1 Quito Area Curb & Gutter Replacement: Class 2
10. Village Streetscape Improvements (Sidewalk/C&G): Class 2
11. Village Streetscape Improvements (Landscaping): Class 4
12. Storm Drain Upgrades: Class 3
13. Median Repairs (Landscaping/Irrig.): Class 1
14. Saratoga Avenue Medians~ Library: Class 4
15. Hillside Repair Fund/Reserve: Class 1
16. Prospect Avenue Medians: Class 4
17. Fruitvale Avenue Median Landscaping: Class 4
18. Quito Road Railroad Crossing Upgrade: Class 2
19. Glen Brae Railroad Crossing Upgrade: Class 2
20. WHH Improvements: Class 1
21. Theater Renovations: Class 1 and Class 3
22. Corp Yard Improvements: Class 3
23. Chamber Building: Class 1
24. Theater Roof: Class 1
25. E1 Quito Park Improvements: Class 1
26. Hakone Garden D/W: Class 1
27. Pony League Baseball Field: Class 2
28. Park/Trail Upgrades: Class 1
29. Heritage Orchard Improvements: Class 3 and Class 4
30. Kevin Moran Park-Improvements: Class 4
Existing CIP Projects
31. Congress Springs Park Improvements: Class 2 and Class 4
32. Vessing Road Assessment District: Class 1 and Class 2
33. E1 Camino Grande/Monte Vista Drive Stoim Drain: Class 3
34. Park Upgrades: Class 2
35. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Seagul Way Traffic Signal: Class 3
36.4th Street Storm Drain Repairs: Class 1
A second group of projects (eight) will be evaluated for their environmental impacts and Notices
of Exemption or Negative Declarations will be filed (one existing CIP Project, the Library
Expansion Project, has been evaluated and a Negative Declaration has been filed). These
projects are:
1. Traffic Calming
2. Safe Routes to Schools
3. Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Arms Upgrade
4. Civic Center Master Plan
5. Azule Park
Existing CIP Proiects
6. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Improvements
7. Cox Avenue Railroad Crossing Upgrade
8. Traffic Signal Upgrade Project
A third group of proposed CIP projects (four) will need, or may need, further environmental
assessment prior to their implementation because of possible environmental impacts which may
result. These projects are:
1. 4th Street Bridge Replacement
2. UPR Trail
3. Skateboard Park
Existing C~ Projects
4. Quito Road Bridge Replacement
Staff recommends that a blanket Negative Declaration be issued for the projects in the 2001-
2006 CIP, with the exception of the four projects listed which will require more detailed
environmental assessment. Tl~ese last four projects should not be included in the blanket
Negative Declaration as more specific Environmental Review will be required for these projects
as details are developed.
Respectfully submitted,
jo~C~h~r~
Public Works Director
Respectfully submitted,
Community Development Director
APPENDIX G
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project title:
2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan
Lead agency name and address:
City of Saratoga
1377 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Contact person and phone number:
John Cherbone
Public Works Director
(408) 868-1241
4. Project location:
Various Locations in the City of Saratoga.
Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Saratoga
1377 Fruitvale Avenue'
Saratoga, CA 95070
General plan designation: See Attached Exhibit "A" 7. Zoning: N/A
Description of project: 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Plan, which includes 48 projects of
various natures that will be implemented over a five-year period (see attached Exhibit "B").
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
The five-year CIP encompasses a variety of land environments.
envcheck, wpd- 12/30/98 - 1 -
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Each project in the CIP will be forwarded to the appropriate public agency prior to its
implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a !'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Aghculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
Land Use / Planning
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fred that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
envcheck, wpd- 12/30/98 -2-
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed:
I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and Co) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signa~
Date
'
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the .
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact.", The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
envcheck, wpd-I 2/30/98 -3-
6)
7)
8)
9)
Issues:
b)
c)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questibns from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
I. AESTHETICS __ Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adyerse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighthrne views in the area?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 --4-
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or'
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck.wpd- 12/30/98 -5-
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Department of Fish and
Game approval will be required for the 4th
Street and Quito Road Bridge
Replacement Projects for minor
streambed alterations)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident.or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (Possible
ordinance size trees may be required to be
removed in connection with the 4th Street and
Quito Road Bridge Replacement Projects)
~) Conflict with the provisions of an'adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
.Impact
envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -6-
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to '15064.5? '
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or tmique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -7-
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have ~oils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS B Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e).For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result m a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result m a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 -8-
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intemaixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge'
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute-runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck, wpd-12/30/98 -9-
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a 'local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE B Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
impact
envcheck, wpd-12/30/98 -10-
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has notbeen adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing ·
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant' environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck.wpd-12/30/98 - 1 1 -
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic Which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?-'
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck, wpd-12/30/98 - 12-
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS B
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
XVlI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
envcheck.wpd- 12/30/98 - 13 -
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
envcheck.wpd-I 2/30/98 - 14-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: Lorie Tinfow
DEPT ~- '~'1_,.D
SUBJECT: Authorize Expenditures for Utility Connections to Library Buildings
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Move to authorize City Manager to sign a service agreement with PG&E and issue a
check for $17,582.14 to them for engineering and construction services related to
electrical service at the temporary library.
Move to authorize City Manager to pay an engineering deposit of $10,000 to San Jose
Water for services related to disconnecting and re-establishing water service to the
expanded Saratoga Library.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The Saratoga Library is under construction for approximately the next 18 months. During that
time, Council directed staff to establish a temporary library to serve the public. There are a
number of utilities to be connected in order for service to be provided. At this time, staff is
requesting authorization to pay PG&E the balance of funds required for both installing and
removing the temporary service equipment from the site. The service agreement covers the use
of this equipment to meet temporary needs. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and
approved it for signature.
A diesel-powered generator is providing limited power to the temporary library at this time. As a
result, there is not enough electrical capacity to operate all equipment. For example, public
computers are not available and only half of the air conditioners can operate.
San Jose Water is requesting an engineering deposit in order to begin their work related to the
expansion and renovation of the Saratoga Library.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for this work is programmed in the adopted budget in CIP No. 0103 Library Expansion
- Account No. 4010 Contract Services.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The temporary library will be required to continue relying on generator power and will not be
able to fully support public services.
The library expansion activities will be delayed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
City Manager will sign the service agreement and authorize the checks to be drawn.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
· Copy of letter and service agreement from PG&E.
· Copy of letter from San Jose Water.
2 of 2
Pacific Gas an#
£/ectric Company,.
WE DELIVER ENERGY7
10900 North Blaney Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
September 20, 2001
Lorie Tinfow
City' of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: PM #30218309--13718 Sarato,qa Avenue, Saratoqa
Dear Ms. Linfow:
Enclosed are the Rule 13 Temporary Service Summary Agreements for the above
project. Please refer to the enclosed sheets for a summary of payments and costs
for each applicable rule.
'Please sign and return two copies of the agreements along with your check for
~17,582.14. A fully executed copy will be returned for your files. This proposal may
require revision if not accepted within 90 days.
If you have any questions please call me at (408) 725-2096.
/JOseph A. T~,s'ta Jr.
f/'Seni0r Project Manager
Enclosures
City of Saratoga, A Governmental Agency
(Applicant),
.has requested PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) to provide gas or
elect:ftc service to Applicant's enterprise, activity or operations which has been determined to be
of temporary or lira/ted duration or speculative in character.
PG&E will either fu.~ish and install the necessary gas or elec~c facilities, or accept applicant
instal/ed facilities that have been consrruct:d in accordance with PG&E's specifications and have
been inspected by PG&E for material and workmanship compliance ('Facilities) under the
provisions of Rule 13. PG&E shall at all times retain the exclusive right to connect such
applicant installed facilities to PG&E's energized or pressurized system and upon completion or
acceptance of such facilities, PG&E shall sell and deliver natural gas or electric service to
Applicant subject to the following terms and conditions:
A.. GENERAL
INSTALLATION CHARGES. Applicant shall pay to PO&E, on demand and in advance'
of consn'-uction, the amount shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this
A~eement, which is PG&E's estimated cosi of installing PG&E overhead and under~ound
facilities and subsequently removing .overhead Facilities, and removing or abandoning in
place underground FaciLities, less the estimated salvage value of the facilities, required for
the ope.ration of applicant's appliances and equipment (Equipment).
-1-
Form 79-1t75
Adv~c~ No.
GENERAL ACCESS. V;here i~. is necessary to install a portion or all of the Facilities on
Applicmnt's promises, Applicant hereby ~an:s to PG&E the right of ingr:ss to and egress
from Applicant's premises a: all reasonable hours: (a) for making the installation and with
sufficiem legal clearances between all sn-uctu.res now or h=mafmr erected on Applicant's
premises, and. any gas or electric facilit, ies of PG&E, and (b) for any purposes reasonably
connectgd with the operation and maintenance of the Facilities.
3. LAND RIGHTS. Where formal rights-of-way, easements, land leases, or permits are
requi.md by PG&E for the installation of the Facilities on Applicant's property, or the
property of others, Applicant understands and agrees that PG&E shall not be obligated to
install the Facilities unless and until any necessary permanent rights-of-way, easements, land
leases, or permits, satisfactory to PG&E, are granted to, or obtained for PG&.E without cost
to or condemnation by PG&E. If' PG&E is unable to obtain such land rights, the AppLicant
shall obtain them for PG&E.
4. FORCE MAJEURE. PG&E shall not be responsible for any delay in either the
performance of Applicant's responsibilities under this ag-moment, or the installation or
completion of the Facilities by PG&E resulting from shortage of labor or materials, strike,
labor disturbance, war, riot, weather conditions, governmental rule, regulation or order,
including necessary.land rights, act of God or any other cause or condition beyond PG&E's
control.
PG&E Shall have the right, in the event it is unable to obtain sufficient supplies, materials or
labor for all of its construction requimmems, to allocaie materials and labor to construction
projects which it dr. ems, in its sole discretion, most importa.n~ to serve the needs of its ,'
customers. Any delay in construction hereunder resulting from such allocation shall be
deemec't'to be a cause beyond PG&E's control.
-2-
79-F75
No.
5. DUE DILIGENCE. Upon receipt of this and other applicable executed ageements, any
necessary la.nd r/ghts and advance payment of the installation and removal charges,
will, without undue delay, commence and thereafter with all reasonable diligence proceed to
install its Facilities. PG&E shall connect/ts facilities at the point where it's Facilities contact
the facil/ties instal/ed, owned, leased or under license by Applicant.
6, OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES. The installed Facilities shall at all times be and remain
the property of PG&E and PG&E shall have a reasonable time period to remove or abandon
the Facilities following term/nation of service under this A~eement.
ENERGY PURCHASE. PG&E, under provisions of its applicable gas and electric rates on
file with and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission), shall
sell and deliver to Applicant and Applicant shall purchase and receive from PG&E, all
natural gas or electric service for the required operation of the Equipment upon property
owned, leased or under license to Applicant. Applicant shall pay PG&E monthly for energy
service at any established office of PG&E at the approved rates and charges applicable to the
service provided_
EQUIPMENT CHANGES. In the event Applicant makes any material change either in the
amount or character of the Equipment insta/ted upoa Applicant;s premises and supplied with
gas or electric energy, Applicant shall immediately provide PG&E with written notice of ~is
fact.
RECLAssIFICATION TO PERMANENT. If at any time the character of Applicant's
operations changes and the Equipment is determined to be permanent and used in a bona fide
manner and meets all requirements to receive permanent service, so that in PG&E's sole
opinion the char'actor of the operation can be classified as permanent, that portion of the tote.1
payment by applicant'as shown on Exhibit A which is in excess of that which would have
been required for permanent service will be refunded to Applicant upon reclassification from
temporary to permanent based upon PG&E's extension rule in effect at the time service is
fn-st established hereunder.
-3-
Form 79-875
Advic:c No.
F_r£e~-dvc
10. REFUND OF CHARGES. If service to the Equipment is supplied to Applicant on a
continuous, in:ermi:~ent or seasonal basis for a period of 36 consecutive months f~om the
dam s~ndce is f_rst established under this ag-mement, Applicant shall be classified as
permanent, and that portion of [he totaJ payment made by Applicant which is in excess of the
payment which would have been required for permanent service under PG&E's rules in
effect at the time service is f~rst established hereunder shall be refunded to Applicant at the
rate of 1-2/3 percent for each month of service in excess of the firs: 12 months, provided that
Applicant then complies with all of PG&E's rules applicable to gas and electric service.
Refunds shall be made annually except when a partial year's refund may be required upon
termination of service.
Applicable refunds shall not exceed the total payment by Applicant for the installation and
subsequent removal or abandonment of the Facilities and no interest shall be paid on such
.amount.
11. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. Applicant shall ascertain the location of all ex.isting facilities
of PG&E on Applicant's property and inspect the property' initially and periodically dm-"ing
construction to verify the location of all existing and new PG&E facilities. Applicant and
PG&E shall perform all work in compliance w/th applicable federal, state and local laws,
rules and regulations. Applicant shall inform ail persons doing work upon his property of the
location of PG&E's .facilities and ensure that all work of non-PG&E employees is planned
and conducted in a manner to safeguard persons and property from injury. Work performed
in close proximity to PG&E's pressurized gas facilities and energized electric facilities also
shall be performed .in accordance with PG&E's established safety rules and practices, as
directed by PG&E.
-4-
Form 79-8'75
Scrvic~ Pl.mnlng
Advic: No.
F.l'fc:,=/v~
12. ~q'DEMNiFICATIIDN. Applicant will indemni~'y amd hold h~u-rnless PO&E, its offic:rs,
agents and employees, against all loss, damage, expense and 1/ability resulting from injury to
or death of persons, including but not limited ro employees of PG&E or Applicant, o~
damage to property, including but not limited to, property of PG&E or Applicant, arising out
of or in any way connected w/th' the performance of' this A~eement and any and all
construction activities within Applicant's property, however caused, excepting only'such
injury or death as may be caused by the active aegligence or willful misconduct of PG&£'.
Applicant shall pay ail costs that may'be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.
B. APPLICANT INSTALLATION OPTION
CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES OF APPLICANT. Subject to the provisions of
paragTaph B.3 of this Agreement and in accordance With PG&E's General Terms and
Conditions, and PG&E's specifications, separately supplied to Applicant by PG&E,
Applicant shall perform (or arrange for the performance oF) the fo!lowing work:
Furnishing and installing primary and secondary disrr'iburion and service conductors,
poles, pole risers, splice boxes, other subsm~cmres, transformers, switches, and
associated equipment where necessary:
bo
Trenching, excavating, backfilling and compacting, including furnishing of any imported
backfill material and disposal of trench spoil, surface repair, and boring where necessary;
c. Furnishing and installing electric distribution and service conduit where necessarY;
d. Ffl.rnishing and installing gas distribution main and service pipe where necessary;
Obtaining any necessary construction permits and
performed by Applicant under this Agreement.
applicable insurance for all work
-5-
Form 79-875
Service Planning
Advic~ No.
E. ffe~five
2. CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES
paragraph 3 of this Ag-reement, PG&E shall:
OF PG&E. Subject to the provisions of
.3.
a. Pro,rid: inspection services to verify Applicant's performance under this Agreement,
determined by PGScE; and
b. Connect the applicant-installed facilities to PG&E's encr~zed or pressurized supply
system.
NON-REFUNDABLE PAYMENTS. Applicant shall pay to F'G&E on demand and in
advance of any construction, the following:
A non-refundable payment, shown in Exhibit A, for the inspections by PG&..E of work
performed by Applicant or'Applicant's contractor (subject to adjustment based upon
actual time spent by PG&E), as well as other non-refundable costs which may include:,
but am not limited to, (1) re-engineering fees, (2) prepm'ation fees for trench composit~
drawings, (3) rearrangement costs and (4) any applicable taxes.
ACCEPTANCE AND CONVEYANCE. Upon (a) PGS~E's receipt of any'required formal
rights of way, easements, leases, and permits, and (b) PG&E's written final acceptance to
Applicant for any work performed and facilities installed by Applicant for PG&E, ApPlicant
hereby grants and conveys to PG&E, its successors and assigns, all rights, title and interest in
and to all such work and facilities, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.
WARRANTy. In accordance with the General Terms and Conditions, Applicant shall
warrant its materials and workmanship be~nning with the date of Written acceptanc~ by
PG&E for (a) one year covering the facilities installed under paragraph B.1 of this
Agreement, and (b) two years covering the tmnchi.ng anct baclcfilling. In the event the
Applicant's work or materials provided under this Agreement fa.ils to conform
warrarlty, Applicant shall reimburse PG&E its costs for the total cost of repair and/or
replacement as deemed necessary by PG&E. Such reimbursements shall be non-refUndable.
-6-
Fm-m 79-8'/5
Advi~,- No.
Ei'fe~iv~
C. OTHER COND~IONS
ASSIGNMENT. Applicant may assign this a~eement, in whole or in part, only if PG&E
consents in whring and the party to whom the a~eernent is assigned (Assignee) agrees in
writing to perform the obligations of Applicant hereunder. Assignment of this agreement
shall not release Applicant from any of the obligations under this agreement unless such a
release is agreed to in writing by PG&E and the Assignee. Such assignment, unless
otherwise provided therein, shall be deemed to include Applicant's right to any refunds then
unpaid or which may thereafter become payable.
TERM OF AGREEMENT. This a~eement shall be binding and effective when signed by
Applicant and PG&E; however, the term shall commence on the date PG&E's Facilities are
f'n-st ready to supply service, as shown in PG&E's records, and shall remain in force until
terminated by either parry hereto giving the other party 30 days' prior written nodce thereof.
COMMiSSION JURISDICTION. This agreement shall be subject to all of PG&E's
applicable tariff schedules on file with and authorized by the Commission and at all times be
subject to such changes or modifications as the Commission may direct from time to time in
the exercise of its jurisdiction. These may include, but are not limited to changes or
modifications to rules and rate schedules.
Executed this
City. of Saratoga
APPLICANT
BY:
(Signature)
(Type 6r p.rint
TITLE:
MAILING ADDRESS:
13777Fruitva]e Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Az~hrn~: Exhibi£~ Skemh(~y),Rul:13
.day of 2001
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
BY:
(Signature)
John R. Krug
(TyPe or print name)
TITLE: Service Planning Supervisor
-7-
Form 79-875
Se,vi.-.. PIa~
Advice No.
Effective
Applk~nt: City of Saratoga
S~l_~mIbn: 13718 Saratoga Avenue
. Saratoqa, CA 95070
Bo
Co
Do
r-...AnJ~l I A
RULE 13 - TEMPORARY SEF~VIC:E
APPI IOAlCpS APPLIANCES AND EOUIPUENT
Wmer Hear
Dryerm
~I~ (L~..~ ~ bp)
Receptables
30218309
13.1
i.5
106
7
127.6
'G~- ~ Delivery
~s~rs ~a
CHARGES:
1. ~I:laJla:t:ion ind Rerr~val, lex =.~lva. ge
a.. By ~&E
~on F~
~e?~ Meter
En~ineerin~ & Project
Manaqement
2. ~OT: (B4 + B.2xT: ~o~):
~ Eng~ne~n~
~ers
Toc~ ~ (B.1 + B.2. + B.3 - B.4):
$ i 9~772.00 $
$
651.00
2.698.00
4,461.14
.$ $
$ $.
$17:~582.14
REIMBURSEMENT
1. Transio~'rn~ rm
$ $
$. $
SUBJECT TO REFUND IF RECLASSIFIED TO PERMANENT:
1. Payment requir~:l f~ ~~ s~ce ba~md
u~x~n PG&E'i exlension ruie~ In Iflec~ a' ~the
~lm, e Agreement t.i I~)ned.
2. ,Am=u,-~ suqec~'.~ r?u~d IB.1+ Bm- (B.4 x T~x F.::~). D.'I]
i~lS.~ any azT~um remnclecl under ~agr~ 10.
$
$ 3_
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
Revised
Cancelling Revised
Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.
Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.
15573-E
1
Ac
RULE 13--TEMPORARY SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENT OF TEMPORARY SERVICE
PG&E shall, if no undue hardshiP to its existing customers will result therefrom,
furnish temporary service under the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay, in advance or otherwise as required by pG&E, the
estimated cost installed plus the estimated cost of removal, less the estimated
salvage of the facilities necessary for furnishing service.
2. The applicant shall establish credit as required by Rule 6, except that the
amount of deposit prescribed in Rule 7 shall not exceed the estimated bill for
the duration of service.
B. APPLICANT DESIGN (RESIDENTIAL)
Applicant may elect to use the applicant design option to design that portion of the
temporary facilities normally designed by PG&E in accordance with the same
applicant design provisions outlined in Rule 15, except that all charges and refunds
shall be made under the provisions of this Rule.
C. CHANGE TO PERMANENT STATUS
If se~ice to the electrical machinery or apparatus as originally installed or its
equivalent is supplied a temporary customer on a continuous, intermittent or
seasonal basis for a pedod of 36 consecutive months from the date electric
service first was delivered under this rule, the customer shall be classified as
permanent and, the payment made in excess of that required for permanent
service or under the line extension rule for permanent customers shall be
refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section D.2 following, provided
the customer then complies with all of the rules applicable to electric service.
.-
If at any time the character of a temporary customer's operations changes sO
that in the opinion of PG&E the customer may be classified as permanent., the
amoUnt of payment made in excess of that required for permanent service
immediately shall be refunded to the customer in accordance with Section D. 1
following.
3. In no event will a customer be classified as temporary for more than six years.
(N)
I
I
I
(N)
(T)
(T)
(Continued)
Advice Letter No.
Decision No.
28824
1765-E
97-12-099
Issued by
Thomas E. Bottorff
Vice President
Rates & Account Services
Date Filed
Effective
Resolution No.
May 11, 19..'
July 1, 19
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
· Revised
Cancelling Revised
Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No.
Cal. P. U.C. Sheet No.
15574-E
11325-E
RULE 13mTEMPORARY SERVICE
(Continued)
D. REFUNDS
The amount of refund upon reclassification of a customer from temporary to
permanent will be made on the basis of the extension rule in effect at the time
temporary service was first rendered to the customer.
The payment made by the applicant in excess of any that may be required
under the extension rule for permanent service in effect at the time of original
temporary service shall be refunded at the rate of 1-2/3 percent for each month
of service in excess of the first 12 months. Refunds shall be made annually
except when partial year payment may be required upon termination of service.
If payment has not been made in advance, applicant's excess obligation shall
be reduced by 1-2/3 percent for each month of service in excess of the
firSt 12 months.
4. Total refunds shall not exceed the amount deposited and no interest shall be
paid on the amount advanced.
(T)
Advice Letter No.
Decision No.
28825
1765-E Issued by Date Filed
97-12-099 Thomas E. Bottorff Effective
Vice President. Resolution No.
Rates & Account'Services
May 11, 19(`
July 1, 19,(
IIrll~ San Jose
Water
Company
374 West Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95196-0001
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
1265 S. Bascom Ave., S.J. 95128
Facsimile: 408-279-7889
Writer's Direct Dial: 408-279-7887
September 24,. 2001
Ms. Lorie Tinfow
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
REFERENCE:
Saratoga Library Expansion
Dear Ms. Tinfow:
In response to your letter dated September 21, 2001, I would like to inform you that we will need
some additional information in order for this company to begin our engineering process. Please submit
the following:
Engineering deposit in the amount of $10,000.
· Size and location of the required Private Fire Protection Service connection(s). Fire
underground drawings are appreciated.
· Location of the required General Metered Service(s) (domestic and/or irrigation
services). Plumbing and/or irrigation plans are appreciated.
· A signed and completed Form 40 Questionnaire for each new domestic and/or
irrigation service requested (copies of this form enclosed). -
One set of the approved off-site improvement plans (or alternatively, unapproved
off-site plans with the understanding that additional engineering costs may result
from needing to revise our design due to changes in the improvement plans).
Provide all drawings as computer files either in an e-mail attachment- or on a disk.(cd-
rom or 3 ~A" floppy disk). The preferred file format is Microstation (version J).
Autocad (version 14 or lower) in a DXF format is also acceptable. It is preferred that
all information be provided on one drawing in one drawing file. However, if more
than one drawing file is transmitted, please provide a detailed description of the
contents for each file. Also, please complete the Autocad to Microstation Translation
Guide for submittal with the drawing files.
Ms. Lorie Tinfow
September 24, 2001
Page Two
This office will submit a request to our Engineering Department for the preparation of a final
estimate and construction drawing when we receive the above-mentioned items, ff you should have any
questions-regarding this letter please contact me.
DVF:ta
Libraryinfo
Enclosures
Sincerely,
DIANE VAN FOSSEN
Senior Business Development Representative
cc: Craig Greenwood, Gilbane
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor
SUBJECT: Ordinance Enabling City Manager and City Attorney to Process Claims
Filed Against City Seeking $3,000 or Less.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Introduce and waive first reading of the attached ordinance enabling the City Manager
and City Attorney to process claims filed against the City seeking $3,000 or less.
STAFF REPORT:
State law and the Saratoga City Code require that the City be given an opportunity
to review a claim against the City before the claimant pursues the matter in Superior
Court. Currently, all such claims are heard by the City Council. Government Code
section 935.4 allows the City Council to delegate to City staff claim review and payment
authority for claims under $50,000. Because many claims are small and do not raise
major policy issues, staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to process
minor claims with the concurrence of the City Attorney..This will speed processing of
claims and reduce the administrative burden to applicants and to the City Council.
The attached ordinance w6uld authorize the City Manager to accept, settle, or
reject claims against the City of $3,000 or less with the concurrence of the City Attorney.
Staff would retain the discretion to seek Council review for claims that are less than
$3,000 and would be required to seek Council review for claims that are more than
$3,000. The figure of $3,000 was selected as a threshold because it appears that claims
below this amount a generally minor and non-controversial in nature. The threshold can
be contrasted with the City's purchasing system which authorizes the City's purchasing
officer to enter contracts of up to $10,000 without Council review. (See section 20-
45.070 of the Saratoga City Code.) The City of Sunnyvale authorizes staffto review and
act on claims up to $50,000.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If adopted, the ordinance will slightly reduce the administrative costs of processing small
claims by avoiding the need for preparation of staff rePorts to the City Council on'such
claims.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Claims under $3,000 would continue to be processed by the Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council could establish a threshold either above or below the $3,000 figure. Under
state law the threshold cannot exceed $50,000.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Ordinance will be returned to the City Council at the next meeting for approval and
adoption following second reading of ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Text of ordinance.
2
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE
CONCERNING PROCESSING OF TORT CLAIMS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FoLLows:
Section 1. Findings.
Government Code section 935.4 allows cities and other public entities, by ordinance or
resolution, to authorize a public employee to process tort claims filed against the City that
seek $50,000 or less.
B. The City wishes to take advantage of the administrative efficiency that will result from
allowing City staff to process tort claims seeking damages less than $3,000.
Co
This ordinance amends the City Code to provide that the City Manager, with the
concurrence of the City Attorney, may allow, compromise, settle, or deny a claim that
does not exceed $3,000.
Section 2. Adoption.
The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by adding Section 2-50.020, to read as set
forth below:
2-50.020 Processing of Claims Against City.
The City Manager, with the concurrence of the City Attorney, shall be authorized to
accept, settle or reject, without prior approval of the Council, claims against the City that
fall under Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code or section 2-50.010 of the
Saratoga City Code, provided that no allowance, compromise or settlement shall exceed
three thousand dollars. Upon the written order of the City Manager and written
concurrence of the City Attorney, the Finance Director shall cause to be issued a warrant
upon the treasury of the City in the amount for which a claim has been allowed,
compromised or settled.
Section 3. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph,
sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section,
sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any
section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of
this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that
the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been
1 Ordinance No.
eliminated.
Section 4. Publication.
This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Saratoga held on the __ day of__, 2001, and was adopted by the
following vote following a second reading on the __ day of__., 2001'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
2 Ordinance No.
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services
October 17, 2001
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: ~ CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:
_ DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Legal Review of Personnel Rules and Policies
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Retain the services of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to review and revise the City's personnel rules
and policies to ensure compliance with current applicable laws and regulations.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Analysis of the City's rules, policies, memorandums of understandings and letters of agreement
reveal a need for a comprehensive legal review of personnel related documents. The City's rules
have not been substantially reviewed since 1987. The City's administrative policies have not
been revised since 1993.
The City's rules and policies are not only critical to efficient and economical provision of service
to the public, but insure fair treatment for those who compete for employment and promotion.
The rules define the obligations, rights, privileges and prohibitions that are placed upon City
employees.
Current City rules and policies are the first line of defense should an individual allege unfair
treatment regarding employment practice, discrimination or harassment. This also sets forth
expectations regarding prohibition of on duty drug or alcohol use, safety standards and work
rules
Some of the more serious compliance issues revolve around Workplace Harassment, the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Injury and Illness Prevention Program, and the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
While the Human Resource Analyst has been drafting revisions to the City's policies over the
last two years, a meeting with attorney Richard C. Bolanos of Liebert Cassid~, and Whitmore
confirmed the need for an immediate comprehensive review of not only the policies, but also the
City's rules and other documents defining the City's personnel system.
This legal review and revision of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations would be
coordinated with the City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore submitted an estimate not to exceed $14,100 for a review of personnel
rules and regulations and development of updated policies.. Funding for this is not available in
the Human Resources program budget. If this work is approved, funding would need to come
from theContingency.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Do not review and revise personnel rules and regulations, risking potential legal action.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Direct staff to continue revising thc personnel rules and regulations individually, as time permits,
and have the Assistant City Attorney review as authorized by thc City Manager. Legal costs will
continue to be incurred, although gradually.
Prepare a formal request for bids.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Develop a contract with Liebert Cassidy Whitmorc, initiate the review, and include cost in the
mid-year budget adjustments.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENT:
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Proposal
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.- 01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF
$14,100 FOR A REVIEW OF PERSONNEL RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF UPDATED
POLICIES
WHEREAS, an analysis of the City's rules, policies, memorandums of understanding and-
letters of agreement reveal a need for a comprehensive legal review of personnel related documents;
and
WHEREAS, the City's rules and policies are not only critical to efficient and economical
provision of service to the public, but insure fair treatment for those who compete for employment
and promotion; and
WHEREAS, current City rules and policies are the first line of defense should an individual
allege unfair treatment regarding employment practice, discrimination or harassment; and
WHEREAS, attorney Richard C. Bolanos of Liebert Cassidy and Whitmore confirmed the
need for an immediate comprehensive review of not only policies, but also City's rules and other
documents defining the City's personnel system; and
WHEREAS, this legal review and revision of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations
would be coordinated with the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, Liebert Cassidy and Whitmore submitted an estimate not to exceed $14,100 for
a review of personnel rules and regulations and development of updated policies.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the adjustments below to the City of Saratoga's
Fiscal Year 2001-02 budget will be made using the following entries:
001 - 1045-513-40.10
001-1010-511-50.02
Contract Services
Contingency $14,100
Expenditures Revenues
(Debit) (Credit)
$14,100
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 17th day of October, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
6033 ~ Cr~rrom' Bom.m, aaD. Sr. J1T~ 601
LOS A~Ge~s. Cauro~ 90045
T; (310) 981-2000 F: (310) 337-0837
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPOgATION
2570 Wss'r EL C_aiVlltqO ll~L. Sm-rs 600
Motli~rr~llq Vt~v. Cal.lrol~ 940,~0
T: (650) 941-9333 F; (650) 941-9476
September 11,2001
Lori Bums
Human Resources Analyst
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
CONFIDENTIAL
VIA FACSIMILE
(408) 868-1200
Re: Personnel Rules and Policies
Dear Lori:
It was a pleasure meeting with you and Lorrie Tinfow to discuss having Liebert Cassidy
Whitmore review the City's existing personnel rules and regulations. I understand the City is
interested in having all of its current roles, regulations and policies reviewed to ensure they
comply with applicable laws and regulations. The City is also interested in having the rules
reorganized into a more comprehensive and administratively efficient format. Presently, the
City's rules are found in a variety of locations, including memoranda of understanding, an
employee handbook, the City's personnel manual, City Council resolutions, and standalone
personnel policies. This is to provide the City with a preliminary cost estimate for the project
and a time-line for completion.
Drawing from our firm's experience in undertaking projects of this nature, I would
estimate eighty (80) hours of attorney time to complete the project. This would be broken down
as follows: twenty (20) hours to gather and review all of the City's personnel rules, regulations,
policies and procedures and recommend the most efficient and effective manner for
reorganization of those provisions. Included in this phase of the project would be our legal
review of the City's policies and recommendations for compliance with applicable state and
federal laws. In the event it is recommended and decided that the existing rules will be updated
in their present form, I would estimate an additional twenty (20) hours for the project. If
however, it is recommended and decided that a new, comprehensive personnel manual be
developed to incorporate all existing and necessary City policies, I would estimate an additional
sixty (60) hours for that phase of the project.
www. lcwlegal.com
Loft Burns
September 11,2001
Page 2
Associate attorney Deborah Leon would work on the project and I would serve as the
partner overseeing the work. My hourly rate is $225.00 and Deborah's is $170.00. Deborah
would perform the bulk of the project, with my time limited to consulting with her as necessary
and reviewing the final product. Estimating partner review time to take ten hours, the total
estimated dollar cost for the project would be $14,100.00. Because Deborah is on a part-time
schedule, I would estimate 3 months to complete the project.
I trust this information is helpful to you in evaluating the contemplated project. Please do
not hesitate to contact me directly should you need any additional information or if you have any
questions regarding this estimate.
Thank you for your interest in Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and I look forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely,
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
Richard C. Bolanos
RCB/rt
16~6.1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: October 17, 2001
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER:
q
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney
PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor
SUBJECT: Consider Requests to Join Friend of the Court Briefs in Loewenstein v. City
of Lafayette
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the City of Saratoga to join the friend of the court brief being prepared in
Loewenstein v. City of Lafayette.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The courts authorize amicus ("friend of the court") briefs in cases where the amici
have an interest in the case and would provide an additional perspective to that being
provided by the parties to the case. The City's support is currently being sought in
Loewenstein v. City of Lafayette, a case of possible concern to the City.
Loewenstein arises out of the City of Lafayette's denial of a lot line adjustment.
The City is appealing the Superior Court's decisions that (1) the denial of the lot line
adjustment constituted a taking even though the property owner had not submitted even
one development application for the undeveloped parcel involved in the lot line
adjustment and (2) the city must compensate the property owner for the two year delay in
developing the property due to the denial and subsequent litigation.
The arguments that will be advanced in the amicus brief are described in the
attached letter from the City of Lafayette. I summary, the amicus brief will argue (1) the
takings claim should not have been considered because the landowner had not received a
final decision from the City on the permissible uses of the undeveloped parcel; (2) there
can be no taking where the regulatory delay is due to a City's good faith error of law; and
(3) a good faith two year delay in the development process does not have an unduly
severe economic impact or interfere with reasonable investment expectations.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None. There is no cost to join the brief.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice for this meeting.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The City would not join the amicus brief.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
City Attorney will report on the decision of the court when issued.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter describing amicus brief.
2
Charles J. Williams
SBlrrE, M I RALY
oS'
CHARLES J. WILLIAMS
a Profezzional C~rl~oratton
Muir Parkway
1330 Arnold Drive, Suite 149
Martinet, CA 94553
MzMo urd.
Telephone: (925) 228-3840
Facsimile: (925) 228-I703
E-Mail: ChaaLawl~l.a. OL.com
002/006
To:
From:
Date:
It,e:
California City Attorneys
Charles J. W'dliams, City Attorney
E. Clement Shute, Special Counsel
October 2, 2001
Reques~ to Cities to loin as Amkms Curiae in
Loewenst.e. inv. City of]Lafayette (No. 8093590, Court of Appeal of the
State of California, First Appellate Di~a-ict)
On behalf of the City of Lafayette ("City"), we join with the League of Californi.a,Cities in
urging you to join in an amicus curiae brief which will be filed in the First District Court ~}f Appeal
in Lowenstein y. City of Lafayette. The amicus brief is being prepared by Andrew Schwartz,
Deputy City Attorney ofthe City of San Francisco. There is no ce.st to your city to join in the
amicus brief. The remainder of this memorandum sets forth the background of the case and why
the issues raised are of major significance to cities.
'CAS]/ SI3VIMARY
The principal issue in this case is whether the City is liable to the property owner for a
compensable taking of private property for the two year period during which the City's denial of
his application for a lot line adjustment was in effect.
The plaintiff property owner lives on a three (3) acre parcel that is part of subdivision
limited to four building sites. A condition of the mbdivision's approval proMbited further
subdivision of the four lots without City approval. At, er building his home and living there for
years, the property owner paid $13,500 to acquire an abandoned water district tank site for .the
purpose of combining it with his existing three (3) acre residential parcel and then splitting the
resulting parcel into two residential parcels. The tank site was a substandard, but legal non-
conforming parcel. The property owner thus sought to use the lot line adjustment process,
thereby avoiding the subdivision process, to create a fifth building site in the subdivision.
After the City denied the property owner's application for a lot line adjustment, the
property owner filed a lesal action asserting two claims: a writ of mandate to compel ilie City to
10/12/01 13:58 ~ SHIYrE,MIHALY
003/006
grant the lot line adjustment and an inverse condemnation claim for damages. The trial court
granted, the petition for writ of mandate and held, following the trial of the inverse condemnation
claim, that the City's denial of the application for a lot line adjustment deprived the property
owner of substantially ali economically viable use of his property. The trial court awarded.
damages in the amount of$611,666.66.
The court denied the City's motion for a new trial. The City hereafter converted the
. alleged permanent taking to .a temporary taking by rescinding its denial and approving the
application for a lot line adjustment.
WHY THIS' CASE MERITS CITY ATTENTION
This case presents issues of major significance tO cities involving the law of inverse
condemnation.
First, a taking was found notwithstanding the property owner's failure to submit even one
developmem application, contrary to established principles of ripeness. The court relied on the
extremely narrow futility exception, even though there was no dispute that, without the lot line
adjustment, the property was legally .developable and could support a single family residence of
substantial vaIue. If upheld, the ruling would broaden the futility exception and encourage
property owners to bring takings challenges against preliminary land use decisions.
Second, the takings claim was based solely on the City's allegedly improper denial of a l°t
line adjustment. The facts of the case are very similar to those ofLandgate v. California:Coastal
CommissiOn (1998) 17 Cal.4'h 1006, 73 Cai_ Rptr.2d 841, in which the California Supreme Court
rejected a takings claim based on the Coastal Commission's legally erroneous but good faith
assertion of jurisdiction over a lot line adjustment. The court in the present case properly held
that there was no taking under Landgate. since the City's denial of the lot line adjustment, though
legally erroneous, was reasonable and in good faith. But while this should have ended the inquiry
the court went on to undertake a second takings analysis under Penn Cent.r.~ and found that a
tal~g.had oc, c~rred. By ruling that a normal delay in development caused by preliminary
litigation is a' Compensable takings, the decision could have a chilling effect at every step, of the
decision making process.
Third, the court applied thc Penn Central factors to find a taking even though the plaintiffs
had suffered, at most, a restriction in their ability to expand the size of then' existing, developable
lot. The decision runs counter to a long line of precedent holding that a mere'diminution in the
value of property is not sn6qclcnt to cffeci a taking.
THE AMICUS BRIEF
Amicus City and County of'San Francisco will address three issues in its brief on beb_.~ifof
California cities. First, it will argue that the trial court should not have reached the takings claim
because the claimants failed to secure a final decision regarding the permissible level of
development on thc tank site. The United States Supreme Court ha~ consistently affirmed that
the final decision ripeness doctrine is crucial to the preservation of government's flexibility to
regulate land use in the public interest. Allowing landowne~ to bring takings claims st~alglaI to
10/12/01 15:$8 ~ $]ttrI~,MIHALY
004/006
grant the lot line adjustment and an inverse 'condemnation claim for damages. The trial court
granted the petition for writ of mandate and held, following the trial of the inverse condemnation
claim, that the City's denial of'the application for a lot line adjustment deprived the property
owner of substantially all economically viable use of his property. The trial court awarded
damages in the amount of$611,666.66.
The court denied the City's motion for a new trial. The City hereafter converted the
alleged permanent taking to a temporary taking by rescinding its denial and approving the
application for a lot line adjustment.
WHY THIS CASE ME~TS CITY ATTENTION
This case presents issues of major significance to cities involving the law of inverse
condemnation.
First, a taking was found notwithstanding the 'propertY owner's failure to submit even one
development application, contrary to established principles ofriperiess. The court relied on the
extremely narrow futility exception, even though there Was no dispute that, without the lot line
adjustment, the property was legally developable and could support' a single family residence of
substantial value. If upheld, thc ruling would broaden the futility exception and encourage
property owners to bring talcings challenges against preliminary land usc decisions.
Second, the takings dalm was based solely on the City's allegedly improper denial of a lot
line adjustment. Thc facts &the case are very similar to those ofLand_~_te__v. Califomia,Coastal.
Commission (1998) 17 Cal.4~ I006, 73 Cal. Rptr.2d 841, in which the C~lifornia Suprerhe Court '
rejected a takings claim based on the Coastal Commission's legally erroneous but good faith
assertion of jurisdiction over a lot line adjustment. The court in the present case' prope, rly held
that there was no taking under _Landgate since the City's denial ofthe lot line adjustment, though
legally erroneous, was reasonable and in good faith. But while this should have ended the inquiry
the court went on to undertake a seCond takings analysis under Penn Central and found .that a
taking had occurred. By ruling that a normal delay in development caused by preliminary
litigationis a compensable takings, thc decision could have a chilling effect at every step of the
decision making process.
Third, the court applied the Penn Central factors to find a taking even though the plaintiff-~
had suffered, at most, a restriction in their ability to expand the size of their existing, developable
lot. The decision runs counter to a long line of precedent holding that a mere diminution in the
value of property is not sufficient to effect a taking.
AMICUS BRIEF
Amicus City and County of San Francisco will address three issues in its brief on behalfof
California cities. First, it will argue that the trial court should not have reached the takings claim
because the claimants failed to secure a final derision regarding the permissible level of
development on the tank site. The United States Supreme Court has consistently ~Bqrmed that
the final decision ripeaums doctrine is crucial to the preservation of government's flem'bility to
regulate land use in the public interest. Allowing landowners to bring'takings claims sh~aight to
10/12/01 13:59 ~ SHI~'E,MIHAL¥
006/006
court, without obtaining a determination as to thc level of development to the local agency will
allow, undermines every city's administrative land use regulatory process.
Second, San Francisco will argue that Landgate imposes a blanket rule controlling every
takings claim arising from regulatory delay. Under Landgate, a regulatory delay claim is not
compensable as a taking, even if the exercise of regulatory authority is later determined to be
erroneous, if that authority is exercised under a good faith belief in its validity. Application of the
Penn Central three-factor Test to a regalatory delay case would eviscerate Landgate, exposing
local government agencies to massive liability for takings.
Third, even if the appellate court disagrees and affirms the trial courts' decision to apply
Penn Central, San Francisco will argue that the City of Lafayette's temporary interference with
the claimants' use ofthe tank site did not effect a taking. Penn Central requires an analysis of
three factors: (I) the economic impact of the challenged regulation; (2) the claimants'
reasonable, investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the government action,
(t~enn Central, 438 U.S. at p, 124.) San Francisco will demonstrate that a delay in development
occasioned by a local agency's delay in approval ora.lot line adjustment cannot constitute a
taking under any of the Penn Central factors.
The Appellate Advocacy Committee of the California League of Cities urges all California
cities to join in this important amicus effort. Currently it is anticipated that the amicus brief'will
be filed concurrently with the City of Lafayette's opposition brief on or about December 20;
20.01. If your city is willing to join as an amicus party, please obtain the necessary authority
and return the enclosed consent form by facsimile or first class mail as soon as poss!ble but
no later than November 15, 2001.
Ify0u need further information, please do not hesitate to call either Charles J. W'tlliams,
Lafayette City Attorney ((925) 228-3840) or Osa Armi of the law firm of Shute, Mihaly &
Weinberger ((415) 552-7272). We look forward to receiving your support.