The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-07-2001 City Council Agenda Packet AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 7, 2001 OPEN SESSION -4:25 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM- 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE EMERGENCY OPERATION TRAINING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS - 5:25 P.M. 5:25 p.m. Leroy Murray 5:35 p.m. Pamela Roper Kaiser 5:45 p.m. Charles Guzzetta 5: 55 p.m. Mary Lou Taylor Mary Ann Henderson CALL MEETING TO ORDER- 6:05 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:05 P.M. Arts Commission Arts Commission Arts Commission Arts commission Arts Commission CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -INITIATION OF LITIGATION: (Government Code section 54956.9(c)): (1 case) 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 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant.to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 2, 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 None 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. lA. Approve Council Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting -September 5,2001 Regular Meeting - September 19, 2001 Study Session - October 9, 2001 Recommended action: Approve minutes. lB. Review of Check Register Recommended action: Approve check register. lC. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Recommended action: Accept report. ID. Review Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting - October 24, 2001 Recommended action: - Note and file. 1E. 1F. Congress Springs Park - Extension of Safety Netting Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement and appr._0ye change order. Final Map Approval for Eleven Lots Located at 14800 Bohlman Road Recommended action: Adopt resolution granting final map approval and authorization to Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants~Appellants and their representatives have a total often minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant~Appellants and their r~presentatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council's approval at the Council meeting) General Plan Land Use Map Amendment - 14800 Bohlman Road/14766 Oak Street, APN's 517-13-018, 517-13-019& 517-12-001 - Sobrato Development Company Recommended action: Conduct Public Heahng and adopt resolution amending the General Plan Land use Map. OLD BUSINESS Presentation by Valley Transportation Authority - Highway 85 Recommended action: Informational only. Appeal of DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 (397-17-034) 19751 Versailles Way Applicant: Lee / Appellant: Hari and Yvonne Pillai Recommended action: Adopt resolution. o Authorization to City Manager to execute Agreement with Santa Clara County - Property Tax settlement Recommended action: Authorize execution of agreement. NEW BUSINESS Release 0fDeferred Improvement Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Rector, Wardens, and Vestryman of St. Andrew's Parish Recommended action: Adopt resolution. o Norton Road Fire Access Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Civic Center Traffic and Parking Concerns Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Village Parking Study Results Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. 10. Options for City. Legal Assistance Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. 3 11. Appointment and Confirmation of Department Heads Recommended action: Adopt resolutions. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Planning Commission Parks and ReCreation Commission Finance Commission Library Commission Public Safety Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Youth Commission Gateway Task Force Library Expansion Committee Baker Streit Mehaffey Bogosian Bogosian Waltonsmith Waltonsmith 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) SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS NOVEMBER 21, 2001 MEETING CANCELLED - December 5, 2001 December 11, 2001 Regular. Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Adjourned Meeting - Council Reorganization Civic Center Master Plan Study Session Adult Day Acre Center 19655 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, California 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. December 19, 2001 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 7:00 p.m. January 2, 2002 Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 7:00 p.m. 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING ~T'~nager PREPARED AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Commission Interviews for Arts Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council conduct interviews for the Arts Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: The following people have been scheduled for interviews: 5:25 p.m. 5:35 p.m. 5:45 p.m. 5:55 p.m. Leroy Murray Pamela Roper Kaiser Charles Guzzetta Mary Lou Taylor Mary Ann Henderson Arts Commission Arts Commission Arts Commission Arts commission Arts Commission There are seven (7) vacancies to be filled on the newly established Saratoga Arts Commission. The terms for these vacancies will expire on October 1, 2005. *Mrs. Henderson is unable to participate in the scheduled interview process due to the fact she is attending an Artist Workshop in Yosemite. Please see attached note on her application. Mrs. Henderson would still like to be considered as a candidate for the Arts Commission. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appointments will not be made to the Arts Commission. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Adopt resolutions and administer Oaths of Office at scheduled Council Meeting. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Applications of the above named applicants. 2 of 3 OCT 2.$ 2001 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM DATE: 10/23/01 COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: Saratoga Arts Commission MS. MRS. Mr. LeRoy E. Murray MR. TELEPHONE: (408) 255-9908 (408) 742-5601 ADDRESS: HOME POB 3212 (Mailing) WORK 19466 Miller Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 YEAR YOU BECAME A SARATOGA RESIDENT: 1979 WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND DAYTIME MEETINGS? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND EVENING MEETINGS? Possible Yes BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THESE AREAS CURRENT OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Contract Systems Engineer: Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) 1996-Present Consulting Engineer: Honeywell Inc. 1996 Retired: 1995 Flight Avionics Engineer: Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. 1960-1994" EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: High School Diploma: Piqua, Ohio: 1956 BS in Physics: Purdue University: W. Lafayette, Ind.: 1960 Course Work for MS Mathematics: San Jose State 1962-1965 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Villa Circle Member Montalvo: Visual and Performing Arts supporter since early 19908 plus new Classical and Literary Series. Reserve Club Member: Mountain Winery; Supporter of Performing Arts and MW Kids' Foundation Supporter of Multiple Art Venues (musical, performing, graphics) throughout Bay Area Active in Secondary Art Market (Serigraph, Sculpture) and Patron of Local Graphic Art Galleries in South' B~y REFERENCES: Elisbeth Challener: Executive Director, Montalvo; (408) 961-5803 ]. Ron Hills and Suzanna Cody: Saratoga Residents; 18588 W0odbank Way; (408) 867-1177 2. James Bond: James Bond Gallery; Main St. Los, Gatos, CA (408) 395-1415 3. PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE: LeRoy E. Murray CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM C~, _~.aratoga ~ 0OT ~ ~ zoo~ ~ , DATE: (~~~ COMMISSION TELEPHONE: HOME ~~ss: l ct t~ 1 0 YEAR YOU BECAME A SARATOGA RESIDENT: WORK WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND DAYTIME MEETINGS?tl,~..~ WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND EVENING MEETINGS? BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THESE AREAS CURRENT OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:.... " . EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: SIGNATURE: Pamela D. Roper 19610 Three Oaks Way Saratoga, CA 95070 (408)741-1805 Objective: 5eeking'a'challenging leadership position that promotes creativity and offers professional growth. Skills and Qualifications: · High energy, results oriented strategic thinker. · Excellent project management and problem solving skills. · Proven track record with organizational development improvements. · Financial and people management skills. · Extensive experience in developing, leading and implementing strategies (quality and reliability systems, methods and business improvement processes). · Customer and product marketing programs leadership - product positioning. Trade Show Coordination and Booth personnel management. · Semiconductor manufacturing process experience (wafer fab, package assembly and final product marking and test). Contract manufacturing and product reliability management skills. · Significant quality systems auditing experience (manufacturing, materials and support functions). · Excellent knowledge of Corporate / Regional, Site end Mergers & Acquisitions Security Management. · Ability to understand and balance community and corporate needs. · External community involvement C:ntel Computer Clubhouse Program Mgmt., Sustaining Member of the ,Tunior League of San ,Tose, ,Tunior League of Polo Alto-Mid Peninsula - held numerous committee chair positions). Professional Experience: Zntel Corporation 1976- Present Community Relations Manager Zntel Computer Clubhouse Network - Senior Program Manager ($une 2000 to Present) Santa Clara site Community Relations Manager responsible for charitable grant budget, sponsorship of community based organizations/non profit programs and focused community relations processes and programs. Supervised 'staff, managed a budget of $3M and drafted and implemented internal and external charitable contributions processes. Program manager for the Santa Site Computer Clubhouse program. Responsibilities include managing all aspects of the local program including request for funding, site selection, facilities set up assistance, clubhouse staff hiring assistance, volunteer recruitment, sustaining, communication and maintenance of the clubhouse. Regional Security Manager: (1998 to 2000) Responsible for the management of the Central Region Security function, l~ncludes all California sites end the Control Region Mergers and Acquisitions. Responsibilities include all physical security functions e.g., high profile 'event management, assessment, start up activities and sustaining management. This position has 8direct end 2 direct Pinkerton Account Manager reports. The job also manages a green badge workforce of 184 (40 in Folsom and 144 in Santa Clara). The budget for this department in ?000 is $7.4M. Contributing core team member of the Corporate rebadge initiative and Corporate Security Council. Also led the Central Region Employee Relations Self Assessment (Eq:~SA) process and the Organizational Effectiveness Steering Committee. Business Operations and Support Services Manager: (199~ - :1998) Responsible for managing a department of 18 employees and a budget of $2M. Managed information managemen,~ and information systems employees tasked with the development, maintenance and support of facilities I~ operations applications and software platforms. C~uality systems development and deployment activities reported to this position along with self-audit activities in support of T$O 900:>. Hired the first facilities Statistical Process Control and Proactive Excursion Management Engineer to support trend reviews and SPC technical training. Employee l~'aining (both technical and non-technical) and management of the hiring, integration and development processes reported into this job. Additional responsibilities included leading a self-assessment team tasked with applying for the ]~ntel C~uality Award ~ZqA) and chairperson for the Corporate Services Business Operations Council. The position also supported and obtained x-site best known methods to assist in continuous improvement activities and acted as a godperson to several employee working teams. Engineering and Quality Systems Manager (199! - :199§) Responsible for Component Materials Operation (both fab and assembly) internal and :supplier engineering and quality systems. Managed Engineering Council, statistics functions, Training and Document Control. 'Developed Materials Development Methodology and supplier management processes used for fab and assembly materials quality control and improvement. Co-developed a quality vision roadmap for the organization. Led successful projects and the team that received the ~[ntel C~uality Award. Led first materials group Z$O 9002 registration. Zntel 386" and i486" Product Marketing Manager (1989 - 1991) Generated pricing and product strategies. Managed all manufacturing and customer product stepping conversions. Consolidated product forecasts and coordinated customer volume commit meetings. Obtained trade show demos, assisted in trade show messages and supervised trade show staff. Responsible for all internal and customer product responsibilities for the 386~and i486TMTM microprocessors. Market Development Engineer (1988 - lggl) Managed five of Zntel's top ten personal computer accounts (at the time). Established improved communication between multiple operations and the field sales force, iZmproved customer relations by increasing account visibility within the product divisions. Strengthened account leadership by improving the demand forecast process and by streamlining stepping and product information to the field sales force. Program Manager C~uality & Reliability Contract Manufacturing (! 986-1988) Program manager for three major ~Tapanese and 2 US semiconductor contract manufacturers. Negotiated specifications, qualification strategies, monitors and all quality data requirements. Facilitated technical and quality related activities for Fab, Sort, Assembly and final product test. Audited contractor processes and facilities. Acted as the liaison between ]~ntel ~Tapan and internal functional operations and contractors. Created a corporate communication tool (on the contracting program) which was delivered to all major customer accounts. Corporate Auditor Manufacturing C~uality (1984 - 1986) Managed and performed major account customer audits and routine facility and process quality audits for all Zntel manufacturing facilities (including components contracting manufacturing locations). Created and implemented the self-audit concept for lintel Corporation. Documented auditing processes (first specification) and negotiated the self-auditing program implementation at the manufacturing sites. Assembly C~uality Assurance Engineer (1982 - 1984) Supervised quality/reliability inspectors and the quality function in the ,Taint, Army, Navy (,TAN) and Military products assembly manufacturing line. C~uality and reliability activities included the definition, development and implementation of C~A inspection specifications and techniques. Implemented SPC on inspection and operating equipment. Developed software for computerized tracking of domestic and offshore assembly plant quality indicators. Developed the first corporate wide Intel Workmanship Standards (visual criteria for all finished assembly components). Trained C~A inspectors and manufacturing operators on quality awareness. Quality Administrator (1976 - !982) Supported the Directors of C~uality and Reliability. Trended SPC data for all Intel Manufacturing areas - helped kick off Intel's first effort in SPC. Supported administrative duties and supervised one green badge for a department of approximately 1§ engineers and the MATTEC Lab. Validated spending and, managed financial budgets. Set up first document control area in for the Corporation. Education: BS Organizational Behavior and Development University of San Francisco Dean's List Divisional Awards: 1983 - Quality Achievement Award Final Product Workmanship Standards 1987 - Supplier Continuous C~uolity Improvement Process (SCC~T) Development t987 - Mitsubishi Cluality Program Achievement 1990 - Tntel 386TM and i486.TM Architecture Product Line Positioning 1992 -.Components Materials l~ntel C~uality Award ~C~A) Core Team Leader 1993 - Components Materials and Services Workshop Award for C~uality and Safety 1995 - Components Materials I50 9002 Registration Core Team Leader 1999 - Corporate Security PC Stropping Program Communications C~oir 2000 - Corporate Services Outstanding SC Kid to Work Day Team Leader 2000 - Intel Human Relations Award - Computer Clubhouse Implementation for Bay Area Communities 2001 - Intel Corporate Services Security Rebadge Program for California sites References: Furnished upon request CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM COMMISSION APPLY~G FOR: B~ MR. TELEPHONE: HOME WORK YEAR YOU BECAME A SARATOGA RESIDENT: ~ ~I>'T' WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND DAYTIME MEETINGS? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND EVENING MEETINGS? BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THESE AREAS CURRENT OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: i~,~x'~..~ \l~w~ .--$o,~b, ~,,,~e-- \qc~")-.IqS""B EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: REFERENCES: ?L SIGNATURE: CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM 2001 DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2001 COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: ARTS COMMISSION MARY LOU TAYLOR TELEPHONE: (HOME) 408-867-2919 ADDRESS: 14950 GERNEIL COURT YEAR YOU BECAME A SARATOGA RESIDENT: 1967 WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND DAYTIME MEETINGS? YES WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND EVENING MEETINGS? YES BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMF. NT 1N EACH OF THESE AREAS CURRENT OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Retired English and Speech teacher at the Fremont Union High School District (Monte Vista and Fremont High Schools). Administrative aide and secretarial background. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Attended UCLA and SJSU. Secondary credential fi.om SJSU. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Participation in volunteer organizations: Present Board Trustee at Montalvo; Past President of San Jose Center for Poetry and Literature and Present Advisory Board Head; Present Advisory Board Member of the Center for Literary Arts at SJSU; Chair for several committees of fund-raising organizations, i.e., Eastfield Ming Quong, Peninsula Volunteers, San Jose Museum of Art. Archivist for Beth Van Heusen and Mark Adams, San Francisco artists. Published poet. CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM REFERENCES: 1. Betsy and Bob Coo, 19480 Valle Vista Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Pat and Jim Compton, 15040 Oriole Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Elisbeth Challener, Executive Director, Montalvo, P.O. Box 158, Saratoga, Ca 95071-0158 PRINT NAME: MARY LOU TAYLOR SIGNATURE: CITY OF SARATOGA COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM DATE: C"'~o't~a~ ~-(~', COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: HO~ME ADDRESS' YEAR YOU BECAME A SARATOGA RESDENT: WORK WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND DAYTIME MEETINGS? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ATTEND EVENING MEETINGS? BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN EACH OF THESE AREAS CURRENT OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: - .Mmv- .~ee.,-.~m~ "~ .P~.~5 G,4.~ .5~,~,~, c.~. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: REFERENCES: PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE: MARY ANN HENDERSON Artist's Biography Mary Ann Henderson lived in Cleveland, Ohio before moving to Saratoga, CA eleven years ago. She received her BFA degree ~omNotre Dame College in Cleveland and studied one year at the University of Vienna, Austria. She did her graduate work in Art History at Case Western Reserve University. She worked 15 years as a h'brarian in the Cleveland suburbs and in Fairfax, VA. She has two adult children and enjoys her challenging life as a serious artist. Her husband enjoys hiSrole as both muse and critic: She has exlu"oited in numerous local and regional group and one-person shows and has received many major awards, including: 2000 KTEH public television commission to create painting for Tenth Anniversary Fine Art Portfolio 1999 National League of American Pen Women Award for Distinguished Achievement in the Arts 1998 Villa Montalvo...Saratoga Conmmnity of Painters at Montalvo 1998 Los Gatos Museum of Art Suried Show...First Place, pastel/watercolor 1998 Triton Museum of Art; VAAST Juried Show...First Place, Club Award ...Second Place, Overall Award 1997 Santa Clam County Fair Fine Arts Juried Co~ tition...First Place AFFILIATIONS: President (current) of Allied Artists West (AAV0, a group of nationally known and emerging professional mists of Santa Clara County Past president of the Saratoga Contemporary Artists Aegis Gallery of Fine Art in Saratoga, CA. - Nov. AA-co oeeC. Iv. Nov. 14- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: C[,t~zManager CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: City Council Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Regular Meeting- September 5, 2001 Study Session- October 9, 2001 Regular Meeting - September 19, 2001 REPORT SUMMARY: N/A FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A ~ CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Minutes/September 5, 2001 Attachment B - Minutes/October 9, 2001 Attachment C - Minutes/October 19, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. to interview one applicant for the Public Safety Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:15 p.m. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential cases) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey Called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 ip.m. and requested Vice Mhyor Streit to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attomey Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator City Council Minutes 1 September 5, 2001 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 5, 2001. Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 5, 2001 was properly posted on August 31, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, thanked the City Council for passing the pesticide ordinance.- Ms. Jensen requested assistance from the City under the Fair Housing Act and/or the American with Disability Act to repair the roof on her house. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Bogosian requested that Ms. Jensen be referred to Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Councilmember Bogosian. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Mehaffey announced that there are five vacancies available on the Board of Directors for the .Saratoga Community Foundation. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. APPOINTMENT OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution of Appointment. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-057 City Council Minutes 2 September 5, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHYLIS BALLINGALL TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 3-0 WITH BAKER AN]) WALTONSMITH ABSENT. Deputy City Clerk Sullivan noted that Ms. Ballingall was unable to come to tonight's meeting and would make arrangements with the City Clerk to take her Oath of Office. Mayor Mehaffey requested that the City Council move to Item 4. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item 4. OLD BUSINESS 4. AZULE PARK MASTER PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve master plan. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that the City Council directed staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop a master plan for Azule Park at the March 27, 2001 Joint Meeting. Director Cherbone noted that the development of the proposed master plan for Azule Park was a successful collaboration between Azule residents and the City. The plan incorporates a broad spectrum of amenities: Tennis Courts · Children's playground · Horseshoe Facilities · Volleyball Area · Open Play Area · Picnic Facilities · Perimeter Pathways · Attractive Landscaping Director Cherbone noted that staff is requesting that the City Council approve the Azule Park Master Plan. City Council Minutes 3 September 5, 2001 Tom Soukup, 12340 Goleta Avenue, noted that he fully supports and approves the Azule Master Plan and thanked the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City staff for all of their time and hard work. Laura Gloner, 12649 Lido Way, noted that Azule Park has been waiting 30 years to be developed. Ms. Gloner urged the Council to approve the Azule Park Master Plan. Katie Alexander, 12340 Goleta Avenue, thanked the City Council, City staff, and the Parks and Recreation Commission for their hard work in the development of the Plan. Mrs. Alexander noted that the Master Plan represents the consensus of the neighborhood. Vibha Goel, 12262 Goleta Avenue, thanked the City Council for the development of Azule Park. Jim Schindler, 12302 Goleta Court noted that the development of the Azule Master Plan has been a very positive process. Mr. Schindler noted that his only concerns are traffic and safety. Mr. Schindler noted that he submitted a petition with 200 signatures in support of the Master Plan. Vice Mayor Streit commented that he has been involved with this project for a long time and fully supports the Master Plan. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the process was.very positive and productive. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the Master Plan should be added to the CIP and fast tracked. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the RFP for construction drawings could be done separately from the CIP. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, responded that the Council could amend this year's budget to include funding out of the CIP budget to go ahead with the construction drawings. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the Council could direct staff to go forward with the RFP process tonight. Director Cherbone responded that staffwould have to come back with a resolution amending the budget. Vice Mayor Streit suggested that the budget amendment be agendized for the next meeting when there is a full Council. City Council Minutes 4 September 5, 2001 Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a resolution amending the budget and return for City Council approval on October 3, 2001. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AZULE MASTER PLAN. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: REGULAR MEETING - JULY 18, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the minutes be continued to the next meeting because a motion cannot be made without Councilmember Baker or Councilmember Waltonsmith. Consensus of the City Council to continue Item 2A to October 3,2001. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2B from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian requested an explanation of the entry on page 5, General Electro Dynamics Corp. for the amount of $4852.20. Councilmember Bogosian asked why the City does not go to public scales for free or at a nominal cost. Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor, noted that he would investigate this entry and report back to Council. Councilmember Bogosian requested that this check register be continued to the next'City Council meeting. Consensus of the City Council to continue Item 2B to October 3, 2001. 2C. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. City Council Minutes 5 September 5, 2001 2D. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO MAYOR TO EXECUTE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2E. CLAIM OF JOHN YFANTIS; CLAIM NO. GL-052558 2I. 2J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize settlement. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT TO JOHN YFANTIS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. SARATOGA PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve purchase and adopt resolution appropriating funds. ' · ,. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-061 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $22,145 FOR PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF PLAY STRUCTURE. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) City Council Minutes 6 September 5, 2001 2D. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO MAYOR TO EXECUTE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 wrrH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. 2E. CLAIM OF JOHN YFANTIS; CLAIM NO. GL-052558 2I. 2J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:- Authorize settlement. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT TO JOHN YFANTIS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. SARATOGA PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve purchase and adopt resolutiOn appropriating funds. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-061 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $22,145 FOR PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF PLAY STRUCTURE. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) City Council Minutes 6 September 5, 2001 2K. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-059 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF DR-01-006, UP-01-001 & TUP-01-003; 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE APPLICANT: SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT/APPELLANT: F.AC.T. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-060 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING DR-01-006, TUP-01-003, AND UP-01-002, FOR A FIRE STATION TO BE LOCATED AT 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE. City Council Minutes 7 September 5, 2001 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the applications that the Planning Commission considered were for Design Review and Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing Fire Station and construction of a new 13,325 square foot facility at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The Use Permit was also to allow the deviation from standards as provided in the City Zoning Code. The Saratoga Fire District also requested a Lot Line Adjustment.so that the entire facility could be placed on Fire District property, as designed, a portion of the facility encroaches in to the Memorial Plaza by 529 square feet. The District also requested approval of a Temporary Use Permit to allow fire operations to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The Planning Commission also granted a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. This has not been filed with Santa Clara County. Director Sullivan explained that the Fire District property is zoned P-A Professional and Administrative Office District. This zoning district allows as a conditional use, police and fire station and other public buildings, structures and facilities. Director Sullivan briefly explained the basic zoning standards. Director Sullivan noted that the zoning standards presented in the City's code is typical standards that one would expect to find and use for professional office development, particularly in a community, such as Saratoga. Through the use the provisions in Section 15-55.030, the Fire District requested that these standards be set aside so that the square footage of the Fire Station could be maximized. The existing station could not be replaced in its current configuration without setting these zoning standards aside.. ,. Director Sullivan noted that many issues were raised during the two public heatings; many did not have direct relation to the land use jurisdiction the Planning Commission could consider. The number of parking spaces and the number of employees was raised as an issue. In the end the Plmming Commission made their determinations based on their land use jurisdiction which involved the following: Architectural Design - Planning Commission requested.that project architect work With staff to revise the tower to better capture the Julia Morgan style c}f adjacent Federated Church. · Setback requirements of the P-A Zone District - Planning Commission used the discretion found in Zoning Ordinance Section 15-55.030 in order to approve the project with zero setbacks. · Maximum height allowed in the P-A Zone District - Planning Commission used their discretion found in Zoning Code Section 15- · 55.030, in order to approve the project as proposed. City Council Minutes 8 September 5, 2001 Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the applications that the Planning Commission considered were for Design Review and Use Permit to allow the demolition of the existing Fire Station and construction of a new 13,325 square foot facility at 14380 Saratoga Avenue. The Use Permit was also to allow the deviation from standards as provided in the City Zoning Code. The Saratoga Fire District also requested a Lot Line Adjustment so that the entire facility could be placed on Fire District property, as designed, a portion of the facility encroaches in to the Memorial Plaza by 529 square feet. The District also requested approval of a Temporary Use Permit to allow fire operations to be located at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during construction. The Planning Commission also granted a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. This has not been filed with Santa Clara County. Director Sullivan explained that the Fire District property is zoned P-A Professional and Administrative Office District. This zoning district allows as a conditional use, police and fire station and other public buildings, structures and facilities. Director Sullivan briefly explained the basic zoning standards. Director Sullivan noted that the zoning standards presented in the City's code is typical standards that one would expect to find and use for professional office development, particularly in a community, such as Saratoga. Through the use the provisions in Section 15-55.030, the Fire District requested that these st.andards be set aside so that the square footage of the Fire Station could be maximized. The existing station could not be replaced in its current configuration without setting these zoning standards aside. Director Sullivan noted that many issues were raised during the two public hearings; ma,ny did not have direct relation to the land use jurisdiction the Planning Commission could consider. The number of parking spaces and the number of employees was raised as an issue. In the end the Planning Commission made their determinations based on their land use jurisdiction which involved the following: Architectural Design - Planning Commission requested that project architect work with staff to revise the tower to better capture the Julia Morgan style of adjacent Federated Church. · Setback requirements of the P-A Zone District - Planning Commission used the discretion found in Zoning Ordinance Section 15-55.030 in order to approve the project with zero setbacks. · Maximum height allowed in the P-A Zone District - Planning Commission used their discretion found in Zoning Code Section 15- 55.030, in order to approve the project as proposed. City Council Minutes 8 September 5, 2001 · Maximum coverage allowed in the P-A Zone District - Planning Commission used the discretion in Section 15-55.030, to approve the project as proposed. · Land trade between the Fire District and the City - Planning Commission approved the Lot Line Adjustment conditioned upon the City Council agreeing to the trade of real property. · On-site parking requirements - Planning Commission conditioned the project in a manner that required that the parking be revised prior to the Temporary Use permit expiring. · Temporary Use Permit to allow the Contempo Building to serve as the Fire Station during construction - Planning Commission had jurisdiction in this matter, but felt that having the Fire Station in the same general area better served the public. · Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration- Planning Commission determined that there would be no enviromnental impact of rebuilding the fire station in the same location. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. David Dolloff, 20685 Sigal Drivb, noted that he is the Chair for the F.A.C.T. committee and a candidate for the Fire Commission. Mr. Dolloffnoted that the F.A.C.T Committee does support a new fire station, but this proposed station design is wrong for the following reasons: · The proposed station will not even meet the present needs let alone future ones. · The Saratoga Firefighters strongly oppose the proposed design. · Too many code requirements have to be waived. · Traffic and firefighter safety problems will continue to exist. · Parking is grossly inadequate by Saratoga standards. · The design and mass on the comer doesn't fit with its surroundings. · The citizens did not overwhelmingly approve this design. Mr. Dolloff explained with the. recent Boundary Drop Agreement two new pieces of equipment has been mandated; a ladder truck and a brush patrol. The new pieces of equipment will not fit in the proposed fire station. Mr. Dolloffnoted that the Saratoga Firefighters were not consulted on the current design; in fact, they were kept out of the process. Mr. Dolloff noted that ten code requirements would have to be waived in order for this project to begin. City Council Minutes 9 September 5, 2001 In regards to parking, Mr. Dolloff explained that there are 22 spaces for 35 full- time employees. In addition Mr. Dolloff stated that a civil engineer's report on the seismic safety was published in July 1994. The Commission has done nothing for seven years. Mr. Dolloff explained that the voters approved a replacement station. The current design has increased the size of the current station from the 7,500 sq. ft. to 17,575 sq. ft. Mr. Dolloffnoted that out of 8,067 registered voters only 2,101 voted for the approval of the bond (26%). Mr. Dolloffnoted that the F.A.C.T. Committee request the following: · Maximize all public safety and service for Saratoga o Fire Safety Police Protection Emergency Medical Services o Postal Services Allow the Public Service Plaza Committee time to fulfill its mission as directed by the City Council. Chris Ford, 1704 Union Street, San Francisco, Architect/C3 Design Alliance, noted that he would be showing the facility needs, project background, review planning and design, and answer City Council questions. Mr. Ford explained why a new facility has been proposed: · Structural.age · Traffic and site lines · Facility age · Space to operate effectively · Bunkroom only sleeps eight · Women's restroom is a trailer · Exercise facility is next to rigs · Not enough parking Mr. Ford explained what a new facility would aChieve: · Double deep apparatus bays · Turnout storage room SCBA refill mask repair · Medical support and walk-in aid · Individual firefighter workstations · Overall expansion of the firefighters living space · 21 parking spaces at the Contempo Property · Improved public access to Memorial Plaza City Council Minutes 10 September 5,2001 Mr. Ford noted that after the public heating with the Planning Commission on June 27, 2001, the Commission approved the project design, existing building demolition, and use permit for the Contempo Building. Councilmember Bogosian asked how a fire track would get into the bay With the proposed design. Mr. Ford responded that the trucks would continue to back in, but the bay is further from the comer of Saratoga Avenue and Big Basin Way. Vice Mayor Streit noted that under the new Boundary Drop Agreement two more vehicles have to be added. The proposed design has only enough bays for five vehicles. Mr. Ford noted that Option B lays out the configuration of the bays with the new mandated vehicles. Councilmember Bogosian noted that there are 21 dedicated parking spaces. Councilmember Bogosian asked what is the maximum number of people that could be on the site at one time. Mr. Ford explained administrative personnel, on duty firefighters, and perhaps visitors and volunteers would be at the station at one time. Robert Peepari, 19600 Scotland Drive, Heritage Preservation Commissioner and arc.hitect. Mr. Peepari noted that he did not comment at the Planning Commission meeting about the architecture of the building. Mr. Peepari noted that at its June 27, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission approved the architectural design only after the tower was reduced at the request of one Commissioner. Mr. Peepari noted that he could not understand how this insignificant change, of slightly reducing the size of the tower, that the building design was now dramatically improved, improved enough to have the Commissioner change her vote. Mr. Peepari noted that the current design is a mediocre building design. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Drive, noted that although Mr. Ford provided a good history of the Fire Station he failed to answer questions brought up by the F.AC.T. Committee. David Ritter~ 15600 Belnap Way, noted he supports the new fire station. Russell Perry, 21846 Via Regina, noted that he has been a resident and business owner for over 25 years. Mr. Perry noted that he supports the new fire station and urged the Council to deny the appeal. City Council Minutes 11 September 5, 2001 Marc Hines, 660 West Dana Street, Mountain View, noted that he represents the Saratoga Fire Protection District. Mr. Hines noted that the District wants to cooperate with the City and urged the City to deny the appeal. Ema Jackman/Planning Commissioner, 14515 Oak Street, requested that the Council reverse the Planning Commission decision and grant the appeal.· Commissioner Jackman noted that she was the Commissioner that moved to approve the project based on the information the Planning Commission had at the time. Ms. Jackman noted that several things have come to her attention since the Commission approved the ·project. Ms. Jackman noted that the District told the Commission that Caltrans would not allow the fire trucks to enter via Highway 9. Ms. Jackman explained that the City Manager's Office recently talked to Caltrans and they said Highway 9 could be used. Also, the District said that the Post Office would not sell their property. Recent talks with the Post Office prove the opposite. They are willing to sell as long as they get to' keep a small retail space. Ed Farrell, 20877 Kittridge Road, explained the insufficient spaces to park the emergency vehicles in the proposed three bays in the new fire station design. Mr. Farrell urged the Council to'grant the F.A.C.T. Committee's appeal. Don Whetstone, 14768 Vickery Avenue, commented that through a use permit loophole the Fire District has requested the most extreme set of variances for zoning standards that anyone has ever asked for in this City. Mr. Whetstone noted those types of variances should only be considered if there is a compelling community interest at stake or no other way to achieve a desired result. In this case the Fire District had other options available to them when the District approved this plan. Mr. Whetstone urged the Council to grant the appeal. Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, 19281 San Marcos Road, noted that this appeal presents a unique situation to the City Council for two reasons: 1) The Planning Commission was restricted to issues within their purview. The Planning Commission was prevented from considering the larger parcel of land that is potentially available for the development of a fire' and public safety center 'complex and were forced to confine their deliberation to the small parcel of land where the fire station now sits, 2) Planning Commission based their decision on inaccurate information such as the unwillingness of the Post Office to sell their property, Caltrans refusal to allow trucks to exit on to Highway 9, and the feasibility of an underground parking facility. Chair Barry urged the Council to grant the appeal. Aaron Katz, PO Box 116, noted that his interest in this issue is as a property owner with three properties within the Saratoga Fire District. Mr. Katz noted that the size of the proposed building is unbelievable; no other fire station in' City Council Minutes 12 September 5,2001 this area is 17,000 sq. fi. Mr..Katz asked that if the Council approves this project, which he hopes they do not, that added use restrictions be added. Bill Sousa, 13830 Saratoga Avenue, noted that he concurred with the comments made by Mr. Dolloff. Mr. Sousa noted that he has concerns regarding parking. Mr. Sousa asked that the Council deny the project and grant the appeal. Frank Lemmon, 20652 Woodward, noted that he is the Chair for the Citizens Oversight Committee for the bond measure. Mr. Lemmon noted that the District is required to expend 5% ($4,300,000) of the $5,000,000 bond proceeds within six months, 45% ($2,700,00) within one year and 85% ($5,100,000) within three years from the bond sale. Mr. Lemmon noted that unfortunately the delays in gaining approval to proceed with the project construction would cause the District to miss the 45% amount due in September 2001. This can be averted if approval is granted at once to proceed with the project. Mike Garakani/Planning Commissioner, 19061 Austin Way, noted that when the decision was rendered at the Planning Commission meeting there was applause from the audience. Commissioner Garakani noted that this is not a win/lose situation. Mr. Garakani noted that we are all here tonight to make sure that Saratoga has the right fire station, the right planning and the right place. Mr. Garakani noted that Mr. Whetstone's safety complex is an excellent concept. Mr. Dolloffnoted that tonight three out of seven Planning. Commissioners have asked the Council to reverse the Commission's decision. Mr. Dolloffnoted that it is up to the City Council to take into consideration all the information that has finally been made public and make a decision so that the residents of Saratoga have services they deserve. Mr. Dolloff urged the Council to grant their appeal. Hugh Hexamer, .Fire Commissioner, 20367 Glen Brae Drive, noted that Mr. Ford has already reviewed the need, the'architectural design, community compatibility and regulatory compliance of Saratoga's a new fire station. Mr. Hexamer noted that the Fire District respects the City's planning process and has made every effort to adhere to that process. Mr. Hexamer briefly explained the history of the Saratoga Fire District and mentioned their accomplishments over the years. Mr. Hexamer reminded the Council that in the Spring of 2000 voters in the district approved a bond to build a new station and purchase the adjacent site for the interim fire station. Mr. Hexamer noted that every effort has been made to address the City's concerns. Mr. Hexamer stated that delays or postponement of the project would have the following repercussions: City Council Minutes 13 September 5,2001 · Increase the cost to the 20,000 residents and property owners who passed the bond · Increased construction costs Mr. Hexamer noted that if the schedule is not kept the District must forfeit to the IRS the difference between interest earned and bond interest paid. Mr. Hexamer noted that the Negative Declaration was approved on June 27th, a period of more than 60 days ago. Provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act located in Gov. Code Section 65950(a) 3 and (b) would imply that this legislation deems this project approved. Mayor Mehaffey asked City Attorney Taylor if he had knowledge of this. City Attorney Taylor noted that it would be his understanding that notice of the fact that it has been deemed approved would have to have been filed. City Attorney Taylor noted that without that knowledge of what has been filed, he cannot comment. Councilmember Bogosian asked what authority does the City have over this project. Attorney Taylor responded that the Government Code does allow school districts .the ability to override city zoning decisions under certain circumstances and the code also allows districts override local zoning authority when it pertains to water or transmission facilities, but there are no exceptions he is able to locate for other districts. Vice Mayor Streit asked Mr. Ford if there were no property line constraints would the design of the station be different. Mr. Ford responded no, the design would stay the same, although if more land were available the design would be spread out more. 'Vice Mayor Streit asked if a drive-through garage would be considered. Mr. Ford responded that a drive-through might be considered. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Vice Mayor Streit stated that he needs to keep in mind when looking at this fire station that he is not determining a station best for the District, firefighters, or for any other specific group in Saratoga. City Council Minutes 14 September 5,2001 Vice Mayor Streit stated that he is looking for a station that would serve the citizens of Saratoga and hillside residents for the next thirty years, not something that will last for only four or five years. Vice Mayor Streit pointed out that the Fire District's property is zoned P-A Professional and Administrative Office District. The basic zoning standards for the P-A zone area are: · 25 fi front yard set back · 10-25 fi interior side yard setbaCk · 15 fi exterior side yard set backs · Height of30 fi · Structure site coverage 30 %. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the Fire District has requested that these standards be set aside so that the square footage of the station could be maximized as follows: · Zero front yard set back · Zero interior side yard setback · Zero exterior side yard set backs · Height of 35 ft · Structure site coverage 100 % Vice Mayor Streit noted that in June when the Planning Commission heard the application, the District's requests seemed reasonable, under the assumption the District had no other options. However, after several meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee, which he is a member of, have found other options. The United States Post Office has been participating in the Ad Hoc Committee meetings and noted that they would consider selling their property. Vice Mayor Streit noted that parking is also an issue. The Federated Church has joined the Ad Hoc Committee to help elevate the insufficient parking. The Church reported that approximately 40 people from the Sheriff's Department and Fire District park in their lot. At a recent Committee meeting the Fire District requested 20-25 spaces for firefighters and staff, yet there are only 21 spacesat the Contempo building. Vice Mayor Streit stated that it is his belief that the current design of the station is not in the best interest of the citizens of Saratoga as a whole. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he sees parking, the lot line adjustment, and the structure site coverage as major issues. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would be voting tonight to grant the appeal and deny the project. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Commissioner Garakani for his comments. Councilmember Bogosian noted that we can work together to make a great fire station for Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian stated that Saratoga does need City Council Minutes 15 September 5, 2001 a new fire station; the current station is outdated and unsafe in the event of an earthquake. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the inadequacies of this building are visible to everyone. Councilmember Bogosian noted that tonight his job as a Councilmember is to make the finding necessary to sustain the Planning Commission's decision. After reviewing all material that he has been provided he believes that there are inadequate parking and safety concerns. Councilmember Bogosian asked why were the bonds sold when the District did not have an approved plan. Councilmember Bogosian noted that tonight he would grant the appeal and deny the project. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with his colleagues that the station needs improvements. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the Fire District has done a good job working with the City. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports the concept ora Public Safety Plaza. Mayor Mehaffey noted that if the City were to build a Public Safety Center, it would have to be placed on a ballot. Mayor Mehaffey stated that he agrees that there are not enough bays in the current design. Mayor Mehaffey noted that tonight he would grant the appeal and deny the project. At the public heating the City Council considered the action, gave staff direction and continued the matter until a point later in the meeting to consider a resolution to be prepared by staff in the interim. - · ,. Mayor Mehaffey thanked everyone for their input. Mayor Mehaffey called a ten-minute recess at 9:28 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR 2F. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO NATIONAL GRANT SERVICES FOR GRANT WRITING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2F from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the $1,000.00 retainer fee a one-time fee. Analyst Bloomquist explained that the $1,000.00 is a one-time fee. City Council Minutes 16 September 5,2001 2G. 2H. Mayor Mehaffey commented that he thinks the $1,000.00 retainer fee is a reasonable amount. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he cannot support this item. He would prefer if the City did not have to pay upfront and would rather pay a contractor a percentage per grant. Vice Mayor Streit suggested that City Manager Anderson meet with National and try to negotiate a new contract. Vice Mayor Streit noted that if the City Manager cannot renegotiate the cost, he would support the $1000.00 retainer fee. Consensus of the Council to direct staff to try and negotiate with National Grant Services to eliminate the fee. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO HIGGINS ASSOCIATES FOR SPEED ZONE SURVEY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2G from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian questioned if the $29,870.00 included all the streets that radars are used on in Saratoga. Director Cherbone responded that it is just the streets on the list. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AWARD OF CONTRACT WITH HIGGINS ASSOCIATES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR STORM WATER SYSTEM PROTECTION INSPECTION SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2H from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked if Central Fire serves the entire City of Saratoga for this particular service. City Council Minutes 17 September 5, 2001 2L. Analyst Bloomquist responded that Central Fire serves just the properties located in their district. Director Cherbone added that this agreement was negotiated before the Boundary Drop Agreement. Director Cherbone stated that the Saratoga Fire District does not have the personnel or technical capability to perform this type of services. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that staff contact the Saratoga Fire District and see if they could contract with Central Fire District to serve the rest of Saratoga. Director Cherbone responded that he did give Chief Kraule a copy of the agreement; he has not received any feedback on whether or not he would have any of his staff trained for this type of service. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH SANTA CLARA CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT TO PACBELL FOR SERVICE CONNECTIONS FOR THE TEMPORARY LIBRARY AND APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DURAN & VENABLES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize payment and amend agreement. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2L from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian questioned if the $18,000.00 to hook up utilities would come out of the contingency fund. Assistant City Manager Tinfow responded that the funds would come out of the temporary library funds. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT TO PACBELL AND APPROVE AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH DURAN AND VENABLES. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. City Council Minutes 18 September 5, 2001 OLD BUSINESS 5. HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve master plan. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff rePort. Director Cherbone explained that in order to ensure the long-term health and character of the Heritage Orchard, the Heritage Preservation Commission has been working over the past few months on a comprehensive Orchard Master Plan. The Master Plan provides guidelines for renovation of the'existing orchard and for a well and irrigation improvements. Director Cherbone briefly explained the goals for the Heritage Orchard: 1. Preserve the orchard as a functioning agrarian use. 2. Provide educational opportunities to learn about agricultural history in the area and orchard management and operations. 3. Maximize views of the orchard from the surrounding area to insure the orchard is an important part of the community's image. 4. Minimize intrusions of site improvements into the orchard that may disrupt orchard maintenance operations or impact the "natural appearance" for the orchard. 5. Ensure the orchard is maintained in optimum health by implementing necessary orchard maintenance and replacement programs. 6. Implement a tree adoption program. Director Cherbone noted that the Heritage Orchard Master Plan would occur in phases over a number of years. Phase I of the Master Plan is estimated to cost $272,100.00 and includes the following improvements: · Remove existing dead orchard trees · Plant new orchard trees · Irrigation system · Well/Booster pUmp · Electrical · Orchard Monument Sign · Design/Construction Contingency Director Cherbone noted that the cost of Phase I is included in the proposed five- year CIP. Future improvements would include: · Adopt a tree program development · Maintenance/Bam construction · Ongoing orchard planting replacement as required City Council Minutes 19 September 5, 2001 Director Cherbone noted that staff is requesting the City Council approve the Heritage Orchard Master Plan. Robert Peepari/Heritage Preservation Commissioner, 19600 Scotland Drive, stated that the HPC fully supports and approves the Heritage Orchard Master Plan. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he would like to implement Goal 2 as soon as possible. He noted that it is important to teach the children the importance of an orchard. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the Orchard needs better signage and suggested installing three signs instead of one. Vice Mayor Streit requested that the construction of a barn be included in the CIP program. In regards to Vice Mayor Streit's comment, Commissioner Peepari responded that the HPC has had many discussions regarding educational programs. In regards to signage, Commissioner Peepari noted that a wood sign with white lettering would be placed in the Heritage Orchard; the sign would coordinate with the new library sign. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Vice Mayor Streit that the educational opportunities of the orchard should start immediately. Councilmember Bogosian suggested that the HPC obtain estimates on the possibility of removing the mature oak trees and relocate them somewhere else in Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosain asked if a trail could connect the parking lot to the barn. Mayor Mehaffey noted he supports the idea of a trail to the barn but also throughout the entire orchard. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he also supports a trail through the orchard. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the more people are involved with the orchard the longer it will last. Commissioner Peepad noted that the HPC is still discussing the details in regards to implementing an adopt a tree program Mayor Mehaffey read a letter from Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, who could not stay for this portion of the meeting. Mayor Mehaffey noted that Commissioner Clabeaux stated that the PRC thought that the Heritage Orchard Master Plan was to be an inter-commission project. Commissioner Clabeaux noted that the PRC would have appreciated an opportunity to review the proposed Master Plan before it went to Council. Commissioner Clabeaux noted that although the PRC did not review the plan, they would support Council's decision. City Council Minutes 20 September 5, 2001 o In regards to the construction of a well, Mayor Mehaffey asked if the City has a geologist report indicating if it is feasible to construct a well in the Heritage Orchard. Director Cherbone responded that prior to the actual construction of a well a geologist report would be obtained. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE HERITAGE ORCHARD MASTER PLAN. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-058 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE SARATOGA ARTS COMMISSION Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report. Director Pisani explained that on August 15,2001 the City Council voted to establish a commission to promote and support an increased emphasis on the arts of Saratoga. Director Pisani noted that recommended names are either City of Saratoga Cultural Arts Commission or City of Saratoga Arts Commission. Director Pisani noted that the number of members of this group be set at seven. Consensus of the City Council to call the proposed commission "Saratoga Arts Commission". STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ARTs COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES VOTING DELEGATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Amend voting delegate appointment. Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, presented staff report. City Council Minutes 21 September 5, 2001 Deputy Clerk Sullivan explained that at its August 15,2001 'City Council meeting, the City Council appointed Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development, voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference. Unfortunately staff was unaware of the fact that Councilmember Bogosian would be attending the conference and has requested that the Council reconsider their appointment and delegate him as the City's voting delegate for the conference. STREIT/BOGOSIAN TO AMEND VOTING DELEGATE APPOINTMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS o SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REQUEST FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attomey, presented staff report. Attorney Taylor stated that the City Council has two options 1) take no action 2) direct staff to prepare necessary paper work for land transfer. Mayor Mehaffey noted he feels it is premature to take any action on this subject matter. Vice Mayor Streit stated that the Council could delay or deny thj'.s item; either way he is not willing to give up land until the Ad Hoc Committee finishes their feasibility of a Public Safety Center. Consensus of the City Council to defer all requests for a boundary line adjustment until a report from Ad Hoc Committee is received and resume discussion of Item #3. City Attorney distributed copies of the resolution and announced that copies were available to the public in the reception area. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING DR-01-006, TUP-01-003, AND UP- 01-002, FOR A FIRE STATION TO BE LOCATED AT 14380 SARATOGA AVENUE. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. City Council Minutes 22 September 5, 2001 VILLAGE DECORATIVE LIGHTING GUIDELINES AND FUNDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve guidelines and authorize funding. Danielle Surdin, Economic Development Coordinator, presented staff report. Coordinator Surdin explained that in 1994 Village merchants decided to try and improve the downtown area by purchasing pole-mounted holiday wreaths for the downtown light poles and commercial grade decorative lighting for the Village street trees. Since that time Ms. Donna Collins, a local Village merchant, has purchased, maintained, and installed the lights and wreaths that are currently in the Village. Ms. Collins has done this through merchant donations and personal finances. Coordinator Surdin noted the City has supported merchant efforts to improve the downtown by covering electricity costs for the decorative lights and assisted Ms. Collins during the holiday season by installing the wreaths on the downtown light poles. To date the City of Saratoga has no official decorative lighting guidelines for the Village, and local merchants have funded the lights and wreaths that currently exists. Coordinator Surdin briefly explained neighboring cities seasonal guidelines for decorative and/or holiday lighting. Coordinator Surdin noted that on July 31, 2001 two decorative lighting options were presented at the Saratoga Business Development Committee (SBDC). Option 1 consisted of the purchase and installation of commercial grade lighted wreaths to adorn the city light poles at all four major intersections along Big basin Way, and the first two light poles entering the Village. Option 2 included the replacement of existing tree lights with "Mini- Lights" purchased and installed by the City of Saratoga through the Economic Development Program. Option 2 was the choice preferred by the SBDC and the following guidelines were proposed: · Lights will be utilized year round during evening hours o Regulated sUmmer hours 7 p.m. - 11 p.m. o Regulated winter hours 6:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. · All lights will be connected to the City timer · Lights will be purchased by the City of Saratoga · Lights will be installed by lighting vendor and maintained through cooperation of the vendor and City staff · The City of Saratoga will assume the cost of electricity as is the current practice Coordinator Surdin noted that there are 98 village trees located along Big Basin Way the cost for "Mini Lights" would be $12,251.12. The overall project cost including tax, installing and shipping would be $21,500.00. City Council Minutes 23 September 5, 2001 10. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the seasonal lights could be purchased for less than $12,000.00. Coordinator Surdin responded that $9,000.00 of the total is installation costs. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports the Business District and supports the use of decorative lights during the holiday season, although he does not want the lights on all year round. Vice Mayor Streit concUrred with the Mayor that the lights in the Village need improvements. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he supports the use of lights only during the holiday season and only if staff can reduce the cost. Councilmember Bogosian requested that this item be brought back to the Council with lower costs. Mayor Mehaffey suggested that staff bring this item back as a consent item. Vice Mayor Streit suggested the lights go up right after Thanksgiving until the middle of January. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. Consensus of the City Council to agendize Item 9 for the next meeting. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE RADIO INTEROPERABILITY AGREEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. City Manager Anderson explained that public safety agencies in Santa Clara County have been confronted with a number of performance issues over the past years associated with the inefficient and untimely exchange of information, a lack of inter-agency field communication, and unnecessarily long call processing times. These limitations severely impact the delivery of timely and quality law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services throughout the County. City Manager Anderson noted that in 1998, at the direction of the Santa Clara County/City Managers' Association, the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs and Communications Managers formed two working groups to study interoperability issues for two projects: voice radio and data communications. The working groups identified a number of potential solutions that could assist a single agency, or agencies that bordered each other, but none of the solutions ' City Council Minutes 24 September 5, 2001 provided for a comprehensive approach that could meet all the collective needs to share information and communicate with each other regardless of jurisdictional boundary. City Manager Anderson noted that in June 2000, the City of Mountain View issued a RFP on behalf of the participating agencies soliciting professional services for Public Safety Data Communications Network's portion of the project. This network would virtually link all the public safety agencies in the County and provide the capability for information exchange and dispatch monitoring capability. Nine proposals were received and after careful screening William L. Doolittle & Associates was selected for the project. City Manager Anderson noted that in October 2000, the Radio Interoperability Work Group completed its conceptual design for a systemthat would patch radio equipment between agency dispatch centers and enhance radio communication. The final design connected audio from any radio channel or frequency to other agencies via high-speed phone lines and data connectors and allowed field users to communicate without requiring them to change radio channels in the field during an emergency, incident. It was at that time the discovery was made that the conceptual design for the proposed voice network could also serve as a data network. Discussions were held with William Doolittle & Associates and the Managers Association regarding the efficiencies and economics of integrating both projects. City Manager Anderson noted that the decision to merge these two projects and form a single Radio Interoperability/Public Safety Data Communications project was approved by the Managers Association. A Communicatio .n,s Steering Committee was established to serve as an oversight committee for the project. City Manager Anderson noted that participation on the Radio Interoperability/Public Safety Data Communications Network Project provides a great benefit to the citizens of Saratoga. Ensuring that the Sheriffs Office and Fire personnel can communicate in the field during an emergency, without interpretation and regardless of jurisdiction, has a profound public safety benefit. City Manager Anderson explained that these agreements cover the 'first two phases of this project. During Phase I of the project, Doolittle & Associates will collect information on existing public safety systems, mutual or automatic aid relevant data from each of the participate agencies. Using information gathered in Phase I, Phase II will provide recommended solutions for the Radio Interoperability and Data Communications Network issues. At the end of Phase II Doolittle & Associates will provide each of the participating agencies with a final report detailing the recommended alternatives. After the review of the Phase II report, decisions can be made regarding the funding and implementation of Phase III of this project. City Council Minutes 25 September 5, 2001 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE RADIO INTEROPERABILITY AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 3-0-2 WITH BAKER AND WALTONSMITH ABSENT. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS No reportable information at this time. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor Mehaffey requested that the staff investigate hiring a full time City Attorney and report back to council on a future agenda. Vice Mayor Streit and Councilmember Bogosian both concurred with Mayor Mehaffcy. Vice Mayor Streit noted the new sod at Congress Springs Park is going in and so far looks great. OTHER City Attorney Taylor noted that he would not be attending the meeting on September 19, 2001; Attorney Wittwer would be attending that meeting. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson reported that recently the Parks and Recreation Commission met with the neighbors of E1 Quito Park and received great input on park maintenance, public safety issues, and enforcement issues. Also four or five neighbors volunteered to help start a neighborhood traffic management program. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 26 September 5, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Open Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:20 p.m. to interview applicants for the Finance Commission, Citizen Oversight Committee, and Parks and Recreation Commission. The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:35 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 Existing Litigation; Name of Case: Marcinkowski v. Saratoga MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 6:35 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey requested a moment of silence in the memory of the victims of September 11, 2001. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and requested Mr. Francis Stutzman, former Mayor of Saratoga, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Jonathan Wittwer, City Attomey Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst City Council Minutes 1 September 19, 2001 REpoRT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of September 19, 2001 was properly posted on September 14, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following people spoke at tonight's meeting: Francis Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, reported after installing an alarm system he has had three false alarms and fined $75.00 each time. Mr..Stutzman admitted two of the occasions the alarm company was at fault but the third time it was not appropriate. Mr. Stutzman asked the Council for a clear definition of a "false alarm" and suggested the Council reconsider the ordnance. Ester Kim, 3287 Fowler Avenue, noted that she is concerned about'several safety issues at the bottom section of Parker Ranch Trail. Ms. Kim pointed out that the ~following safety issues: · Closure of trail forces bicyclists to ride up a dangerous section of Prospect Road to get to Fremont Alder Preserve · Bicycle traffic on Prospect Avenue is dangerous to riders as well as others · Inconsistent signs on trail Ms. Kim requested that the City Council investigate this trail section. Henry Pastorelli, Vice President/R.O.M.P., 1207 Lisa Court, Los Altos, noted that he was representing R.O.M.P., the largest bicycle group in south bay. Mr. Pastorelli noted that the group takes weekly rides to Fremont Alder Preserve and have seen Ms. Kim's concerns first hand. Mr. Pastorelli urged the Council to investigate the lower section of the Parker Ranch Trail. Debra Briggs, Director/Silicon Valley Animal Control, noted that she was present tonight at the request of Councilmember Bogosian to update the Council on the recent incidents involving cats. Ms. Briggs noted that on last week two cats were found tied up and City Council Minutes 2 September 19, 2001 burned on railroad tracks in Saratoga. Ms. Briggs reported that a resident, who immediately called the Sheriff's Department, spotted a third cat in the same situation. Ms. Briggs noted that this resident was able t° get the license plate number, which resulted in the arrest °ftwo juveniles who reside in Campbell. Ms. Briggs noted that the cat is severely burned, but still alive. Captain Bacon added that the two juveniles were in custody. Captain Bacon noted that both boys were extremely close to turning eighteen, which may help to prosecute them as adults. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like staffto look at the definition of false alarms. Councilmember Bogosian requested that Animal Control keep the City informed in regards to the prosecution of the two jUveniles and suggested that the City write a letter to the District Attorney supporting prosecuting the boys as adults and sentencing them to the maximum sentence allowed. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested that the resident who helped arrest the boys be · presented with a commendation from the City. Mayor Mehaffey requested additional information on the safety issues pointed out by MS. Kim on the botto.rn section of the Parker Ranch Trail. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Mehaffey reported that there were two positions to be filled on the Ad Hoc Committee for the Public Safety Center, four vacancies on the Finance Commission, and five positions available on the Saratoga Community Foundation Board of Directors. Mayor Mehaffey announced at the Saratoga Fire District would be holding BBQ on Sunday, September 22nd at the Farmer's Market to benefit the victims of_the September 11th attack. CEREMONIAL ITEMS lA. APPOINTMENT AND OATH OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution of Appointment and Administer Oath of Office. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-063 City Council Minutes 3 September 19, 2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to Ronny Santana. BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING RONNY SANTANA TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Mayor Mehaffey declared that it was the appropriate time to begin the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS o CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone reported that at the CIP Study Session in June and at the meting in August, Council discussed 39 proposed new CIP projects that totaled $13,130.00. Currently the Council has identified 23 projects, which are proposed to receive full or partial funding for a total of $8,220.00. Director Cherbone explained the total funded amount by funding source as follows: General Fund: $4,190,000 · Park Development: $1,505,000 · Grant Source; $1,900,000 · Other Source: $425,000 Total: $8,220,000 Director Cherbone explained the City's Fund Balance Reserves available for the above sources: · General Fund: $6,4971,782 · Park Development: $1,000,000 ($425,000 fund balance, $375,000 park Bond Act, $200,000 Anticipated Park-In-Lieu Fees) Director Cherbone explained the balance of the City Reserve Funds after project funding: · GeneralFund: $2,101,782 · Park Development Fund: $505,000 City Council Minutes 4 September 19, 2001 Director Cherbone noted that the next steps in the five-year CIP are: · Study Session with the Finance Commission · General Plan and Environmental Public Hearing with the Planning Commission · Final Public Hearing with the City Council. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Frances Colletti, 12185 Terrence Avenue, requested that the City Council reconsider funding landscaping on the medians on Prospect Road. Mrs. Colletti reported that she has collected 270 signatures supporting this project from residents around'Prospect Road. Mrs. Colletti noted that il: is one of the gateways into Saratoga and should look nice. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lardo, stated some of the surrounding neighborhoods have not had an adequate opportunity tO review the Azule Park Master Plan that is listed on the CIP. Ms. Wyckoffrequested that this item be continued to the next meeting. Ms Wyckoff requested funding for adequate maintenance at E1 Quito Park. Ms. Wyckoffnoted that she visited City Hall and requested a copy of the CIP and was told it was not available to the public. Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, reminded the City Council the Parks and Recreation Commission top four CIP projects: 1) Playground Safety, 2) Park and Trail Repairs, 3) E1 Quito Park Improvements 4) Azule Park Improvements. Chair Clabeaux commented that it is still a goal of the Commission to find a home for the Pony League. Judy Alberts, 20747 Lowena Circle, reminded the City Council'that they promised the Pony league that a field would be provided to them for practice and games. Mrs. Alberts also noted that practice fields were promised to AYSO and CYSA. Mrs. Alberts noted that she did not see anything in the CIP that indicated any space or money for these user groups. Sheila Ioannou, '13624 Vaquero Court, noted that she is disappointed with the City for not backing their promises to the various sport organiz, ations. Mrs. Ioannou noted that these organizations provide a safe environment that our children can participate in. Karen Murphy, 12590 Paseo Lardo, noted that E1 Quito Park needs money for general maintenance and an upgraded irrigation system. Mayor Mehaffey closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Councilmember Baker noted that he is disappointed that when requested members of the public were not readily provided with a copy of the CIP. City Council Minutes 5 ' September 19, 2001 City Manager Anderson noted that the CIP would be made available on the City's website ~d at the Public Works Department. Vice Mayor Streit commented that several speakers commented on the inadequate condition of E1 Quito Park. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he recently walked through E1 Quito Park and noticed several safety hazards - a new irrigation system and new sod is desperately needed. Vice Mayor Streit noted he supports adding E1 Quito Park to the CIP process and funding it through the General Fund. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City has deferred maintenance on many parks for a very long time. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if there are any temporary solutions that could be done without spending a lot of money. Director Cherbone noted that there are a few things that could be done temporarily but E1 Quito Park really needs a new irrigation system. Councilmember Baker noted that he feels that one of the most important jobs of being a Councilmember, in a minimum service city, is to maintain and support the infrastructure. In regards to Ms. Wyckoff comments, Mayor Mehaffey noted that tonight the Council is not approving the CIP. Mayor Mehaffey stated that on October 17th the public will have another opportunity to make comments and Council will consider the final approval of the CIP. Vice Mayor Streit noted that improvements at E1 Quito Park have to happen, even if the project is not funded until 2003. Director Cherbone noted that staffwould monitor the budget every year and if the opportunity presents itself funding adjustments would be made. Consensus of the City Council to put E1 Quito Park Improvements into the CIP. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she supports a feasibility study on the medians on Prospect Road. Councilmember Baker asked if the City of San Jose and the City of Cupertino been contacted. Director Cherbone noted that he already contacted the City of San Jose but has not received any response. The City of Cupertino responded and would be City Council Minutes 6 September 19, 2001 interested in a joint project. Councilmember Baker suggested that Saratoga and Cupertino send the City of San Jose a proposal to jointly fund this project. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he supports Councilmember Waltonsmith request to fund the conceptual design for the medians on Prospect Road. Director Cherbone noted that he would recommend approximately $25,000 for this project. Consensus of the City Council to put funding in the CIP for the conceptual design for landscaping the medians on Prospect Road. Councilmember Waltonsmith thanked the members of the audience for coming tonight and providing input. Mayor Mehaffey declared a ten-minute beak at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. and requested that the City Council move to item #5. Consensus of the City Council to move to Item #5. OLD BUSINESS 5. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report. Director Sullivan that the draft Housing Element is the result of direction given at several City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Director Sullivan explained that consistent with the City Council direction, the draft Housing Element has been crafted so as to not delineate particular parcels as locations for higher density below market rate housing projects. A multi-prong approach was developed using projects akeady in the'pipeline, an amnesty program for existing second dwellings, new second dwellings, a mixed use zoning overlay for all Commercial, Quasi-Public and Public land use designations. The other housing Program mandated by the state statute to be part of the Housing Element. Director Sullivan reported that the City's Consultant, Jeff Goldman, has identified about 45-acres that could be developed in mixed use projects over the next five- City Council Minutes 7 September 19, 2001 years. The map included in the draft Housing Element does 'not individually depict the areas expected to be redeveloped in a mixed-use project. Mr. Goldman strongly suggests we identify the areas that make up the 45 acres. Staff would suggest that we submit the draft Housing Element without individual sites identified and see how HCD responds. The Housing Element is as a stage that now requires a preliminary review by HCD to know if any additional items or more specifically is needed in any of the existing programs. Director Sullivan noted that his would not be their final review. Director Sullivan reiterated that fact that the City's responsibility to provide a setting in which housing may be constructed in compliance with the income. distribution provided by ABAG. It is not the City's responsibility to construct any housing. It is further the City's responsibility to submit an annual report to HCD, which measured the success or progress of each of the programs found within the Housing Element. Director Sullivan noted that staff recommends the City Council review the draft Housing Element, provide direction to staff regarding any adjustments to the document and authorize the Mayor to sent the draft Housing Element to the HCD and the State Department for their preliminary review. Director Sullivan noted that this is not a formal hearing for the Housing Element; this is just the authorization to send the draft to the HCD. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he feels this draft document creates expectations fi.om the HCD. Director Sullivan responded that HCD would look at the City's draft~Housing Element as a preliminary document. Councilmember Bogosian noted asked if the City could make changes after HCD reviews the preliminary document. Director Sullivan responded that the City would have to justify the changes. Councilmember Baker stated the City has developed the best possible Housing Element possible. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has to send the draft to HCD and gain a corporative relationship with the assigned State staff member. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has to get an approved Housing Element by December 31st deadline - no matter what. Councilmember Bogosian questioned page 9, Program 5.2 - Homeless and Transitional Houses Facilities and Services. Councilmember Bogosian asked if this overlay is ever enacted, that spreads these types of units all over the City of Saratoga, are there any set standards for such establishments in the City of City Council Minutes 8 September 19, 2001 Saratoga. Director Sullivan noted that the City has given itself until July 1, 2002 to establish such standards. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he is a resident on one of the areas identified for this type of overlay and speaking for a number of people who feel it is inappropriate because there are no set standards to protect and guarantee their quality of life and safety. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the City could narrow the zoning after HCD approves the Element to a smaller area. Director Sullivan responded if the zoning were changed the Housing Element would have to be amended. Mayor Mehaffey opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, noted that if previous City Councilmembers acted on this issue in the past, the City would not have such problems today. Ms. Mahrer noted that she supports inclusionary zoning, density bonus, and amnesty programs. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Court, stated that prior City Councilmembers ignored low-income, housing. Mr. Schwartz commended City staff, Jeff Goldman, and the City Council for all of the effort that has gone into the Housing Element. Mr. Schwartz commented that as it stands now, the Housing Element does not threaten the character of the City. Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that the Housing Element maintains the character of Saratoga. Mr. Monia thanked City Staff for all their hard work. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lardo, requested that the City do a better job educating the community On issues such as the Housing Element, she personally- did not know what is was until tonight. Betty Feldhym, 20184 Franklin Drive, fully supports the draft Housing Element and concurred with the points Muriel Mahrer brought up. Mayor Mehaffey Closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he is uncomfortable with the whole process and he noted that he agrees with Ms. Wyckoff that the citizens of Saratoga are uneducated in regards to the Housing Element. Councilmember Bogosian stated that he would be voting against sending the draft Housing Element to HCD. City Council Minutes 9 September 19, 2001 Councilmember Bogosian stated that it is not the Housing Element that he is uncomfortable with but the process. Councilmember Bogosian requested public hearing when Council considers guidelines for homeless and transient housing. Vice Mayor Streit asked how long it would take to get a response back from HCD. Director Sullivan responded approximately 60 days. Mayor Mehaffey asked What the penalties would be if the City's Housing Element was not approved by December 31st. Director Sullivan responded that the City would be out of compliance and if someone sued the City it would take a judge to make the determination. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she was one of the Councilmembers that went to Sacramento to try and prove that the numbers given to the City by ABAG were unrealistic. Unfortunately ABAG told the City that those were the numbers set, and the City must comply with them. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports sending the draft Housing Element to HCD. Vice Mayor Streit concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith on sending the draft Housing Element to HCD but also noted he agrees with Councilmember Bogosian that we cannot change the character of Saratoga. Councilmember Baker noted that the City has had three years to act on this issue and unfortunately the staff at the time chose not to do anything about ABAG's projections. Councilmember Baker noted that the City must have an approved Housing Element that does not destroy the character of the City, preserves the quality of life, and provides for all the necessary elements that need to be included. The'City Council thanked Director Sullivan for job well done. BAKER/STREIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SEND THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. MOTION PASSED 4-1 WITH BOGOSIAN OPPOSING. NEW BUSINESS SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT STATUS REPORT ON DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TRAFFIC OFFICERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. City Council Minutes 10 September 19, 2001 Kevin Bacon, Captain/Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, presented staff report. Captain Bacon reported that on November 1,200 the City Council voted to exercise the option in the Law Enforcement contract to increase Supplemental patrol hours to provide two additional deputies to address traffic issues. The additional enforcement has helped to address many-of the traffic concerns relating to schools and neighborhoods. The Cities current traffic unit consists of four full time officers. Captain Bacon noted that staff is recommending taking the next step to transition the focus from enforcement to one community oriented policing to traffic issues. Captain Bacon noted that he would give a brief presentation outlining the statistics and accomplishments resulting from the additional traffic coverage. Captain Bacon noted that numerous complaints received from Saratoga residents regarding traffic issues. The complaints were forwarded to the Public Safety Commission who in mm recommended that the City Council approve two additional traffic Deputies. Captain Bacon reported that following statistical information: Traffic citations have increased by 175% from 1558 to 4277 · Speeding citation increased by 320% from 671 to 2815 · Driver education via warnings increased 365% from 68 to 316 · Overall accidents decreased by 8.5% from 333 to 305 · Injury accidents decreased by 17% from 77 to 64 ",- · Fatal accidents decreased by 100% from 1 (with two victim~) to 0% · Accidents in which the primary factor was speeding decreased by 40% from 65 to 39 · Back-up assistance to regular Patrol units increased by 112% from 249 to 539 responses · Traffic units first.on the scene to alarm and 911 calls increased 135% from 63 to 148 responses · Directed enforcement ability and efforts (radar and monitoring) increased 215% from 962 re. sponses to 3026 Captain Bacon briefly described the Sheriff's Department plans for the future: · Active involvement with Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) · Establish School Traffic Safety Liaison Officer · Liaison with Department of Public Works · Liaison with businesses to address downtown traffic concerns · More community oriented policing projects City Council Minutes 11 September 19, 2001 Captain Bacon thanked the City Council for their continued support and stated that the City of Saratoga is one of the safest cities in the county and the state. Councilmember Bogosain complimented the efforts of the Sheriff's Department. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he has seen the difference in the City's traffic and speeding. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like to see the Sheriffs Department move forward with the child safety seat program. City Manager Anderson noted that one officer will make the transition to more community oriented projected. Vice Mayor Streit noted that the extra Deputies have done a great job and commented that school traffic is still a problem. Vice Mayor Streit noted that it is not a speed issue, but parents dropping off and picking up kids. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he fully supports the continued use of a bike officer in the Village. Mayor Mehaffey thanked the Sheriff's Department for coming to tonight's meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paul Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve reported that the Neighborhood traffic Management Program (NTMP) is intended to provide the public with information and a Tool Kit to help identify appropriate traffic control measures to address neighborhood traffic problems. It illustrates the 'types of traffic management measures that can be used ' to control traffic on residential streets, and identifies a process whereby residents can work with the City to solve neighborhood traffic problems. Analyst Reeve noted that he NTMP document is designed to educate and empower residents with the tools to evaluate and become actively involved in the decision making process to find traffic management solutions in their neighborhood. Analyst Reeve noted that the NTMP is the culmination of several years of work by the Public Safety Commission, City Staff, and CCS Planning and Engineering. The Public Safety Commission reviewed the final draft at the July 2001 meeting. City Council Minutes 12 September 19, 2001 o Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Pasco Lardo, stated that her neighbors have: submitted suggestions to the Public Safety Commission to tackle issues on her street. Ms. Wyckoff noted that the additional Deputies have made a difference. Ms. Wyckoff noted that the NTMP should have been posted on the City's website. City Manager Anderson noted that if the City Council accepts the NTMP, staff would begin scheduling neighborhood meetings. Mayor Mehaffey thanked everyone who participated in the process in preparing the NTMP. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. SCHOOL SAFETY SUMMIT REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst presented staff report. Analyst Reeve reported that staff was directed to form a subcommittee to evaluate solution to growing concerns about school traffic and safety issues. The Schools Transportation Task Force was formed and Bridgette Ballingall, Public Safety Commissioner took the role as the Subcommittee Chair. Analyst Reeve stated that the School Safety Summit Report is the second component of the Tool Kit. Analyst Reeve explained that the Saratoga Schools Transportation Task Force is a collaborative effort comprised of representatives fro the school districts in Saratoga, law enforcement, the City, the community, and transportation agencies. As an outcome, the Task Force developed the School Traffic Calming Program, which provides a structure to manage school traffic and ensure implementation measures. Analyst Reeve noted that Commissioner Ballingall would give a brief presentation on the history of the Schools Transportation Task Force. Commissioner Ballingall reported that the Subcommittee was formed over a year ago to evaluate solutions to the growing concerns about school traffic issues and safety. Commissioner Ballingall explained that site evolutions of all the schools where performed and representatives from all schools met throughout the year and mapped and discussed all relevant problems and brainstormed for short-term and long-term solutions for each school. Short-term solutions were implemented immediately and long-term solutions are outlined for further development by the SSTTF. City Council Minutes 13 September 19, 2001 Commissioner Ballingall explained the contents of the School Traffic Calming Program: 1. Enforcement and Monitoring 2. Signing and Striping 3. Rides to School Program 4. Site Improvements 5. Bussing 6. Pedestrian Safety Councilmember Waltonsmith asked commission Ballingall if all of the school support this program. Commissioner Ballingall responded that 12 schools from three different districts have participated in the subcommittee and everyone supports the program. Councilmember Baker asked if Saratoga union School District started a bussing program yet. Commissioner Ballingall responded that a pilot program has been started using one bus at Redwood Middle School. Unfortunately, Commissioner Ballingall commented the bus subscription is under funded; only twenty families are participating in the program so far this year. commissioner Ballingall noted that bussing programs are extremely expensive to operate. Commissioner Ballingall noted that ALTRANS recently was awarded $36,000.00 in grant funds and purchased one clean airbus. -. ,. Councilmember Baker strongly suggested to Commissioner Ballingall that the Task Force work on solutions to solve the traffic congestion at Redwood Middle School. Councilmember Baker noted that it impacts City Hall and the Post Office. Councilmember Bogosian thanked Commissioner Ballingall noting that the Subcommittee did a. tremendous job. Councilmember Bogosain noted that his concem is the Subscription-bussing program; he does not want to lock the City into a financial commitment to pay for the program in the future. Councilmember Bogosain noted that a bussing program has to be funded by cooperative efforts between all of the schools. A discussion took place in regards to how other districts pay for bussing services. Commissioner Ballingall noted that none of the districts in this county have a comprehensible bussing program. City Council Minutes 14 September 19, 2001 Commissioner Ballingall noted that one of the main objectives of the Task Force is to promote a comprehensible carpooling program and to continue the collaborative efforts of the Task Force. The City Council commended Commissioner Ballingall and the rest of the Task Force for all of their efforts. WALTONSMITH/BAKER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR 2A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - JULY 18, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councilmember Waltonsmith pulled the minutes of July 18,2001 and requested the following be corrected. On page 18, 4th paragraph, the statement should read," Councilmember'Waltonsmith asked if people opposing this project attended the Planning Commission meeting". WALTQNSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2C. FINANCIAL REPORTS - YEAR END JUNE 30, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Financial Reports and adopt resolutions. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-064 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET City Council Minutes 15 September 19, 2001 TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-065 2D. 2E. 2F. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE ORDER AND RELATED APPROPRIATION CARRYOVERS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 INTO FISCAL YEAR 20001/2002 STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ACCEPT FINANCIAL REPORTS AND ADOPT RESOLUTIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. STREIT/BOGOSIAN NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. APPROVE AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY - JOINT POWERS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-066 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AMENDED AND RELATED JPA AGREEMENT FOR LIBRARY SERVICES STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY - JOINT POWERS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AUTHORIZATION.TO CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACT TO DURAN & VENABLES FOR 2001 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of contract. City Council Minutes 16 September 19, 2001 2G. STREIT/BOGOSAIN MOVED TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH DURAN & VENABLES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ADOPT RESOLUTION MAKING APPROPRIATE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO FY 2001-02 BUDGET - AZULE PARK MASTER PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-067 RESOLUTION FO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE 2001/2001 BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $80,000 FOR DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AT AZULE PARK AND TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #0110 "AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENTS" Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lardo, requested that the City Council remove Item 2G from the Consent Calendar and continue it to the next meeting. Ms. Wyckoffnoted that she feels it is too premature to approve this amount of money to improve one park in the City of Saratoga. Ms. Wyckoff asked that the City perform a comprehensive analysis on all the parks in the City and try and meet all the needs of the residents not just one group. Ms. Wyckoff requested a complete line item breakdown of the Azule Ma.~/er Plan project. Jim Schindler, 12302 Goleta Court, noted that he has waited 30 years for this park to be developed and finally the City has made Azule park a priority. Mr. Schindler noted that the neighbors of the park worked very hard to get to this point. Mr. Schindler requested that the City Council approve this project and fund it appropriately. Katie Alexander, 12340 Goleta Avenue; agreed with the Mr. Schindler that the neighbors worked very hard and the process has taken months.' Mrs. Alexander noted that over 150 people were involved in the planning process of the proposed Azule Master Plan and requested that Council approve this project and add it to the CIP. Mayor Mehaffey read a letter for the record submitted by Mark Linsky, 14240 Barksdale Court. In his letter Mr. Linsky noted that the basic needs of the residents of Saratoga should be met before investing large amounts of money into one park that only serves a specific group of people. City Council Minutes 17 September 19, 2001 STREIT/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING BUDGET TO INCLUDE CIP fit 0110 - AZULE PARK IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 2H. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CONCERNING QUITO ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT CONCERNING QUITO ROAD. MOTION PASSED 5-0 21. AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY - PROPERTY TAX SETTLEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize execution of agreement. Mayor Mehaffey pulled Item 21 from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Mehaffey noted that after reading the agreement he thinks the City is giving up our rights and not getting anything in return. Mayor Mehaffey noted he does not support this agreement. Mayor Mehaffey requested that the city write a letter to the County stating his objections and see what there view is. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would support Mayor Mehaffey's request. Attorney Wittwer noted that the release language in Section 4.1 is very broad; it would be in the City's interest to try and negotiate that particular language. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to write a letter to Santa Clara County regarding the Property Tax Settlement. OLD BUSINESS PRESENTATION BY SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY - HIGHWAY 85 UPDATE City Council Minutes 18 September 19, 2001 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Informational only. Director Cherbone announced that Mike Evanhoe/Valley Transportation Authority was scheduled to present the feasibility report on the grinding on Highway 85. Unfortunately, Mr. Evanhoe contacted the City and reported that some issues with Caltrans have not been resolved. Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Evanhoe indicated that he would report to Council sometime in October. NEW BUSINESS 9. CITY ARBORIST REQUEST FOR FEE INCREASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Director Sullivan presented staff report. Director Sullivan explained that the City entered into a contract with Barrie D. Coates in July 1992. Under this contract the rate charged was 20% less than what Mr. Coates charged private clients. The rate charged to the City has not been changed even though the rates to private clients have changed significantly over the past nine years. Mr. Coates has requested that we discuss bringing fee they charge the City of Saratoga closer to what they charge their private clients. Currently, Director Sullivan noted that the rate charged to the City of Saratoga is 35.7% less than what he charges to private clients. Director Sullivan explained that a summary of revenues and expenditures for City Arborist activities in fiscal year 2000-2001. The deposit or fees are 'taken in at the beginning of a development project and the expenditures are spread over the life of the development activity, sometimes for years. The Planning Department tracks each deposit and wither refunds monies not spent or request additional payment if cost exceed the original debt. Any additional payments are required to be made prior to "Final" approval of the project. Director Sullivan noted that staff has identified five alternatives that the Council could consider and provide staff with direction. Director Sullivan briefly described each alternative: 1. Negotiate a contract amendment that is satisfying to both parties 2. Submit a "Request for Proposals" to all qualified arborist in the Santa Clara Valley region and bring back report and contract proposal to the City Council. 3. Require development applications and others who wish to remove "Ordinance" size trees to submit an Arborist Report at the time the appli-Cant City Council Minutes 19 September 19, 2001 10. is submitted to the Planning Commission. 4. Create an in-house City Arborist position. 5. Decline to amend the contract. Vice Mayor Streit questioned if it's normal for a city to have a single source provider. Director Sullivan responded that the City of Saratoga has .many single source contractors for specialty professions, although most cities review the contract after a few years. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that the City of Saratoga is very proud of its trees and has worked hard to obtain a competent arborist. Councilmember Bogosain noted that he has been very satisfied with the work Mr. Coates has done so far. Councilmember Bogosian noted that Mr. Coates knows the history of Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian noted he does not support an RFP process for this service. Mayor Mehaffey noted that it is the consensus of the COtmcil that Mr. Coates work has been appreciated and well done but he feels it is his fiscal responsibility to proceed with a RFP and would encourage Mr. Coates to submit a proposal. Councilmember Baker noted that he is uncomfortable negotiating with Mr. Coates without gathering comparable data of what the market place could offer the City. Councilmember Baker noted that he agrees with his colleagues that Mr. Coates does have a qualitative value and knows the history of Saratoga, but other options need to be investigated. Vice Mayor Streit and Councilmember Waltonsmith stated they support Alternative 2. Councilmember Bogosian noted he could support the RFP, but does not support hiring any more staff members. Consensus of the City Council to prepare a RFP for City arborist services. SEPTIC ABATEMENT HARDSHIP PROCEDURES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve briefly provided the background of the ordinance adopted by Council City Council Minutes 20 September 19, 2001 in February 2000 in an effort to improve the quality of underground and creek water in the region. The Ordinance requires septic systems in the city to be abandoned, and properties to be connected directly to the public sewer by August 21, 2000. Analyst Reeve noted that as a result the Community Development Department developed procedures to track and manage the process of implementing the new ordinance. Homeowners who met certain criteria set out in the code were granted exemptions or extensions. Analyst Reeve reported that to date 156 exemptions have been granted by the Community Development Department for various reasons Analyst Reeve noted that at its April 5, 2000 City Council meeting, Council allocated approximately $87,270 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide assistance to property owners whose financial circumstances prevented than from complying. Staff processed requests for financial hardships into the CDBG funding process because it would result in installation of sewer cormection for those who qualified under the HUD income limit guidelines. After two candidates were qualified, the Council asked to approve the sewer lateral connection contracts. Analyst Reeve noted that Councilmembers questioned why staff made the determination to process the applicants through the CDBG program, rather that invoking the hardship extension provision of the code. As a result, staff was directed to return to Council to receive direction regarding the approach to be used to process cases of financial hardships. Analyst Reeve briefly described the City's options as follows: 1. All Financial hardship requests for extensions/exemptions to be received by a City .Council subcommittee for eligibility, Council subcommittee to provide staff direction concerning whether to process applicants through hardship extension beyond 50 year timeframe outlined, or through he CDBG program. 2. Application for financial hardship is processed according to income eligibility guidelines. Those applicants meeting CDBG income guidelines would be processed through the program. Applicants exceeding CDBG income guidelines would be processed through exception/extension process outlined in the ordinance and brought to City Council for review and approval. Analyst Reeve noted that to' date Council has not granted any extensions beyond a 5- year basis due to financial hardships. Councilmember Baker stated that he does not believe that anyone has been informed that they have the option to go to the Council directly and ask for an extension past the five years. Councilmember Baker stated that as far as he is aware any person who has come to the City to request an extension or deferral due to financial hardships have only been referred to the CDBG process. Councilmember Baker noted that under no circumstances was it the City's intention to craft an ordinance that would force a person to sell their house in order to be in compliance. Councilmember Baker noted that it was his understanding, as described City Council Minutes 21 September 19, 2001 in the ordinance that the Council was to determine hardships. Councilmember Baker asked how much of the $87,000.00, that the CoUncil set aside for hardships, has been used. Analyst Reeve responded that approximately $50,000.00 has been used for five connections. Mayor Mehaffey noted that the CDBG process is appropriate process but concurred with Councilmember Baker that forcing a person out of their home, if they are not qualified for CDBG funding, was not Council's intention. Mayor Mehaffey noted he supports a subcommittee and questioned if two Councilmembers are sufficient for a subcommittee. Attomey Wittwer noted that ultimately the final decision has to be made by the Council but a two-member subcommittee could review applications and make recommendatiOns to the full Council. Consensus of the City Council to appoint Councilmember Baker and Councilmember Waltonsmith to the subcommittee to review applications for hardships to comply with the sewer ordinance. Consensus of the City Council to for a subcommittee review septic abatement hardship requests. MEHAFFEY/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER BAKER AND COUNCILMEMBER WALTONSMITH TO PARTICIPATE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR SEPTIC ABATEMENT HARDSHIP REQUESTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Manager Anderson noted that currently there are four homeowners who have applied for assistance and have been approved by CDBG and requested direction from the Council. Councilmember Baker pointed out that all applicants should be aware of their options, either through CDBG or come before City Council. Mayor Mehaffey stated that the four applicants who have already qualified through the CDBG process should be released, but any new applications should be given the choice to come before Council or go through CDBG. Consensus of the City Council directed staff to process the four applicants who have already qualified through CDBG. City Council Minutes 22 September 19, 2001 AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS. Mayor Mehaffey announced that he had no reportable information at this time. Vice Mayor Nick Streit noted that tomorrow night at the JPA Solid Waste meeting the discussion would be the potential extension of the Recycling and Yard Waste Contract, which expires January 2003. Vice Mayor Streit noted that after the JPA thoroughly discusses the issues he would ask the Mayor to agendize the options of the contract. Councilmember Baker reported that the new station manager at KSAR is working very hard to establish a budget. They are also in the process of replacing their assets, actively seeking grants and donations, and expanding their operation. Councilmember Baker noted that he attended the Califomia Cities Association meeting and reported the following information: · Executive Director and Recording Secretary resigned. · Approved budget. · October 19, 2001 - coordinated by the City of San Jose "Walk for Domestic Violence". Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Library JPA: · Library JPA - approved changes in the JPA agreement. · Discussed staffing issues. · Next meeting in October. Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in reg~ti'd~ to..the Silicon Valley Animal Control: · Up and running successfully for over a month. · Almost fully staffed · Drafting a Mission Statement. Councilmember Waltonsmith reported the following: . · Chamber of Commerce's last two meeting have been cloSed to the public. · SASCC made $25,0000 at their annual fundraiser on August 25, 2001. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that SASCC would also be hiring a part time social worker to come in 5 hours a week. · Sister City Committee would be holding a Moon Viewing on August 28, 2001 at Hakone Gardens. · Valley Transportation PAC - nothing to report. City Council Minutes 23 September 19, 2001 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she recently read an article in Western City magazine describing various city programs for recycling monitors, keyboards, etc. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the City would be interested in considering a similar program. Vice Mayor Streit responded that that type of recycling program is on the agenda for discussion at the next JPA Solid Waste meeting. Councilmember Waltonsmith requested information on the current Peach Fruit Fly issues. Councilmember Bogosian noted that as a resident of the Saratoga Fire District he received a letter today, not signed by any individual but printed on Fire District leatherhead, entitled "Saratoga City Council rejects fire station plans". Councilmember Bogosian requested that staff contact the District and ask them who paid for the publication of this letter. Councilmember Bogosian noted he received an email regarding the noise at the Mt. Winery and requested an update on the noise mitigation and the County Planning process. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he would be attending a tour of Mt. Umunhum sponsored by Mid Peninsula Open Space. Councilmember Baker asked when City staff would be returning to Council with a follow up report to consider a construction-recycling program. Councilmember Baker reminded staff that when Council discussed the proposed construction-recycling program a few months ago he requested that City staff contact three prominent contractors to come before the Council and explain how these new proposed regulations would impact them. Councilmember Baker noted that he has never seen this many American flags displayed in Saratoga. Councilmember Baker stated that everyone should be saluted for it. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Anderson noted on Monday, Curtis Jewel/Postmaster, called him and reported that he recently spoke to his regional postmaster and was informed that he was not intereSted in selling the post office property on Saratoga Avenue. City Manager Anderson noted that after he reported this new information to the Ad Hoc Committee, he and Vice Mayor Streit met with the regional postmaster. After a long discussion, City City Council Minutes 24 September 19, 2001 Manager Anderson noted that the postmaster was quite corporative, offered a few potential options, and offered to work with the Ad Hoc Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in the memory of the September 11th victims. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 25 September 19, 2001 Manager Anderson noted that the postmaster was quite corporative, offered a few potential options, and offered to work with the Ad Hoc Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in the memory of the September 11th victims. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes 25 September 19, 2001 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Study Session on October 9, 2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. Mayor Mehaffey called the Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 7:02 p.m and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT:. Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey None Dave Anderson, City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Joan Pisani, Recreation Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JULY 18, 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government 'Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of October 9, 2001 was properly posted on October 4, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Councilmember Waltonsmith read an email from Terri Baron requesting a representative from the City Council attend a meeting with her at the County's Environmental Resource Department on October 19, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Baron has been pursuing the enforcement issue of the use permit for the Mt. Winery. Councilmember Bogosian volunteered to attend with Ms. Baton on October 19, 2001. City Council Minutes October 9, 2001 Consensus of the City Council to send Councilmember Bogosian to meet with Ms. Baron and the County's Environmental Resource Department. City Manager Anderson suggested that Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director accompany Councilmember Bogosian. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with City Manager Andersons. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN Director Pisani introduced Christopher Knoll, Parmer/Knoll & Tam and Elizabeth McLoad, Architect, and explained that they would present six Civic Center Master Plan alternatives. Mr. Knoll explained that tonight he and Ms. McLoad would present six Civic Center site plans in conceptual form. Four of the options use a combination of existing and new buildings and two options in which the existing buildings are demolished and new facilities are built. Mr. Knoll stated that one request was to relocate the Corporation Yard, but after looking at several sites, realistically there is no other site available. Mr. Knoll briefly explained each plan and answered questions from the City Council and audience. Scheme 1-A Mr. Knoll noted that what distinguishes this plan from the others is that the Warner Hutton House and Civic Center is left intact. The Civic Theatre has additional space in the back providing new additional dressing rooms and bathroom facilities. Also, a Council Chambers is added on to the back of the Civic Center. The parking is reconfigured and the Community Center now is a two-story structure. A gynmasium has been added next to the Community Center. This addition of a gynmasium would increase the parking requirement to 335 spaces; a three level parking structure would have to be added between the gymnasium and the Corporation Yard. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the Community Center also served as the Senior Center. Mr. Knoll responded that the Community Center would be the Senior Center, Preschool, and Adult Day Care Center. City Council Minutes 2 October 9, 2001 Scheme 1-B Mr. Knoll explained that in this s~heme the Warner Hutton House and Civic Center is also left intact. A Council Chambers had been added off of City Hall facing the Fmitvale/Allendale comer. Theatre and Community Center addition,'; are the same as in Scheme 1-A. The parking is also reconfigured in this. scheme, - Councilmember Baker asked what the proposed renovations to the Civic Theater include. Mr. Knoll 'explained that the addition to the rear of the theater provides additional dressing rooms, bathroom facilities, an orchestra pit and other accessibility issues. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the front of the Civic Theater would be renovated. Ms. McLoad responded that in some of the schemes the fi'ont is renovated and others it is left as is. Scheme 1-C Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Council Chambers is an independent building facing the Fmitvale/Allendale comer with the same renovations to the Community Center and Civic Theater. The parking is reconfigured extending along Allendale to the Corporation Yard. A path winds along the backside of the Civic Center. Scheme 1-D ,. Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Council Chambers is attached to the end of the Civic Center (facing the Fmitvale/Allendale comer) with the same renovations to the Civic Theater. The Community Center moves back towards Allendale and the parking is reconfigured with more parking towards the Corporation Yard. Scheme 2-A Mr. Knoll explained that this scheme represents total demolition of all existing buildings on the site. This scheme establishes a plaza that extends from the comer of Fruitvale/Allendale to the creek. The Community Center is moved closer to the Warner Hutton House. The Civic Center is a partial two-story building with dedicated drop off zones. The Corporation Yard stays where it is. A one-way road is added that would connect the parking lots and the back of the Civic Center. Mr. Knoll noted that there was talk about adding a playfield at Civic Center but unfortunately it is not feasible even with a completely new Civic Center. Mr. Knoll added that there is not enough land to accommodate everything. Scheme 2-B Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Community Center is built in the same vicinity as its current location with the addition of a gynmasium. All other buildings are single City Council Minutes 3 October 9, 2001 Scheme 1-B Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Warner Hutton House and Civic Center is also left intact. A Council Chambers had been added off of City Hall facing the Fmitvale/Allendale comer. Theatre and Community Center additions are the same as in Scheme 1-A. The parking is also reconfigured in this scheme. Councilmember Baker asked what the proposed renovations to the Civic Theater include. Mr. Knoll explained that the addition to the rear of the theater provides additional dressing rooms, bathroom facilities, an orchestra pit and other accessibility issues. Vice Mayor Streit asked if the front of the Civic Theater would be renovated. Ms. McLoad responded that in some of the schemes the front is renovated and others it is left as is. Scheme 1-C Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Council Chambers is an independent building facing the Fmitvale/Allendale comer with the same renovations to the Community Center and Civic Theater. The parking is reconfigured extending along Allendale to the Corporation Yard.. A path winds along the backside of the Civic Center. Scheme 1-D Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Council Chambers is attached to the end of the Civic Center (facing the Fmitvale/Allendale comer) with the same renovations to the Civic Theater. The Community Center moves back towards Allendale and the parking is reconfigured with more parking towards the Corporation Yard. Scheme 2-A . Mr. Knoll explained that this scheme represents total demolition of all existing buildings on the site. This scheme establishes a plaza that extends from the comer of Fmitvale/Allendale to the creek. The Community Center is moved closer to the Warner Hutton House. The Civic Center is a partial two-story building with dedicated drop off zones. The Corporation Yard stays where it is. A one-way road is added that would connect the parking lots and the back of the Civic Center. Mr. Knoll noted that there was talk about adding a playfield at Civic Center but unfommately it is not feasible even with a completely new Civic Center. Mr. Knoll added that there is not enough land to accommodate everything. Scheme 2-B Mr. Knoll explained that in this scheme the Community Center is built in the same vicinity as its current location with the addition of a gymnasium. All other buildings are single City Council Minutes 3 October 9, 2001 story with a central plaza that would connect all of the facihties together. Under the plaza a single story parking garage would be built. The Plaza would provide a facade to the parking garage. Vice Mayor Streit commented that the only way to add a gynmasium is to add a parking stmcture. Mr. Knoll responded that a gynmasium would increase the parking requirements and the only way to comply wouldbe a parking structure. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that her concern with adding a gymnasium is that it would increase the night activity at Civic Center, which in mm would create more traffic flow. Mr. Knoll responded that they have estimated the parking liberally. Councilmember Bogosian stated in order to preserve the character of Saratoga, his preference is to try and minimize the visual effects of parked cars from Fruitvale and Allendale. Mr. Knoll responded that parking is a difficult situation at this site due to size and preserving certain buildings and trees. Mr. Knoll stated that there are several ways to mitigate Councilmember Bogosian's concerns regarding parked cars; additional landscaping could be used. Edward Hand, President/West Valley Light Opera, thanked the City for the continued support and allowing them to use the theater since 1965. Mr. Hand stated that he welcomes any improvements to the theater. Mr. Hand noted that in his opinion the theater is in pretty good shape, although new dressing rooms, bathroom facilities and an orchestra pit would be very appreciated by all the user groups. Marianne Swan, Saratoga Preschool Coordinator, noted that she schedules her classes in conjunction with the dismissal times of the surrounding school. Mrs. Swan noted that it helps parents, who have older children in other schools, with pickup/drop off schedule. Mrs. Swan noted that Redwood School already has existing problems with traffic before and after school, adding a one way road, as shown in Scheme 2-A, connecting the parking lots would only increase the traffic in the Civic Center area. Mrs. Swan noted that it is necessary to locate the preschool close to the seniors and the creek because the children have programs that involve both. Tim Reynolds, Treasurer/ Saratoga Drama Group, noted that after reviewing all of the proposed schemes he did not see any access road behind the theater. Mr. Reynolds noted that it is important for large trucks to be able to deliver sets to the rear of the theater.-" Scott Peters, Director/Saratoga MJB, noted that he has been involved with this program for a long time and has seen the participation drop due to the lack of gym space in Saratoga. Mr. Peters noted that if a gym cannot be built within the Civic Center than perhaps the City could add a gym to Redwood School City Council Minutes 4 October 9, 2001 Director Pisani read an email from Mike McErlain, 18353 Clemson Avenue. Director Pisani noted that Mr. McErlain could not attend tonight's meeting but wanted his comments read for the record. Mr. McErlain urged the Council to include a gym in the Civic Center plans. Pat Bortle, Chair/Adult Day Care Center, suggested that the Council keep in mind that if -and when the renovations take place the seniors would need to be relocated. Ms. Bortle noted that there is no way that they could stop their program. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she likes pieces of Schemes lB and ID. Councilmember Waltonsmith stated that she supports a two-story Community Center but prefers it back towards the Corporation Yard with parking between the two buildings. In regards to a Council Chambers, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she prefers it to be attached to City Hall. In regards to the Theater, Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would like to see the foyer enhanced and perhaps connected to the rest of the buildings. Councilmember Waltonsmith could support a story and a half parking structure. Councilmember Baker asked what a two-story Community Center entails. Ms. McLoad responded that their scope of work did not include programming the use of space. Director Pisani responded to Councilmember Baker that in 199.~. a Needs Assessment Report was done on the Community Center with all of the user groups. Director Pisani explained that a two-story Community Center would gain a few classrooms, the preschool would be moved back to the Center, and would give the Senior Center and Adult Day Care Program more space. Councilmember Baker asked for a description of the proposed Council Chambers. Mr. Knoll noted that as Ms. McLoad stated'earlier details of the proposals were not included in the scope' of work, but stated that it would be a large mom with a raised platform and a few small conference rooms. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith that the Chambers should be attached to the offices. Councilmember Baker noted that when reviewing the plans he did not like any one in particular. Councilmember Baker noted that he could support parts of Scheme lA and 1D. Councilmember Baker noted that the gym connected to the Community Center and a parking structure realistically is needed for furore user groups in Saratoga. Councilmember Baker noted that he does .not support the Chambers in the back by the creek. Councilmember Baker stated that the traffic problem at Redwood School needs to be addressed immediately. City Council Minutes 5 October 9, 2001 Vice Mayor Streit rioted that completely demolishing Civic Center is out of the question due to financial constraints. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he supports connecting a Council Chambers to the comer of the existing offices and refurbishing the theater to blend in more with the rest of the Civic Center. Vice Mayor Streit noted that he preferred the placement of the Community Center in Scheme lA and lB. Vice Mayor Streit reminded the group that there are a few structures in the Corporation Yard that would be very hard to move, such as the CNG tank. In regards to completely demolishing the Civic Center, Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Vice Mayor Streit. Mayor Mehaffey commented that his top priority would be the theater with the Council Chambers at the bottom of his list. Mayor Mehaffey noted that he wants to keep the Community Center by the Corporation Yard and the theater needs access to the back of the building. Council discussion took place on where to move the CNG tank if it had to be relocated. Councilmember Baker asked why the Warner Hutton House was excluded in all of the plans presented to Council tonight. Councilmember Waltonsmith responded that the request came from her not to do anything to the Wamer Hutton House. Councilmem~er 'Baker noted that it is a very beautiful house but its use is the least efficient. Mr. Knoll noted that it can be moved, but questioned an alternative location. Councilmember Baker commented that perhaps the Warner Hutton House could be moved to one of the City's parks. Vice Mayor Streit added that the Warner Hutton House was not built with the intentiOn of it being used as a teen center and the teens have destroyed it. Consensus of the City Council that they would consider using the space that the Warner Hutton House occupies and relocating the house, if a creative and useful plan was presented to them. Ms. Mcload noted that an additional factor that had to be considered when designing the ,. parking on the site were the large oak trees. Parking was designed around them. Mayor Mehaffey stated that the oak trees have to stay where they are; they are too large to move. Consensus of the City Council that the large oak trees would not be removed. Mr. Hand asked the Council why none of the Heritage Orchard has been used. City Council Minutes 6 October 9, 2001 The City Council explained to Mr. Hand that the Heritage Orchard is preserved in its perpetuity. Mrs. Swan noted that she would be willing to take the warner Hutton House for her preschool and suggested the eucalyptus orchard behind the Historical Museum as an alternative location for the house if it were to be relocated. -~ Verda Keenan noted that she Was representing the Senior Center and felt that thru traffic through the Civic Center would create a potential racetrack. Mayor Mehaffey asked Mr. Knoll and Ms McLoad when they could remm after incorporating Council's comments into new plans. Mr. Knoll responded in approximately 6-8 weeks. Councilmember Baker requested that the new plans be provided to the Council, members of the public, the user groups, and placed on the City's website many days prior to the next meeting. Director Pisani asked if the Council would like cost estimates. Mayor Mehaffey responded cost estimates in phases would be appropriate. Mayor Mehaffey thanked everyone for attending tonight's meeting and providing input to the Civic Center Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey declared the meeting adjourned at 845 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk City Council Minutes "] October 9, 2001 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ]~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: f--~~ PREPARED BY: ~/] /~/~ DEPTHEAD:~ ] SUBJECT: Check Registers: 10/12/01, 10/26/01 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve the Check Registers. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers. 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. Fund# Fund Name Date Manual Void Total I I 10/12/01 Checks Checks AP CHECKS A86659-86784 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 Park 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 71,319.69 16,368.96 (7,807.95) 53,144.76 (503.97) i 6,977.63 19,090.93 8,556.37 3,801.89 755.64 300.00 3,683.50 299,398.70 (2,433.28) (...;34.62) ISubtotal PAYROLL CHECKS: B27202-27230 TOTAL IPrepared by: JApproved by: 467,029.11 16,368.96 (11,279.82) Date: PREPARED 10/12/2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1 PROGI~%M: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE H~%ND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000009 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 21100301 001704 10/11/2001 0001963 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS 11/01 001532 10/09/2001 0000005 1106 0000864 5083329 0001964 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS 11/01 001533 10/09/2001 ALLSUP, LORETTA 001521 10/05/2001 AMSTERDAM PRINTING & LITHO 001509 10/05/2001 0000031 ASHBY, DAVID EP002961 001611 10/10/2001 0001180 AT&T 741-1527 001693 ~ 10/11/2001 0000005 BHATNAGAR, MRS. 1207 001505 0002429 BRAMLETT, TIQUETTE 9/28/01 001527 0001758 BUCKLEY, PAUL 9/28/01 001512 0000005 CALANDRI, PEGGY 1206 001720 0002129 33857 001-1025-511.40-12 001-0000-210.20-01 001-0000-210.20-01 290-6005-445.04-00 290-6005-564.30-01 001-3035-532.40-01 001-1050-513.40-20 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 10/05/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 10/05/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 10/11/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CALIFORNIA STREET MAINTEN/tNCE, INC. 0001523 0110020005765 LIAB. CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE 210.30 VENDOR TOTAL * 210.30 DENTAL INS. #30710/PD0 3,966.62 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,966.62 DENTAL INS. #5A94/DMO 2'77.54 VENDOR TOTAL * 277.54 CLASS REFUND 119.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 119.00 POCKET CALEND~RS 214.57 VENDOR TOTAL * 214.57 CLASS EXP. REIMB. 154.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 154.00 LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHGS. 15.01 VENDOR TOTAL * 15.01 CLASS REFUND 88.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 88.00 DANCE CHAPERONE 92801 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 DANCE CHAPERONE 92801 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 CLASS REFUND 129.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 129.00 8,556'.37 8,556.37 38.83 001556 20039 10/09/2001 260-5015-552.40-10 MONTHLY STREET SWEEPING VENDOR TOTAL * CALISTOGA MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER CO. 001563 10/09/2001 001-1060-513.40-15 WATER COOLER RENTAL ~ PAGE 2 PREPARED 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROV~ PROGP, AM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 CITY OF SA~TOGA ........... j .................................................................. VEND NO VENDOR NAME I~OICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPE~ITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMO~T ........... ~ ................... ~ ................. ~--~ .......................... , ............... T .......... ~ .............. ~ .......... 0001523 C;tLISTOGA MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER CO. 0000005 CELLUL~ IMAGE 793 001692 0000999 4-1000 10/11/2001 001-1050-513.40-20 CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT 001523 10/05/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 0000041 COATE, BARRIE D. 01/599 001620 10/10/2001' 150-3005-532.40-10 01/599 001619 20020 10/10/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION I 001665 10/03/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 0000005 CORBETT, JOAN 1236 001576 10/10/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 0000434 COTTON, SHIRES A~NDASSOCIATES INC 95871 001540 20068 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 95872 001541 20068 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 95873 001542 20068 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 95874 001543 20068 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 95875 001544 20068 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 · 95876 001545 20068 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 0002335 CUllING HENDERSON 98458 001558 20037 10/09/2001 001-1035-512.40-15 98623 001559 20037 10/09/2001 001-1035-512.40-15 98624 001560 20037 10/09/2001 001-1035-512.40-15 98625 001561 20037 10/09/2001 001-1035-512.40-15 0000005 CUNNINGHAM, LESLIE 1235 001534 0000108 DATA TICKET, INC. 4949 001488 0000754 18548 10/09/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 10/05/2001 001-2010-522.40-10 DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES INC 001513 19948 10/05/2001 001-1060-513.40-14 VENDOR TOTAL * 38.83 CELL PHONES/ACCESSORIES 518.40 VENDOR TOTAL * 518.40 INSTRUCTOR FEE 35.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 35.00 ARBORIST SERVICES 594.00 AMBORIST SERVICES 4,788.47 VENDOR TOTAL * 5,382.47 CREDIT UNION #20-01 CHECK #: 86661 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 CLASS REFI/ND 298.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 298.00 GEOTECH. SERVICES 780.00 GEOTECH. SERVICES 1,059.13 GEOTECH. SERVICES 812.50 GEOTECH. SERVICES 1,310.00 GEOTECH. SERVICES 1,310.00 GEOTECH. SERVICES 935.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 6,206.63 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 172.95 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 465.97 VEHICLE MAINTENlkNCE 547.12 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 470.97 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,657.01 CLASS REFUND 119.00 VENDOR TOTAL * li9.00 CITATION PROCESSING 8/01 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 100.00 ROOF LEAK REPAIR-PLNG 285.78 3,588.42 3,588.42 PREPARED 10/12/2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 CITY OF S~RATOGA ............... c VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCNER'i P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000754 DAVCO WATERPROOFING SERVICES INC 0000125 DINI, G. 9/01 001Gl0 20084 10/10/2001 0001876 DUNN, CAROL 4-1537 001522 10/05/2001 0000005 EASTMAN, LINDA 1310 0016BB 10/10/2001 0000144 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS S1086738-001 001515 19945 10/05/2001 0001767 FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES INC. 20826-1 001562 2006.0 10/09/2001 0002265 FIELD PAOLI ARCHITECTS, INC. 0080104 001706 20045 10/11/2001 0090161 001707 20045 10/11/2001 0080131 001708 20048 10/11/2001 0090126 001709 20045 10/11/2001 0000159 FRY'S ELECTRONICS 5904465 001525 19801 10/05/2001 5962068 001711 19863 10/11/2001 5964306 001712 19863 10/11/2001 5959730 001713 10/11/2001 0001794 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT A1563 001716 19901 10/11/2001 A1815 001717 19901 10/11/2001 A1780 001718 19901 10/li/2001 A1779 001719 19901 10/11/2001 A0368 001676 10/10/2001 A0926 001677 10/10/2001 A0976 001678 10/10/2001 A1335 001679 10/10/2001 A1336 001680 10/10/2001 0002430 GEBHARD, COLIN VENDOR TOTAL * 285.78 250-4020-542.40-16 INSPECTION SERVICES 2,664.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,664.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 160.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 160.00 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 86.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 86.00 001-1060-513.30-02 DIFFUSERS 596.70 VENDOR TOTAL * 596.70 001-3035-532.40-13 SARATOGA RO~iD LAYOUTS 2,086.54 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,086.54 320-9010-522.40-10 TEMP. LIB. 7/28-8/31/01 3,819.95 320-9010-522.40-10 TEMP. LIB. 9/1-9/28/01 190.00 320-9010-522.40-10 SARATOGA LIB 7/28-8/31/01 132',978.87 320-9010-522.40-10 SARATOGA LIB 9/1-9/28/01 87,888.85 VENDOR TOTAL * 224,844.67 001-1065-613.60-06 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 2,675.62 001-1065-613.60-06 IT SUPPLIES 788.02 001-1065-613.60-06 CREDIT-ITEM RETURNED 296.94- 001-1065-613.60-06 IT SUPPLIES 268.17 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,434.87 001-9010-522.40-14 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES/C.HALL 599.28 001-9010-522.40-14 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES/}~4 PRK 4,141.00 001-9010-522.40-14 INSTALL BENCHES/KM PRK 1,852.00 001-9010-522.40-14 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES/C.CTR. 527.00 150-3025-532.40o14 IRRIG. REPAIRS-MEDIANS 495.92 150-3025-532.40-14 IRRIG. REPAIRS-MEDIANS 130.00 150-3025-532.40-14 IRRIG. REPAIRS-MEDIANS 793.36 150-3025-532.40-14 IRRIG. REPAIRS-MEDIANS 221.44 150-3025-532.40-14 IRRIG. REPAIRS-MEDIANS 217.44 VENDOR TOTAL * 8,977.44 PPEPARED /2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 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 0002430 GEBH~D, COLIN . 9/28/01 001662 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 9/28/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 0002323 GENOPF, RICHARD C. 005 001564 19796 10/09/2001 310-9010-622.40-10 SOD INSTALLATION-PROG PAY 2,000.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,000.00 0002221 GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY, INC. REQ. 10 001705 20007 10/11/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 LIB. PHASE I 8/1-8/31/01 40,133.60 VENDOR TOTAL * 40,133.60 0000005 GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOC. 010685 001691 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 PARK MAINT III RECRUIT AD 225.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 225.00 0000183 HAKONE GARDEN FOUNDATION 9/01 001503 10/05/2001 001-3030-532.40-71 HAKONE RENT 9/2001 821.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 821.00 0000005 HUTCHINSON, WANDA 1208 001501 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 69.00 0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS 19411 001617 19%14 10/10/2001 150-3025-532.40-14 MEDIAN REPAIR 676.18 VENDOR TOTAL * 676.18 0001813 I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES A. SULLIVAN 001646 10/10/2001 001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL DINNER 9/5/01 75.61 A. SULLIVAN 001647 10/10/2001 001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL DINNER 9/5{01 .29.16 A. SULLIVAN 001648 10/10/2001 001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL MTG. 9/5/01 12.00 A. SULLIVAN 001651 10/10/2001 001-1005-511.40-51 FLORAL ARRANGEMNT-C.CLERK 54.00 C. BOYER 001721 10/11/2001 001-1005-511.40-51 COUNCIL DINNER 127.61 L. MERRIMAN 001630 ' 10/10/2001 001-1015-511.40-04 YOUTH COMM. TRAINING 62.66 D. SURDIN 001641 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 LIBRARY GROUNDBREAKING 35.94 D. SURDIN 001642 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 FIRE/CITY'MTG. EXP. 30.19 A. SULLIVAN 001649 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.40-41 COMM. DINNER FLYER 96.12 A. SULLIVAN 001650 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 EMERG. PERSONNEL LUNCH 5.61 A. SULLIVAN 001652 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 MTG. EXPENSE-C.CLERK, DEP 10.36 A. SULLIVAN 001655 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.10 L. TINFOW 001669 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.65 L. TINFOW 001671 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 SUPPLIES-LIB GRNDBREAKING 14.01 L. TINFOW 001672 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 SUPPLIES-LIB GRNDBREAKING 64.50 L. TINFOW 001673 . 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 SUPPLIES-LIB GRNDBREAKING 51.39 L. TINFOW 001674 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 SUPPLIES-LIB GRNDBREAKING 6.69 L. TINFOW 001675 10/10/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 SUPPLIES-LIB GRNDBREAKING '4.31 C. BOYER 001722 10/11/2001 001=1020-511.30-01 STAFF LUNCH 37.63 A. SULLIVAN 001654 10/10/2001 001-1030-511.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.44 C. BOYER 001723 10/11/2001 001-1040-513.30-31 BUDGETING PUBLICATIONS 108.60 PREPARED 10/12/2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5 PROGR~: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 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 O001B13 L L L L L L A. L. L. L. L. B. R. R. J. J. D. D. D. J. L. L. K. K. K. K. B. B. L. L. L. L. B. L. I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES BURNS MIYAKAWA MIYAKAWA MIYAKAWA MIYAKAWA MIYAKAWA SULLIVA~ CONN CONN CONN CONN TUCKER KIRK KIRK SMITH SMITH SMITH SURDIN SURDIN SURDIN SMITH CONN CONN HEINRICHS HEINRICHS HEINRICHS HEINRICHS TUCKER TUCKER MERRIMAN MERRIMAN MERRIM3%N MERRIMAN MERRIMAN TUCKER TINFOW 001616 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 JOB.COM 400.00 001634 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 GFOA-AS DIR. RECRTMT AD 150.00 001635 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 APA-ASST. PLNR RCRTMT AD 50.00 001636 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ASSESS. CTR. AS DIR.-FOOD 18.72 001637 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ASSESS. CTR. AS DIR.-FOOD 13.28 001638 10/10/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 SUPPLIES 3.56 001653 10/10/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 COFFEE SUPPLIES 48.51 001656 10/10/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 75.55 001659 10/10/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 30.23 001660 10/10/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.61 001661 10/10/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.72 001695 10/11/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.11 001626 10/10/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 FLOOR REGISTERS-WHH 33.63 001627 10/10/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 ARM CHAIR PADS 93.60 001569 10/09/2001 001-3035-532.30-01 POSTAGE-SEWER LETTERS 132.00 001570 10/09/2001 001-303~-592.30-01 PARKS/REC. MTG. SUPPLIES 25.16 001571 10/09/2001 001-3035-532.30-01 PARKS/REC. MTG. SUPPLIES 31.94 001639' '10/10/2001 001-7020-572.40-40 WEBSITE PHOTOS 17.90 001640 10/10/2001 001-7020-572.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 19.43 001643 10/10/2001 001-7020-572.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 31.68 001572 10/09/2001 150-9010-522.40-10 GATEWAY TASK FORCE MTG. 19.83 001657 10/10/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.75 001658 10/10/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.25 001622 10/10/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP ESCORT LUNCH 10.47 001623 10/10/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 TRIP PRESENTATION EXP. 48.10 001624 10/10/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP TREATS 22.43 001625 10/10/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 79.87 001694 10/11/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 PLASTIC STORAGE BOXES 40.45 001697 10/11/2001 290-6005-564.40-01 CPRS CONF. REGISTRATION 209.00 001628 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 TEEN CENTER POSTERS 25.92 001629 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 TEEN CENTER POSTERS 67.94 001631 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 WHH OPENING WEEK 26.35 001632 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 WHH SUPPLIES 12.52 001633 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 WHH SUPPLIES 12.96 001696 10/11/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 WEBSITE HOSTING FEE 9.95 001670 10/10/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 POSTAGE-TEMP. LIB. 12.45 0000201 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,770.45 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 001666 10/03/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 RETIREMENT PLAN #20-01 CHECK #: 86662 001667 10/05/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 RETIREMENT PLAN #20-01 CHECK #: 86663' VENDOR TOTAL * ..00 0000005 INGRAHAM, JULIE 9/28/01 001489 10/05/2001 001-1040-513.40-01 COMPUTER CLASS REIMB. 26.50 0002425 INSIGHT 8987460 001526 20119 10/05/2001 VENDOR TOTAL * 26.50 001-1065-613.60-06 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 202.72 4,556.93 121.02 4,677.95 /2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL PAGE 6 PROGRAM: GM339L ~ OF: 10/12/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA ............. 5- VEND NO VENDOR NAME ~ I~OICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION MOUNT ............. ~---, .......... ~--r ..................... 0002425 0000204 30055914 0000209 4-1316 0001264 9/Ol 9/Ol 9/ol 0000005 1203 0000220 4-1212 0000005 INSIGHT 0002432 109020 0000005 1195 0000005 1204 0000005 1205 VENDOR TOTAL * 202.72 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 001557 20028 10/09/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 VEHICLE BATTERIES 52.87 VENDOR TOTAL * 52.87 JAMELLO, NANCY 001577 10/10/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 iNSTRUCTOR FEE !54.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 154.00 JEFFERS, JAMES A. 001554 20041' 10/09/2001 001-3035-532.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 2,109.00 001553 20041 10/09/2001 250-4010-542.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS TREE INSP. 777.00 001555 10/09/2001 310-9010-613.40-16 CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK 185.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,071.00 JOHNSTON, MELODY 001498 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 84.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 84.00 JOSHI, BHARATI 001574 10/10/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 15.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 15.00 KC ENTERPRISES 001668 10/05/2001 001-7020-572.40-10 VILLAGE LIGHTING 50% DEP. CHECK #: 86664 6,292.92 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 6,292.92 KEITH B. HIGGINS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 001715'20079 10/11/2001 001-3035-532.40-13 SPEED ZONE SURVEY 3,079.30 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,079.30 KIM, HYEONJU 001496 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 69.00 KLBIJ, PIEER 001500 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 84.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 84.00 0002249 KNAPP, ALLISON 16 001700 10/11/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 CONTRACT PL;~ER SVCS. 3,112.50 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,112.50 KUAN, TA-LI 001499 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 84.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 84.00 0002145 LAVELLE, MEAGAN PREPARED 10/12/2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 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 0002145 LAVELLE, MEAGAN 9/28/01 001511 10/05/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 92801 VENDOR TOTAL * 0000245 LEWIS, HOWARD 9/01 001546 20042 10/09/2001 001-3035-532.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 9/01 001547 20042 10/09/2001 150-3005-532.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 9/01 001548 20042 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 9/01 001549 20042 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 9/01 001550 20042 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 9/01 001551 20042 10/09/2001 250-4020-542.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 9/01 001552 10/09/2001 310-9010-613.40-16 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 0002153 MCGRATH RENTCORP- 332683 001516 19979 10/05/2001 314344 001701 19979 10/11/2001 0000273 MEYER, GREG 4-2300 001703 10/11/2001 0000005 MINDLING, KIM 1311 001689 10/10/2001 0002396 MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEMENT CORP. 324970 001565 20062 10/09/2001 0002289 MOORE, KAREN 4-1218 001495 10/05/2001 0000005 MOORE, MRS. 1103 001518 10/05/2001 0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR 001664 10/03/2001 0002356 NOLL & TAM 01953 001510 19960 10/05/2001 01976 001686 19960 10/10/2001 0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER 11734 001491 20169 10/05/2001 001-1060-513.40-31 001-1060-513.40-31 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-445.04-00 150-3005-532.40-10 290-6005-564.40-18 290-6005-445.04-00 001-0000-210.20-01 001-9010-622.40-10 001-9010-622.40-10 001-1050-513.40-41 VENDOR TOTAL * BLDG RENTAL 9/19-10/19/01 BLDG. RENTAL 7/21-820/01 VENDOR TOTAL * INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL * CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * BLDG RENTAL 9/19-10/19/01 VENDOR TOTAL * INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL * CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * RETIREMENT PLAN #20-01 VENDOR TOTAL * CIVIC CTR MASTER PLAN 801 CIVIC CTR. MASTER PLAN VENDOR TOTAL * RECEIPT BOOKS 30.00 30.00 240.50 499.50 166.50 37.00 360.75 129.50 1,498.50 2,932.25 1,105 92 1,105 92 2,211 84 48 O0 48 00 76 00 76 00 244 08 244 08 88 00 88 O0 74 00 74 00 CHECK #: 86660 .00 4,678.12 7,935..15 12,613.27 682.95 1,601.34 1,601.34 PREP?~RED 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIS~ PAGE 8 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 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 0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER llB00 001535 10/09/2001 0000296 NUDELMAN, PAMELA 4-1501 001702 10/11/2001 0000297 O. C. MCDONALD 7637 001514 19951 10/05/2001 0001997 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 139431956-002 001484 10/05/2001 0000306 PACIFIC BELL 741-2271 001486. 10/05/2001 741-1527 001487 10/05/2001 0000307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 001608 10/10/2001 001595 10/10/2001 001609 10/10/2001 001596 10/10/2001 001597 10/10/2001 001598 10/10/2001 001599 10/10/2001 001600 10/10/2001 001601 10/10/2001 001602 10/10/2001 001603 10/10/2001 001604 10/10/2001 001605 10/10/2001 001606 10/10/2001 001607 10/10/2001 0000738 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 001683 10/10/2001 0002077 PARSONS HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW & 02573413 001573 20172 10/10/2001 0002433 POWELL, DORI 4-1530 001714 10/11/2001 0000005 PROSIGNS, INC. 001-2010-522.40-41 ALARM PERMIT APPLICATIONS 386.19 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,069.14 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 12.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 12.00 001-1060-513.40-14 REPLACED COMPRESSOR 1,950.51 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,950.51 001-1050-513.30-01 TONER CARTRIDGE 33.04 VENDOR TOTAL * 33.04 001-1050-513.40-20 XEROX MACHINE 14.46 001-2005-521.40-20 EMP. EMERGENCY # 14.46 VENDOR TOTAL * 28.92 001-1060-513.40-23 BUILDINGS 7,485.91 001-3030-532.40-23 PARKS 322.04 150-3005-532.40-23 CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTS 379.90 150-3015-532.40-23 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 124.07 180-3040-532.40-23 QUITO LIGHTING DIST. 158.64 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z5 198.79 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z6 231.99 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z7 1,202.44 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z9 7.29 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Zl6 23.91 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Zl0 4.86 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Zl4 4.86 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z18 4.86 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z24 PKG. DIST. 588.35 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z22 7.29 VENDOR TOTAL * 10,745.20 320-9010-522.40-10 ENG. REVIEW BAL.-TEMP LIB 17,582.14 · VENDOR TOTAL * 17,58.2.14 001-4005-542.40-10 HOUSING ELEMENT #738571 1,200.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,200.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 145.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 145.00 PPEPARED 10/12/2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDI~JRE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA .......................................... %- VEND NO VENDOR NAME EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOIPNT 0000005 PROSIGNS, INC. 7090 001699 10/11/2001 0000005 QUINLAR PUBLISHING GROUP 92601 001614 10/10/2001 0002329 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, INC. 20522 001568 20066 10/09/2001 20591 001566 20066 10/09/2001 20590 001567 20066' 10/09/2001 0001490 RPI 429304 001524 20135 10/05/2001 0000005 ROCK~'URST COLLEGE CONTINUING 622690467-001 001539 10/09/2001 0002393 SACRED HEART CHURCH 001517 20083 10/05/2001 0000344 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 7186151 001536 10/09/2001 7180342 001537 10/09/2001 7191528 001529 10/09/2001 7194218 001530 10/09/2001 7189462 001531 10/09/2001 7187772 001538 10/09/2001 0000345 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 10/16/01 001612 10/10/2001 0001821 SAN JOSE WATER CO. 001682 10/10/2001 0000346 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 001583 10/10/2001 001582 10/10/2001 001SB1 10/10/2001 001584 10/10/2001 001585 10/10/2001 001586 10/10/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 BANNER-TEMP. LIB. 311.04 VENDOR TOTAL * 311.04 001-3035-532.30-31 SUBSCRIPTION-GRANTS 149.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 149.00 150-3005-532.40-10 FURNISH/INSTALL BACKUP SY 43,420.00 150-3015-532.40-14 TRAFFIC SIG Fu%INT/REPAIRS 943.32 150-3015-532.40-15 TRAFFIC SIG NLAINT/REPAIRS 1,050.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 45,413.32 001-1060-513.40-14 EMERG. SOUND SYS. REPAIR 510.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 510.00 001-3035-532.40-01 SEMINAR ll/0G/01-TORRES 139'00~ VENDOR TOTAL * 13~.00 320-9010-522.40-10 RENT-10/01 6,500.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 6,500.00 150-3005-532.40-41 2001 PAVM~NT MGMT. SPECS. 73.44 150-3005-532.40-41 2001 PAVMENT MGMT. SPECS. 302.51 250-4010-542.40-41 PLANS-GRND MOVEMENT 117.18 250-4010-542.40-41 PLAN PRINTING 152.28 250-4010-542.40-41 ZONING MAP 96.12 320-9010-522.40-41 SARATOGA LIBR~Y 14.80 VENDOR TOTAL * 756.33 001-1020-511.30-31 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 47.46 VENDOR TOTAL * 47.46 320-9010-522.40-10 LIB. EXP/RENOV. ENG. DEP. 10,000.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 10,000.00 001-1060-513.40-22 BUILDINGS 988.85 001-3030-532.40-22 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 8,239.39 150-3025-532.40-22 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 2,907.41 180-3040-532.40-22 FREDERICKSBURG 31.84 180-3040-532.40-22 GREENBRIAR 122.73 180-3040-532.40-22 MCCARTYSVILLE 171.51 PREP.%RED , 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL PAGE 10 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 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 0000346 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 001587 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 TRICIA WOODS 001588 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 ARROYO SARATOGA 001589 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 LED'TAR CT. 001590 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 BONNET WAY 001591 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 GLASGOW CT. 001592 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 PRIDES CROSSING 001593 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 BELLGROVE 001594 10/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-22 TOLLGATE VENDOR TOTAL * 0000097 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 001490 10/05/2001 001-1040-452.01-00 CITATION REVENUE 8/01 VENDOR TOTAL * 0000353 SAJ~ATOGA CH~BER OF COMMERCE 4151 001724 10/11/2001 001-1020-511.40-10 CITY CONTRACT-OCT-DEC. VENDOR TOTAL * 0002224 SCC EMPLOYER ADVISORY COUNCIL 102301 001698 10/11/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 ADA SEMINAR VENDOR TOTAL * 0000005 SCHMIDLEN, JULIE 1104 001519 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND ] VENDOR TOTAL * 0002125 sEvERO, ROSA 4-1216 001493 10/05/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL * 0002179 SHINN, CORINNE A. 9/26/01 001618 20014 10/10/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 PC MIN13TES 9/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL * 0000005 SODEN, KIM 52818 001494 10/05/2001 292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 0000005 SPIEGA, SANDY 1197 001502 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 0002149 STENHOUSE, R. DEVIN 9/28/01 001507 10/05/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE VENDOR TOTAL * 0000005 STRICKLAND, MRS. 1214 001506 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 0000005 SWAN MARIANNE 255.21 142.08 195.23 46.33 17.34 138.90 3,237.79 185.39 16,680.00 545.00 545.00 836.25 836.25 20.00 20.00 149.00 149 00 84 O0 · 84 O0 450 00 450 O0 300 00 300 O0 139.00 139.00 30.00 3b.00 79.00 79.00 PREPARED 10/12/2001, 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 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 SWAN MARIANNE 001492 10/05/2001 0001589 TAP~I, SAM 74656 001725 10/11/2001 0000005 THADANI, NIKESH 1329 001690 10/10/2001 0000005 TINFOW, LORIE 001710 0000~98 TLC 001-9010-522.40-10 EXP REIMB-PRESCHOOL BKYED VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1065-513.40-10 LUNCH MTG./MIS VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 10/11/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 EXPENSE REIMB. VENDOR TOTAL * 001663. '10/03/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 FLEXIBLE BENEFITS EEIMB. CHECK #: VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1040-513.40-10 FLEX. BENEFITS ADMIN. FEE VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1060-513.30-02 MISC. SUPPLIES 001-1060-513.30-02 SERVICE CHARGE VENDOR TOTAL * 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEB VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1045-513.40-02 2000 EMPLOYMENT APPS. 001-1050-513.40-41 ENVELOPES, LABELS, CARDS VENDOR TOTAL * 0001795 TLC ADMINISTRATORS INC. 001528 10/05/2001 0001683 UNISOURCE MAINT. SUPPLY SYSTEMS 31419670 001684 19978 10/10/2001 31427890 001685 19978 10/10/2001 0000155 URI/HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES SW .217332 001615 20027 10/10/2001 0000005 VAN AKEN, CHRISTINE 1232 001575 10/10/2001 0000423 WALATKA, PAMELA 4-1316 001578 10/10/2001 0000005 WANG, JERRY 1117 001497 10/05/2001 0001582 WEST VALLEY - MISSION PS-749 001613 10/10/2001 PS-750 001579 10/10/2001 0000005 WONG, VERNA 374.39 374.39 65.62 65.62 119.00 119.00 29.65 29.65 86659 .00 175.00 175.00 1,348.95 1.96 1,350.91 52.36 52.36 89.00 89.00 154.00 154.00 59.00 59.00 125.00 680.71 805.71 208.33 208.33 PREPARED , 8:18:34 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12 PRO~RAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/12/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA .................................................. VEND NO VENDOR NAME ~ EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED INVOICE VOUCHER' P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000005 WONG, VERNA 76.00 1309 001687 10/10/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 76.00 0001956 WYATT, JON 450.00 10/19/01 001580 10/10/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 450.00 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 771.81 600249016 001485 10/05/2001 001-1050-513.40-30 771.81 0000005 YU, KATHY 139.00 1201 '001504 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 139.00 0000005 YUAN, MRS. 54.00 1102 001520 10/05/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 54.O0 467,029.11 CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL DANCE DJ-10/19/01 VENDOR TOTAL * MONTHLY LEASE-4 COPIERS VENDOR TOTAL * CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * TOTAL EXPENDITURES **** GRAND TOTAL 16,368.96 483,398.07 -'~' '~ PAGE 1 · F/~RED10/18/2001, 11:28:18 ACCOUNTS PAY;iSLE CHECK REGISTER ACCOL~ING PERIOD 2002/04 PROGRAM: GM346L REPORT NUMBER 11 POOLED CASH GENER~ CHECKING ACCOUNT ........................ CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE A_MOUNT CHECK' NO NO NAME NO NO ACCOL~NT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 82992* 5 ROBINSON, KEN 000931 09/21/2000 290-6005-445.04-00 53.00- 53.00- * VOIDED 83352* 273 MEYER, GREG 001892 11/02/2000 290-6005-564.40-51 150.00- 001897 11/02/2000 290-6005-564.40-10 48.00- 001891 11/02/2000 290-6005-564.40-10 156.00- 354.00- * VOIDED 83355* 1957 MORRISON, STEPHANIE 001784 11/02/2000 290-6010-564.40-51 20.00- 20.00- * VOIDED 83425* 5 BARNA, SONYA 001943 11/16/2000 290-6005-445.04-00 54.00- 54.00- * VOIDED 83430* 2159 BERNARDO, GWENDOLYN 001967 11/16/2000 290-6005-564.40-10 5.62- 5.62- * VOIDED 83737* 2192 ENRIGHT, MEGAN 002386 12/14/2000 290-6005-445.04-00 24.00- 002387 12/14/2000 290-6005-445.04-00 24.00- 48.00- * VOIDED 86731* 307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 001595 10/12/2001 001-3030-532.40-23 322.04- 001596 10/12/2001 150-3015-532.40-23 124.07- 001597 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 158.64- 001598 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 198.79- 001599 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 231.99- · 001600 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 1,202.44- 001601 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 7.29- 001602 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 23.91- 001603 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 4.86- 001604 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 4.86- 001605 10/12/2001 180-304.0-532.40-23 '4.86- 001606 10/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 588.35- 001607 10/12/200'1 180-3040-532.40-23 7.29- 001608 10/12/2001 001-1060-513.40-23 7,485.91- 001609 10/12/2001 150-3005-532.40-23 379.90- 10,745.20- * VOIDED BANK/CHECK TOTAL 11,279.82- .00 ALL BANKS/CHECKS TOTAL 11,279.82- PAGE 1 ~001, 10:28:52 ~ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2002/05 POOL~w~CASH GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT . REPORT NUMBER 13 CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK NO NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL 86732* 738 PACIPIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 001683 10/.12/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 17,582.14- 17,582.14- * VOIDED 86786* 9 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 001747 10/26/2001 001-2010-522.40-01 75.00- 75.00- * VOIDED 86917* 420 VILLALOBOS, JESUS 001797 ~0/26/2001 001-1045-513.40-03 50.00- 001759 10/26/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 20.00- 70.00- * VOIDED BANK/CHECK TOTAL 17,727.14- .00 ALL BANKS/CHECKS TOTAL 17,727.14- IFund# Fund Name Date Manual Void Total 10/26/01 Checks Checks -- AP CHECKS A86785-86929 I 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 & Corem 290 Recreation 291 Teen Services 292 Facility Ops 293 Theatre Surcharge 300 State Park 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 78,263.20 66,996.39 (125.00) 90,926.09 503.97 (20.00) 6,394.59 17,892.51 23,614.88 12,896.25 270.00 600.00 172,213.80 188,161.08 591,232.40 2,433.28 39,707.00 9,575.68 17,582.14 136,798.46 (17,582.14) (17,727.14) PAYROLL CHECKS: B27231-27274 TOTAL Prepared by: Date: .. JApproved by: PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0000003 A & M MOTOR SUPPLY 8696 001786 20025 10/22/2001 0000009 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 001747 10/19/2001 0000010 ABAG POWER PURCHASING POOL 100017280 001928 20035 10/24/2001 0000011 ABLE RIBBON TECHNOLOGY 114568 001826 10/23/2001 0000019 ALLIED LOCK & KEY 66671 001887 19942 10/23/2001 66564 001912 19942 10/24/2001 0000005 AMANTHANARAYAMAN, SHUBA 53782 001729 10/19/2001 0002422 ANDERSON SUPERSTORE CVCS64134 001938 10/24/2001 0001457 ARCUS DATA SECURITY, INC 0740986 001737 10/19/2001 0002117 ARRIAGA, JUAN lO/13/Ol 001763 10/22/2001 0000031 ASHBY, DAVID 001749 10/22/2001 0001568 BAKER, EVAN 11/01 001814 10/23/2001 0002439 BALOCA, JESSE 001800 10/22/2001 001801 10/22/2001 001802 10/22/2001 0002445 BANK OF SACRAMENTO 001-1035-512.30-01 SUPPLIES 3.18 VENDOR TOTAL * 3.18 001-2010-522.40-01 CODE ENF. WORKSHOP 75.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 75.00 001-1060-513.40-23 NATURAL GAS/POWER POOL 1,610.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,610.00 001-1050-513.30-01 TONER CARTRIDGES 401.25 VENDOR TOTAL * 401.25 001-1060-513.40-14 LOCK CYLINDERS 340.20 001-1060-513.40-14 KEY LOCKS 75.60 VENDOR TOTAL * 415.80 001-1040-452.01-00 CITATION OVERPAYMENt. 10.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 10.00 001-1035-512.40-14 VEH. #92 REPAIR DOOR 114.98 VENDOR TOTAL * 114.98 001-1030-511.40-42 OFF SITE RETENTION 412.50 VENDOR TOTAL * 412.50 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 20.00 001-3035-532.40-01 TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT 55.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 55.00 001-1005-511.20-04 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE 11/01 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00 001-1045-513.40-05 AIRFARE REIMB.-AS DIR. 157.00 001-1045-513.40-02 CAR RENTAL REIMB.-AS DIR. 78.81 001-1045-513.40-02 HOTEL REIMB.-AS DIR. 138.50 VENDOR TOTAL * 374.31 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0002445 BANK OF SACRAMENTO · RETENTION I 001988 20081 10/25/2001 310-9010-622.40-10 CS PARK RET. ESC#2875-001 22,685.00 RETENTION 2 001989 20081 10/25/2001 310-9010-622.40-10 CS PARK RET. ESC#2875-001 27,588.80 RETENTION 3 001990 20081 10/25/2001 310-9010-622.40-10 CS PARK RET. ESC#2875-001 12,194.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 62,467.80 0002318 BARRY, CYNTHIA 11/01 001808 10/23/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 0002415 BAY DELTA CHARTERS 2807 001854 20125 10/23/2001 0000005 BEAN, WILLIAM 47777 001870 10/23/2001 0000005 BERRYMAN, ALICE 1332 001742 10/19/2001 0001856 BLOOMQUIST, CAR¥ 10/19/01 001921 10/24/2001 00000S0 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 245504 001806 10/23/2001 0000052 BOGOSIAN, STAN 11/01 001815 10/23/2001 0002048 BOREL, KRISTIN 9/10/01 001856 10/23/2001 10/8/01 001857 10/23/2001 8/17/01 001858 10/23/2001 0002429 BRAMLETT, TIQUETTE 10/19/01 001840 10/23/2001 0001758 BUCKLEY, PAD-L 10/19/01 001838 10/23/2001 0002357 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL 001947 10/12/2001 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 10/18/01 235.52 VENDOR TOTAL * 235.52 250-4010-444.02-00 ARBORIST FEE REFUND 14.16 VENDOR TOTAL * 14.16 290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 50.00 001-1020-511.40-04 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 35.19 VENDOR TOTAL * 35.19 001-1050-513.30-01 TONER CARTRIDGES 328.94 VENDOR TOTAL * 328.94 001-1005-511.20-04 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE 11/01 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00 001-1050-513.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 22.15 001-1050-513.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 37.61 001-2010-522.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 74.89 VENDOR TOTAL * 134.65. 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 001-7020-572.40-04 ECONOMIC DEV. CONFERENCE CHECK #: 86771 495.00 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3 PROGRAM: GM339L AS'OF: 10/26/2001 CITY OF S$~RATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002357 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL 0001523 CALISTOGA MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER CO. 01J0019822873 001862 10/23/2001 01J0020103842 001886 19943 10/23/2001 01J0020005765 001936 10/24/2001 0002069 CDW-G EM70672 001745 20171 10/19/2001 0000999 CENTI~AL FIRE DISTRICT 4-1003 001915 10/24/2001 0001900 CHRISTIE, JOE COACHING 001731 10/19/2001 0001516 CITY OF CAMPBELL 2300000012 001942 10/24/2001 0002122 CITY OF SANTA CLARA FINANCE DEPT. 37653 001985 10/19/2001 0000085 CITY OF SARATOOA/PETTY CASH 10/22/01 001966 10/25/2001 10/9/01 00i960 10/21/2001 10/2/01 001961 10/25/2001 9/25/01 001957 10/25/200i 9/26/01 001958 10/25/2001 9/30/01 001959 10/25/2001 10/12/01 001962 10/25/2001 10/15/01 001964 10/25/2001 10/17/01 001965 10/25/2001 10/~5/01 001963 10/25/2001 0000005 CMTA DIVISION ? 102301 001911 10/24/2001 0000041 COATE, BARRIE D. 01/619 001864 20020 10/23/2001 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION 001-1060-513.40-15 001-1060-513.40-15 001-1060-513.40-15 001-1065-613.60-06 290-6005-564.40-10 290-6005-564.40-10 260-5005-552.40-71 ~001d2025-523.40-10 001-1035-512.40-14 001-1045-513.40402 001-1045-513.40-05 001-1050-513.30-01 001-1050-513.30-01 001-1050-513.30-01 001-1050-513.30-01 001-1050-513.40-21 001-1050-513.30-01 320-9010-522.40-10 001-1040-513.40-01 250-4010-542.40-10 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 WATER FILTER ~ENTAL 38.83 MONTHLY RENTAL 38.83 WATER COOLER RENTAL 38.83 VENDOR TOTAL * 116.49 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 435.28 VENDOR TOTAL * 435.28 INSTRUCTOR FEE 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 COACHING FEE 800.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 800.00 JPA FEES FY 01/02 23,482.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 23,482.00 ANIMAL CONT.2JPA FY 01/02 CHECK #: 86780 VENDQR TOTAL* .00 CARPET REPAIR EXP.-TORRES 24.95 INTERVIEW EXP.-AS DIR. 5.22 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 11.39 COFFEE SUPPLIES 6.23 COFFEE SUPPLIES 2.99 COFFEE SUPPLIES 3.84 COFFEE SUPPLIES 3.49 POSTAGE REIMB. 4.00 COFFEE SUPPLIES 6.71 MTG. EXPENSE-GALINDO 6.98 VENDOR TOTAL * 75.80 ECONOMIC MTG. REGIS. 64.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00 ARBORIST SERVICES 1,843.97 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,843.97 495.00 47,624.18 47,624.18 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0000091 COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION 21-01 001952 10/18/2001 0060194 COPELAND, DIANA 4-1701 001890 10/23/2001 4-1702 001891 10/23/2001 4-I703 001892 10/23/2001 4-1704 001893 10/~3/2001 4-1705 001894 10/23/2001 4-1706 001895 10/23/2001 4-1707 001896 10/23/2001 4-1708 001897 10/23/2001 4-1709 001898 10/23/2001 4-1710 001899 10/23/2001 4-1712 001900 10/23/2001 4-1713 001901 10/23/2001 4-1714 001902 10/23/2001 4-1715 001903 10/23/2001 4-1716 001904 10/23/2001 0000434 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES INC 105897 001925 20068 10/24/2001 0000099 COD~'TY OF SANTA CLARA 10/01 001819 10/23/2001 0000005 CPRS DISTRICT IV 001955 10/25/2001 0002223 CSMFO 5400-26582 001804 10/23/2001 576137191 001805 10/23/2001 0002335 CU~ING HENDERSON 98986 001934 20037 10/24/2001 99184 001935 20037 10/24/2001 0000005 CUSALI, TONY 10/13/01 001760 10/22/2001 0002397 D&M TRAFFIC SERVICES, INC. SAR186 001953 20101 10/25/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 CREDIT UNION #21-01 CHECK #: 86776 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 444.60 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 111.15 290-6005-564.40.-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 111.15 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 111.15 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 296.40 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 296.40 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 111.15 290-6005-864.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 180.38 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 222.30 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 148.20 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 111.15 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 407.55 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 407.55 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 222.30 290-6005-864.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 222.30 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,403.73 250-4020-542.40-10 QUITO RD. BRIDGES 1,818.20 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,818.20 001-0000-202.10-01 BUS TICKET REIMB. 92.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 92.00 290-600S-564.40-01 CPRS AN~AL LUNCHEON 154.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 154.00 001-1040-513.30-30 AlgAL DUES-BALOCA 100.00 001-1040-513.30-30 A~AL DUES-GALINDO 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 200.00 001-1035-512.40-15 VEH. MAINTENANCE 360.37 001-1035-512.40-15 VEH. MAINTENANCE 300.49 VENDOR TOTAL * 660.86 150-3015-532.30-61 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 20.00 001-9010-522.40-10 SIGNAGE-SR. WING 194.40 4,288.42 4,288.42 pREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LiST PAGE 5 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA ............................ VEND NO VENDOR NAME EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002397 D&M TRAFFIC SERVICES, INC. VENDOR TOTAL * 194.40 0002197 DATA QUICK INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC 01736930 001859 20015 10/23/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 GIS INFORMATION UPDATE 25.00 01736930 001860 20015 10/23/2001 250-4020-542.40-10 GIS INFORMATION UPDATE 25.58 VENDOR TOTAL * 50.58 0002267 DAVID L. GATES & ASSOC., INC. 20572 001991 20080 10/19/2001 310-9010-522.40-10 ORCHID MP/HERITAGE REST. CHECK #: 86777 20692 001992 20080 10/19/2001 310-9010-522.40-10 ORCHARD MP/HERITAGE REST. CHECK #: 86777 20751 001993 20080 10/19/2001 310-9010-522.40-10 ORCHARD MP/HERITAGE REST. CHECK #: 86777 20903 001994 20080 10/19/2001 310-9010-52.2.40-10 ORCHARD MP/HERITAGE REST. CHECK #: 86777 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 0000120 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 001866 10/23/2001 250-4015-422.01-00 S.M.I.P. FEES-3RD QTR. 1,633.81 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,633.81 0000119 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-CASHIER 364524 001746 10/19/2001 001-1045-513.40-10 FINGERPRINTING-2 APPS. 64.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00 0002446 DILL DESIGN GROUP 0371 001946 10/24/2001 250-4010-444.01-00 HISTORIC RESEARCH/DOC. 2,800.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,800.00 0000135 DURAN & VENABLES, INC. 001945 19372 10/24/2001 150-3005-532.40-10 VESSING RD#20100 9,619.85 VENDOR TOTAL * 9,619.85 0002404 EDDY, MELISSA 3 001889 10/23/2001 001-1040-513.40-10 PROF. SVCS.-AUDIT 7,000.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 7,000.00 0000144 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS Sl106034.001 001913 19945 10/24/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 SCREWS, LAMPS, & LIGHTS 467.33 VENDOR TOTAL * 467.33 0002346 ELLE i~OT 4-1952 001885 10/23/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 177.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 177.00 0000005 FAGIANO, TONY 10/13/01 001757 10/22/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 20.00 0000158 FRONTIER TOURS 001987 20132 10/25/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 BR~SON BAL. 11/26-12/2 780.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 780.00 0000160 FUNG, CHUNG 2,444.75 2,984.44 3,230.00 916.49 9,575.68 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6 PROGRAM: GM339L AS,OF: 10/26/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOU~ 0000160 FUNG, CEUNG 4-1210 001831 10/23/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 5.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 0000162 G.N. RENN, INC. 432563 001783 20030 10/22/2001 001-1035-512.30-20 GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM 682.98 0001794 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 32026 001778 20040 00/00/0000 2%2002 001931 10/24/2001 A0511 001906 20100 10/24/2001 32026 001779 20040 10/22/2001 A2001 001929 10/24/2001 A2002 001930 10/24/2001 32026 001766 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001767 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001768 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001769 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001770 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001771 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001772 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001773 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001774 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001775 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001776 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001777 20040 10/22/2001 32026 001780 20040 10/22/2001 A2002 001932 10/24/2001 A2002 001933 10/24/2001 0000911 GALINDO, RAY 57082 001727 10/19/2001 102301 001871 10/23/2001 001969 10/25/2001 102301 001884 10/23/2001 0002321 GAP~AKANI, MOH/~4MED ll/D1 001809 10/23/2001 0000165 GA/%ROD FARMS STABLES 4-4400 001917 10/24/2001 0002419 GEN-CON, INC. PROG. #2 001735 20168 10/19/2001 VENDOR TOTAL * 001-3030-532.40-15 CIVIC CENTER 001-3030-532.40-14 IRRIGATION REPAIR-C.H. 001-9010-522.40-14 BIG BASIN UPGR3%DE 150-3025-532.40-15 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 150-3025-532.40-14 REPAIR MAINLINE-FRUITVALE 150-3025-532.40-14 MEDIAN IRRIGATION REPAIR 180-3040-532.40-15 MANOR DRIVE 180-3040-532.40-15 FREDERICKSBURG 180-3040-532.40-15 MCCARTYSVILLE 180-3040-532.40-15 ARROYO 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 S~ PARK 180-3040-532.40-15 BELLGROI/E 180-3040-532.40-15 TRICIA WOODS 180-3040-532.40-15 KERWIN RANCH 180-3040-532.40-15 TOLLGATE 180-3040-532.40-15 PRIDES CROSSING 180-3040-532.40-14 IRRIGATION REPAIR-Z09 180-3040-532.40-14 IRRIG. REPAIR-BELLGROVE VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1040-513.40-01 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 001-1040-513.40-01 TUITION REIMBURSMENT 001-1040-513.40-01 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT .001-1045-513.40-03 DEPARTMENT MTG. REIMB. VENDOR TOTAL * 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE VENDOR TOTAL * 320-9010-522.40-10 LIB. EXPAN/RENOVATION VENDOR TOTAL * 0000005 GOLDBERGER, ALEX & SONDRA 5.00 682 . 98 1,035.00 167.52 7,383.00 3,477.00 294.80 768.17 155.00 258.00 204.00 83.00 83.00 243.00 78.00 322.00 1,892.00 210.00 326.00 88.00 432.00 762.88 341.71 18,604.08 315.00 315.00 315.00 131.01 1,076.01 150.00 150.00 720.00 720.00 185,629.50 185,629.50 pREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 GOLDBERGER, ALEX & SONDRA 811 001827 10/23/2001 001-1040-45~.01-00 FALSE ALARM REFUND 75.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 75.00 0060005 GOLDEN CREST INSURANCE SERVICES 51554 001728 10/19/2001 292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 300.00 0002297 GPI ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT 6317-2 001734 10/19/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 ASBESTOS ABATEMENT REVIEW 255.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 255.00 0002386 HUNTER, JILL S. 11/01 001807 10/23/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS 19506 001781 20098 10/22/2001 001-3030-532.40-14 EMERG. REPAIRS-WILDWOOD 2,281.36 19556 001782 19914 10/22/2001 150-3025-532.40-14 RP IRRIGATION REPAIR 237.34 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,518.70 0000201 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 001949 10/18/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 RETIREMENT PLAN#21-~l CHECK #: 86773 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 0002322 JACKMAN, ERNA 11/01 001810 10/23/2001 2S0-4010-542.20-04 PL~. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 0001657 JAMES C. JEFFERY 71 001905 20070 10/23/2001 001-3035-532.40-13 TRAFFIC EN~. SVCS. 10/01 2,375.00 70 001943 20070 10/24/2001 001-3035-532.40-13 TRAFFIC ENG. SVCS. 9/01 4,500.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 6,875.00 0000213 JOBS AVAILABLE 121149 001733 10/19/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT AD-MAINT. 426.25 VENDOR TOTAL * 426.25 0002116 JUAREZ, PABLO 10/13/01 001762 10/22/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 20.00 0000005 JUAREZ, SIGFREDO 10/13/01 001764 10/22/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 20.00 0002260 JUST FOR KICKS, INC, 4-3900 001842 10/23/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 235.00 4-3901 001843 10/23/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 329.00 4-3902 001844 10/23/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 423.00 4,786.73 4,786.73 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0002260 JUST FOR KICKS, INC. 4-3903 001845 10/23/2001 4-3904 001846 10/23/2001 4-3905 001847 10/23/2001 4-3906 001848 10/23/2001 4-3907 001849 10/23/2001 4-3908 001850 10/23/2001 4-3910 001851 10/23/2001 4-3911 001852 10/23/2001 4-3912 001853 10/23/200i 0002413 KEYSTONE RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT 0052760-IN 001888 19998 10/23/2001 0002140 KIDSART, INC. 4-1561 001829 10/23/2001 0002423 KLEINFELDER, INC. 121460 001736 10/19/2001 0002249 KNAPP, ALLISON 17 001869 20049 10/23/2001 0000466 KUHN, BRIAN 4-3503 001832 10/23/2001 4-3507 001833 10/23/2001 4-3505 001834 10/23/2001 4-3501 001835 10/23/2001 0002320 KUP, ASCH, LISA J. 11/01 001811 10/23/2001 0002145 LAVELLE, MEAGAN 10/19/01 001841 10/23/2001 0002444 LEE, JOANNE 2955 001879 10/23/2001 2955 001873 10/23/2001 2955 001874 10/23/2001 2955 001875 10/23/2001 2955 001876 10/23/2001 2955 001877 10/23/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 94.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 376.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 94.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 117.50 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 117.S0 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR'FEE 211.50 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 564.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 517.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 376.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,454150 001-1060-6i3.60-04 GAS STOVE 3,980.82 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,980.82 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 200.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 200.00 320-9010-522.40-.10 PHASE I:LIB-SOIL SAMPLING 2,164.60 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,164.60 250-4010-542.40-10 CONTRACT PLANNER SVCS. 2,996.25 VENDOR TOTAL * 2,996.25 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 105.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 105.00 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 262.50 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 105.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 577.50 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 001-1040-413.05-00 SUP. BUS. LIC. FEE 81.60 250-4015-422.01-00 PERMIT FEE REFUND 286.40 250-4015-422.01-00 PERMIT FEE REFUND 49.60 250-4015-422.01-00 PERMIT FEE REFUND 49.60 250-4015-422.01-00 PERMIT FEE REFUND 49.60 250-4015-422.01-00 DOC. STORAGE REFUND 25.00 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9 PROGRAM: GM339L AS, OF: 10/26/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE IiAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOD-NT 0002444 LEE, JOANNE 2955 001878 10/23/2001 0001874 LENORE GRAVES, LINDA 4-1211 001918 10/24/2001 0000005 LEONG, DENNIS 001751 10/22/2001 10/13/01 001765 10/22/2001 0000247 LIND, BP. AD 001796 10/22/2001 0002254 LINGENFELTER, ANDREA 10/19/01 001881 10/23/2001 0002436 LOCAL AREA FORMATION COMMISSION 001803 10/22/2001 0000005 LOVELACE, P~DY 3566 001883 10/23/2001 0000258 LYONS, LEILANI 4-1507 001916 10/24/2001 0000265 M~TIN, JIM 001750 10/22/2001 0000287 MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/01 001922 20069 10/24/2001 9/01 001923 10/24/2001 0001570 ME~AFFEY, JONN 11/01 001816 10/23/2001 0000277 MIKE'S OARDENING 10/1/2001 001939 19916 10/24/2001 10/1/2001 001940 19916 10/24/2001 10/1/2001 001941 10/24/2001 250-401S-422.01-00 S.M.I.P. FEE REFUND 3.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 544.80 290-6008-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 60.00 VENDORTOTAL * 60.00 001-3035-532.40-01 TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT 100.00 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 120.00 001-1045-513.40-03 SERVICE AWARD-1S YRS. 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 100.00 291-6010-564.40-10 DAI~CE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 001-4005-S42.30-30 FY 01/02 CITY SHILRE-LAFCO 1,153.91 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,153.91 250-4015-422.01-00 PLAN CHECK FEE REFUND 1,135.94 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,135.94 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 135.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 135.00 001-3035-532.40-01 TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT '55.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 55.00 250-4020-542.40-10 CITY SURVEYOR SVCS. 3,405.00 320-9010-522.40-10 SURVEYOR SVCS.-LIB. 105.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,510.00 001-1005-511.20-04 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE 11/01 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00 180-3040-532.40-15 GREENBRIAR 185.00 180-3040-532.40-15 HORSESHOE DR. 65.00 180-3040-532.40-14 REPAIRS-HORSESHOE DR. 216.00 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0000277 MIKE'S GARDENING 0000005 MMANC 10/17/01 001909 10/24/2001 O00000S MOUNTAIN CREATIONS i 001997 10/26/2001 0002079 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CENTER 106298 001752 10/22/2001 0000292 NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATOR 21-01 001950 10/18/2001 0000005 NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP 001865 10/23/2001 0000294 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CENTER 11860 001825 10/23/2001 0000296 NUDELMAN, PAMELA 4-1503 001828 10/23/2001 0000297 O. C. MCDONALD 7849 001914 19951 10/24/2001 0001997 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 141025030-001 001824 10/23/2001 139431956-001 001785 10/22/2001 0002441 OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY 001995 20203 10/19/2001 0000306 PACIFIC BELL 2372714652319N 001823 10/23/2001 0000307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 001983 10/19/2001 001-1020-511.40'-01 001-1020-Sll.40-04 001-3030-532.30-01 001-0000-210.20-01 250-4015-542.40-01 001-1050-513.40-41 290-6005-564.40-10 001-1060-513.40-14 001-1050-513.30-01 150-3005-532.30-01 270-7015-572.40-70 001-1050-513.40-20 001-1060-513.40-23 VENDOR TOTAL * 466.00 M~C MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 22.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 22.00 COMMISSION DINNER EXPENSE 240.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 240.00 TOP SOIL-QUITO 87.32 %q~NDOR TOTAL * 87.32 RETIREMENT PLAN#21-01 CHECK #: 86774 1,601.34 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 1,601.34 LORI CONN #1111470 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL.* 69.00 BUSINESS CARDS 95.89 VENDOR TOTAL * 9S.89 INSTRUCTOR FEE 12.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 12.00 }IVAC MAINTENANCE 565.72 VENDOR TOTAL * 565.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES 370.54 FAX MACHINE-CORP. YARD 323.99 VENDOR TOTAL * 694.53 CUPERTINO CDBG GP,~ CHECK #: 86778 39,707.00 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 39,707.00 SUPERTRUNK 180.64 VENDOR TOTAL * 180.64 BUILDINGS CHECK #: 86779 7,485.91 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 .................................................................................................................................... 0000307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 001970 10/19/2001 001-3030-532.40-23 PARKS CHECK #: 86779 001984 10/19/2001 150-3005-532.40-23 CITYWIDE STREET LIGHT CHECK #: 86779 001971 10/19/2001 150-3015-532.40-23 TRAFFICSIGNALS CHECK #: 86779 001972 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 QUITO LIGHTING DIST. CHECK #: 86779 001973 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-ZS CHECK #: 86779 001974 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z6 CHECK #: 86779 001975 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z7 CHECK #: 86779 001976 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z9 CHECK #: 86779 001977 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z16 CHECK #: 86779 001978 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40723 LLA-Z10 CHECK #: 86779 001979 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z14 CHECK #:' 86779 001980 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z18 CHECK #: 86779 001981 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z24 CHECK #: 86779 001982 10/19/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z22 CHECK #: 86779 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 0000738 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 001948 10/17/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 ENG. REVIEW-TEMP. LIB. CHECK #: 86772 VENDOR TOTAL * .00 0000005 PARMA 102301 001872 10/23/2001 001-1040-513.30~30 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 100.00 0000607 PCI CLEAN FUELS INC 15337 001986 20176 10/25/2001 001-1035-512.30-20 CNG VEHICLE FUEL 824.47 VENDOR TOTAL * 824.47 0002395 PERMA-GREEN HYDROSEEDING, INC. PROG. #3 001920 20064 10/24/2001 310-9010-622.40-10 CONGRESS SPRINGS IMPROV. 109,746.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 109,746.00 0001572 PINELL, ANTHONY 10/19/01 001836 10/23/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 0000005 PODD, GRETCHEN 1333 001743 10/19/2001 290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 50.00' 0000952 POLLOCK, FELICIA PETERS 8137 001739 10/19/2001 001-1005-511.40-03 PRINTS-FORMER MAYORS 345.60 VENDOR TOTAL * 345.60 0000334 REED & GRAHAM, INC. 477463 001784 10/22/2001 150-3005-532.30-01 STREET REPAIR SUPPLIES 66.96 VENDOR TOTAL * 66.96 0002329 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, INC. 322.04 379.90 124.07 158.64 198.79 231.99 1,202.44 7.29 23.91 4.86 4.86 4.86 588.35 7.29 10,745.20 17,582.14 17,582.14 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 12 PROGP. AM: GM339L AS, OF: 10/26/2001 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 0002329 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, INC. 20015 001792 20066 10/22/2001 20907 001908 20066 10/24/2001 20690 00179320066 10/22/2001 20645 001794 20066 10/22/2001 20658 001795 20066 10/22/2001 20775 001907 20066 10/24/2001 0001954 ROUPE, GEORGE 11/01 001812 10/23/2001 0000345 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 001799 10/22/2001 0000342 SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS TV 102401 001956 10/25/2001 0002202 SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS TV 101601 001726 10/19/2001 0001131 SILRATOGA COUNTRY CLUB 102301 001996 10/26/2001 0002443 SARIOTTI, LINDSEY 10/19/01 001880 10/23/2001 0000359 SAXTON HEINRICHS, KIM 001798 10/22/2001 0000005 SCOTTY'S AUTOMOTIVE 267494 001937 10/24/2001 0000006 SEIFERT, KAY 1335 001741 10/19/2001 0002164 SENIOR, BRIAN COACHING 001730 10/19/2001 0000912 SERR~-NO, SERGIO 150-3005-532.40-10 LED TRAFFIC SIG. UNITS 71,460.00 150-3005-532.40-10 FURNISH/INSTA/~L SIGNAL 2,388.00 150-3015-532.40-14 MODIFY LOC-S/S RD. 368.00 150-3015-532.40-14 SIGNAL REPAIR 184.00 150-3015-532.40-14 SIGNAL REPAIR 184.00 150-3015-532.40-14 LGHT REPAIR 4TH/BIG BASIN 758.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 75,342.00 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 001-3030-532.30-01 RECRUITMENT AD-PARK MAINT 965.40 VENDOR TOTAL * 965.40 001-7010-571.40-70 FRANCNISE FEE 7/01-9/01 20,218.91 VENDOR TOTAL * 20,218.91 001-7010-571.40-70 ADVERTISING 3,392.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 3,392.00 001-1005-511.40-51 COMMISSION R~COG. DINNER 4,376.99 VENDOR TOTAL * 4,376.99 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 001-1045-513.40-03 SERVICE AWARD-15 YRS. 100.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 100.00 001-1035-512.40-14 VEH. #85 REPAIR/TUNE UP 438.96 VENDOR TOTAL * 438.96 290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND 50.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 50.00 290-6005-564.40-10 COACHING FEE 1,500.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,500.00 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 13 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0000912 SERRANO, SBRGIO 10/13/01 001761 10/22/2001 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 20.00 00~0005 SHETH, MRS. 1370 001732 10/19/2001 290-6005-445.0~-00 CLASS REFUND 64.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00 0002179 SHINN, CORINNE A. 10/10/01 001863 20014 10/23/2001 250-4010-542.40-10 PLAN COMM. MIN. 10/10/01 450.00 0001858 SILVERFOOTE, MIKE 10/19/01 001837 10/23/2001 0001458 SPRINT 001967 10/25/2001 001968 10/25/2001 0000379 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 001748 20033 10/19/2001 0002149 STENHOUSE, R. DEVIN 10/19/01 001839 10/23/2001 0001569 STREIT, NICK 11/01 001817 10/23/2001 0000005 STUART, MAUREEN 1334 001744 10/19/2001 0001416 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 672835 001788 10/22/2001 673432 001789 10/22/2001 673431 001790 10/22/2001 0000396 THOMAS WYANT 1959 001787 10/22/2001 0000398 TLC 21-01 VENDOR TOTAL 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1050-513.'40-20 LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHGS. 001-1050-513.40-20 CMO FAX CHARGES VENDOR TOTAL 001-1035-512.30-21 STATE DIESEL FUEL EXCISE VENDOR TOTAL * 291-6010-564.40£10 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 VENDOR TOTAL * 001-1005-511.20-04 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE 11/01 VENDOR TOTAL * 290-6005-445.03-00 TRIP REFUND VENDOR TOTAL * 001-3030-532.30-01 RODENT BAIT 001-3030-532.30-01 GLOVES 001-3030-532.30-01 GOPHER TRAPS VENDOR TOTAL 180-3040-532.40-15 LANDSCAPE MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL * 001951 10/18/2001 001-0000-210.20-01 FLEXIBLE BEN. CLAIMS REIM CHECK #: VENDOR TOTAL * 0002126 TOM'S PLUMBING 450.00 30.00 30.00 195.26 13.94 209.20 186.57 186.57 30.00 30.00 250.00 250.00 50,00 SO.O0 146.91 179.58 160.92 487.41 450.00 450.00 86775 .00 392.77 392.77 PREPARED 10/26/2 001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 14 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 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 0002126 TOM~S PLUMBING 38512 001740 19995 10/19/2001 0000403 TORRES, RICHARD 546487 001944 10/24/2001 10/13/01 001758 10/22/2001 0002438 TURF STAR, INC. 6239677-00 001753 10/22/2001 6239677-01 001754 10/22/2001 6239597-00 001755 10/22/2001 6239437-00 001756 10/22/2001 0002144 TURI, ERINN 4-1550 001919 10/24/2001 0000414 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA 10/4/01 001910 10/24/2001 0000155 URI/HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES SW 236871 001926 20027 10/24/2001 234663 001927 20027 10/24/2001 0000005 VAUGHN, MARIA 53859 001954 10/25/2001 0000179 VERIZON WIRELESS 087055686011050 001867 20021 087055686011050 001868 20021 0310014484 001861 20021 0310014560 001924 lO/23/2OOl lO/23/2OOl lO/23/2OOl lo/24/2ool 0000420 VILLALOBOS, JESUS 001797 10/13/01 001759 10/22/2001 10/22/2001 0001825 W;%LTONSMITH, ANN 11/01 001618 10/23/2001 0000428 WEST GROUP 001-1060-513.40-15 INSTALL WATER COOLER-C.C. 1,295.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,295.00 150-3005-532.30-01 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 32.39 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 52.39 001-1035-512.40-14 EQUIPMENT PARTS 134.73 001-1035-512.40-14 AIRATOR PARTS 83.37 001-1035-512.40-14 AIRATOR PARTS 476.88 001-1035-512.40-14 EQUIPMENT PARTS 317.51 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,012.49 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 324.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 324.00 001-0000-210.20401 LTD INSURANCE 11/01 1,756.01 VENDOR TOTAL * 1,756.01 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 317.53 150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 266.06 VENDOR TOTAL * 583.59 292-0000-260.00-00 DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 300.00 001-2010-522.40-20 CELL PHONE CHGS-CODE ENF. 77.23 250-4010-542.30-01 CELL PHONE CHGS-CD DIR. 30.00 250-4015-542.30-01 CELL PHONE CHGS.-BLDG INS 132.40 260-5015-552.40-20 CELL PHONE CHGS.-PW 132.88 VENDOR TOTAL * 372.51' 001-1045-513.40-03 SERVICE AWARD-10 YRS. 50.00 150-3015-532.30-01 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 70.00 001-1005-511.20-04 EXPENSE ALLOWANCE 11/01 250.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAb LIST PAGE 15 PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 10/26/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE tIAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000428 WEST GROUP B00199728 00173B 10/19/2001 001-1025-511.30'-31 0001582 WEST VALLEY - MISSION PS751 001791 PS-752 001821 20055 0002442 WILSON, RENA 10/19/01 001882 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 177903508 001820 O00000S ZARRINKHAMEH, SHOLEH 1462 001830 0000443 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 66387661 001822 0000005 ZITMAN, MRS. 1463 001855 0002319 ZUTSHI, RUCHI 11/01 001813 10/22/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 10/23/2001 001-1050-513.40-41 10/23/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 10/23/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 10/23/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 10/23/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 10/23/2001 '290-6005-445.04-00 10/23/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 CD ROM UPDATE 59.40 VENDOR TOTAL * 59.40 CNG STATION INSP. FORMS. 55.50 SARATOGA BUDGET-7 COPIES 105.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 160.50 DANCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 TONER CARTRIDGE 348.84 VENDOR TOTAL * 348.84 CLASS REFUND 17.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 17.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 238.68 VENDOR TOTAL * 238.68 CLASS REFUND 47.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 47.00 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES **** 591,232.40 GRAND TOTAL *********** 136,798.46 728,030.86 PREPARED 10/26/2001, 8:32:04 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 15 PROGRAM: GM339L AS~OF: 10/26/2001 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION A~4OUNT 0000428 WEST GROUP 800199728 001738 10/19/2001 001-1025-511.30-31 CD ROM UPDATE 59.40 VENDOR TOTAL * 59.40 0001582 WEST VALLEY - MISSION PS751 001791 10/22/2001 001-1035-512.~0-01 CNG STATION INSP. FORMS 55.50 PS-752 001821 20055 10/23/2001 001-1050-513.40-41 SARATOGA BUDGET-7 COPIES 105.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 160.50 0002442 WILSON, RENA 10/19/01 001882 10/23/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 D~NCE CHAPERONE 10/19/01 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 30.00 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 177903508 001820 10/23/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 TONER CARTRIDGE 348.84 VENDOR TOTltL * 348.84 0000005 ZARRINKHAME~, SHOLEH 1462 001830 10/23/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 17.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 17.00 0000443 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 66387661 001822 10/23/2001 001-1050-513.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 238.68 VENDOR TOTAL * 238.68 0000005 ZITMAN, MRS. 1463 001855 10/23/2001 290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 47.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 47.00 0002319 ZUTSHI, RUCHI 11/01 001813 10/23/2001 250-4010-542.20-04 PLAN. COMM. EXP. ALLOW 150.00 VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES **** 591,232.40 GRAND TOTAL 136,798.46 728,030.86 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: ~[ ,X~c~O DEPTHEAD,~~~~ SUBJECT: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Accept the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. REPORT SUMMARY: The City of Saratoga's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended June 30, 2001 is, hereby, submitted to the City Council for approval. The CAFR is prepared pursuant to applicable federal, state and local statutes, that requires the City of Saratoga annually report on its financial position and activity and that this report be audited by and independent certified public accounting firm. The report contains an unqualified opinion that the financial statements prepared fairly present, in all material reports, the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2001. FORMAT OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT: The CAFR is.presented in three sections: introductory, financial and statistical. The introductory section includes this letter of transmittal, a list of the City of Saratoga's elected officials and administrative personnel, an organization chart and certificate of award for financial reporting. The financial section includes the independent auditor's report on the financial statements and schedules, general purpose financial statements (combined statements), notes to the financial statements, and combining and account group financial statements and schedules. The statistical section, which is unaudited, includes selected financial and demographic information, generally presented on a multi-year basis. ECONOMIC CONDITION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Contained in the Introductory Section on pages v through xi of the CAFR is an excellent summary of the City's economic conditions and outlook as well as a surmnary of the City's financial information and major initiatives. We recommend that interested readers review these pages for an easy-to-read synopsis of the City's financial condition. A very brief financial summary is presented below: Total Revenues Total Expenditures Proceeds from long-term debt Net Operating Transfers Excess of Revenues & Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses Fund Balance, 7/1/2000 Fund Balance, 6/30/2001 General Fund $10,498,229 (7,041,988) (467,064) 2,989,17-7 9~085~620 $12,074,797 All Funds $18,509,440 (14,554,643) 15,108,188 19,062,985 13~895~145 $32,958,130 The all Funds column includes the General Fund, Special Revenue, Capital Projects, and Debt Service Funds.' The Fund Balances at End of Year increased primarily due to the following:. · Balance of $15 Million Library Bond issued in May 2001 for Library project- $14,120,446 · Streets & Roads increased primarily due to delay in Sunnyvale-Saratoga corridor funded by State- $1,482,731 · General Fund reserves increased primarily due to reduced transfer to Streets & Roads for Pavement Management Program-S2,723,206 FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Accept and file the report. Distribute reports to interested parties. CAFRcouncilO l.doc 2 ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. CAFRcouncilO l.doc 3 $ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, October 24, 2001 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Planning Commission Action Minutes of October 24, 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 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: PLACE: TYPE: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry A~SENT: Jackman STAFF: Planners Knapp, Livingstone, Oosterhous, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 2001 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generallyprohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was prpperly posted on October CONSENT CALENDAR DR-98-046, UP-98-015 8r SD-98-006 - AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Drive; - The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for exterior lighting at the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing prc~ect as required by Resolution No. 00-09. Six refractive globes with black poles are to be located throughout the parking lot of the 1.28 acre commercial site. The proposed refractive globes have downward street side reflectors and house side reflectors. The globes are to be mounted at a height of 12 feet. According to the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the proposed exterior lighting is in compliance with industry standards. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 6-0) PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in conrt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saa:atoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. DR-01-019, V-01-011, UP-01-016, BSA-01-001 8z ED-01-001 (50343-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road; - Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42 acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (KNAPP) (CONTINUED TO 12/12/01) UP-01-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ~r Farwell Avenue; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO 12/12/01) NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS GARROD FARMS, 22600 Mount Eden Road (503-10-028); - Request for General Plan clarification to allow three new dwelling units on one parcel of land where two dwelling units' currently exist. The area is within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is prezoned Hillside Residential. The County requires the project be consistent with the City of Saratoga's General Plan. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED TO 11/14/01) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT AT 11:00 P.M. TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, November 14, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY:~~__~~-''~ AGENDA ITEM: / ~--- CITY MANAGER: a~7'~~/' ~ SUBJECT: Extension of safety netting at Congress Springs Park RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Approve construction proposal from AAction Netting, Inc., in the amount of $19,850.00, to extend the existing safety netting at Congress Springs Park by an additional 7 ½ feet, and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for the same. 2. Approve change order authority in the amount of $3,500.00. REPORT SUMMARY: At the October 3 City Council Meeting, Council approved modifications to the Congress Springs Park Improvement Project to allow Pony League Baseball to utilize the Park. Modifications to the existing safety netting needed to be made to reduce the possibility of baseballs entering the Highway 85 corridor. After researching the issue and consulting with representatives from Pony League, staff determined the existing safety netting should be raised by 7 ½ feet, resulting in an overall safety net height of 42 ½ feet. ~ Staff is recommending Council approve the construction proposal from AAction Netting, Inc., in the amount of $19,850.00, and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for the same. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for this work is programmed into the adopted budget in General Contracts / Pony League Field Improvements Account No. 310-9010-622-40.10 011 ! CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The proposal will not be approved and the existing safety netting at Congress. Springs Park will not be extended by an additional 7 ½ feet, thus increasing the possibility of baseballs entering thc Highway 85 corridor. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): A professional services agreement will be prepared by staff, and executed by the City Manager. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost proposal from AAction Netting, Inc., to extend existing safety netting at Congress Springs Park to 7 ½ feet. 2 of 3 ~OV Ol Ol 11: 30a BFGC 925 AA CTION NETTING, INC. 3478 Buskirk Ave, Suite 1023 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 toll free (888) 843-1677 local (925) 682-5409 fax (925) 689-6113 689 6113 October 22, 2001 Mr. John Cherbone Public Works Director City Saratoga 13777 Fruitvaie Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 re: Project Congress Springs Park ball screen extension Dear Mr. Cherbone: Aaction Netting, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for your consideration. Scope of work: 1. Provide engineering to extend netting to 42 ½ ' 2. Add metal extensions to existing wood poles to a finished h.eight of 42 V:' ( per engineering) ' .. 3. Install new cable and hardware to support netting installation. 4. Install new netting (#18 nylon) dimensions 400' x 7 ¥:' to match as close as possible the existing fabric. Owner responsibilities: 1. Provide any pernfits and govermwmnt agency fees necessary for this project. 2. Provide a designated and staked access to the work area. 3. Repair any damage to the turf area or irrigation unless Aaction Netting, Inc. is contracted to do so. 4. Ensure water is turned c;ff in the work area three (3) days prior to work begi~ming. Terms: Provide Aaction Netting, Inc. with a purchase order to begin work or deposit of $6,000.00. Balance due upon completion. Engineering to be billed at cost estimated at $750.00-$1,000.00 Shipping to be billed at cost estimated at $250.00-$350.00 Total price $19,850.00 Nov O1 O1 ll:31a BFGC 925 689 6113 City of Saratoga Page 2 October 22, 2001 Should this proposal meet your approval please sign below and fax the signed proposal with a purchase order to (925) 689-6113 or a check to the above address. Upon receipt engineering and work date will be detem~ined. If you have any questions please c',dl tne at (925) 682-1846. " President Customcr signature SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works PREPARED BY: Iv~,_ ~ AGENDA ITEM: ]~ SUBJECT: Final map approval for eleven lots located at 14800 Bohlman Road. Owner: Sobrato Construction Corporation RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Move to adopt resolution No. SD-99-003 granting final map approval of tentative map application No. SD-99-003 and SD-99-003(A) for eleven lots located at 14800 Bohlman Road. 2. Move to authorize the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is Resolution No. SD-99-003 which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for eleven lots located at 14800 Bohlman Road. I have examined the final map and related documents submitted to me in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and have determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the approved tentative map, as contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. SD-99-003 and SD-99-003(A), have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of the eleven lots. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, the City Surveyor's certificate has been executed on the final map and the final map has been filed with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: The subdivider has paid $221,937 in Engineering Fees and $ ! 86,300 in Park Development Fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map Was rejected. ALTERNATIVE AC'TION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Map. 2. Tract Map. 3. Resolution No. SD-99-003 grantihg final map approval. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD-99-003(A) amending Planning Commission Resolution No. SD-99-003. 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. SD-99-003 approving the tentative map with conditions. 6. Subdivision Improvement Agreement. SITE MAP Application No.' Location: Owner: SD-99-003. 14800 Bohlman Road Sobrato Construction Corporation N any except public utllRy facllRles, private .torm private and all lawful uneuppo~ted roof o~l~angs. ~ll~e areaa ~lthln ~)l~e hartke of any mater Line Easement). Said easements to be kept open and free from all buildings ~ote 3 (brough 10, their m~ccessors and assigns. Safd sesames[designated as Pathway Easement not offered for use of the genmal Aa Owner:. Sobrato Construction Corporatlon,a California Corporation BF AcknowledcJement State of Califom~a SS. County of Santa Clara On 2001 before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said .tath, personally appeared proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(a) whose name Is/ara subscribed to the wlthln Instrument and acknowledged ta me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized capacity(lea), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the Instrument the person(e) or the entity upon behalf of whrch the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument. ~tnees my hand Notary's Signature Printed Notary's Name Notary'e Principal Place of Business · E~piration of Notary'e Cornmiaa[~n Acknowledgement State of California SS, County of Santa Clara On 2001 before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared proved to me an the baals of satisfactory evidence to he the persun(s) whose name Is/are subscribed to the wRh[n Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacRy(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s} o~ the Instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(a) acted, executed the Instrumen.t. WRasse my hand Notary'e Slgnatpre Printed Notary's Name Notary'e Principal Place af Business Expiration of Natary'e Cornmiselon City Plannrng Commlssron Statement I hereby state that I ha~e examined this map and ha~e deten"nlned that sold map substantially conforms to the tentaUve mop as approved September 26, 2001, and the candlUons thereon· Date Secretary of the Planning Commleslan Note: Soil and Geological Report A sells report and/or geolo~jlcal report on this property has been prepared by Lowney Assoclate~ dated April g, 2001 o copy of which has been filed with the Department of Public Works of the City of Saratoga. S~rveyor'e Statement 1hfs map was prepared by me or under my direction and Is based upon a field ~urve=y In c~fo~ance with the requirements or the subdl~s[on map act andlocal ~dlnance ~ July, 2001, ~at ~e andc~plete aa ~o~. I hereby state ~at thla fln~ map aubstantrally confabs to the appro~d ~ c~dlUonaliy appro~d tentatl~ map. All M~um~ts are of ~e charactm and accuply the positions Indicated, they w~] be set In ~ poeltl~s on or bef~e December 51, 2002, and that the monummts are, m w~l be, ~fflclent to enable the ~y to be re.aced. Date Ted L. ~lson~25 '3"~ C'3" ~r0. 9330 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL B AS SHOWN ON '~-IAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON MAY -~0. 1978 IN BOOK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 27 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS AND LY1NC WI~-IIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER, 2001 CONSISTING OF 3 SHEETS KIER & ~IGHT CtML ENGINEERS & SUR~YORS, INC. 33.~ ScoJt 9oulev~d, Bulldlm] 22 (4~)727-~S5 Santa Ciera, California g~S4 F~ {4ga)727-se4j City Clerk's Statement I hereby state that this map, designated as Tract No. 9530 consisting of 5 sheets was approved by the City Council of the CRy af Saratoga. State of California, by resolutlae no. at a duly authorized meeting held an the __ day of __ 2001 and that by sald resolution all streets and portions thereof and all easements shown on said map and offered for dedication w~e re~ected on behalf of the public, save and except Public Utility Easements, No-Build Easement and Water Line Easements and to the limited extent that any offers 'for easements for utility purposes along or beneath said street rights-of-way then ae to such express or Implied offers of easements for public utility purposes the same are accepted· BY: Cathleen Bo~er. City C~erk of the City of Saratoga. State of California City Surveyor's Statement I hereby state that [ have examined this Final Map, that the subdivision aa shown la aubstantiarly the same aB It appeared on the Tentative Map and any approved alteraUons thereof, and that all provisions of the eubdJvisiorl map act and Ofr any IOCOJ ordinance applicable at the time of the approval of the Tentative Map have been complied with, and I om satisfied that said map is technically correct. Date Warren E. McDowell, City Surveyor Land Surveyor No. 3414 License Expires: 06-.30-2004 County Recorder's Statement File No. -- Fee $ __ Paid. Accepted for recmd and filed in Book -- of Maps at Pages_ , County of Santa Clara Records, this day of__ 2001 at -- M. at the request of Kler & Wright, crvil Engineers & Surveyors. Inc. County of Santa Clara, Colifomla Deputy 98221 FOUNO FOUND TRACT 462 05 M 2B 8~ 29) N.T.S. LOT 1S.lg8 ACRES 4.939 ACRES LOT 22.375 ACRES 2.375 ACRES LOT3 1.242 ACRES1.213 ACRES LOTS 1.172 ACRES 1.102 ACRES LOT6 1.263 ACRES 1.102 ACRES LOT7 1.109 ACRES 1.016 ACRES 0. g69 ACRES O. g3g ACRESJ ILOTg ~42172 SQ.FT.~40912 SO.FT. LOT 10 1.405 ACRES 1.199 ACRES/ ! NOTES 1. AU. DIME~ISlOtIS 5~IOWN ON THIS MAP ARE IN FEET AND OEQMALS THEREOF. 2. VESllNO DEED FOR IHE LANDS TO BE SUBDIVIDED MIH]N THE DIS]~NCI1VE SYMBOL BORDER IS DOCUMENT NO. 15483552 DATED NOVEMBER 17. 2000 AND FI!.~D IN THE OFFICE OF 1HE RECORDER PARCEL.. A .e~,c[o mD. ~ {4i9 M 27) .m MmUMETdT /'' /I 0 100 200 300 = I SEE **P '~ (2001 O.R* 533) LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 3 e1,97' LOT 7 f LOT 8 LOT 2 f~ I (s~ ~ ,~) LOT 9 '~-~"~-~6- ~ 3 TO TH,s UNE d d LOT 4 .,..,.-~ LOT 5 qff :tL.A C'T'.3V'O. 9330 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION PARCEL B AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON MAY 30, 1978 IN BOOK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 27 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS AND LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 100' NOVEMBER. 2001 CONSISTING OF 3 SHEETS KIER & IRI~HT CIVIL I~GINEB~S & SUITORS, INC. 33~0 e,,'okt Boulevard, Bulldlflg ~ .~ta ClanG. Co]lfarnfa g~054 FAX (4~)727.-.M41 FOUND GRANITE MONUMENT FLUSH .. ,/,,, · ~ ,.~:~ , ~ · ,k.,D x,%~ A'~ m ~ ~4~ e* BASIS OF BEARINGS ~ I ~ ~E ~A~G ~ ~ 4~'~' EAST · ~ ~ ~ N~S~y ~ ~ P~L ~' AS LEGEND N011~: SEE SHEET 3 m . FOR NO-BUILD ~D 3/4' ~l F~ 3/4 IR~ B~ ............ ~ : ~E BA~ POR~ONS OF ~.o~' ~ ~ ~- - LO~ ~.2.~a* ~.o 3/~' ~'~ LOT tO . ~+' F~HD 3/4' ' / ~ ~ ' ~ - ~6~ o5' ' · rr ~ ~( .... '~ / ~ LOT Z REFERENCES LOT 8 L~mm~ ~/¢' LP. LOT 6 ~ ~ LOT 5 ~ ,(.7~1("~ /~ ~ II ~UFmND LOT 4 ~ 14" O~ J~'~ ', L~/ )/0 ~1~ M~UM~T ~ 419 M 27 R~ 7147 ' , / __3' .o~ ..ND AT TRACT 67~, ~ ,60M 25,26 ~[ ET~ 'G' F~ND 3/4' ~.p. TRACT 673~ ~ND w~ (460 M Z5826} F~ND ~/4' AT BA~ ~ O~ ~ ~ 514 M 7 ~ 8 DISTINCTIVE SYMBOL BORD~ UNE EASEMENT UNE CF.,N TER UNE NEW LOT UNE EXISTING LOT UNE RECORD INFORMATION WITH MAP R~NC~ NO. SET STANDARD CITY M{~iUMENT LS. 8425 ~T 3/4'IRON PiPE OR IRON BAR, LS* 6425 FOUND IRON PIPE, AS NOT[D FOUND GRANITE MONUMENT, AS NOTED FOUND ROAO NAIL. AS NOTED PUBUC UTIUTY EASEMENT STREET M.NN~IANCE EASEMENT LANDSCAPE MAJNTENANC~E EAS~ENT STORM DRAIN EASEMENT SANITARY S~WER CASEMENT WATT__R UNE EASEMENT NOT TO SCALE_ 98221 SHEET 2 OF 3 LOT 2 EASEMENT DETAIL SHEET FOR NO-BUILD EASEUENTS. DRIVEWAY EASEWENTS ~HWAY EASEUENT LOT ~ LOT 5 LOT 4 9330 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION PARCEL B AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON MAY 30, 1978 IN BOOK 419 OF MAPS AT PAGE 27 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS AND LYING W1THIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 60' NOVEMBER, 2001 CONSISTING OF 3 SHEETS tKIER & IRI~HT CIVIL I~IHEE]~ & ~URVEYOIS, Il'lC. 3350 Scott I~ltvard, Building ~ (40~)727-6~65 Santo Clara. Callfm'nla 95054 F~X (40~)727-5641 // 3~OF 3 RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF SD-99-003 14800 BOHLMAN ROAD The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Eleven lots as shown on that certain Tract Map prepared by Kier & Wright, Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc., dated July 2001, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on November 7,'2001, are approved as ELEVEN (11) individual lots. SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and offered for dedication to public use are hereby rejected on behalf of the public, save and except for public service easements; and to the limited extent that any offers for public street purposes either expressly or implicitly include offers for easements for utility purposes along or beneath said street rights of way, then as to such express or implied offers of easements for public utility purposes, the same are hereby accepted on behalf of the public. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the __ day of ., 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Shown on, the Final Map. Acknowledged. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-003(A) CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14800 Bohlman Road VVHEREAS, apphcation has been made to the Planning Commission under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, to amend conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the Tentative Map approval of 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 of this City; and ' VVHERF~S, this Planning Commission hereby fin&; that the proposed amendments to conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the Tentative Map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated June 28, 2000 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set forth in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474-exist with respect to said subdivision, and amendment to conditions 22, 24, and 39 of Tentative Map approval should be granteck and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public heating at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and NoW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amendments to conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the approval of the Tentative Map SDJ99-003, are ~s"[ollo ~ws: PLANNING t. The language of Condition 22 of SD-99-003 is amended to read: "The Final Map shall show a 'lS-foot utility easement on lot 8, contiguous to lot 7." ' 2. The language of Condition 24 of SD-99-003 is amended to read: "The Planning Commission shall review and.approve all grading plans at the time of Design Review..On Lots .1 and 4, the grading shall preserve and protect natural land forms and vegetation; it shall t?romote compatibility with the natural terrain; visible, fiat pads surrounding the main residentml structure shall be avoided: and the grading shall assist in the integration of the architectural design into the natur~ll topography. At the time of Design Review, the Planning Commission shall approve the design and location of all fencing. On lots ] and 4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area. shall be a recorded a~ a Acknowledged. the natural topography. At the time of Design Review, the Planning Commission shah approve the design and location of aH fencing. On lots ] and 4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area, shall be a recorded as a Scenic Easement. The area to be included in the Scenic Easement will be determined at the time of Design Review." 3. The language of Condition 39 of SD-99-003 is amended to read: 'The project shall comply with the conditions set /orth by the City Geologist in the a~rached Exhibit A" PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga planning Commission, State of California, and chis 26m day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BARRY, GARAKAN,, KURASCI-L ROU~'E ~ Zt.rrsHI NOES: NONE ABSEN'r: JACKMAN ~Z HUNTER ABS-f^IN: NONE hair, PlUming C~l~ssi n ~cr~tary. P~g Commission SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hen:of, and shall have no tbrce or effect artless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Ourner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and-conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions with~,.th~tme frames approved by the City Planning Commission. MEMORANDUM Exhibit TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Tom Sullivan, Community Development Department Director Applicant Iveta Harvancik, Associate Engineer Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for for Sobrato Subdivision, SD-99-003, located' at 14800 Bohlman Road ' August 1, 2001 Acknowledged. I. Geotechnical Clearance is approved for the above referenced project. The conditions of approval based on attached review memo from City Geotechnical Consultant dated July 30, 2001 are: Prior to Geotechnical Clearance for lot developments, site-specific geotechnical investigations shall be performed. As part of these investigations, the applicants' geologic and geotechnical consultants shall: (1 review the data presented in reports preparedby Lowney Associates, Inc. (i.e., dated June 27, 1999 and December 18, 2000), (2) identify areas on the lots underlain by surficial materials (fill, colluvium, lands and fan deposits), (3) evaluate the long-term stability of slopes on the lots (including artificial . slopes), and (4) provide supplemental geotechnical design recommend.ations, as needed, for the proposed construction. The investigations should include, but not necessarily be iimi~'ed to the following: a. Grading be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. The plans also shall clearly depict building footprints, structures and foundations to be demolished and removed, and landslide margins and Drainage Plans depicting proposed cuts, fills and drainage improvements shall be submitted for each proposed residential development. All geotechnical aspects of proposed development 'plans should and construction setbacks from landslide margins and potentially unstable ravine, slopes. The geotechnical 6onditions in the building footprints on all lots should be explored, and representative earth materials (i.e., bedrock, colluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be sampled and tested to provide, engineering parameters for foundation and retaimng wall design. The geotechnical consultants should specifically: (1) determine the thickness of surficial materials (artificial fill, colluvium and fan deposits) on the property, and (2) perform sufficient laboratory testing to characterize the density, strength, expansivity and other pertinent physical properties of 000009 Acknowledged.2. Acknowledged. 3. the subsurface materials to below the depths of 'basements and anticipated foundations. Recommendations for drainage improvements should be provided, as well as specific recommendations for structural foundations, as needed. Specific geotechnical issues on Lots 3, 4 and 5 include: characterization of the area of thick colluvium (and possible landslide deposits) in the upper (western) portion of Lot 3; more detailed delineation of the Old landslide margin that crosses Lots 3 and 4; evaluation of the long-term stability of proposed cut and fill slopes; and evaluation 'of the potential adverse impacts- associated with the drainage channel crossing the lots. la addition, geologic observations and evaluations should be conducted during demolition and grading in order to ensure that structures are not sited across fault traces associated with the Berrocal fault (see Item 3). The results of the site-specific geotechnical investigations shall be summarized in written reports with appropriate prior to illustrations, and submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant Geotechnical Clearance of each lot. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final foundation and grading plans (i.e., building setbacks, site drainage improvements and design parameters for roadways, foundations, retaining walls, etc.) to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall confirm that the "shear zone removal area" is adequately depicted on the final subdivision Grading and Drainage Plan. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter(s) by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for subdivision improvements. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects .of the project demolition and construction. These inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, excavations for removal of foundations and structures, and excavations for roadway construction and prior to the placement of steel, concrete and fill. The Project Engineering Geologist shall ensure that structures are not sited over fault traces. Excavations created during demolition and construction activities shall be inspected and logged by the Project Engineering Geologist to document the presence or absence of fault-related features, and to evaluate any new geologic information that may be revealed in the new exposures. Revised OOOOa. O Fees paid. H°td Harmless 5. Agreement signed. geologic maps and cross sections shall be prepared and submitted to the City to document final "a.s- built" geologic conditions. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described in a letter, and on revised _(final) geologic maps and cross sections, and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to finalization of Grading Permit for subdivision improvements. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to issuance of Grading Permit for subdivision improvements. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related cOnditions prior to issuance of Grading Permit for subdivision improvements. 000011 Acknowledged. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-99-003 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur~ 14800 Bohlman Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Advisory Agency under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval of 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 o£ this City; and WHEREAS, this AdvisOry Agency hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto; and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report dated .June 28, 2000 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, none of the conditions set foi-tl/in Subsections (a) through (g) of Government Code Section 66474 exist with respect to said subdivision, and tentative approval should be granted in accord with conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed pubhc · hearing at which tame all interested parties were gaven a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence: and WHEREAS, the Planmng Cormmssion has reviewed .the Environmental Initial Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act'and.finds that with the mitigation monitoring plan required as a condition of approval, there will not be a significant impact to the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council must approve of the General Plan Amendment to change the desig"nation of Quasi Pubic Facilities to Residential - Very Low Density or this Tentative Map approval will be void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Parcel Map for the hereinafter described subdivision, which map is dated September 22. 1999 and is marked Exhibit 'A' in the herein above referred file, be and the same is hereby conditionally approved. The conditions of said approval are as follows: PLANNING The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibits 'A, B 6z C", incorporated by reference. Ail submitted. Acknowledged. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete Improvement Plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. All applicable recommendations of the City Arbonsc ii. The Improvement Plans shall contain a note with the following langUage: "In the event that buried archaeological' resources are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to inspect the discovery. In the event that it is demonstrated that the discovery comprises an archaeological deposit which has not been historically disturbed, it will be the responsibility of the project manager to conduct necessary evaluative archaeological testing to demonstrate the potential scientific significance of any such discover), before any plans for mitigation of impacts are adopted by the City of Saratoga." b. Four (4) sets of complete.grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. All applicable recommendations of the City Arborisc ii. The grading plan shall contain a note with the following language: ~In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered, all work in the area shall stop immediately and a qualified archaeologast shall be contacted to inspect the discovery. In the event that it is demonstrated that the discovery comprises an archaeological deposit which has not been historically disturbed, it will be the responsibility of the project manager to conduct necessary evaluative archaeological testing to demonstrate the potential scientific signifioa.~ce of any such discovery before any plans for mitigation of impacts are adopted by the City of Saratoga." A Landscape Maintenance Agreement for the pedestrian pathway, landscaping, irrigation' and wall located within the public right-of-way shall be executed and recorded on a form prescribed Planmng Division staff. TwO copies of a revised landscape plan showing the columns at the entry to the cul-de-sac to be not more than eight feet in height measured to the top of the 'cap. The revised plan shall 'show the utility .and pedestrian access easement between Lots 7 and 8 to be 25 feet wide. The Saratoga Cemetery District shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping fronting the existing Madronia Cemetery. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. AcknoWledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Onsite construction trailers shall be sited near the project center away from existing neighborhood residents. All construction equipment, vehicles, and vehicles of workers, contractors, and subcontractors will be parked onsite. No construction related equipment, material, or vehicles shall be stored on Norton Road, Bohlman Road, Sixth Street or Oak Street. The parking of standby trucks for concrete, hauling, or an), other construction related activity is not allowed on Norton Road, Bohlman Road, Sixth Street or Oak Street. Construction, alteration or repair activities(for subdivision improvements as well as the construction of the residences) which are authOrized by a valid City of Saratoga permit, or which do not require the issuance of a Cit3,~ of Saratoga permit, may be conducted only on weekdays between the hours of 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM so long as the noise level does not exceed 60 dBA at Project propem,' boundary. No such construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays. Construction noise should be reduced whenever possible. The City Engineer may grant an exemption upon his/her deterrmnation of an emergency. Applicable construction conditions shall be included in any and all contracts with each and every contractor and subcontractor working on the Project. Developer will make available to neighbors 24 hour access to a Project Manager to address concerns during the construction process. Dust and erosion control will be maximized onsite and on streets in the adjacent neighborhoods shal) be maintained in a manner to avoid the accumulation of mud and dirt in the streets. Adequate litter and debris control must be provided m the surrounding neighborhoods and streets. A Construction Management Plan shall be subrmtted prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits. The plan shall include the name and phone number(s) of the project manager, a plan. for coordination of all subcontractors~ circulation of construction vehicles, and locations of storage containers or construction crafters. Future development of Lots 1 through 10 shall require Design Review approval. Building sites shall be consistent with the approved building envelopes and based on current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy. The location of any structures shall maxirmze tree preservation. Each Design Review apphcarion shall include a Storm Water Retention Plan. Each Design Review application shall require review by the City Arborist. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. 15. Acknowledged. 16. 17. 18. General Plan 19. Amendment submitted. Accomplished. 20. No traffic calming 2]. devices recommended. Condition amended 22. per SD-99-003(A). Ail Boht~nan Road 23. improvements per PSC recommendations shown on the Improvement Plans. Condition amended per SD-99-003 (A). Each Design Review apphcation shall include a landscape plan. Landscaping shall include screening fi:om adjacent residential properties. :: Building pads shall remain identical fi:om the Tentative Map to each Design Review apphcation. All structures shall designed to be compatible with the surrounding enVaronment, mimmize the appearance of mass and bulk and materials such as wood and stone' should be used whenever possible to accomplish these design objectives. No ga'adLng or building pad improvement work shall take place on the individual lots until DeSign Review applications have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Prior to recording of the Final Map, the City Council must approve the General Plan 'Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Quasi Public Facilities to Residential-Very Low Density. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall petition the City's Public Safety Commission to recommend appropriate traffic calming devices at the intersection of Sixth Street, Oak Street and Bohlman Road Prior to completion of subdivision improvements, the apphcant shall install any. and all traffic calming devices recommended by the Public Safety Commission. In no case shall the cost to the developer exceed $10,000 for these devices. The Final Map shall show the utility and pedestrian access easement between Lots 7 and 8 to be 25 feet wide. ' Prior to Final Inspection of the subdivision tmprovements: The applicant shall improve Bohlman Road to a width of 18 feet with one-foot shoulders as required by the Pubhc Works Department. Prior to approval of the improvement plans by the Public Works Department, the apphcant shall subnUt to the Planning Division a report from a traffic engineer recommending a road improvement alternative keeping in mind the overall goal of preserving as many trees as possible. The traffic engineer's recommendations may range from no improvement to selective widening to tl/e widening recommended by the Pubhc Works Department. The engineer should also consider the use of traffic calming devices. Planning staff will forward the report to the City's Pubhc Safety Commission for consideration of the recommended alternative(s). The Public Safety Commission shall notify the residents of the Bohtman Road area and hold a public meeting to discuss the alternatives and recommend a road improvement alternative to the Planning Commission. The fencing enclosure and grading regulations of the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance shall apply to Lots I and 4. ~reement on the Final Map. Easement shown on the Final Map. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. CC & R submitted. Acknowledged. 25. 26. 27. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to prohibit future subdivision of the approved ll Lots. The Final Map shall indicate a landscape easement within the banks of the drainage courses on Lots 1, 2 and 4. The landscape easement shall require the areas within the banks of each drainage course to be left in a natural state and' require any vegetation removed ~rom the easement areas shall be replaced with native vegetation. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a list of acceptable replacement species prepared by a qualified biologist. The existing trees on the east side of Bohlman Road and the remaining trees On the west side of Bohlman Road (after any widening) shall be pruned, watered and fertilized under the supervision of an ISA certified arborisc 28. The final landscape plan for the path along Bohlman Road shall be reviewed and approved by the City Mborist prior to issuance of any Building or Grading Permits. 29. 30. A landscape plan showing primarily native plantings shall be submitted with each Design Review application. If the improvement of Bohlman Road requires the installation of guardrails, the rail shall be limited to a double raft rather than the triple rail shown on the submitted improvement plan. 31. 32. The pedestrian pathway, surrounding landscaping, the fence and gate shall be installed prior to Final Inspection of subdivision improvements. Prior toissuance of Building or Grading Permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring plan. The plan shall contain all the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study with a chronological checklist for monitoring compliance. 33. Prior to submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a sample maintenance agreement or C,C&Rs that will bind the owners of the new lots to cooperate in the maintenance of the new private road, the landscaping and the path along BohLman Road. Cnw Am~oRisT 34. All recommendations in the City Arbonsrs Reports dated May 20,1999 and June 15, 2000 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the improvement plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. Bond posted. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. City Geologist's conditions amended per SD-99-003 (A). b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective'fencing shall be shown on the improvement plans as recommended by the Arbotist with a note 'to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be respected by staff prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 35. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dnpline of any ordinance protected trees on-the site. Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, securitT in the amount of $73,043 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 36. Prior to Final Inspection, one 52-inch box, five 36-inch box, and four five-gallon native trees shall be planted as replacements for the 41 removed trees. 37. 38. Prior to Final Inspection approval, the City Arbonst shall inspect the site to verff3' comphance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arbonst and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculrure shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction and demohtion; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. CITY GEOLOGIST 39. In accordance with the City Geologist, the Project Geotechnical Engineer shall: Prepare a qualitative characterization of individual landshde blocks within the large landshde complex using aerial photographs. Prepare a more detailed grading/mitigation plan (with hydraulic calculations) for the diverted stream channel that conveys Water from · Norton Road through the subject property. Update their regional and site spec/ftc geologic maps and cross sections to show the recently acquired geologic inforrnation (borehole locations, geologic contacts, and hthologies along the road, within the subject property, and within the prominent unnamed stream channel located north of the subject property), landshde characterization, and appropriate set-back limits. Prepare a minimum of two geologic cross sections (1 inch = 200 feet) that depict the regional topography and subsurface structure through the landshde area and through the recently investigated exploratory drilhng area. Acknowledged. Prepare a minimum of three geologic cross sections (1 tach = 60 feet) that depict more detailed surface and subsurface geologic conditions underlying the subject property. Prepare several design-level geologic cross sections (1 inch: 20 feet) through the more sensitive areas that show the relationships between proposed building envelopes, set-back limits, and steep slopes, landslides, or other potential geologic hazards. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechmcal aspects of the final Tentative Map and related plans to ensure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the Cit3? for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to Final Map approval. The geotechmcal consultants shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. Structures should be demolished and areas of loose debris should be removed prior to site construction. Geotechnical field inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, grading inspection, fill compaction testing, roadway pavement section preparation, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built con&itions of the project on an As-Built Map and Cross Sections and described in a letter(s) or report(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to finalization of the subdivision improvements. 40. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated x~th the City Geotechnical consultant's review of the project prior to Final Map approval. 41. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of.soft or slope instabilit7, slides, slope failure or other soil related md/or erosion related conditions. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 42. Developer shall install five fire hydrants that meet the Fire District's specifications (1300 gallons per minute). Hydrants shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Completed. 43. All fire hydrants shall be located within 500 feet of each residence and delwer no less than 1,000 gallons of water per minute for a sustained period of two hours. 44. MI driveways shall have a 14 foot minimum width plus one foot shoulders. 45. Driveway curves shall have a mmimuminside radius of 21 feet. For some lots the following shall apply: 46. Automatic sprinklers will be required for some of the new residences. A 4~head calculated sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. 47. Construct a mm-around at the proposed dwelling site hax~_ng a 33 foot outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the Building Plans and approved by the Fire District. 48. Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the Fire District. Details shall be shown on the Building Plans and approved by the Fire District. For all 49. lots the following shall apPly: The roof covering sha]] be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class prepared or built-up roofing. 50. 51. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saratoga Gode-Amcle 16-60. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval. 52. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall). The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. PUBLIC WORKS 53. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the Public Works Department for examination, the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the Public Works Department, all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Final Map 54. submitted. Fees paid. 55. Bond posted. 56. Provided. '57. Improvement 58. Plans submitted. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the Public Works Department for examination. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy of map checking calculations. Preliminary Tide Report for the property dated within mnet3' (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced on the Final Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final IVlap. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the examination process as requested by the Public Works Director. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the.time of submittal of the Final Map for examination. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot comer either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final Map. If the o~xmer (applicant) chooses, to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the Public Works Director shall be furnished prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. The owner (applicant) Shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, .in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, prior to Final Map approval. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement plans to the Public Works Department in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility providers, prior to approval of.the Final Map. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: Bohlman Road wiflm-a the limits of subdivision shall be widened as required to provide 18 foot minimum paved width with one4oot shoulders. Included as part of the road widening, a left rum lane shall be constructed at the Acknowledged. 59. Fees paid. 60. Improvement 61: Agreement signed. Improvement Securities fur- nished. 62. Proof of insurance pro- vided. 63. Accomplished. 64. Permits secured.65' entrance to the subdivision with a minimum total paved width of 32 feet and a minimum sucking length of 90 feet. In addition, the City reserves the right to require specific road widening on Bohlman Road beyond the limits of the northerly boundary of the subdivision up to Sixth Street to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. These addit/onal requirements, if required, will be generated during the finalization of the subdivision UnProvements. A five foot wide asphalt concrete pedestrian xvalkwav shall be constructed along east side of Bohlman Road from Norton P(oad to Oak Street. A storm dram system shall be designed and constructed to mitigate any existing drainage problems, which currently impact adjacent properties, and so that post development drainage is not increased. The proposed storm dram system shall our. fall into Saratoga Creek via Bohlman Road, Sixth Street and Big Basin Way. After storm dram installation, Sixth Street and part of Bohlman Road bet~veen Sixth Street and Norton Road shall be overlaid with 2" of asphalt concrete including a layer pecrom~ic The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the Cit-), in accordance with Section 14-60.010 of the Municipal Code prior to Final Map approval. The owner (apphcant) shall furnish Improvement Securities in accordance with Section 14-60.020 of the Municipal Code in the manner and amounts determined by the Pubhc Works Director prior to Final Map approval. The owner (applicant) shall furnish a written indemnity agreement and proof of insurance coverage, in accordance with Section 14-05.050 of the Municipal Code, prior to Final Map approval. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the Public Works Director with satisfactoty written commitments from all public and private utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utLlity improvements to serve the subdivision. The owner (applicant) shall secure all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to Public Works Department. Fees paid. 66. NOI filed, 67. SWPPP submitted. Acknowledged.' 68. Acknowledged. 69. 'Acknowledged. 70. Hold Harmless form signed. The owner (apphcant) shall pay the apphcable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final Map approval. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall ~ile a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under the State General Construction Activity NPDES. Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City Engineer. The apphcant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of . the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval and maintained on site at all times during construction of the subdivision improvements. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. Notice of construction shall be distributed to all residents within 500 ft. of the property at least five calendar days prior to commencement of construction in such form as determined by the Public Works Department. The applicant (oxvner) shall reimburse the City the full cost of providing such notice prior to receiving approval from the City Engineer to commence work on the project. All requirements of the West Valley Sanitation District, San Jose Water Company, County Environmental Health Division, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District shall be met. CITY ATTORNEY 71. Acknowledged. 72. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. NOncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, Count3,, CiD, and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements o.[ Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 13th day Of September 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: C-~a~,- Plan~ni~~ion ATTEST: CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SD-99-003 AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2001, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City", and Sobrato Construction Corporation, Subdivider and Owner, hereinafter collectively called Subdivider: W I T N E S E T H: WHEREAS, Subdivider is engaged in subdividing that certain tract of land known and designated as 14800 Bohlman Road situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California; and WHEREAS, a final map of SD-99-003 has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga for presentation to the Council for its approval, which map is hereby referred to and by said reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Owner and Subdivider has requested approval of said final map prior .to the completion of improvements of all streets, highways or public, ways and sewer facilities which are a part of or appurtenant to the abovementioned subdivision, including, but without limiting the foregoing, the necessary paving, catch basins, pipes, culverts, storm drains, sanitary sewers where required, street trees and street signs where required, and including a water." system and fire hydrants acceptable to the San Jose Water Works and the City of Saratoga, all in accordance with and as required by the plans and specifications for all of said improvements in or appurtenant to said subdivision, which pl~ans and specifications were prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Enqineers & Surveyors, Inc., Civil 2 Engineer, approved by the City Surveyor and now · on file in the offices of the Clerk of said City and/or .Public Works Department of said City, and WHEREAS, the City Council of said City did on the _ day of , 2001, 'adopt a Resolution approving Said Final Map, rejecting certain dedications therein offered which rejection did not and does not, however, 'revoke the offers of dedication therein contained and requiring as a condition precedent to the future acceptance of said offers of dedication that the Subdivider improve the streets and easements thereon shown in acCord with the standards of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, as amended, of the City of Saratoga and in accord with the imp~venlent plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and requiring as a condition precedent to the release of said final map for recordation that the Subdivider agree in writing to so improve said streets and easements in ·accord with this agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in considerat·ion · of the above and in consideration of the City accepting all of said dedications after the hereinafter agreed to covenants on the part of the Owner and Subdivider have been complied with and in accord with Government Code Section 66462(a) of the State of California, it is hereby. agreed as follows: 1. Subdivider at this cost and expense shall construct all of the improvements and do all of the work hereinafter mentioned, all in accordance with and to the extent and as provided in the above mentioned plans and specifications on file in the office of said City, for the construction of said improvements, in, for, or appurtenant to said subdivision, ~ and all in cgmpliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance as amended and the laws of the State of California, and shall complete the same within one year from date hereof and shall maintain the same for a period of at least one year after the satisfactory completion of the same. 2. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as condition precedent to recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk a good and sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in form to be approved by the City Attorney, securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of all work and the construction of all improvements herein in this Agreement mentioned within time specified, and securing the faithful performance by Subdivider of the maintenance of said improvements for a period of at least one year after completion of the same, and for such additional period of time as may be necessary in order that Subdivider may cure and correct all deficiencies of construction to the satisfaction of the City .Engineer of the City of Saratoga (in addition to said bond at least 10% ($241,600.00) of said bond to be in cash, with the right of City to use the same in its discretion for emergency maintenance and repairs in addition to any other rights of use) the amount of said bond to be in the sum of $2,416,000.00; and also a good and sufficient surety bond in form to.,j be approved by the City Attorney securing the payment by Subdivider of all bills for labor and materials incurred in the construction of any and all of said improvements, and the doing of all other work herein agreed to be done by the said Subdivider, the amount of said bond to be Two Million Four Hundred Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($2,416,000.00) . 3. Subdivider does hereby expressly agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City and in their capacity els such, its councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and its employees, from any and all loss or damage, and from any and all liability for any and all loss or damage, and from' any and all suits, actions, damages, or claims filed or brought by any and all person or persons because of or resulting from the doing by Subdivider or any and all things ~required of Subdivider by this contract, or because of or arising or resulting from the failure or omission by Subdivider to do any and all things necessary to and 'required by this contract or by law, or arising or resulting from the negligent doing by Subdivider, his agents, employees or subcontractors of any and all things required to be done by this contract, or arising or resulting from any dangerous or defective condition arising or resulting from any of the above said acts or omissions of Subdivider, his agents, subcontractors, or employees. Subdivider having heretofore certified, by the certificate upon the abovementioned subdivision map, that he can convey clear title to the land within said subdivision, and City having relied upon said certificate and the representation contained therein, the foregoing provisions of this paragraph are specifically made to apply to any destruction or damage to or removal of utilities, water lines or pipe lines of any kinds, .and any other improvement, whether said destruction, damage or removal is required or caused by the plans or specifications or by direction of an officer, agent or employee of the City. 4. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City, and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk certificates or policies of public liability and property damage insurance in form satisfactory to the City Attorney, and Subdivider shall at all times .during the entire term of this agreement, maintain the same in full force and effect, which policies shall insure the City of Saratoga, its Councilmen, officers, boards, commissions and employees against loss or liability for bodily injury and property damages arising or resulting from Subdivider ' s operations and activities in the construction of any and all improvements mentioned in this agreement and the doing of any and all work mentioned in this agreement, within or outside the abovementioned subdivision, and/or arising or resulting from the doing or failure of Subdivider to do all things required to be done pursuant to this agreement. Said policies of insurance shall cover bodily injury and property damage on both an accident and occurrence basis, with completed operations coverage for one (1) year after completion and acceptance Of improvements, and shall be in amounts of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each person, ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each accident or occurrence and property damage coverage of ONE- HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ( $ t 00,000. Q0 ) for each accident or occurrence and property damage coverage of ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) for each accident or occurrence. Said policies of insurance shall in addition contain the following endorsement: "Other insurance - the coverage afforded by this insurance shall be primary coverage to the full limits of liability~~' stated in the declarations. If the assured has other insurance against the loss covered by this policy, that other insurance shall be excess insurance only, after the entire face value of this policy shall have been exhausted by payment." 5. In consideration of City allowing Subdivider to connect said subdivision to certain existing or proposed out-of-tract storm sewer lines, and in consideration of City relieving Subdivider of any obligation which City might legally impose on Subdivider to acquire any right-of-way for, and/or to construct, any out-of-tract storm sewer drainage pipe lines and appurtenances which might reasonably be necessary to drain said subdivision and carry storm waters from said subdivision to natural drains, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City the sum of Zero dollars ($ 0 ) . 6. In consideration of City agreeing to accept, in accord with this agreement, the in-tract storm drain lines and facilities constructed or to be constructed by Subdivider within or outside of said subdivision in accord with the plans and specifications now on file with the City offices, including the streets and other easements in or beneath which said facilities lie, Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay the City the sum of Zero Dollars ($ 0 ) . 7. Subdivider shall, before the release of said final map by the City and as a condition precedent to the recordation thereof, pay to the City the sum of Two Hundred Twenty One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars ($ 221,937.00) to be applied by City to the payment of expenses to be incurred by City for engineering and inspection services to be performed by the City in connection with said subdivision. 8. Upon Subdivider completing in accord with this agreement all of the improvements to be made and done by said Subdivider as 7 hereinabove set forth and as shown on the plans and specifications on file as hereinabove referred to, and upon Subdivider having properly maintained the same for a period of at least one year after the completion of said improvements as hereinabove specified~ and upon the Subdivider complying with all covenants and conditions on his or its part to be done and performed in accord with the within agreement, then and in that event, City agrees to rescind its rejection of the offers of dedication of ~treets and storm drain easements contained on the aforesaid final map, and at that time accept said offers of dedication. 9. Should the Subdivider and Owner hereinabove referred to not be the same person, firm or corporation, then this agreement shall only be effective upon both the Subdivider and the Owner separately executing the same, and wherever the term Subdivider is used, the same shall include Owner and wherever the term Owner is used, the same shall include Subdivider. 10. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives and assigns of Subdivider and Owner, and time is of the essence hereof, save and except that the City Council of the Cfty of Saratoga may, but need not, extend any time or times for the doing or performing of any acts as required under the terms of this agreement by resolution, if in the opinion of the City Council any such delay is without fault on the part of the Subdivider and Owner. Execution of'the within agreement by the Owner or Subdivider shall constitute an irrevocable authorization to City to insert the date of passage of the Council resolution approving the final map, and to insert the date of this agreement as of the date of such resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year first above written. CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney By: By: (Owner, if different from Subdivider) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP AGENDA ITEM: ~ CITY MANAGER: ~)~~ ~-- DEPT HEAD: ~ SUBJECT: General Plan Land Use Map Amendment - 14800 Bohlman Road/14766 Oak Street, APN's 517-13-018, 517-13-019 & 517-12-001 - Sobrato Development Company RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Conduct the Public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Quasi Public Facilities to Very Low Density Residential. REPORT SUMMARY: Project Description The Planning Commission has approved a Tentative Map for the subdivision of a 23.5 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 40,913 square feet to 6.2 acres, this approval is still valid. Minor road widening and the development of a pedestrian walkway along Bohlman Road have been approved as part of the Tentative Map. Two acres (the 11th lot of the subdivision) will be transferred to the Saratoga Cemetery District for the expansion of the Madronia Cemetery upon recordation of the Final Map. Use Permit approval was granted to sanction the existing cemetery and to allow for the expansion of the cemetery. The site is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district and the current General Plan designation is Quasi Pubic Facilities. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council amend the Land Use Map from Quasi Public Facilities to Residential - Very Low Density. An Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated, Negative Declaration have been adopted by the City; this Environmental Determination is still valid. Discussion The General Plan designation of Quasi Public Facilities is not typical for a single family residential development. The current General Plan designation does not prohibit the proposed development, but the designation should be changed to reflect the proposed use. The applicant has requested and staff is recommending that the General Plan designation be changed to Residential-Very Low Density. The Planning Commission determined that this site is physically suitable for this type of development and that the proposed density is consistent with the General Plan guidelines and policies for the Residential-Very Low Density designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not subject to Measure G. Measure: G only limits the intensification of existing land use designations for lands designated Residential or Outdoor Recreation. The current proposal is for the designation to change from Quasi Public Facilities to a less intense use of Residential-Very Low Density. The City Council has the final authority to make the amendment to the General Plan. The Tentative Map has been conditioned so that the City Council must act in the positive in order to validate the Tentative Map. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable · CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The Planning Commission's approval approving the Tentative Map would be voided. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): 1. Remand the project back to the Planning Commission with direction. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Not Applicable ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Public Hearing was properly advertised in the Saratoga News on October 17, 2001, notices were mailed to property owners of record within 500 feet on October 23, 2001 and a Notice of Public Hearing was posted on October 17, 2001. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of the STAFF REPORT for the September 26, 2001 Planning Commission Public Hearing. A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution Recommending that the City Council Amend the General Plan Land Use Map Draft City Council Resolution 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING ITEM 2 COMMISSION' Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: I Date: General Plan Designation: Zoning: IAPN: SD-99-003(A) and GPA-00~001(A); 14800 Bohlman Road 14766 Oak Street SOBRATOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Thomas Sullivan, AICP~~O'"'~~ Community Developrn~nt Dir&tor September 26, 2001 Quasi Public Facilities RI-40,000 · 517-13-018, 517-13-019 & 517-12-001 Department Head:~ 14800 Bohlman Road & 14766 Oak Street Project Description The Planning Commission has previously approved a Tentative Map for the subdivision of a 23.5 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 40,913 square feet to 6.2 acres, this approval is still valid. Minor road widening and the development of a pedestrian walkway, along . th Bohlman Road have been approved as part of the Tentatwe Map. Two acres (the 11 lot of the subdivision) will be transferred to the Saratoga Cemetery District for the expansion of the Madronia Cemetery upon recordation of'the Final Map. Use Permit approval was granted to sanction the existing cemetery and to allow for the expansion of the cemetery. The site is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district and the General Plan designation is Quasi Pubic Facilities. The Planning Commission included in the resolution approving the Tentative Map a %Vhereas" clause and a condition (5~19) that indicated that the City Council needed to amend the Land Use Map from Quasi Public Facilities to Residential - Very Low Density. An Environmental Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been adopted by the City; this Environmental Determination is still valid. The matters before the Planning Commission in this advertised Public Hearing is very narrow. A resolution recommending tha~ the City Council Amend the General Plan Land Use Map by changing the designation on this property from Quasi Public Facilities to Very Low Density Residential. Revise language for Condition 24 of the previous approval related to grading and fence enclosure. Revise language and use for Condition 22, relating to the width of an easement from 25 feet to 15 feet and eliminating the pedestrian access easement. Revise the language in the City Geologist conditions based on current information. Discussion Genera[ Plan Amendment The General Plan designation for the property is Quasi Public Facilities, which is not typical for a single family residential development of this nature. The current General Plan designation does not prohibit the proposed development, but the designation should be changed to reflect the actual use. The applicant has requested and staff is recommending that the General Plan designation be changed to Residential-Very Low Density. The Planning Commission has previously determined that this site is physically suitable for this type of development and that the proposed density is consistent with the General Plan guidelines and policies for the Residential-Very Low Density designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not subject to Measure G. Measure G only 'limits the intensification of existing land use designations for lands designated Residential or Outdoor Recreation. The current proposal is for the designation to change from Quasi Public Facilities to a less intense use of Residential-Very Low Density. The City Council has the final authority to make the amendment to the General Plan. Therefore, the Planning Commission is being requested to adopt: a resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map. The Tentative Map has been conditioned so that the City Council must act in the positive in order to validate the Tentative Map. Condition 22 The language of' Condition 22 from the previous resolution is proposed to be amended to read: "The Final Map shall show a 15-foot utility easement on lot 8, contiguous to'lot 7." The previous resolution required an easement of 25 feet for both water and pedestrian access. The applicant has requested that the pedestrian easement be eliminated and the width of the easement be reduced. The pedestrian easement, as was previously conditioned, would provide pedestrian access from a public street to the end of a cul-de-sac of a private street that serves five dwellings. If this were a larger development which was connecting two public streets, Staff would not consider recommending the elimination of such a pedestrian easement. Condition 24 The language of Condition 24 from the previous resolution needs to be amended to read: "The Planning Commission shall review and approve all grading plans at the time of Design Review. On Lots ! and 4, the grading shall preserve and protect natural land forms and vegetation; it shall promote compatibility with the natural terrain; visible, fiat pads surrounding the main residential structure shall be avoide& and the grading shall assist in the integration of the architectural design into the natural topography. At the time of Design Review, the Planning Commission shall approve the design and ~location of all fencing. On lots 1 and 4, a substantial area, outside of the building site area, shall be a recorded as a Scenic Easement. The area to be included in the Scenic Easement will be determined at the time of Design Review." Staff believes the above captures the intent of the previous condition without tying the hands of the Commission. Condition Geotechnical Review The City's Geotechnical consultant has completed'the Geotechnical Peer Review and has recommended that the Planning Commission substitute the new conditibns for the ones previously adopted. As such, the new condition 39 should read, "Thcproj¢ct shall comply with the conditions set forth by the City Geolo~st in the attached Exhibit A." Staff has attached a full set of these conditions for the Commission's review. As you can see, these conditions represent the Geotechnical Clearance for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolutions; DR-99-003(A) and GPA-00-001(A) ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolutions SD-99-003(A) with Exhibit A and GPA-00-001(A) 2. Revised Tentative Map ATTACHMENT 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. GPA-00-001(A) CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14800 Bohlman Road WHEREAS, application has been made to the Plarming Commission under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, to amend conditions 22, 24 and 39 of the Tentative Map approval of 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 of this City; and WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and kVHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan Land Use Map needs to reflect and be consistent with the R-l, 40,000 zoning and the land use proposed in the Il-lot subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, consistent with action taken on September 13, 2000, by passage of Resolution SD-99-003, does hereby recommend that the City Council Amend to City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Map by changing the Land Use Designation of APN 517-13-018, 517-12-019 & 517- 12-001 to Very Low Density Residential from Quasi Public Facilities: PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, and this 26th day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION 01-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 517-13-018, 517-13-019 & 517-12-001 FROM QUASI PUBLIC FACILTIES TO VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, an application was made to the Planning Commission under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for a Tentative Map to create 11 lots, all as more particularly set forth in File No. SD-99-003 of this City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comnfission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the General Plan Land Use Map needs to reflect and be consistent with the R-l, 40,000 zoning and the land use proposed in the 1 l-lot subdivision; and WHEREAS, .the. City Council has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing on November 7, 2001 at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby amend the City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Map by changing the Land Use Designation of APN 517-13-018, 517-12-019 & 517-12-001 to Very Low Density Residential from Quasi Public Facilities. The above and foregoing resolution 'was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7 day of November, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 3 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Allison Knapp AGENDA ITEM:" CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEA .-I~-- ~ SUBJECT: Appeal of DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011; 19752 Versailles Way; Applicant - Lee Chen; Appellants-Hari and Yvonne Pillai RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the 55-foot setback; adopt the attached resolution which denies the Appeal, adds four conditions and upholds the Planning Commission's Approval of the Project. REPORT SUMMARY: Thc City Council directed that this item be placed on the November 7, 2001 agenda to reconsider the previous action to refer the project to the Planning Commission. The City Council further directed Staff to inform the neighbors that ff they had issues to discuss regarding the project that they should be at the November 7th meeting. A meeting was conducted at City Hall on October 23, 2001, with the neighbors. This meeting was facilitated by the Community Development Director. The neighborhood representatives were advised of the City Council's direction provided at the October 19, 2001 meeting regarding the importance of them attending the November 7th. They were also informed of the City Council's desire to only address the setback issue as part of the reconsideration. At the end of the meeting with the neighbors, no clear consensus was reached with the neighbors with respect to the setback issue. Thc Planning Commission at its August 8, 2001 meeting approved the project and added the following four conditions: 1. Tile roof shah match the color of the building. Apply stone around the arches and walls under the windows. windows shall wrap around the side of the structure. The stone under the 3. Increase the front setback an additional five feet, to 55 feet. 4. Plant additional landscaping in front of the building to soften the entry. At a minimum plant two 54 inch box Olive trees at either end of the portico. 1. Revise the landscape plan to move the proposed new 36-inch box Coast Live Oak trees from the east property line to the south portion of the lot. 2. Remove the three six-inch trees along the west property line and locate the three 36-inch box Coast Redwoods to the west property line where the three six-inch trees were located. 3. The deed to the property shall be recorded with the restriction that trees along the west property line shall not be removed without a tree removal, permit from the City of Saratoga and notice and consent of the adjacent neighbor. The requirement of the consent of the adjacent neighbor, to the west, shall be waived ff it is determined by'the City that the trees are a threat to public safety. 4. The pool equipment shall be located as shown on the plans (on ~he north~south center line of the property) but in addition be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than five feet high to reduce the noise impact to all the neighbors. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reversal of the Planning Commission's decision would not allow a new single-story single family residence to be constructed or the existing single-family residence to be demolished. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: FOLLOW' UP ACTIONS None required. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None Required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission Decision with four ' Additional Conditions. 2. City Council Staff Report dated October 19, 2001 3. City Councir Staff Report dated October 3, 2001 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 11, 2001 5. Minutes to Planning Commission Public Hearing dated August 8, 2001 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DR-01-O07 fi;l: BSE-01-011) 19725 VERSAILLES WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 15-46 of the City of Saratoga 'Zoning Ordinance an application was .made to the City of Saratoga for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence and demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence at 19752 Versailles Way per "Exhibit A" and presented at the City Council meeting of October 3, 2001; and WHEREAS, following consideration and 'approval of the Design Review application by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2001, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Yvonne and Hari Pillai in accordance wath Article 14-85 of the Saratoga City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on the matter at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence on July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the design review proposed by the applicant in the exhibit marked "Exhibit A," all as more particularly set forth in File No. DR-01-007 & BSE- 01-011 of this CitT; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all ~amtten and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support and in opposition to the application; and · WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency and the City Council has conducted duly noticed public hearings in connection with this matter at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and NO\,\;,. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds that: · The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that: · The natural lan&cape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be mimmized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed, areas and undeveloped areas and in that the · The residence will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii)unreasonably impair the ability of 'adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. · The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used'by the City. · The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055. The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby add the following four conditions: Revise the landscape plan to move the proposed new 36-inch box Coast Live Oak trees from the east property line to the south portion of the lot~ Remove the three six-inch trees along the west property line and locate the three 36-inch box Coast Redwoods to the west property line where the three six-inch trees were located. The deed to the property shall be recorded with the restriction that trees along the west property line shall not be removed without a tree removal permit from the City of Saratoga and notice and consent of the adjacent neighbor. The requirement of the consent of the adjacent neighbor, to the west, shall be waived-if, it is determined by the City that the trees are a threat to public safety. - The pool equipment shah be located as shown on the plans (on the r~orth-south center line of the property) but in addition be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than five feet high to reduce the noise impact to all the neighbors. SECTION 2. The appeal of Degign Review DR-01-007 ~ BSE-01-011 is hereby denied. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7h day of November, 2001 by the folloxving vote: ' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Dated OCTOBER 19, 2001 ATTACHMENT 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT l~EAD: SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration of the City Council action referring DR-01- 007 & 'BSE-01-011 ~(397-017-034) CHEN, 19751 Versailles Way back to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Grant the Reconsideration, adopt the attached resolution which Denies the Appeal and approves the prOject. REPORT SUMMARY: The developer of the 19751 Versailles Way project has requested reconsideration of the City Council's action to refer the project back to the Planning Commission. In the intervening time between now and the last City Council meeting, he has obtained consensus to have the front yard setback at 55 feet. This is the setback approved by the Planning Commission. The next door property owner who spoke at the appeal hearing who wanted the setback reduced by seven feet has agreed to leave it at 55 feet. The one property owner who has not agreed to this is the appellant who is still out of the country. He is expected to return the weekend,of October 13/14, 2001. The project architect will make contact with him. The setback was never an issue with him due to the additional trees that had required to be planted. Prior to the City Council meeting Staff will have written documentation of the neighborhood concurrence. If the written documentation is presented, Staff would recommend the City Council grant the reconsideration and deny the apPeal. The setback for t$e front yard would be 55 feet. The additional items required by the Planning Commission would be enforced The additional items previously agreed to by the applicant and appellant would be enforced. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The project would be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in November 2001. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): 1. Deny the request for reconsideration. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Not Applicable ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Dated OCTOBER 3, 2001 ATTACHMENT 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community. Development CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Allison Knapp DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Appeal of DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 ;19752 Versailles Way; Applicant - Lee Chert; Appellants-Hari and Yvonne Pillai RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider the pubhc testimony and record of the Planning Commission's deliberations and determine ff the facts support the Planning Commission's action. If so, it is recommended that the Cit-v Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and den5' the appeal and incorporate the additional conditions of approval identified below. REPORT SUMMARY: The applicant received Planning Commission approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one- sto~' residence. The existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence would be demolished.. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000 square feet and is located within an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. THIS AREA INTENTIONALL LEi=I- BLANK SUMMARY TABLE Lot Coverage: Floor Area: Setbacks: Height: Building Footprint Driveway Walkway Covered Patio/Carport TOTAL (Impervious Surface) First Floor Second Floor Garage (Basement) TOTAL Front Rear Left Side Right Side Proposal 26% 5,986 sq. ft. 1,611 sq. ft. 1,644 sq. ft. 1,184 sq. ft. 10,425 sq. ft. 5,264 sq. ft. 0 722 sq. ft. (3,340 sq. ft.) Code Requirements Maxsmum .Mlowable 350,0 Maximum ,421owable 5, 986 sq. ft. , 6,000~ ' Man'urn Requirement 50 ft. 30 ft. 76 ft. 50 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 26 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Allowable Residence 26 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A 12 ft. 2 Planning Commission Action and Issues On Jut), t2, 2001 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and continued it to August S. 2001. On August 8, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the proposed project. Planning Commission concerns were: Screening for privacy along the right side property line; Incorporating a roof tile that more closely matched the color of the building; Continuing the stone proposed for pedimentation around the windows and around the side bf the building; Increasing the front setback an additional five feet to minimize view impacts; and, Planting additional landscaping m the front of the building to reduce the formal look of the front facade There is no height penalty with respect to floor area m the R-140, 000 Zoning District. The Planmn~ Commission may m'ant ut~ to 15 feet ifth~ ~,~,~,,,.~.~ g~,~; ...... ~__ _ and landscape plan. After public testimony and Planning Commission Commission voted to add the following conditions to the project approval. 1) 2) 3) discussion the Plant additional Redwood trees along the side (right) property line. Tile roof shall compliment the color of the building. Appl)' stone around the arches and walls under the windows. The stone under the windows shall wrap around the side of the strUcture. 4) Increase the front setback an additional five feet. 5) Plant additional landscaping in ~ront of the building to soften the entry. At a minimum plant two mature Olive trees at either end of the portico. Plan Revisions The applicant revised the plans to incorporate'the Plarming Commission conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development reviewed the plans and found them to implement the Plarming Comrmssion conditions that were incorporated into the project to address neighborhood concerns. Appeal On Aug-ust 22, 2001, Yvorme and Hari pillai filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. The Pillais agreed to one extension. The Pillais cited 'design" as the reason for the appeal. STAFF ANALYSIS: Neighborhood Meetings The applicant met with members of the neighborhood that had voiced concerns with the design of the' project during. A preliminary consensus was reached m response to the meetings as noted in the September 19, 2001 letter from the apphcant (attached). The applicant, based upon chrecnon from the neighbors (Marvin and Joan Fox and Hah and Yvonne Pilai). Additional issues xvere identified and resolved as a result of the meeting. In summary: The property, owners to the east o£ the slte requested that the proposed new 36-inch box Coast Live Oak trees be moved from the east property llne to the south portion of the lot. The Foxes were concerned that die new trees would block sunlight [rom their yard. Staff supports the revised placement of the trees. There is ample room on the southern portion of the lot for the trees to mature. Remove the three six-inch trees along the west property line and locate the three 36-inch box Coast Redwoods ro the ,vest prope_rtj, Iine where the three six-inch trees were located. The Pi[lads bedieve this wiZl provide them w~th more screening and privacy Staff supports ti'tis tree removal and replacement. The sm-inch trees are not protected and the Coast Redwood replacements are natives and more mature. Move the house seven feet toward the street. The neighbot~ beg'eve that rtu's ,,ill provide them with a larger viewcotridor. Staff supports this request. The front setback would be 48 feet where a minimum of 30 feet is required. Please note, the Planning COmm/ssion had increased the front setback by five feet (i.e., a 55 foot setback) in response to the concerns to the neighbors. After the planning Commission meeting, the neighbors decided they wanted it moved forward, not backward, to preserve views. Record on the deed that the new trees cond~'oned with the house are not to be removed without obtaining approval from tile adjacent neighbors yard the City o/Saratoga. tMs request is to assure the longevity of the solutions to be implemented Staff recommends that a slight modification be made to the request. The deed to the property shall be recorded with the restriction that trees along the west property line shall not be removed without a tree removal permit from the City of Saratoga and notice and consent of the adjacent neighbor. The requirement of the consent of the adjacent neighbor, to the west, shall be waived ff it is determined by the City that the trees are a threat to public safety. The Pillias withdrew their appeal (see attached letter dated September 23, 2001) based upon a~eement to the above conditions, adding one additional condition and restating the conditions lex~ed by the Planning Commission. In summary those being: That the poM equipment be located as shown on the plans (on the north-south center h'ne o£the property) but in addition be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than five feet tu'gh to reduce'the noise impact to all the neighbors. The housing structure for the pool cquipment would be less than 25 square feet in area and would not appreciably effect the percent coverage restrictions. The proposed lot coverage is at 26 percent and is well under the 35 percent maximum permitted. That two 54-inch/trees be added to the bunt property to reduce the visual impact o[the front arches. The neighbors stipulate a variety to be agreed with the immediate neighbors. Staff recommends that the Olive trees (54-inch box) conditioned be the Commission be the trees to be planted. The appellant notes that 'Aesthetic improvements that have already been proposed for the property at or after the Planning Commission meeting such as the stone like material for the fagade and the roof tiles more earthen. Staff believes that these issues have been addressed by the Planning Commission conditions of approval and the Director of Community Development review as noted above. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reversal of the Planning Commission's decision would not-allow a new single-story single- family residence to be constructed or the existing single-family residence to be demolished. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONi The Council could deny the appeal without the additional conditions of approval. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS None required. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A pubhc hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and pubhshed m the Saratoga News newspaper. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission Decision with Adctitional Conditions. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report July 12, 2001. 3. Minutes to Planning Commission Public Hearing August 8; 2001. 4. September 19, 2001 letter from Mr. Chert. 5 September 23, 2001 letter f-rom Mr. Paillai. 6. Plans. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DR-01-007 ~r BSE-01-011) 19725 VERSAILLES \¥HEREAS, pursuant to Article 15-46 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance an apphcation was made to the City of Saratoga for Design Review approval to construct a new 5.986 square foot, one-story residence and demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-stoD' residence at 19752 Versailles Way per "Exhibit A" and presented at the City Council meeting of October 3, 2001; and WHEREAS, following consideration and approval of the Design Review application by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2001, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Yvorme and Haft Pillai in accordance with Article 14-85 of the Saratoga City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo pubhc hearing on the matter at which time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to present exqdence onJtrly 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the design review proposed by the applicant in the exhibit marked "Exhibit A," all as more particularly set forth in File No. DR-01-007 & BSE- 01-011 of this CitT: and WHEREAS, the Cit-3, Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support and in opposition to the application; and WHEREAS, the Adxqsory Agency and the City Council has conducted duly noticed public heanngs in connection with this matter at which time all interested parries were given a full opporrunit3, to be heard and to present evidence; and ..NO\V, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds that: The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist Which are included as conditions of approval. The trees continue to provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties. Additionally, the pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed m the center of the lot, which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of the site. The carport is proposed t° be 20 feet from the right side property [me. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associated xx'ith it which would make more noise to raise and lower. 'lZwo, it is a single car carport and not a standard two-car garage which by the nature of the increased use would create more noise exposure to adjacent residential uses. The proposed entry porch (at the 47 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched windows and colunms. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The ,,dmunishmg effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by' the increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler facade with rectangular windows. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing'structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal: grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is nearly fiat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Additionally, eighteen trees are on the site and three ~vould be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-inch four Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch Coast Live Oaks as shoxxm on Sheet C-1 of the drawings are the replacement tree as recommended by the City's arbonst. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line is varied as the building setbacks are increased from the front property [me. The project proposes stone pedirnentaUon (vertical element) and window mm and an cave [me with stone corbels (horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building. The front entry porch is 47 feet from the front setback. Other dements of the front elevauon increase in setback from 55, 57 and to 76 feet from the front property [me. As a point of reference the exisUng residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 feet from the front setback, with the majority of the building [me at 43 feet. The proposed mare or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the mediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) ihe natural environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent propemes: nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energ3' m that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of 'statement~ architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does howe'eer depart from the ranch style architecture. The project setbacks .provide sunlight and air corridors. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires a City-issued building perrmt. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design pohcies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique ~1, "Mimmize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique ~3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1 Technique ~4 "Mimmize Building Height": Policy 1, Technique ~6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing": Policy 1, Technique ~5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood": Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique ~3, "Use Lan _dscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Pri¥.~cy",.Technique ~3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique ~4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings". Therefore the appeal should be demed. City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits subrmtted in connection with this matter, the apphcation of LEE CH.EN for Design Rexqew approval be and the' s. ame is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 'APPROVAL OF I~:SOLUTION NO.' DR-01-007/BSE-01'001 DENIAL OF APPEAL CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEE CHEN; VERSAII_I, ES WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit 'A', mcorporated by reference. 2. The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the Ciu"s Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community DeveloPment and shown on the Tide Report prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Prior to subrm~:tal' for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Dixqsion staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following rex~isions: Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. ' One wood burnmg fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace 'shall be noted on the drawings. Both chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. Ail the recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. The site plan shall contain a' note with the following linguage: ~Pnor to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all budding setbacks are per the approved plans." 4. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree i~'s 4, 7 and 18, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Perrmt. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. No structure shall be permitted m any easement. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained On-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. .'. CITY AtLBORIST Ail recommendations m the City Arborist's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: The~ Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the gra. dmg plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note 'to remain in place throughout consrrucuon.' The fencing shall be respected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. A note shall, be.included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the drip]me of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree ~'s 3, 5, 6 and 8. Tree ~'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13- inch Coast Live Oak) shall only be pruned by an International Society of Arbonculmral certified arbonst. Four 36- tach box Coast Redwood and two 24-tach box Coast Live Oak trees shall be planted as shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit A The plantings are also required to prm-ide year-round privacy screening. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Commumty Development Director, security in the amount of $22,353 pursuant to the report and recommendation by the city Arbonst to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. 11. Prior to Final Occupancy approval the City Arbonst shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist an& any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. Any furore landscaping shall be designed and installed m accordance with the Arbonst's recommendations. 12. A project arbonst certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or mmimimng damage to tree ~ 1: and (2) pros,ide regular wu-itten progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class ~A" prepared or · built-up roofing. (Rekrence Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210). 14. Automatic sprmlders shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), ~vorkshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. · The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City, of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). 15. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders. 16. 17. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibilitT. Early W~arnmg Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alt~'rnative requirements, sprinlder systems 16-60-E). 18. Early YVarr~g Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 19. Automatic spnnklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calcUlated spnnlder system is required. The spnnlder system shall be installed by a licensed conul-actor. CITY ATTORNEY 20. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State: or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 21. Noncomphance with any of the conditions of this perrmt shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, hquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City ~per each day of the violation. PLANNING COMMISSION 22. Plant additional mature Redwood trees to provide screening along the side propertT line. 23. Tile roof shall match the stone of the building material. 24. Apply stone around the arches and walls under the windows. The stone under' the wido~vs shall wrap around the side of the structure. 25. Plant two 54-inch box)olive trees one at either end of the poruco. CITY COUNCIL 26. The front setback shall be 48 feet. 27. Relocate the proposed new 36-inch box Coast Live Oak trees frOm the east propert3' line to the south porUon of the lot. 2S. Remove the three sm-inch trees along the west property line and locate the three 36-inch box Coast Redwoods to the west property [me where the three six-inch trees were located. 29. The deed to the property shall be recorded with the restriction that trees along the west proper,tT line shall not be removed without a tree removal permit from the CitT of Saratoga and notice and consent 'of the adjacent neighbor. The requirement of the consent of the adjacent neighbor, to the west, shall be waived if it is determined by the Citx' that the trees are a threat to public safety. 30. The pool equipment be located as shown on the plans (on the north-south center line of the property and shall in addiuon be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than five feet high to reduce the noise impact to all the neighbors. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. SECTION 4. The appeal of Design Review DR-01-007 az BSE-01-011 is hereby denied. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the h Saratoga City Council held on the 3 day of October, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENt: 'ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Dated July 11, 2001 ATTACHMENT 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application fried: Application complete: 'Notice published: M ailing completed: Posting completed: 02/23/01 06/07/01 06/27/01 06/28/01 06/21/01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to 'construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000 square feet and is located within an R-l-40, 000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Desig'n Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-01- 007/BSE-01-011. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution DR-01-007/BSE-01-011. 3. Arbonst Report dated 04/23/01 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR-OI-OO7/'L~ -01-011; 1o752 Versailles Way STAFF ANALYSIS Attachment 1 7~ONING: R-l-40, 000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Very LoW Densit3, MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 40,000 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of Site 5.3%. Slope at Building Site 2.5% GRADING REQUIRED: Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,630 to a maximum depth of 14.4 feet. Of the total, 1,080 cubic yards of cut to a maximum aepth of 14.4' would be necessary to construct the basement; 150 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of eight feet would be necessary to construct the pbol. Total cubic yards of fill would be 70 to a maximum depth of 1.2 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality, Act (CEQA) pursuant. Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is m an urbanized area and is connected to utility, and roa&vay infrastructure and consists of constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish proposed is Ivory stucco; window trim in a tan-white (Cambridge White) and gutter, fascia and eave molding is proposed to be taupe. Cast stone in a sage color is proposed as mm and a clay rust colored roof tile is proposed as the roofing material. Color and material samples ,~411 be available at the public hearing. (This Area Intentionally Left Blank) 000003 File No. DR-OI-OOT/z,. ~01-011; 1~752 Vers,zilles WaX Lot Coverage: Building VoorPnnt Driveway Walkway Covered Patio/Carport TOTAL (Impervious Surface) Proposal 26% . 5,986 sq. ft. 1,611 sq. k. 1,644 sq. ft. 1,184 sq. ft. 10,425 sq. ft. Code Requirements M~mnum ,~dlowable- 35% Floor Area: Setbacks: First Floor Second Floor Garage (Basement) TOTAL 5,264 sq. ff. 0 722 sq. ft. (3,340sq. ft.) 5,986sq. ft. Front 50 ft. Rear 76 ft. Left Side 20 ft. Right Side 26 ft. Maximum Allowable 6,000~ Minimum Requirement 30ft. ' 50ft. 20ft. 20 ft. Height: Residence 26 ft. Detached Garage N/A' IMaximum Adlowable 26 ft. 12 ft. 2 There is no height penalty with respect to floor area m the R-1-40, 000 Zbning District. The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet ff the appropriate findings.can be made. File No. DR-Ol-O07/2,.. -01-011; 1.o7.52 Versailles Way PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000 square feet and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district. The neighborhood was at one time predommately single-story large ranch style homes on large lots. Over the past several years, the neighborhood has and is continuing to wimess a change in architectural style. The large rambling ranch style houses are being replaced with one- and two-story structures that are more ~'palatial' in style. The architecture is palatial in terms of the detailing, mass of the roof lines, use of auto courts that are based upon the porte-cochere style, the "statement" that the entry-ways announce along the front elevations, and very large basements (3,000 sq. ft.) with hying quarters that could easily be converted to secondary dwelling units. The pred°mmate building materials of the ranch homes, wood and brick with some use of stucco is being lending way to stucco and tile with the construction of the newer homes. Ten lots along Versailles Way were surveyed in order to evaluate this application. The lots include the t~vo lots at the comer of Versailles Way and Wild Oak Way, the lot at the comer of Versailles Way and E1 Puente Way and all the lots that directly front Versailles \Var. The site location map on the coVer of this staff report shows the block. Three lots have larger style homes constructed on them (19737 and 19753 Versailles Way and 14551 E1 Puente V~;ay). Currendy there is a Design Review apphcation under rexqew (for completeness and referral to the Planning Commission) at the Planning Department for 19805 Versailles Way. The house is across the street diagonally from the subject property. Sirrular to the project before the Commission, it is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and reconstruct a ney< .larger dwelling. The proposed architecture is nearly identical m all respects including style, colors and materials, to that being proposed by DR- 01-007. The house at 19800 Versailles Way (adjacent to the subject site) is undergoing a remodel that is m-keeping with the architecture and materials of the original ranch-style homes m the neighborhood. Therefore, out of the ten lots surveyed, five have been or are under re~qew to be constructed with larger dandmark" homes. A few questions arise when evaluating this application for compatibility with the neighborhood. We must evaluate the architecture in terms of its compatibility with the ranch swle architecture that was originally constructed in the neighborhood as well as the other newer and larger homes in the area. Clearly there are some older well-maintained and remodeled homes within the area that are likely to remain for some years to.come. The newer homes on the block all seem to have their own architectural style that lends an eclectic feel to the area. We must evaluate this proposal (and the forthcoming one at 19805 Versailles) in light of both styles of architecture in the neighborhood, acknowledging the eclecuc nature of the area while still attempting to preserve a sense of the history of the neighborhood. File No. DR-OI-O07~ -01-011; 19752 Versai~es Wa? The proposed architecture is more in keeping with the architecture of the three newer dwellings in the neighborhood, although there is no common .thread in terms of style or materials between the project and the other three newer dwellings. The proposed architecture is a departure fi:om the ranch style of the area and is no less compatible with the ranch style architecture than the other three residences. It could be required of this project, and it should be at a mimmum required of the forthcoming 19805 Versailles Way, to include some brick and/or wood in the trim or details of the building. The proposed project does implement applicable Residential Design Guidelines as discussed below. Policy i "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique/41, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography". The lot is nearly fiat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. Policy i, Technique/~3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk", which suggests Softening elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of materials that create horizontal proportions. The project proposes stone pedimentation (vertical dement) and window mm and an eave ]me with stone corbels (ho .hzontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building. PollO' 1 "Minimize thc Perception of Bulk', Technique/44 "MinimiZe Building Height", suggests vauqng the roof dement of a structure to reduce bulk. The rooftree is vaned as the building setbacks are increased fi:om the front propertT line. Policy 1, Tcchniquc //6 "Use of Af'chitcctural Features to Break Up Massing". The front entry porch is 50 feet fi:om the front setback. Other dements of the front elevation increase in setback from 62, 64 and to 83 feet fi:om the front property ]me. As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demohshed is 32 to 43 feet from the front setback, with the majority of the building ]me at 43 feet. The proposed entry porch (at the 50 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched xxsndows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or "importance" fi:om the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler faqade with rectangular windows. PoliO, 1, Technique/45, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. File No. DR.;OI-O07/'~, -01-011; 1.07.52 VersMlles Policy'2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique ~3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", suggests preserving the existing vegetation as much as possible. Eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-inch box and two 24-inch box trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist, Which are included as conditions of approval. The replacement trees shall be Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, Califorma Buckeye or Coast Redwood Or any combination thereof. The applicant proposes four Coast Redwoods and two Coast Live Oaks as sho~am on Sheet C-1 of the drawings as the replacement trees. Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Pr/racy", Technique ~3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Pm, a©,", which suggests the use of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy. Four replacement crees, Coast Redwood, are evergreen and placed along the side property lines. Existing evergreen trees that would remain which would continue to provide privacy screening are a Deodar Cedar (gl), Coast Redwoods (/~'s 2,5,6,13, 16 and 175 and Coast Live Oaks (#'s 8, 12 and 145. The. existing and proposed trees would provide privacy screening. The two Coast Live Oaks shown in the front setback area are also evergreen. Policy '3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique ~4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings" suggests screening and controlling outdoor noise acmqties. The pool (andI pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the .-left side screens the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left tSf tl~g site. The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the side (right) properU, line. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect the neighbors from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associated with it that would make more noise to open and close. Two, it is a Single car carport therefore not a standard two-car garage' which also by the nature of the increased use would be noisier. The proposed 3,340 sq. ft. basement is shown to have direct access to the outside. The size of the basement and the direct a~cess to the outside lends itself to being used as a second unit. The applicant, through this entitlement review, should be put on notice that no conversion of the basement to a second dwelling trait shall occur in absence of abiding by the City's secondary dwelling umt process. A condition of approval is also included that addresses this issue. The CitT Arborist, the Pubhc Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed the application. The Public Works Department had no additional conditions and approved the Building Site Exemption on May 11, 2001. Comments from the City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval. File No. DR~01~O07/~ -01-011; 19752 V~es Way Parking The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least ~,o enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 722 sq. ft. three-car garage plus a one-car carport. Grading Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,630 to a maximum depth of 14.4 feet. Qf the total, 1,080 cubic yards of cut to a mammum depth of 14.4' would be necessary to cohstruct the 3,340 sq. ft. basement; 150 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of eight feet would be necessary to construct the pool. Total cubic yards of fill would be 70 to a maximum depth of 1.2 feet. The project does not require Planning Commission action on a grading plan. The reformation is provided as background for the Commission. Geotechm'cM Review Back~'ound Soil is classified by its stability. Saratoga's softs are mapped on the "Ground Movement Potential and Potential Geologic Stab.ility" map which in broad terms identifies softs that are stable and softs that require additional geologic study prior to issuance of entitlement permits, and/or building permits. A rule of thumb, softs with either a."P', or an "M" in the classification vdll require additional geotechnical review. "P" identifies spils that have a potential for failure while "M" identifies softs that have a moxq_ng landslide. Planning staff consults with the City's Geologist in making the determination if additional geotechnical investigation is required. The soil classifications are, "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" consisting of soft t-ypes Sbr, Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex; "Area of Potentially Unstable Ground" consist-Lng of Prow, Pfs, Ps, Pd and Pdf: "Areas of Unstable Ground" consisting of soft types Ms, Md and Mrf; and the final classification, "Areas of Potential Surface Faulting" consisting of Psf softs) The "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" are and. predommately level areas with moderately steep slopes underlain with bedrock. Some areas are subject to soil creep, expansive clay rich softs and may be on fill. These softs are considered stable and usually do not require a geologic report provided that the slopes are not excessive. The City Engineer is consulted on these matters. The remaining soft classifications typically require additional geotechnical investigation, review and mitigation. These softs typically have steep slopes, are subject t6 mass wasting, slumping, rockfall, shallow and deep landsliding, debris flow and surface faulting. Depending on the potential for geologic instability, the percent slope and the expertise of the City Engineer and the City's geologic consultant geologic review is conducted prior to review of the project by the Planning Commission. The results of the review are summarized for the Planning Commission, as appropriate, and the recommendations of the report become conditions of project approval. File No. DR-OI-OOT/.t. 1,0752 Vet'sail]es W~,v Additionally, any grading m the City's HR District requires City Geologist review and approval. Grading on stable sites with minor slopes, under 10%, typically does nor require City Geologist review. Grading associated with unstable sites identified above is typically forwarded 'to the Planning Commission for review when they are associated' with discretionary permit review. Proposed Proiect Soil The subject' site contains Sbt soil, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable Ground". The average slope of the site is 5.3 percent. Therefore additional geotechnical rexqew was nor required. The City Engineer has determined that the standard conditions of approval are sufficient. Trees There are eighteen trees on site that would be exposed to some risk due to project construction. Three trees, as discussed above, would be removed in order to construct the site improvel-nents. The three trees are an Il-inch Sweet Gum in 'fine" condition, a 19-inch Coast Redwood in "fine" condition and a seven-tach Hollywood Juniper in "fair" condition. Four 36-inch box Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oaks are the proposed replacement trees. The project driveway was redesigned pursuant to the Arborist's recommendation in order to save the 17-inch Coast Live Oak (tree #14), which is in "exceptional" condition. Tree #'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13-inch Coast Live Oak) would require priming and the pruning shall be conducted by an International Society of Arboriculmral certified arborist. A platform buffer shall be placed bem, een the construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree #'s 3,5,6 and 8. Thc Arbonst's Report contains other tree preservation recommendations, which shall become conditions of approval and are included on Sheet AB of Exhibit A (the architectural draxOng packet). Fireplaces The plans indicate that two fireplaces and one chimney are proposed in the new residence xx~thout stating wood or gas burning. The plans omit the chimney on the left (east) elevation of 'the building. The proposed conditions of approval require the plans to be rex~ised for zone clearance to show both chimneys and to indicate that only one fireplace may be wogd burning and the other shall be gas burning and identify the fireplaces as such. Correspondence No xwitten correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report was dismbuted to the Planning Commission. The neighbors at 19800 Versailles Way spoke to the project planner at the counter and expressed two concerns. One concern is the departure from the ranch style architecture (in particular the type of building materials File No. DR-Ol-O07/.6, .-01-011; 19752 Ves's,~es Way proposed) and other is the location of the outdoor shower for the pool.. The Planning Commission could condition the project to eliminate the outdoor pool shower and/or relocate it to the interior of the building. Staff has discussed the issues with the eclectic nature of the architecture m this report. At a minimum, should the Commission find merit in this concern, the applicant and architect for the forthcoming 19805 Versailles Way (which are the same for this p:roject), could be given direction from the Planning Commission as well as staff, to include brick and wood in the details of the building and less stucco on the 19805 Versailles V~/ay plans. The Commission could also direct the applicant to work with staff to incorporate some brick and wood into this project. ConcIusion The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning re~lations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting ResOlution DR-O1- 007/BSE-01-001. Attachment 2 /~PPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-01-007/BSE-01-001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEE CHEN; Versailles Way WHEREAS, r_he City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,986 square foot residence on a 40,000 square foot parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hdd a duly noticed Public Heanng ar which nme al/interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Qua[it3,' Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). Tkis exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: The height, elevations and placement on the sire of the proposed residence, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36- tach box Coast Kedwood and txvo 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees are the suggested replacement trees by the City Arbonst which are included as conchtions of approval and shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings. The trees continue to provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties. Adchtionally, the pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens the outdoor activines even more to the property owners on the left of th'e site. The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the right side property line. The separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associated with it which would make more noise to raise and lower. Two, it is a single car carport and not a standard two-car garage which by the nature of the increased use would create more noise exposure to adjacent residential uses. File No. DR-OI-O07/t,, .-01-011; 1.0752 Versailles Way The proposed entry porch (at the 50 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched windows and columns. The setback portions of the building dimimsh in mass or "importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The "dimimshmg effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler facade with rectangular windows. . The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and mimmizing tree and soft removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is nearly flat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and swimming' pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence. AdditiOnally, eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-inch four Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch Coast Live Oaks as shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings are the replacement tree as recommended by the City's arborist. The proposed mare or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, will mimmNe the perception of excessive bulk and xxql] be integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line is vaned as the building setbacks are increased from the front property line. The project proposes stone pedimentarion (vertical element) and window mm and an eave Line with stone corbels (horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building. The front entry porch is 50 feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front elevation increase in setback from 62, 64 and to 83 feet from the front property line. As a point of reference the exisung residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 fect from the front setback, w-ith the majority of the building line at 43 feet. The proposed mare or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the mediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural enx~onment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utiliTe solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials which rmmmize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch style architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors. File No. DR-Oi-OO7/& .-01-011; 1.07.52 Versailles Way The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires a City- issued building permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of that permit. The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design pohcies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15- 45.055. In pamcular the project conforms to Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique El, "Mimmize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique ~3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1 Technique ~4 "Minimize Budding Height"; Policy 1, Technique ~6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, ~Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique/~3, "Use, Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Emq_ronment", Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy', Technique ~3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique ~4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent Dwellings". Now, THEREFORE, the Planning CommissiOn of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After carefUl consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of LEE CHEN for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby g~antes, subject to the folloxx4mg conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. The basement shall not be converted to a secondary d~vellmg unit as defined by the City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and obtaining th~ requisite budding perrmts. The deed to the property shall include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and shown on the Tide Report prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. One wood burning File No. DR-OI-OO7/Z. .-01-011; 1,o752 Versailles Way fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace shall be noted on the drawings. Both chimneys shall be indicated on the plans. ii. All the recommendauons of the City Arbonst shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered CMl En=mneer or. Licensed Land Surveyor. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 4. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree//'s 4,7 and 18, shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit. 5. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.' 6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on- site, and incorporating the New. Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be prm4ded on the pi,an. C i-1%' ARBORIST )dl recommendations in the City Arbomt's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans.. This includes, but is not hmited to: The Arbonst Report-shall be incorporated, as a seParate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable: measures noted on the site and grading plans. Fwe (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. A note shall be included on the site plan staring that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the driplme of any ordinance protected trees on the site. d. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree #'s 3,5,6 and 8. File No. DR-OI-OOZ/Z. -01-011; 107.$2 Versailles W~7 Tree ~'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13-inch Coast Live Oak) shall only be pruned by an International Societ-y of Arboriculrural certified arborisr. Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees shall be planted as' shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit A. The plantings are also required to provide year-round privacy screening. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the apphcant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,353pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arbonst to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. 10. Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify comphance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees ha .vmg been planted, the bond shall be released. 11. Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance xvith the Arborist's recommendations. 12. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to tree # 1; and (2) provide regular written progress reports to the CiD' of these superxqsion functions as they occur. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 13. The roof covenng shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building.Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16-20:210). 14. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per 'stall), xvorkshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper spnnlder operation, the garage shall have a smooth, fiat, horizontal ceiling. The desiguer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]). 15. All driveways shall have a 14-foot mimmum width plus one-foot shoulders. 16. Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. 17. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E). File No. DR-Ol-O07/9_,, ~01~011; 1.97..$2 Versailles Way 18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for a, pproval. 19. Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed ins'callation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire 'district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. The spnnlder system shall be installed by a licensed contractor. CITY ATTORNEY 20. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and exTenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 21. Noncomphance with any of the condi.'tions of this permit shall constitute a x-iolation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, hquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this CiD, per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval v~51l cx'pire. Section 3. Ail applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. File No. DR~OI~O07/~- -01-011; 1~752 Ve_rs~illes Way PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Plannmg-Cornmission,.State of California, this llth day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BARRIE D. ' rATE and ASSOCtATES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 ,Fax 408-353-1238 23535 Summit Road~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 Attachment 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT TIlE CHEN PROPERTY 17752 VERSAIIJ.I?.S WAY SARATOGA Preparexl at the Request ofl. Community Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fmitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench March 8, 2001 Job tt 03-01-056 Plan Received: 3/1101 Plan Due: 4/3/01 APR23 200~ 5 CITY OF SA[~6~li L) .... COMMUNITY DEVEI_¢)PMI:~T TREE SURVEY AND PRF, SEB ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CHEN PROPERTY, 1'7/52 · ~:RSAII.I.ES WAY 2. The dumpk3g of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies. , 3. The co~n Waffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the parking of vehicles or construction equipment under the canopies. 4. Demolition of the existing buildings, .driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss. ' ~ 5. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation. 6. The grading of the surface soil resulting inthe removal of quantities of absorbing root tips. ' 7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too close. 8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a percentage of root damage, ffthe percentage is significant the affected trees will decline or die. Recomme~ns The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following may require alteration. I suggest that construction period fencing! be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink a minimum height Of 5-feet., mounted on steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place tmtil all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not. be temporarily moved during construction, Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. A platform buffer2 must be placed between construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of trees #3, 5, 6, and 8. A platform ~uffer, which consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not .acceptable for this propose due to its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must .immediately be covered by l-inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. This platform is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to construction. 3. I suggest that grading on the west side of the proposed addition be revised as noted on the attached map concerning contour 470, or eliminated. I construction p~iod fencing 2 platform buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESEi~ ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CllEN PROPERTY, 17752 vERSAILLES WAY 4 In order to retain tree #14, the proposed driveway turnaround must be revised so that the west edge of the .new driveway is no closer than 10 feet fi.om the trunk of tree #14: There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping beneath the driplines of retained trees, (either before or aRer the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements our office must be consulted. Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree must be left exposed for inspections by our office. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1-inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by installation of a simple soaker hose in a circle at least 3 feet from the trunk for each tree. o Spread a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the emire root zone exposed to construction activity to trees #3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, (on this property) and trees #14, 15, 16, and 17. Spreading must be done by hand. 9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 10. Trenches for a drainage system must be located within 1 foot of the proposed foundation footing. Where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted. 11. Any priming must be done by an Imernational Society of Arboricultural certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 12. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation. 13. Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any other landscape features mst be no cbser to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter f~om tree trunks. However, radial trenches3 may be made if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy. 14. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not str~e the minks of trees. Only drip or maker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees. 3 radial wenches PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BF. NCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRESEK ION RECN)MMENDATIONS AT THE CHEN PROPERTY, I T'/~2 VERSAII.! .l~_g WAY 15. Lawn or other plants that require frequent-irrigation must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk diameter from the trunk of oak trees. 16. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of. existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6'inches, which may result in significant root damage. 17, If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be planted only with co .ml~atible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 18. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative hark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be , directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease. 19. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. The value of the trees are addressed ac, cording to ISA Standards, Sevemh Edition, 1988. The following 3 trees are expected to be removed by implementation of this plan. Their values are as follows: Tree ~ - $716 Tree #7 - $4,478 Tree #18 - $1,035 This total value ($6,230) is equivalent to four 36-inch boxed and two 24-inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Quercus lobata Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood - Sequoia sempervirens However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 TREESURVEY ANDPRESE~ , ~ ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CHEN PROPERTY. 177S2 VERSAILLES WAY 6 The combined value of all of the other retained trees is $89,411. I suggest a bond equal to -~25% ($22,353) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure protection. MLB/sl Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing (1) Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies (3) Platform Buffer (2) Map PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, ~001 Job Title: ~dhen Job Address: 19752 Versailles Way Job #03-01-056 O/O/UA Measurements Condition PrunlnlqlCabl nlq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend. , ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Key~ Plant Name ~ , ~ m ~ ] m ~ o m o o o I o ~ _ ~ o ~ ~ ~ z z ~ 1 D~arC.ar 24,0 I 28 i'65 40 1 i 4 5 ! i ~ Ced~s deode. I i , I . sq. In 452 X $271sq. in. = $ 12,208 X sp, class 70% = $8,546 X cond. 60% = $ 5,127 X I~. 75% = $ 3~846 To~I Value sq. In 907 X $271sq. in = $ 24,501 X sp. class 90% = $22,051 X cond. 100% = $ 22,051 X I~. 75% = $ 16~538 T~al Value sq. In 491 X$271sq. in. - $ 13,247 X ap. class 90% = S11,922 Xcond. ?5% ' S 8,942 XI~. 10% - ~ 6,259 Taal Value sq. in 101 X $27/sq. in. = $ 2,727 X sp. class 50% = Sl,364 Xcond. 75% ~ $ 1,023 X1~..70% - ~ 7~6 Taal Value sq. in 113 X $27/sq. in. = $ 3,052 X sp. class 90% = $2,747 Xc0nd. 90% = $ 2,472 XI~. 70% = $ 1~731 T~al Value ~q. in 4~ X $271~q. in. ~ $ ~1,007 ,X ~p. clas~ ~0% = $0,087 Xcond. 75% = $ 7,4~0 X I~. 70% ~ $ $~24~ T~al Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES S-gal = $36 la-gal = $120 24"box = $420 ~IL"box = $1,320 48"box = SS,~box = $7,000 1 = BEST, 5 = P~,o 1 of ~ Job Title: ~_hen Job Address: 19752 Yersailles Way Job ff03-01-056 Measurements Condition Prunln~lCabllnq Needs Pest/Disease Problems Recommend. Key# Plant Name ~ :z u~ 'r u~ O := O O O O n' 0< ; - I- C~ I-- er 7 Coast redwood 190 xlt3'°l ti !41 i ! ! sq. tn 351 X $271sq. in. - $ 9,477 X sp. class 90% = $8,529 X cond. 75% = $ 8,397 XIoc. 70% -- $ 4,478 Total Value sq. in 200 X $271sq. in. = $ 5,400 X sp. class 100% = $5~400 Xcond. 60% = $ 3,240 XIoc. 70% -- $ 2,268 Total Value sq. In 177 X$271sq. in.-- $ 4,76~ XsP. class 10% -- $477 Xcond. 60% - $ 286 XIoc. 85% = $ 188 Total Value 10 Isarg~tcherry 9.0 8~714,0 15 1s t I 4 i $ sq. in 115 X $27/sq. in. = $ 3,105 X sp. class 70% = $2,174 X cond. 60% = $ 1~304 XIoc. 60% '= $ 782 ~ Total Value sq. in 130 × $27/sq. tn. = $ 3,510 X sD, class 70~/~.~' ~ $2,457 X cond. 75% ~ $ 1,843 X loc. 80% Total Value sq. in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. = $ 2,120 X sp. class 100% = $2,120 X cond. 100% = $ 2,120 XIoc. 75% = $ 1,590 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box" $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box ,, $5,000 52"box = $7,000 1 = BEST, 5 = WORST Job Title: then BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (408l 35:~ 1052 235:35 Summit Road La Cat~,CA 95030 Key #. Plant Name Coast Live Oak Coast Redwood Coast Redwood Coast Redwood sq. ln 1520 sq. In 227 sq. in 594 sq. in 332 sq. in 605 sq. in 87 Measurements Job Address: 19752 Yersailles Way Condition PrunlnglCablln¢l Needs 'Job #03-01-u56 PeeUDieeeee Problems Recommend. X $271sq in. = $ 41,034 X ap. class 90% = $36,930 x cond. 100% = $ 36,930 X loc. 80% $ Total Value X $2?lsq. in. = $ 6,125 X sp. class 100% .-- $6,125 Xcond. 100% = $ 6,125 X loc. 80% = $ Total Value X $27/sq. In. = $ 16,038 X sp. class 90% = $14,434 12.0111.0 11314 X $27/sq. in. = $ 8,964 x sp. class 90% = $8,068 28,18,75,25 4! 5i X $27/sq in. = $ 16,335 X sp. class 90% = $14,702 X cond. 75% = $ 10t826 Xcond. 75% = $ 6~051 X cond. 60% = $ 8,821 X loc. 60% = Total Value Xloc. 60% = $ 3,630 Total Value Xloc. 60% = $ 5,293 X$27/sq. in. = $ 2,349 X sp. class 70% = $1,644 X cond. 90% = $ 1,480 .XIOC, 70% = $ Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES S-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 ~l~"box = $1,320 48"box = $S,~box = $?,000 ?~"hn~' = $1.~.[x~rlw 1 = BEST, 5 = Pa~e .3 of 3 TREE SURVEY AND PRESEf ION ~MMENDATIONS AT THE CHEN PROPERTY, !~/~;~ . v~RSAILLES WAY Assignment At the request of the Community planning Department, City of Saratoga thi.~ report reviews the proposal to demolish a one-story residence and to construct a new one-story residence in the comext of potential damage to orthe removal of existing trees. This report further provides information about thc health and structure of the trees on site, and makes recommendations by which damage to thc restricted trees can be controlled to prevent significant decline. Comments and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided. Summary , ~ proposal exposes eighteen trees to som~ level o£risk by proposed con~tmction. Two trees (04 and #18) would be removed by implementation of this design. In addition, tree #7 would be severely damaged and will not likely survive. Replacements, which equal their values are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected. A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the levels of the expected risks. Observations There are eighteen trees on this site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number. The eighteen trees are classified as follows: Tree # 1 Trees # 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17 Tree #3 Tree ~4 Tree #8, 121 14 Tree # 10 Tree # 11 Tree #18 Deodar cedar ( Cedrus deodara) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) canary island pine (Pinus canariensis) sweet gum ( Liquidamber styraciflua) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) sargent cherry (Prunus sargentiO Pmnus species Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinenSis T~mflca') The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. This information is converted to a single descriptive rating indicating overall condition- This is intended to aid with planning Exceptionai Fine Fair Marginal Poor Specimens, Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens 2, 13, 14 3-7, 11, 12, 15, 1, 8, 9, 10, 17 16, 18 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH ~, 2001 TREE SURVEY AND PRF..SE! ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE CHEN PROPERTY, 177S2 vERSAILLES WAY 2 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained ifposs~le but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended'to limit damage within accepted .' horticultural staodards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Trees #2 and 13 are located on'adjacent properties in addition to being in Exceptional condition. Impacts of Construction Trees # 1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 would suffer minor root damage if protected by construction period fencing. , Trees #3, 5, 6, and 8 would suffer significant root damage bY trenching for the foundation footing and by soil eom!~etion fi.om construction activity on the east side 0fthe proposed new addition. As a result of the same construction, tree #7 would suffer more severe root damage than the other four and would not be expected to survive. Trees #3,' 5, 6, and 8 would likely survive in good condition if recommended mitigation procedu?es are implemented as suggested. Trees #3, 5and 8 will require priming to provide access for construction of the new addition This priming appears feasible. Trees ga, and #18 are in conflict with the proposed location of the house and with the proposed driveway respectively. These trees would be removed by the implementation of this design. Trees #12 and #13 would suffer at least moderate root damage by proposed grading to establish proposed contour 470 on the west side of the property. This proposed grading combined with the proposed driveway turnaround adjacem to tree #14 would result in such severe root damage that tree #14 would not be expected to survive. However, Ixee #14 is an Exceptional 17-inch diameter coast live oak (Que.rcus agrifolia). It will be essemial to mitigate the grading and the driveway plan as proposed in order to retain tree # 14, which in my opinion must be done. Trees #15, 16 and 17 would suffer significant root damage by construction of the driveway at the location proposed. However, these trees would survive in good condition if recommended mitigation procedures are done as suggested. In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites: 1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipment under the canopies. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL l~ BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001 BARRIE D. ~ kl'E AND ASSOCL~TES Horticultural Consultants , (q.08) 3534052 Fax (&08) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown - The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in a round-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark- Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stei~ and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar - The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader - The main stemor trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem - The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk- .The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig - A very small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. BARRIE D. t ~,TE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (~O8) 353-1052 Fax (qOS) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site-sPecific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drams. ~. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or ,material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require remm 0f signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be primed between October-January. Only an ISA ce~fied arbonst, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the construction equipment before the certified arborist is on-site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later by the arbonst. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% ora trees foliage, or prune so that an unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. 'Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone.. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" fxom the trunk. , Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 ½') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just -inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen. A void cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. A 1-inch F ~ood and Wood Chips Plat rm Buffer fo~ Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Er Associates Horticultural ConsUltants (~08) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 Tree Surv~ and Preservation Recommendattons at the Chert l~-operty, 17752 Versailles Way Prepped for: City of S~atog~ Planning Department HORTiCL~TUR~ CONSULTANT ~ March · CONSLrLTING ARBORIST I Job # 03-01-056 Tree numbers corre'spond to evaluation charts All dimensions and'tree locations are approximate· 'BARRIE D. COA'IT[ AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (q.08) 353-1052 Fax (~.08) 353-1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 Legend Drip Line of Tree Canopy .............. Protective Fencing I [ --, - '- "c.:-Protective Fencing During Demolition of Shed ' / Relocate Fence To Here lmmediatel? After Demolition of Shed '- - EXIST / t5 Platform Buffer Platform Buffer ~ "~' ~ ~.o ' ~: ' ..... ~ Relocate_ .....~' Edge of _~ :' ~~veway ~ Here Grading 'roi- Here 13 ]6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Dated AUGUST 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 2 FUBLICHEARING - ITEM NO. 5 DR-0~I~016 & BSE-01-022 (517-14-0N2,7) - NIJOR~ 15330 Kittridge RoaXd:, Request for Design Review '?,proval to construct a 2,301 squire foot second-story addition to an'existing 2,308 square foot single-'~tory residence. The proposed ad~tion includes 60 square feet on the ti,rst floor and a new 2,241 squareToot second story. The maximumNlaeight of the residence would be 25.'5 feet. The site is 466.086 square'Yeet and is located in the HR (Hill"si,~e Residential) zoning district. (SL~,LIV~) ~...,, ~ ~",. . Chair Barry opened ~h~ublic Heating No. 5 at 7:04 ~,x ~: Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman,X,,seconded by Commissioner ZuBhi, the x Commissio~continued consideration of DR-01-016 and BSE-01-022 to allow a xx,x second sto/-yXT~ddition t~~i'~ home~ 15330 Kittridge Road to aX~ate "', uncertain. ~ ~~ ~ '~',, AYES:Barry, GarXakani, Jackman and Zutshi. ~ ~ ~ NOES: ~ NoneS' '~ . ~ .. ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ~ ' ~x,,ABSTAIN: N°ne ~ i ~ · ~ ' : ...... ~ ' read Director Sulliv&r~ advised that this item wouldXl~ renoticed for public heating onq. e the project is y for Commission ?e~ew and approval. ~ , PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN~ 19752 Versailles Way: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,917 square foot single-story home and demolish an existing 3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner,'presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this application is for a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,917 square foot, single-story residence with basement and the demolition of an existing 3,822 square foot residence. · Said that the neighborhood consists of a mixture t~f older ranch-style homes as well as newer designer-style homes with approximately 50 percent of each type. · Added that this proposal is for more of a designer style architecture. · Pointed out that the project has articulation and nice fenestration. · Said that a letter of concern was received about the proposed height of the project. · Added that the architect has prepared a packet of information. · Recommended approval ofthisproject. Chair Barry opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore: · Stated that the proposed architecture is of a Mediterranean style, somewhat Italianate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of AUgust 8, 2001 Page 3 · Added that the project will include cast stone moldings and that the massing and elevation steps down. · Explained that the tallest portion of the home is a 10-foot length at 26 feet in height. · Pointed out that there is one chimney for the single woodbuming fireplace. Two additional gas fireplaces will also be included in the home but will not incorporate any chimneys. · Acknowledged the comments from the neighbor regarding view concerns. · Said that the proposed structure will be further setback from the street, which will decrease the perceived bulk of the home. · Advised that the 26-foot height will exist in just one point and that this highest ridge is just 6 feet, 9 inches higher than the existing ridge on the current home. · Added that the existing mature vegetation in the area will help obscure any impacts and that views will not be impacted. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kawahara whether story poles have been requested. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no and restated the fact that only a 10-foot ridge will run at 26 feet in height, running from front to back in order to have minimal impact.' Chair Barry asked if there is any functional use of the 26 foot height. Mr. Greg Kawahara, replied no. Chair Barry asked why that height Should not be reduced. ! - o Mr. Greg Kawahar~i said that the design concept is for an elegant architectui'a'115o[ch entry feature that is more unique and,traditional. Added that there is a low pitch to the roof and that the massing steps down so that the project feels vertical being horizontally stretched out. Chair Barry asked Mr. Kawahara if he would honor a Commission request to lower the height if doing so is pos~;ible. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he prefers to haVe the design approved as presente, d. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, 3083-East River Hills Drive, Saratoga: · Cautioned that l~)wering the ridge risks impacting building drainage and use of materials. · Reminded that While this is a small section, it is an important element in order to tie in the roof design. · Suggested the p~ossibility of moving the house back another five feet. Chair Barry mentioned that this Architect and Builder will be working on another similar home on this street and asked what similarities and differences are proposed. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that the second home will utilize wood corbels. Both homes will have stucco siding and tile roofs. The next home will not include as wide a front porch. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Kawahara if the next home would utilize the same arch features as does this one. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of AUgust 8, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no, adding that there will be just a single arch and that gable roof elements will be included on the next project. Asked the Commission members if they were comfortable with the proposed materials. Chair Barry replied no. She stated that the Commission looks to see as much as wood and stone as possible as opposed to use of stucco. Added that they do not want-to see two homes directly across the street from One another that are basically the same. : Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the elimination of arches on the sides could result in a lower roof height. Mr. Kawahara replied yes but that the appeal is the provision of the wider porch element. Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the way the home steps back and asked how far it steps back. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that there is a significant step back of between' 13 and 14 feet. Chair Barry asked if Mr. Greg Kawahara has any further comments about proposed materials for this house and the next one he will propose on the same street. Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he has invited the architect to' bring material samples for the next house into the Planning Department Offices tomorrow. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they would welcome as much input on the next lbroject as possible from staff and the Commission. Mr. Hari Pillai, Neighboring Property Owner: · Advised that he is the neighbor to the right comer. · Declared that past wrongs do not justify new wrongs. · Said'that he had a number of issues, including the fact that this home ~s out of tune with the neighborhood of mostly ranch style homes over stucco palaces. · Said that the roof height is an issue and that the 26-foot height achieves nothing but is purely cosmetic. · Pointed out that the proposed materials are out of line with the neighborhood. · Opined that this is a loud, cookie-cutter design that represents a "house on steroids" and that this home is a Trojan horse that sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood. · Stated his opposition to the outdoor shower. ~ · Said that there has been zero consultations with the neighbors. · Asked the Commission to instruct staff not to accept similar designs in the future and to encourage more community involvement. , · Added that they don't want to see their neighborhood become another Cupertino or Las Vegas but rather would like to retain the rural atmosphere and preserve the taste of the neighborhood. · Expressed strong opposition to the design. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai whether additional trees might obscure this home from view from his rear yard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Had Pillai replied that trees would not screen this home from view from their home's rear yard. The existing screening trees will obscure from the front of the house and not from the back. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai if extra screening at the rear would help him accept this project. Mr. Hah Pillai pointed out that it would take a long time for this new screening material to mature. Reiterated his belief that the home can be lowered without adversely impacting the owners' use of their '. new home. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai how he would Change this project. Mr. Hari Pillai said that the project should change to a ranch-style architecture and change its materials. , Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the ranch style is no longer Prevalent in this area. Mr. Hari Pillai said that the fact that wrong decisions were made 10 years ago does not mean that other wrongs should be propagated on top of that. Added that he went to a lot of trouble to add to his property and to the area. Mr. Raj Kumar, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga: · Stated that he likes this proposal, finding it quite elegant and believes that it will be well built. · Pointed out .that there is a variety of architectural styles in the area and that not a lot of brick is used. · Stated that "an argument of consistency due to existing inconsistency is not consistent." Chair Barry asked to see the project material board. Mr. Paul Doble. Project Builder: · Reminded that there is but a small area at the 26-foot height and that this height is permitted under Code. · Suggested that full-grown trees (as large as ll0-inch box, 25-foot high) could be brought in without a problem. · Assured that they are willing to plant trees necessary to help make the neighbor happy. · Stated th'at thig will be a very beautiful house and that communities want variation in architecture. · Said that the materials proposed are very expensive and elegant. The stone is glass reinforced concrete. Addiiionally they can utilize a custom stucco texture. · Said that in his business they build homes to compliment communities, for different clients that need to be mad':e happy as well as for different City Planning Departments, who must also be made happy. Commissioner Garakani asked if it would be possible to utilize stone on the arches. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that core or natural stone would be appropriate for use on the arches. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the width of the arched area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Greg Kawahara replied approximately 40 feet. Chair Barry said that she does not oppose the roofing material but wants to be sure that the colors blend as much as possible. -~ Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he was willing to work with staff to select a brown-toned roof tile'. Chair Barry pointed out that using a Spanish tile roof suggests that this is not strictly a Mediterranean- style house. Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they can get a blended roof. Chair Barry suggested something that blends with the color of the stone. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, assured that the roof color can be custom blended to be a more earth tone. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Jackman: · Said that while she could sympathize with the Pillais about the changing heighborhood, it is already a 50 percent mixture of ranch and designer homes. · Added that it is possible to have a tasteful architectural mix since these are large one-acre lots and as long as the architecture is well done. · Stated that she liked the style of this home and believes it can fit in well. Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubts about the size of the architectural porch feature, saying that the 40-foot width is rather large and will appear massive. Commissioner Garakani: · Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Jackman regarding the existing changes in the neighborhood, saying that this is not a neighborhood just beginning to change. Rather it is a neighborhood that has changed so much that it can't be stopped at this point. Suggested that the arches should be proportionate to the overall length of the house and upon learning that the home is 122 feet long, declared that the proposed 40 foot ,wide porch would be proportionate. Supported the further setback from the front property line by another five feet as proposed by the builder. Suggested that good screening landscaping be installed to meet any concerns of the neighbors. With the added use of stone around the arches, stated that he has no objectioBs.to this project being approved. Chair Barry reopened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Hah Pillai declared that the entire lot is but 164 feet wide (having misheard~ the size of the home's width of 162 feet instead of the actual 122 feet). , Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 7 Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m. Chair Barry: · Stated that it is clear this is a changing neighborhood. · Agreed that previous Planning Commissions and Councils have had different approaches. · Pointed out that the current view of the Planning Commission is to preserve as much as possible of an areas architectural style. · Expressed a problem with the proposed faCade. · Supported the increased front setback. · Said that she liked the added stone to the pillars and suggested that it be added to the base as well. · Said that she supports the roof color that will blend with the stone color. · Suggested additional changes to the front landscaping so that the front entry will not appear as prominent. · Said that the first floor footprint is huge. · Asked if there is any City policy concerning installation of outdoor showers. Planner Alison Knapp replied no. Added that this outside shower is located offofa cabana and will be for use with the spa. Chair Barry wondered if perhaps it could be eliminated if not particularly needed. Commissioner Garakani.asked for a overview of the pending added Conditions for this project. Director Sullivan stated: · Addition of mature redwood trees to serve as screening between this project site and neighboring properties. · Use of a tile roof material in a color that closely matches the stone. · Increase the use of stone around the arches and walls and wrapped around the windows. · Move the house back by approximately five feet. · Reduce the porch entry in size and mass. Commissioner Garakani said that it would be nice to reduce the porch width to 20 feet. Chair BarD, reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder: · Agreed that the front setback could be moved to 55 feet. · Suggested the inclusion of 48-inch box olive trees at the front so that the porch feature would not be as visible: Chair Barry reclosed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:59 p.m. Commissioner Jackman said that she is comfortable with less formal landscaping. Commissioner Zutshi said that this would be good. SaratOga Planning Commission Minutes of August 8, 2001 Page 8 Chair Barry expressed support for added mature olive trees to the fi-ont yard landscaping and asked if the Commissioners had any disagreement with the proposed added Conditions as overviewed by Director Sullivan. Commissioner Jackman asked how far the outdoor shower is located from the neighboring property. Planner Alison Knapp replied 26 feet. Chair Barry suggested that the shower could be screened with landscaping. Commissioner Garakani said that this should not be an issue but that perhaps the applicant can screen as a neighborly gesture. Chair Barry pointed out that there is potential for noise with the use-of this outdoor shower. Commissioner Garakani disagreed and pointed out that people could get the same effect of having an outdoor shower simply by using garden hoses. Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is prepared to leave the outside shower in this approval. Commissioner Garakani said that he has no problem accepting this outdoor shower. Chair Barrv reiterated that the Commission is prepared to accept this application with the addition of mature olive trees at the front of the house as well as the added Conditions overviewed by Director Sullivan. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning CommissiOn approved DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 to allow the construction of a new single-story 5,917 square foot home on properW located at 19752 Versailles Way with the added Conditions outlined by Director Sullivan and Chair Barry. AYES:Barry,'Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. PUI~,LIC HEARING - II'EM NO. 3' DR-01-'015 & BSE-01-o21 ('503-29-038) - CHENAULT~X~21345 Saratoga Hills Road~equest for Design Review approval to c~nstruct a new 5,837 square foot two-story residence and d&nolish an existing 3'i~53 square foot resid~Snce. Maximum height will be 26 feet. The 53,403 new sc~uare foot parcel is lo~'~ted in the R-1-40,00(~, oning district. (KNAPP)~ '~ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Services PREPARED BY:~ AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD~~--~ SUBJECT: Property Tax Settlement with Santa Clara County RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Authorize City Manager to execute agreement with Santa Clara County settling discrepancies with prior years (1988-2000) tax allocations, which have provided the City of Saratoga with net overpayments. REPORT SUMMARY: Santa Clara County initiated an internal review of their property tax apportionment methodologies in 1997. Upon completing this financial review, they found that they needed to revise their allocation calculation. Recalculating property tax apportionments back three-years, the County discovered they had distributed overpayments to some of the Tax Allocation Parties and made underpayments to others. The City of Saratoga, and its subsidiary districts, was among the Tax Allocation Parties that were overpaid during this three-year period. Exhibit A of the Agreement, page 23 itemizes the total overpayments to the City 'and its subsidiary districts.. The aggregate overpayment was $19,525.54 (the City was underpaid $2,110.88 and subsidiary districts were overpaid $21,636.42). In a prior agreement, the County has already forgiven excess Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) overpayments to the City of Saratoga of $1,557,340. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. By settlement of the Agreement with Santa Clara County, each signatory party is released from all claims that may occur in relation to their property tax allocations. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The City 'of Saratoga would not be released from the obligation to repay prior year's tax allocation overages for the past three years. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to Resolve Property Tax Allocation Issues. Attachment B: Saratoga 12-Year Over/Underpayment Summary. 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A County. of Santa Clara Finance Agency Comrollcr-Treasurer Department COIInly Oovcrnmenl Cemer. EasJ wing 70 \ves~ Hedchng Stree~ San _Jose. Calilornla 951 I (3- 1705 1408~ 299-2541 FAX 289-8629 SePtember 7, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Taxing Jurisdictions of Santa Clara County J°hn Guthrie ~~ Director of Fina~~,/o ~ Property Tax Settlement Agreement Thank you for all your feedback on the proposed settlement agreement. As a result, we offer the attached final agreement. This includes changes submitted by both local agencies and by the County. To help facilitate your review, I offer the following bullet-point highlighting of the changes from the previous version. I would also mention that while the' majority of the changes are wording and clarification changes, one change actually increases the settlement proceeds from the County to those agencies that were under apPortioned. The changes are: Paragraph 1 adds language to clari ,fy that settlement includes both the cities and towns signing and all of their subsidiary districts, redevelopment agencies, and projects. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4 add language clari .fying that the County is representing certain facts about the audit and the settling parties have not performed an independent audit Paragraph 3.2 changes and increases all of the amounts the County will be paying in settlement of the tax allocation issue, because the amount now includes the 50% ERAF advance the County will be recommending. Paragraph 3.3 adds language to explain the County's 50% ERAF advance, and what happens if the County received full, partial or-no recove~ of the ERAF funds the State owes the County. Paragraph 3.3 adds.language clari .fying that pro rata distribution of the ERAF funds is based on the allocations in ParagraPh '3.2 of the settlement funds, based on the underpayment to each agenc?.'. On the issue of the County paying 50% of the EKAF funds, we believe this benefits the underpaid agencies in two ways. First, it increases their payment of the 3-year loss to 83% (see Exhibit A). Second, it gives the Counw an economic stake in getting full recove ,ry from the State. Please call either me or Dave Elledge. if you have questions about these changes. Next Steps: Please submit the agreement to your board or council for approval and notify either me at 299-2541, ext. 111, or Dave Elledge at 299-2541, ext. 143 when your board or council will be considering this in a public meeting. We are available to be present at your public meeting if requested to either answer questions or make a presentation. Our goal is to have all agencies approve this agreement by October 31. Thank you for all your work and contributions toward this efforti adO1250bw SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE TO RESOLVE PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION ISSUES This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release To Resolve Property Tax Allocation Issues ("Settlement Agreement") is made and entered into as of ,2001. 1. Parties This Settlement Agreement is by and among the following parties (including any subsidiary dismcts, special districts, projects, or redevelopment agencies where the governing body is the same as that of the agency listed below and where such subsidiary, agency or dismct received a tax allocation underpayment or overpayment): 1.2 County. of Santa Clara ("County") 1.3_ County Library District ("Library Disu'ict") 1.4 City of Campbell ("Campbell") 1.5_ City of Cupertino ("Cupertino") 1.6_ City of Gilroy ("Gilroy") 1.7_ City of Los Altos ("Los Altos") 1.8 Town of Los Alto Hills ("Los Altos Hills") 1.9_ Town of Los Gatos ("Los Gatos") 1.10_ City of Monte Sereno ("Monte Sereno") 1.11_ City of Morgan Hill ("Morgan Hill") 1.12_ City of Mountain View ("Mountain View") 1.13 City of Santa Clara ("Santa Clara") City of Saratoga, ("Saratoga") 1.15_ City of Sunnyvale ("Sunnyvale") 1.16_ Saratoga Cemetery District ("Saratoga Cemetery") 1.17_ Saratoga Fire Department ("Saratoga Fire") · 1.18_ South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District ("Memorial Dismct") 1.19_ E1 Camino Hospital Maintenance District ("El Camino Hospital") 1.20_ Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("Air QUality") 1.21 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Parks District ("Rancho Rinconada") 1.22_ Guadalupe/Coyote Resource Conservation District ("Guadalupe/Coyote") 1...~_ Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District ("Loma Prieta") 1.24_ Gavilan Water District ("Gavilan") 1.25_ Alderciroft' Heights Water District ("Aldercroft") 1.26 Pacheco Pass Water District ("Pacheco Pass") 1.27_ Pacheco Storm Water District ("Pacheco Storm Water") 1.28_ Santa Clara Valley Water District ("Santa Clara Water") 1.29_ Palo Alto Unified School District ("Palo Alto Unified") 1.30_ Sunn~vvale Elementary School District ("Sunnyvale Elementary.") 1.31_ Mountain View- Los Altos High School District ("Los Altos High") 1.32_ Foothill Community College District ("Foothill") 1.33_. West Valley Community College District ("West Valley") 1.34_ Gavilan Community College District ("Gavilan") 1.35_ San Jose Community College District ("San Jose Com. College") 1.36_ Yosemite Community College District ("Yosemite") Count,,' represents there is an exact correspondence between the mounts underpaid and overpaid to the :l'ax Allocation Parties. The County represents the County did not keep or retain any of the property tax funds that were underpaid to Tax Allocation Parties, and all such funds were distributed to those Tax Allocation Parties that were overpaid. 2.6 The County and Tax Allocation Parties have a dispute about whether the C0un.~' is liable for additional tax payments to underpaid Tax Allocation Parties and whether the County can recover excess mx payments from overpaid Tax Allocation Parties. The County. and Tax Allocation Parties agree and acknowledge that litigation to establish the Tax Allocation Parties rights and liabilities for underpayments and overpayments would be protracted, expensive. uncertain, and contrary to the public interest. _ 2.5 The County and Tax Allocation Parties have now agreed to settle all outstanding claims, disputes and controversies arising out of or in any way related to the CounD"s apportionment of property tax existing between them pursuant to the terms and conditions of this' A~eement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 3. Terms and Conditions 3.1 The County and Tax Allocation Parties agree and consent to gettle all of the 'disputed claims in this matter. 3.2 The County agrees to pay, in full and final settlement of all claims resulting, or that could result from its review and revised allocation of property tax payments, the amount of $1,709,690.88 to the Tax Allocation Parties, as follows: 3.2.1 Campbell - in the total amount of$114,795.33; 3.2.2 Gilroy - in de total mount of $4,589.80; 3.2.3 Los Altos City - in the total amount of $ 6,410.64; 3.2.4 Los Gatos - in the total amount of $26,336.87; 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 Morgan Hill - in the total amount of $406,897.29; Mountain View - in the total amount of $58,792.63; Santa Clara - in the total amount of $359,904.08; 1.37 1.38 1:39 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 Santa Clara Unified School District ("Santa Clara Schools") Fremont High School District ("Fremont HighT) Los Gatos High School District ("Los Gatos High") Santa Clara County Central Fire District ("Santa Clara County Fire") Los Altos Fire District ("Los Altos Fire") South Santa Clara County Fire District ("South County Fire") City. of Palo Alto ("Palo Alto") Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("Midpeninsula") City of Milpitas ("Milpitas") City of San Jose ("San Jose") Purissima Hills Water District ("Purissima Hills") ", Parties other than the County may be referred to as the "Tax Allocation Parties." Recitals 2.1 Revenue and Taxation Code 'sections 95 throu~ 100, Health and Safety Code Section 33670 et seq., and other applicable California law requires that the'County collect propert?' taxes and apportion them t.o the Tax Allocation Parties. 2.2 In 1997, the County began an internal review and recalculation of its apportionment of property taxes to the Tax Allocation Parties. The County represents that the audit was based on the best available information and required extrapolation' of some information. 2.3 After completing the financial review and recalculation on December 15, 2000, the County determined that approximately .0006% of the property taxes collected and apportioned to the Tax Allocation Parties for the recalculation period should have been apportioned in a different manner. 2.4 The revised property tax allocation showed overpayments of property tax to some of the Tax Allocation Parties and underpayments to some of the Tax Allocation Parties. The 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11 3.2.12 3.2.14 3.2.15 3.2.16 3.2.17 3.2.18 3.2.19 3.2.20 3.2.21 Sunnyvale - in the total amount of$182.930.40: Saratoga Cemetery District - in the amount of $10.390.66: South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District - in the total mount of $54.32; E1 Camino Hospital - in the total amount of $731.27; Bay Area Air Quality Management District - in the total amount of $2,761.52; Loma Pfieta Resources ConServation District'- in the total amount of $2.12; Pacheco Storm Water District - in the total amount of $0.69: Santa Clara Valley Water District - in the total amount of $94.927.03' Palo Alto Unified- in the total amount of $3,082.42: Sunnyvale Elementary -.in the total amount of $49,515.56; Mountain View - Los Altos High in the total amount of $208.923.67; Foothill Community College - in the total mount of $47,689.96; West Valley Community College - in the total amount of $73.059.61; and San Jose Community College - in the total amount of $58,895.01. 3.3 The County. determined through the review and recalculation that the State received an ER,Mr credit of $922,144.16 which the State should have paid and which should have been distributed to various Tax Allocation Parties. The State has not reimbursed this allocation ~ overpayment by the County. In consideration of settlement of all tax allocation claims, the County agrees to pay in advance 50% of the ERAF reimbursement due the County from the State, and to distribute these funds to the underpaid Tax Allocation Parties on a pro bata basis as set out in Paragraph 3.2. The 50% ERAF payments are included in the total settlement'amount for each Tax Allocation Party in Paragraph 3.2 and shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated as part of this Settlement Agreement. The Countv aerees that it will make a good faith effort to x:laim the full ERAF credit it is owed bv the State.' If-it receives funds to reimburse it for the $922,144.16 overpayment, such funds v~ill be distributed to the County and the Tax Allocation Parties in Paragraph 3.2 as follows: If the County receives the fi~ll ERAF reimbursement from the State for $922.144.16. the Counrv will retain 50% of this payment as reimbursement for the 50% ERAF advance the CounD'. · is malting as part of this Agreement, and will distribute the other 50% of the State's ERAF reimbursement to the Tax Allocation Parties in Paragraph 3.2 on a pro-rata basis in accord with the allocations in Paragraph 3.2. If the County is successful in obtaining State ERAF reimbursement for less than the full mount of $922,144.16, the County will retain 50% of the reimbursement and will distribute the ' .remaining 50% to the Tax Allocation Parties in Paragraph 3.2 on a pro-rata basis in accord with the allocations in Paragraph 3.2. If the County does not obtain any ERAF reimbursement from the State, the County. will not seek recovery from the Tax Allocation Parties of the 50% advance on these EILM: funds paid pursuant to this Settlement Agreement in Paragraph 3.2. 4. Release 4.1 In consideration of the settlement agreements referred to herein, the Coun~ of Santa Clara releases and discharges each Tax Allocation Party. that is a signatory, to this A~eement and its officers and employees from and against any and all claims, rights demands. actions, obligations, liabilities, and causes of action, whether based on tort, contract, equity, or other theory, whether asserted or unasserted, of any kind, nature and character whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which it has or may have now or in the future (other than claims arising out of this Settlement Agreement) arising out of or relating in any way to the allocation of property taxes by the County of Santa Clara at any time prior to July 1, 2000. including but nOt limited to, claims related to the unitary property tax, the one percent AB 8 ad valorem property tax, Redevelopment Agency tax increment amounts, debt service calculations, and the unitary and supplemental tax rolls. 4.2 In consideration of the settlement agreements referred to herein, each Tax Allocation Party that is a signatory to this Settlement Agreement releases and discharges the County of Santa Clara and its officers and employees, and all other Tax Allocation Parties that are signatories to this Agreement from and against any and all claims, rights demands, actions, obligations, liabilities, and causes of action, whether based on tort, contract, equity or other theory, whether asserted or unasserted, of any kind, nature and character whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which it has or may have now or in the future (other than claims arising out of this Settlement Agreement) arising out of or relating in any way to the allocation of property taxes by the County of Santa Clara at any time prior to July 1, 2000, including, but not limited to, claims related to the unitarY.' property, tax, the ,one percent .AB 8 ad valorem property, tax, Redevelopment Agency tax increment mounts debt service calculations. and the unitary and supplemental tax rolls. 5. Inclusions This Settlement Agreement is intended to 'resolve all claims and disputes related to apportionment of the unitary property tax, the one percent AB 8 ad valorem property, tax, Redevelopment Agency tax increment mounts, debt service calculations, and the unitan, and supplemental tax rolls prior to July 1, 2000. 6. Global Settlement It is the intention of all parties to this Agreement that this is a complete and ~lobal settlement as to all parties named in paragraph 1, and signature of all parties is a prerequisite of ttUs Agreement. All Tax Allocation Parties agree, that upon signature of this Agreement. they are bound bv the terms and conditions of the Agreement upon signature by the County. In the event that all of the named p .arties to this Agreement do not siN the Agreement, the Count),, at its sole discretion, shall have the fight, but not the'obligation, to rescind this Agreement in its entirety. If the County elects to proceed with this Agreement with some. but not all of the signatures of~e Tax Allocation Parties, the CoUnty and all signing Tax Allocation Parties shall be bound by the terms of the A~eement. The County shall not be bound in any manner by the terms of thi~ A~eement with regard to a non-signing Tax Allocation Part5.,. and shall be at libertv to assert anv and all defenses, affirmative defenses and counter-claims against any non-signing ~:ax Allocatio~ Party named in paragraph 1. 7. No Admission It is Understood and agreed that this is a compromise Settlement Agreement and full release in satisfaction of all demands, disputed claims, or potential disputed claims, and that the furnishing of consideration for this Agreement shall not be deemed or construed as an admission of liability or responsibility at any time for any purpose. It is further agreed and understood that this Agreement is being entered into solely for the purpose of avoiding further expense and inconvenience from defending against any and all claims, rights, demands, and litigation, the liability for any and all of which is expressly denied by County. This Settlement Agreement does not represent any admission of liability on the part of any party hereto, each of which expressly denies such liability. 8. Applicable Law The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement has been entered into in the State of California. and shall be governed by, and construed and enforced, in accordance w/th the laws of the State of California. 9. Persons Bound This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties with regard to the matters set forth in it and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, as well as upon all of their respective representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, partners, officers. directors, employees and counsel. 10. Execution of Aereement 10.1 The pa/ties .have carefully read this Settlement Agreement and know and understand the contents, and have signed it freely and voluntarily, after consultation w/th legal counsel. 10.2 The parties agree that this Agreement may be signed in counterparts and that it shall be fully executed when signed by all parties whether the signatures of all parties appear on the original or one or more copies of this Settlement Agreement. The parties further agree to forward their original signatures on this Settlement Agreement to counsel for the Count. 10.3 The parties agree that counsel for the County shall provide a fully executed copy of this Settlement Agreement to each party to this Settlement Agreement. 10.4 The parties further agree that original signatures of each party on this Settlement A~eement are not necessary to enforce this Settlement Agreement. 11. Entire Agreement This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of settlement and release among the parties and there are no other agreements expanding or modifying its terms. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement can only be modified or amended in a writing that expressly states that modification or amendment of this Settlement Agreement is intended. 1.. ' Enforceability' If any term or provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be found, to be illegal or Unenforceable, then, notwithstanding any such illegality or unenforceabi!ity? this Sertlemeni A~eemem shall remain in full force and effect and such term or provision shall be deemed tO be deleted. 13. Benefit and Burden This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 14. Severabilitv In the event that any condition or covenant herein is held to be invalid or void bv anv court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall be deemed severable from the remainde; of/]tis Settlement Agreement and shall in no way affect any other covenant or condition herein contained. If such condit, ion, covenant or other provision shall be deemed invalid due to scope or breadth, such provisions shall be deemed valid to the extent of the scope of breadth permitted by law'. 15. Waiver and Amendment No breach of any provision hereof can be waived unless in writing. Waiver of any one breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision hereof. This Settlement Agreement may be amended only by a written a~eement executed by the parties at the time of modification. 16. Construction This Settlement Agreement shall not be construed against the parties or their representatives who have drafted it or any portion of it. 17. Time Is Of The Essence Time is expressly declared to be of essence to this Settlement Agreement and every provision hereof. DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: ,2001 .2001 ,2001 ,2001 County of Santa Clara By: James T. Beall, Jr., Chairperson Board of Supervisors ATTEST: By: Phyllis A. Perez Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: By: David E. Kahn Lead Deputy Count3'. ~ounsel Ceunty of Santa Clara ("County") By: Its: County of Library. District ("Library. District"). By: Its: City of Campbell ("Campbell") By: Its: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 City of Cupertino ("Cupertino'") By: Its: CiTM of Gilroy ("Gilroy") By: Its: City of Los Altos ("Los Altos") By: Its: City of Los Altos Hills ("Los Alt6s Hills") By: Its: City of Los Gatos ("Los Gatos")- By: Its: City of Monte Sereno ("Monte Sereno") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 City of Morgan Hill ("Morgan Hill") DATED: ,2001 By: Its: City of Mountain View ("Mountain View") DATED: ,2001 By: Its: City of Santa Clara ("Santa Clara") DATED: ,2001 By: Its: City of Saratoga ("Saratoga") DATED: ,2001 By: Its: City of Sunnyvale ("Sunn.vvale") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Saratoga Cemetery District ("Saratoga Cemetery") By: Its: DATED: DATED. DATED: DATED: DATED: ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 Saratoga Fire Department ("Saratoga Fire") By: Its: South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District ("Memorial District") By: Its: E1 Camino Hospital Maintenance Dismct ("El Carn~o Hospital") By: Its: Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("Air Quality") By: Its: Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Parks District ("Rancho Rinconada") By: Its: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 Guadalupe/Coyote Resource Conservation District CGuadalupe/Coyote") By: Its,: Loma Prieta Resource Conservation ("Loma Pfieta") By: Its: Gavilan Water District ("Gavilan") By: Its: Aldercroft Heights Water District ("A'ldercroft") By: Its: Pacheco Pass Water District ("Pacheco Pass") By: Its: DATED: .2001 Pacheco Storm Water District ("Pacheco Storm Water") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Santa Clara Valley Water District ("Santa Clara Water") - By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Palo Alto Unified School District ("Palo Alto Unified") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Sunnyvale-Elementary School District ("Sunnyvale Elementary") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Mountain View-Los Altos High School District ("Los Altos High") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Foothill Community. College District ("Foothill") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 West Valley Community College District ("West Valley") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Gavilan Commumty College District ("Gavilan") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 San Jose Community College District ("San Jose Community College") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Yosemite Community College District ("Yosemite") By: Its: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: DATED: ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 ,2001 Santa Clara Unified School District ("Santa Clara Schools") By: Its: Fremont High School District ("Fremont'') By: Its: .. Los Gatos High School District ("Los Gatos High") By: Its: Santa Clara County. Central Fire District ("Santa Clara County Fire") By: Its: Los Altos Fire District ("Los Altos Fire") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 South Santa Clara-County Fire Dismct ("South County Fire") DATED: ,2001 By: Its: City of Palo Alto ("Palo Alto") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("Midpeninsula") By: Its: DATED: .,2001 City of Milpitas ("Milpitas") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 City of San Jose ("San Jose") By: Its: DATED: ,2001 City of Purissima Hills Water Dismct ("Purissima Hills") By: Its: DATED: ,200 ! Tax Allocation Parties By: Its: K.' ~ZPROJECT'~ROLL_OI-~_PROCF. X~'IM~I~OC .4GREEFINA..LOYO2O I. Pe'PD Derail of (Or=) md Under P .aymm~s Based on Three Year $~me of Limitation Exhibit A jurisdiction Three Year Net Summary Counv/Payments Net Underpaid Net Overpaid Included Entities 50% of ERAF Total INCLUDED JURISDICTIONS: (Percent of 3 60.707% ~-.--,'~' Il,o,,/o 82.1__' ~O,/o % ear Lois Recovered) Count, General TOTAL (858,741.62) Count* Library TOTAL (237,814.07) Campbell City (16,943.84) Campbell Muni Lighting Dist 49,417.48 Central Campbell Project 105,588.26 Central Campbell '93 Anx 38.34 Campbell TOTAL 138,100.24 , , 83,837.15 30,958.18 114,795.33 Cupertino TOTAL (58,42.1.56) Gilroy City 5,778.57 Gilroy Parking Dist 1 (256.98) Gilrov TOTAL 5,521.59 3,352.02 1,237.78 4,589.80 Los Altos City TOTAL 7,712.08 4,681.81 1,728.83 6,410.64 Los Gatos To,am t 27,335.39 Central Los Gatos 4,348.19 t Los Gatos TOTAL 31,683.58 ~, 19,234.30 7,102.57 26,336.c Monte 5ereno Cie' (18.880.77) I Monte 5ereno-Loma Serena Lgt Dist . (3.086.28) , Mome Sereno-LeXm~on Dr Maint (1.216.00) , Monte Sereno IOTAL ~ (23,183.05) Morgan Hill City (19.959.23) 1v[H Ojo de Agua Project 509,461.85 , · Morgan Hill TOTAL t189,502.62 297,164.60 109,732.69 406,897.29 Mountain View City (507,523.93) Parking Dist 2 Mountain View (572.552.93) Mountain View No Bayshore Project 633,976.87 Mountmn View Revitalization Project 516.828.27 ~ Motmtain View TOTAL 70,728.28 42,937.34 15,855.29 58,792.63 Santa Clara City. 1,402.28 Parking Dist 122-Santa Clara (322.06) Bridge Dist l-Santa Clara (565.10) Santa Clara University, Calif R-31 299,667.91 Santa Clara Bayshore N. Project 131,583.15 Santa Clara TOTAL 431,766.18 262,114.27 96,789.81 358,904.08 JunsdicUons with lower underpayments for the 12 year period and paid based on that amount. The "overpayment" of $858,741.62 to the County is actually net of the County's underpayment and the County's assumption of thc TEA cities ?nor year overpayments. In fact, the County suffered an approxm%te $1.3 million underpayment. Detail of (Over) and Under Payments Based on Three Year Statute of Limitation Exhibit : £oo: 'i ~Ott~ Jurisdiction Three Year Net Summary : County Payments Aldercroff Heights Water District (874.67) Pacheco Pass Water District (57.61) Pacheco Storm Water District 0.83 0.50 0.19 0.69 Santa Clara Vallev Water District 114,198.43 69,326.96 25,600.07 94,927.03 Palo Alto Unif 3,708.19 2,251.15 831.27 3,082.42 Sunnvvale Elem 59,567.85 36,162.13 13,353.43 49,515.56 .Nit View-Los Altos High 251,337.84 152,580.81 56,342.86 208,9*23.67 Foothill Comm College 57,371.64 34,828.86 12,861.10 47,689.96 West Vallev Comm College 87,891.64 53,356.78 19,702.83 73,059.61 Gavilan Comm College (18,883.61) San Jose Comm College 70,851.44 43,012.11 15,882.90 58,895.01 ~'osemite Comm College (173.11) Sub-Total Included Jurisdictions Z056,779.88 (1,248,618.78) 1,248,618.80 461,072.08 1,709,690.88 Exclusion Sub-Total, Page 2 555,678.61 (1,522,733.19) 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 2,612,458.49 (2,771,351.97) 1,248,618.80 461,072.08 1,709,690.88 6. JUrisdictions with lower underpayment, s for thc 12 year period and paid based on that amount. Gavilan Water District (26,591.29) Net Underpaid Net Overpaid Included Entit~es 50% of ERAF Total Surmyvale Cits' 68,490.25 Sunn?cale Central Core Project 151.577.35 Sunnwale TOTAL 220,067.60 133,597.45 49,332.95' 18Z930.40 Saratoga Cemetery District 12,500.09 7,588.49 2,802.17: 10,390.66 6. So Santa Clara Valley Memorial Dist 65.34 39.67 14.65: 54.32 E1 Carnino Hospital 879.72 534.06 197.21 731.27 Bav Area Air Quality. Mgmt Dist 3,322.15 2,016.79 744.73 2,761.52 Rancho Rinconada Rec & Parks (221.68) Guadalupe/Coyote Resource Cons Dist (23,656.51) Loma Prieta Resource Conservation Dist 2.55 1.55 0.57 2.12 Detail of (Ovm') and Under ?aymmts Based on Three Ymr Statute of Limitation Exhibit A I nOt~ Junsdiction EXCLUDED JURISDICTIONS: Santa Clara Unified Fremont High Los Gatos High Overpaid Basic Aid School TOTAL Santa Clara Count>.' Fire Saratoga Fire Los Altos Fire So Santa Clara Co Fire Fire District TOTAL S. K-12, COE, & ERAF TOTAL Palo Alto City Calif Ave Parking-PA Palo Alto TOTAL Three Year Net Summary Net Undm-paid 547,518.12 31,967.42 205,744.92 (357,820.07) 427,410.39 Net Overpaid (4,502.31 ) (364,495.82) (206,956.56) (575,954.69) (922,144.{6) (21,887.67) 492.51 (21,395.16) 3. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Dst (3,239.18) Milpims Cin' Milpitas Cin' Sanitary Dist Milpitas 1, 1976 Milpitas 1, '79 An,x, Amnd 1 Milpitas 1. '83 Anx, A,amd 2 (142,807.86) (6,264.18) 69,131.40 60,978.52 48,034.82 29,072.70 4. Milpitas TOTAL 4. Los Altos Hills Town TOTAL i 4.604.86 ]: C)verpaid Basic Add Schools :. Fire ciistncts which have already benefitted from existing forgiveness legislauon. 3. junsdiCtlons overpaid for the last three years, but underpaid for the total twelve year period. 4. Jurisdictions underpaid for the la~ three years, but overpaid for the total twelve year period. 5. State Funding - Schools K-12, County Office of Education, and ERAF County Payments Included Emit,es 50% of ERAF Total Derail of (Over) and Under Pa)~nents Based on Three Year Statute of Limitation Exhibit A Jurisdiction EXCLUDED JURISDICTIONS: San Jose Cits' ' Maintenance Dist 1 San Jose Rincon de Los Esteros S. Rincon de Los Esteros N Park Center Project R de Los Esteros Project Pueblo Uno Project Edenvale Project Olmder Project Julian-Stockton Project Market Gateway Project Cenum' Center Project Guadalupe-Auzerais Project Rmcon De Los Esteros '79 Anx. Edenvale East Project Monterey Comdor Almaden Gateway Project San Antomo Park Plaza R 90 San Jose TOTAL Saratoga Ci~' ,;~zule Lighting Dist-Saratoga Saratoga City Light Dismct Saratoga Quito Lighming Dist SaratogaVillage Parking Dist Saratoga Greenbriar Park Mamt. Saratoga Manor Dr Park Maint. Saratoga Fredencksbttrg Dr Pk Mamt. Saratoga TOTAL Thr~,.~Year N er'U ndtol:t~aid (218.524.19) (298.04) 220.679.96 116,728.43 (62.929.72) 735,306.64 43,441.61 89.070.96 (203,787.05) 67.157.51 23,986.21 (2,895.81) 54,323.97 (844.499.44) (68,103.18) (40.184.18) 415.08 1.48,914.39 58,803.15 (2,110.88) 5,292.63 15,755.66 610.93 (49.28) 5.74 16.46 4.28 19,525.54 4 Purissima Hills Water 16,261.97 TOTAL 555,678.61 (1,522,733.19) 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. Net Summarv County Payments Net Overpaid Included Entities 50% of EIL-kF Total C~'erpaid Basic Aid Schools Fire dismcts which have already benefitted from existing forgiveness legislation. JUrisdictions overpaid for the last three years, but underpaid for lhe tolal twelve year period. Jurisdictions underpaid for the last three years, but ore, aid for the total twelve year period. State Funding - Schools K-12, County Office of Education, and ERAF Jurisdictions with lower underpaymems for the 12 year period and paid based on that amount. The "overpa.vment" of $858,741.62 to the County is actually net of the County's unde~pa.vment and the County's assumption of the TEA crees prior year overpayments. In fact, the County suffered an approximate $1.3 million underpayment. ATTACHMENT B Town of Saratoga 12-Year Over Underpayment Summary 1999/2000 Tax Year Combined Years Net Net Over- Unitary Net Over- TEA AB 8 Unitary TEA ~tB 8 Tax TEA Under- Jurisdiction Tax Tax paid Tax paid Relief paid Saratoga City 5,668 (5,966) (1,445,007) {1,445,305) 116,063 (85,150) (1,557,340) (1,526,426) 1,557,340 30,914 Azule Lighting Dist-Saratoga 1,804 (38) 1,766 20,815 (534) 0 20,281 20,281 Saratoga City Light dist 5,446 (194) 5,252 63,555 (2,454) 0 61,101 61,101 Quito Lightning Dis't-Saratoga 459 (236) 223 3,347 (2,757) 0 590 590 Village Parking Dist - Saratoga 274 (296) (22) 3,463 (3,482) 0 (19) (19) Grcenbriar Park Maintc.-Saratoga 30 (29) I 371 (333) 0 38 38 Manor Dr Park Mtc-Saratoga 12 (6) 6 140 (97) 0 43 43 Fredericksburg DrPkMtc-Saratoga 6 (4) I 65 (51) 0 14 14 Total 13,699 (6,768) (1,445,007) (1,438,077) 207,820 (94,858) (1,557,340) (1,444,378) 1,557,340 112,962 ZP:ABgProg: 12 -yrSummavy:$aratoga Page 4 of 4 !0/23/2001 Town of Saratoga 12-Year Over Underpaymeat SununaD, "' 1996/97 Tax Year 1997/98 Tax Year 1998/99 Tax Year Net Net AB 8 Umtary TEA Net Over- AB 8 Unitary TEA Under- AB 8 Unitary TEA Under- Tax Jurisdiction Tax Tax paid Tax Tax Tax paid paid Saratoga City 16,373 (6,999) (226,668) (217,293) 5,617 (6,708) 178 (913) 5,636 (6,358) 118,608 117,886 A_~,le Lighting Dist-Saratoga . 1,804 (42) 1,761 1,804 (41) 1,762 1,804 (40) 1,764 Saratoga City Light dist 5,447 (195) 5,252 5,448 (195) 5,253 5,446 (195)! 5,251 Quito Lightning Dist-Saratoga 210 (222) (12) 406 (228) 178 442 (233) 210 V'dlag¢ Parking Dist - Saratoga 274 (277) (3) 273 (283) (10) 273 (290) (17) Greenbriar Park Maint¢.-Saratoga 31 (27) 4 30 (27) 3 30 (28) 2 Manor Dr Park Mt¢-Saratoga 12 (8) 4 12 (7) i 5 13 (7) 6 Fredericksburg DrPkMtc-Saratoga 4 (4) 0 6 (4) 1 6 (4) 2 Total 24,155 (7,774) (226,668) (210,286) 13,596 (7,495) 178 6,278 13,650 (7,155) 118,608 125,103 Zp:AB8Prog: 12-yrSummary:Saratoga" Page 3 of 4 10/23/2001 Town of Saratoga 12-Year Over Underpayment Summary 1993/94 Tax Year 1994/95 Tax Year 1995/96 Tax Year Net AB 8 Unitary TEA Net Over, Net AB 8 Unitary TEA Under- Tax Tax paid AB8 Unitary TEA Undex- Tax Tax Jurisdiction Tax Tax paid i~aid Saratoga City 15,943 (6,837)! 6,510 15,616 15,195 (6,961) 30,055 38,289 15,595 (7,034)' (45,501) (36,939) Azul¢ Lighting Dim-Saratoga 1,807 (41) 1,766 1,804 (42) 1,762 1,804 (43) 1,761 Saratoga City Light dist 5,454 (190) 5,264 5,448 (193) 5,255 5,448 (196) 5,252 Quito Lighming Dist-Saratoga 214 (214) (0) 210 (218) (8) 211 (223) (12) Village Parking Dist - Saratoga 280 (268) 12 275 (273) 2 275 (279) (3) Greenbriar Park Mainte.-Saratoga 31 (26)I 5 30 (26) 4 31 (27) 4 Manor Dr Park Mtc-Saratoga 11 (8) i 4 11 (8) 4 12 (8) 4 Fredericksburg DrPkMtc-Saratoga 5 (4) 1 5 (4) I 5 (4) 1 Total 23;745 (7,588) 6,510 22,668 22,979 (7,725) 30,055 45,308 23,381 (7,813) (45,501) (29,933) ZP:ABgProg: ! 2-yrSummary:$aratoga Pago 2 of 4 I 0/23/2001 Town of Saratoga 12-Year Over Underpayment Summary 1988/89 TaxYear 1989/90 TaxYear 1990/91 TaxYear _._1991/92 Taxyear - 1992/93 TaxYear Net Net AB 8 [Unitary Net AB 8 Unitary Net AB 8 Unitary TEA Under- Net AB 8 Unitary Under- Under- Under- AB 8 Unitary Over- Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax Jurisdiction Tax Tax paid paid paid paid paid Saratoga City 7,679 (7,897) (218) 7,216 (7,588) (372) 7,216 (7,727) (512) 7,289 (7,511) (222) 6,634 (7,563) 4,486 3,557 AzuleLightingDist-Saratoga 50 (53) (3) 2,034 (51) 1,983 2,033 (49) 1,985 2,033 (47) 1,986 2,034 (47) 1,987 Saratoga City Light dist 226 (231) (5) 6,298 (222) 6,076 6,299 (218) 6,081 6,298 (213) 6,086 6,297 (212) 6,085 ~Quito Lightning Dist-Saratoga 237 (243) (6) 237 (233) 4 239 (237) 2 241 (233) 8 241 (237) 4 Village Parking Dist - Saratoga 306 (314) (7) 307 (301) 6 308 (305) 3 308 (296) 13 308 (300) 8 Grcenbriar Park Maintc.-Saratoga 31 (29) .1 31 (28) .3 32 (29) 3 33 (28) 5 32 (29) 4 vlanor Dr Park Mtc-Saratoga 10 (9) I 11 (9) 2 12 (10) 2 12 (9) 3 12 (9) 3 Fredericksburg DrPkMtc-Saratoga 5 (4) I 6 (4) 2 6 (4) 2 6 (4) 1 ' 5 (4): 1 Total 8,544 (8,781) (236) 16,141 (8,437) 7,704 16,145 (8,579) 7,566 16,220 (8,341) 7,879 15,565 (8,402) 4,486 11,649 K:\72ROJEC'I~oll Out Process~Sc~lcment\[12.yrSummary.xls]$araloga ZP:ABSProg: 12-yrShmunary:$ataloga~ '- Page I of 4 10/23/2001 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: a~'~"'~~----~------'~ PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Norton Road Fire Access RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept Report and provide direction to staff. REPORT SUMMARY: At the April 18, City Council meeting, Beverly Phipps, who resides at 15270 Norton Road, expressed his concerns regarding the need for additional emergency fire access in the Bohlman Road hillside area. Mr. Phipps suggested constructing a fire access road, which would connect Norton Road to the access road presently being constructed for Villa Montalvo's artist residency studios. The proposed connection would allow emergency access fi.om Norton Road through Montalvo and ultimately to Piedmont Road (see attached area map). Staffhas been assisting Mr. Phipps on this issue, and in June a meeting was facilitated with Villa Montalvo and interested hillside residents. Villa Montalvo was receptive to the emergency access proposal with the caveat that the unimproved Wildcat Road Right-of-Way be improved. The Wildcat right-of-way runs between Piedmont Road and Villa Montalvo's property. Villa Montalvo would like to use Wildcat as a second egress during specific times of the year to facilitate their traffic circulation. They believe that in an emergency their existing egress would be overly impacted if additional vehicles were introduced without the construction of a secondary egress (Wildcat). In order to gage interest for the emergency access road, Mr. Phipps mailed an estimated 100 letters of interest (with an attached petition form) encompassing properties that were believed would most directly benefit fi.om the road. The City received responses fi.om 32 properties with 30 in favor and 2 against the proposal (see attached responses). The following information is preliminary data and rough cost estimates for the emergency access road (16fi wide - Asphalt Concrete): Upper Road: Length: 600 fi. Cost: $75,000 to $100,000 Artist Road: Length: 680 ft. Cost: Included in Artist Residency Project Wildcat Road: Length: 2350 ft. Cost: $400,000 - $700,000 As the numbers indicate, the Wildcat segment is by far the longest, most expensive and most difficult to construct. This roadway section would be the most challenging because of the presence of heavy vegetation and the close proximity to a seasonal creek, which would require extensive erosion controls. If the City Council determines to further explore this proposal the following are options that are available for funding a project of this kind: 1. Direct funding from the interested property owners. 2. Assessment District encompassing benefited properties. 3. City funding. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Unknown. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Depends on City Council's direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map. 2. Interest Mailer. 3. Responses.. 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT .2 15270 Norton Rd Saratoga CA. 95070 Tel. 867 7957 11 September 2001 A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area This is the time of year when we hear that there is a particularly bad fire ha?ard because there has been too much rain or too little rain. Despite the contradictory irony, it is probably true. The heavy canopy of trees, the narrow steep roads and the existence ora single narrow paved exit onto Oak Street make the hazard worse. These very factors were identified as having contributed to the Oakland Hills fire tragedy that killed twenty-five people in 1991. In some cases people trying to escape deserted their cars to flee on foot, and their ears blocked access by fire fighting equipment. The enclosed map is a copy of a map provided by thc courtesy of the Saratoga Fire Department. The numbers on the lots are the addresses of residences. It is seen that a large number of residents risks being prevented l?om car exit if there were a blockage on the section of Bohlman Rd that runs fi.om Norton Rd to Oak St_ The recent development of a road fi.om Montalvo to the Artist Residences provides us with an opportunity to reduce the hazard. We can build a short road, about 300 yds, to connect from Norton Road to this new road. (Please see the map). It would be steep, but clearly suitable for cars to drive down, without impeding the access of fire fighting equipment_ Presumably it would have a breakaway gate to prevent its use except for an emergency. The Saratoga Public works Deparlment agrees that such a road appears to be feasible. The Fire Chief agrees that it will increase fire safety. Montalvo has agreed to the possibility of such an access road on their private property if improvements are also made to Wildcat Road, which the new fire trail would join. The cost of this project and the mechanism for paying for the road have not been determined at this time. The owners of property who Would benefit by this fire trail would have to contribute. Owners cannot be expected to commit to such a project without a definition of the plan and an estimate of the cost. Before we ask the city staffto prepare an estimate we need to demonstrate interest fi.om the property owners. I believe that the first step is to send a letter to John Cherbone, Public Works Department, Saratoga City Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, or sign and send the attached letter, before October Y~, the first council meeting in October. If there is wide support for this idea, the next step will be to attend a council meeting to convey by our presence, by these letters, and by other messages, the interest of our hillside community in this fire escape route. Linda ,and Beverley Phipps. Saratoga Public Works Deparlrnent. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection fi.om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) ....................................................................... (Date).. (Print Name) ~ ~4~5 ~5027 0 15,~o0 1 i i20.B77 !5965 16990 ~6995 16971 ~16978 l?O!7 16984 17077 ATTACHMENT 3, Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (rote) .................. 0C'¢ iS / ...~.1. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A 'Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of ~rty .with an address~_ teh ...l .... ~ ..................... ,: ........ ~ .... a~. .......................................................................... believe that having a fire escape route such as a c6nnection bom Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. 15270 Norton Rd Saratoga CA. 95070 Tel. 867 7957 11 September 2001 Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ............... ./..~...¢..~. ........ ...a...~.~ ..... ~. ......... ~~.~......~~ believe that having a fire escape rout such as a connection ~om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ..... ~..?..~..~ ....... /..~....~.~.~.<. ..... .~.~. ..... ~.:~.~.~.~..~.....c. believe that having a fire eSCape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps Io define and implement such a project. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ,'-"~ "' ' ' ?"-' ..~,,.~..~../4...:.<.C.,./~..~ ....... 53.7..7 ./..~?.~:z..q .... Z-i-./:.~',...~....~,~ .... ~/..~ ..... .¢,./..:... ' '~ ' "' ' .... believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ...... :'...r..~i..r.. ~ .... .~.r.,..~. ~..~...o.~.....~.' ..o..~.~. ............................................................ believe that having a fire escape route such as a conhection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) ...... /. i I/~'/Q ~ (rote)... ' ~ L(.-' ~'.~. · ~ ~ .,Z..o o / (Print Nan')es) ,.,, o ~ (---/- Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 FruiWale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area ~e, the owner/g'of property with an address, ..... :::~7.~.,f. ~ ...... ~/~/./..~.../~.~.~.~z.~. ~>. .... ~ ~,:. ~., ..... --~'~.~:~-.~q ~' ........ believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection fiom Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. c._ ~,7-d-, ..Z.' (Date) .......... ./. .... ,~.--" .............................................. (Print Names) ~/czc_lff$ ~g_ ce ve/? Saratoga Public Works Department~ 13777 Fruit-vale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, believe that having a fire escape rout such as a connection fi.om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. impleme~t such a project. (Signature) (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, believe that having a fire escape route such as a eormection f~om Norton Road to the Road sen4ng the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Date) ........................................................................ (~h~t Names) -- Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ...... ./..f~.o....~o. ..... ~~ .... ~~.... ....... believe that having a fire escape route such as a eormection fi.om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) ............................ ( Date).../.~././.~./(~...[. ................................................. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ...... ~ . ~. .~,:~ ,~: . ~ ..... ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ . .,e. . ~ .... 1~ ~. , ....... .5..~:,?.-..~:.~ ...................... believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) .... ~..-~-~... ..................... .... (Date) ..... ~/.~.,,.,..;....[. ............................................... (Print Names) Sa~a~ ~c W~'~ ]::)~3m'tm~t. 13777 Fru~wnlc Avenue C..alifm'nia, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for lt~e Norton and Bohimnn Road Area We, the owners of pr°i~'ty wi~ sn .......... l~.~. Lo. ...... ~. ..~ ~ /. .~.~ ~. ..... ~.~ ............... : ................................... believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection ~om Norton'Road to thc Road serving the Artists' rcsidenccs in Montalvo would signiticnntly enhnnce our safety. We ask the city to nssist ~n steps to define and implemmt such a project, (signature) ...... ~ ............................. ~,,~) .............. ~...-..~L~.~.L ................................... (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, t/90 ....... ./...~.~..~.~ ....... ~...o..~../..~.a...-.. .... ../..<...~..'. ........................................... believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection fi.om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) ....................................................................... .:.. .................................. (Date) ................................ Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, . .~.-~. ~..a...o.....~./.T..T...,ff. g~..~......~..0 ............................................................................ believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Date) ....... ~..[..&l.].?..I. ........... ' ........................ (Print Names) October, 2, 2001 John Cherbone Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear John: There has been several discussions over the past few years with the City of Saratoga about how to improve the safety of the Bohiman road area. One of the major concerns of homeowners is the limited number and quality of fire escape routes fi~om the mountain. A proposal is in fi'ont of the city to create a new fire escape route that utilizes the recently completed Montalvo Artists in Residence driveway. This fire escape route would connect to Norton Road and provide another needed emergency exit. As a property owner at 15495 Quickert Road in Saratoga, I support the definition of such a project and ask the city to undertake it at the earliest possible date. Another concem of residents is vehicles in the area that are not compatible with the winding, narrow, steep roads. I have been in contact with Morgan Kessler, Paula Reeve and Jim Jeffrey in regard to this matter. The suggested solution is to post a sign at the bottom of Bohlman Road (at Sixth Street) limiting the size (axles or width?) and length of tracks in this area. Examples of the need for such signs include an appliance delivery truck (18-wheeler) that became stuck at the first Norton Road hairpin and blocked traffic for hours. More recent examples include roofing and other supply trucks that are too long or too wide for the roads that become stuck or block the narrow roads with their width/length. Many people are asked to make deliveries to homes in the Bohlman area that are not familiar with the roads. Homeowners in the area sometimes forget to tell companies in advance, creating these safety problems. One only has to remember the Oakland Hills fire to consider what a terrible tragedy that could occur from an innocent delivery. AS a homeowner, my family is currently surrounded by five homes under construction. The drivers on these projects have been helpful and cooperative, and we are not against construction. However, it is important we give drivers advanced notice of what they face before they begin their trip up Bohlman Road. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 741-5312 if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration of these matters. Rega~, Mary An~usfafson-Sawyer Mark R. Elconin 15315 Bohlman Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 741-1164 October 19, 2001 Saratoga Public Works Department 1377 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Fire escape route from Bohlman Road I Believe that having a fire escape rout such as the proposed connection from Norton Road to the road in Montalvo which serves the artist's residences would be an important and worthwhile safety enhancement for myself and the hillside community. I request that the city initiate a process to implement such a project. If you have any questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me 408-741-1164. 15270 Norton Rd Saratoga CA. 95070 Tel. 867 7957 l 1 September 2001 Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruit-vale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners ofprot~erty with an address~- _! -~ I / ,~ ~ ? ~ .... ~.~ ~.,~../4~.~.,,...~..~..~.~~ .... L.5~.~:.. ....~: :~~ ~ believe that having a fire escape rout such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A F~re Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton' Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signatur~ ........................... ' (Date) ........................................................................ . Mr. Thomas Wilson ~ 15297 Bohltmm Rd. (Print Names) 2~;~ Saratoga, CA 95070.6354 Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ~ 13 .................... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .....e2...r~'x ...... ..,~...r: .................................. believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection f~om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature) ......... ' ............... (Date) ........... ~ -'-7' · 1' ~:>"-~'" ' '~" '~' .................................... (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, " ~:-.: .... .~ ,e~.~ ~ ,~ ~ 7'~ ~?~.. ............ -..',"~i .... t. . .g. .~i .... ~.~. ~ ..... '~ . .~ ......... , ;.: .................................................................. believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Print Names) 'Ii Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ......... c.~.E,.: .... ~.'.~:.:~.~.~. ............................................................................... believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection fxom Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ..... ~: . ~. . ~ .,~ ....... //h. ~ z~.~,.. . ..~ ..:.~ .......... .~ ...... : ............ ~"-~ ' "~ '- · ~ .' ,,'-", .... ~'.,~ ,.' ',-',/W~ ~", ~',~, L,¥.~ ~ .... ,...2~.~ believe ~at hav~g a ~e ~ r~te su~ ~ a ~i~ ~ No~ R~d to ~e R~d ser~g ~e ~ists' r~idenc~ ~ Montalvo w~ld si~ifi~tly ~ our ~fe~. We ask ~e ci~ to assi~ ~ ~eps to dele ~d ~pl~t such a proje~, (Print Names) , Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, : . _ ~r. ]~-....q /; .......... ' ..... "~'"'*""~ ...... ~'~ ................ '~" ..................................... ~ .... il ........ believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection ~om Norton Road to tl/e Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ' ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~x_ believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the ROad serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implesnent such a prOject. ' , .. (Signature) ............................. ' ........... ' ............................... (Date) ..... ~.....~.......~..~.~.,~.? .... ...~'~...'.-~..:..C~....~ ............ ' ........ _. ...... (Print Names) Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, ..... !.~..~.! ......... g~.~.~ ...... C~....~..~~ ...... 2~.~>.. ......... 2~~~ believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection from Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety. We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Date) ............. ~..~. ........ (.~ ....... Q..I ................. Saratoga Public Works Department. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue California, 95070. A Fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area We, the owners of property with an address, 2, believe that having a fire escape route such as a connection fi.om Norton Road to the Road serving the Artists' residences in Montalvo would significantly enhance our safety~ We ask the city to assist in steps to define and implement such a project. (Signature).. ..L..~'(..~..&.~... (Date) ............ .?.~../...~ .~. ~*../.. ................................ : ......... 6132 Franciscan Court San Jose, CA 95120 September 22, 2001 John Cherbone Public Works Department Saratoga City Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Cherbone, This week we received a letter regarding a fire escape route from Norton Road to Montalvo. The letter was authored by Linda and Beverley Phipps. We own two lots - one on Norton Road and the other on Kittridge. We have owned them for over 35 years. We had planned to build a home there and raise our children in that neighborhood. For over three decades we have been prevented from building by a series of unreasonable demands. At the request for yet another geological survey (the third) at the cost of over 30K, we have decided to sell the property. Our children are grown now and we have little enthusiasm for living in an area with combative neighbors such as Mr. Phipps who appeared at every hearing to oppose our dream. A generation has passed. We have paid thousands for a water service "stand by" fee. We have never used a drop. We brought the sewer to that area. It is a system that we have never used but for'which we have paid tens of thousands of dollars. The neighbors now benefit from our costly efforts. Although we have no opinions regarding the advisability of the fire road, we have strong feelings about any type of an assessment on lands that are not developed and would have no benefit whatsoever from such a road. We appreciate your taking our experience into consideration in the discussion of this possible project. Sincerely, C / John and Cleo Constantin (408) 268-1750 yasou~.~e.net 15361 Norton Road Saratoga, CA 95070 September 25,2001 Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fmitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 I recently received a very disturbing letter from one my neighbors with a subject line "A fire Escape Route for the Norton and Bohlman Road Area". The letter, a copy of which I am enclosing, appears to have been sent to all residents on Bohlman Road and it's associated side streets. What ! find disturbing is its implication that the upper parts of Bohlmann Road have no fire escapes routes other than Oak Street. This I believe is extremely dangerous miss-information that hopefully you (or Santa Clara County) can correct. I would hope that all the residents in the Bohlman Road area have familiarized themselves with the escape routes available to them, but if not, the Phipps letter could result in may fatalities in the event of a serious fire in the middle/upper Bohlman Road area. I have, since moving to Norton Road considered the fire road offthe upper end of Bohlman Road that connects to HWY 17 via Montevina Road as my backup car fire escape route in case of Oak Street being' close. I would hope that the majority of the residents on the top of Bohlman Road are aware of the route and are not depending on Oak Street as being their only car escape route. (I am not looking forward to meeting them comin, g down Bohlman Road after driving by the Montevina fire road while I am trying to go up Bohlman Road.) I have been told by other residents, about several other car escape routes off of the middle and upper parts ofBohlmann that connect to either HWY 9 or Sanborn Road. I have never bothered to confn-m their existence, as I felt secure in the knowledge that Bohlrnan, Road has at least one exit I could use. I am opposed to any improvement to the existing fire escape routes through the Montalvo property from Norton Road. I believe the existing network of trails and fire roads on the Montalvo property are being adequately maintained for fire escape purposes (via foot). I would be most appreciative if you could work with Santa Clara County to accomplish the following: Keep the Bohlman Road to HWY17 via Montevina Road fire escape usable by cars. While it has been several years since I used it, it has been always in need of maintenance, though always marginally passable. Research, document and l~ublicize to the Bohlman area residents ALL of the existing fire escape routes (both car and foot routes) off the middle and upper parts of Bohlman Road area. Maintain the existing fire roads in my area that allow for multiple paths within the hillside area. The Kittridge fire road that connects Norton with Bohlman is an example of this type of fire road. (The last time I checked, the Kittridge fire road was only passable on foot.) Rob Vermilion 15361 Norton Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Enclosure: Letter from Linda and Beverley Phipps dated Sep 11, 2001 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: SUBJECT: Civic Center Traffic and Parking Concerns RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept report and direct staff accordingly REPORT SUMMARY: With the large number of people participating in programs offered by the Community and Senior Centers, the constant flow of traffic to the Post Office and the increase in the student population at Redwood Middle School, there is increase traffic and parking congestion around the Civic Center. There is a steady flow of traffic up and down Allendale Avenue all day and at certain times it is very congested. Earlier this year, with the placement of the three new portable buildings in the Civic Center parking lots, several parking spaces were eliminated. Although there are fewer spaces, it is felt that visitors to the Community and Senior Centers are able to find a place to park in one of our city lots. When several programs are taking place there will not always be a place immediately next to the Center. In some instances, Community and Senior Center participants may find a parking space closer to City Hall or in the lot by the Corp Yard. The traffic and parking issues, and some improvement options, are described below. Post Office and RedwoOd Middle School Employees Use of City Lots For years, some employees of the Post Office and Redwood Middle School parked their cars in spaces around the Community Center. As the spaces for City sponsored programs became limited, the Postmaster and the Principal of Redwood School were contacted to discuss the problem. Both stated that onsite parking is provided for their employees. Beginning in August a campaign was mounted to inform employees from the post office and school to not use Civic Center parking lots. We posted information fliers on car windshields and were very successful in getting the people identified to move their ears. There are still a few Post Office employees who refuse to park elsewhere, and even the Postmaster suggested issuing citations to those individuals. Currently, there is not a city ordinance forbidding Post Office employees from parking in city lots. Redwood Middle School Drop Off and Pick Up This year more parents of Redwood Middle School students are using Allendale Avenue for a drop off and pick up location. Recently a morning count was taken and within a 20 minute period 106 cars passed the Community Center to drop students off in the area in front of the Corporation Yard. During the first 10 minutes the cars moved very smoothly, but as the c~a-s arrived closer to when school started some very unsafe behavior was observed. Just the sheer number of cars in the area turning around, parking, making u-turns, and students jumping out of cars and running through traffic created an unsafe environment. It has been reported by many city employees that some days it is impossible to get out of the Corporation Yard because of all the traffic. Besides the Allendale Avenue area near the Corp Yard, many parents decide not to get too close to Redwood School so they pull into the City Hall parking lots to drop their students off. The Redwood afternoon pickup has the biggest impact on programs at. the Senior and Community Centers. Besides the all the cars on Allendale Avenue picking students up after school, there are a large number of parents arriving in city parking lots before school is out. They park their cars and wait for their child to walk across the street. Also, a large number of students walk over to the Community Center and either wait in the lobby or in front of the building until they are picked up. Their parents are waiting for traffic to die down before they approach the area. Some parents use the Community Center lot as their turnaround and often times just stop wherever they are to let their child get in the car. This creates traffic congestion, is unsafe and makes it very fi-ustrating to the participants of Senior and Community Center programs who are either trying to get in or out of the city parking lot. What Is Being Done Improve This Situation Brigitte Ballingal, a member of the Public Safety Commission and Chair of the Saratoga School Safety Task Force, is very aware of the problem. Earlier this year the Task Force made some recommendations to Redwood, and it is now felt that the proposed measures have not resolved the problem. The committee is working on some other options and they have met with Mary Gardiner, Superintendent of the Saratoga Union School District, to discuss some re-routing recommendations. The Task Force wants the school to open the gates of the lower playground area off Allendale Avenue to let cars turnaround in a safe manner on school property. Brigitte has said that the Redwood School traffic issue is a priority for the Task Force and they are working towards a solution. Christopher Farmer, Principal of Redwood Middle School, has been very receptive to working with city staff to correct the problem. He has committed to sending school staff to the city parking lots in the afternoon to talk to parents and inform them that they are not to pick up or wait in city lots. He will also inform the students hanging out in and by the Community Center that they will have to move across the street and wait on school property until their parents pick them up. Christopher feels he has no control over use of Allendale Avenue, but he will encourage parents to use the turnaround in front of the school. He will also reinforce alt of this information in the next Parent Newsletter, which is sent directly into the homes of all Redwood School families. Other Improvement Options To further curtail the use of city parking lots for non-city activities, the lots could be posted with signs stating that the parking lots are for city business only. The City Council could adopt an ordinance to this effect and the Community Service Officers and Sheriff's Department could enforce it. Another option would be to establish parking time limits and a parking permit process. This would take care of the non-city employee parking problem, but not the Redwood School drop off and pick up congestion problems. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): NA ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): NA. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): As directed by the City Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: None. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Lorie Tinfow SUBJECT: Village Parking Study Results RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Direct staff to develop and implement parking management strategies for the Village and then reassess parking needs. REPORT SUMMARY: A lack of adequate parking in the Village has long been a topic of discussion within the Village business community.. Most recently, the Saratoga Business Development Committee raised the issue as part of economic development discussions. To determine whether the lack of adequate parking was a reality or a perception, staff hired Fehr & Peers Inc. to gather analytical data and draw conclusions about parking availability in the Village. A copy of the study is attached. Unfortunately, Fehr & Peers was unable to conduct the study until after the September 11th attacks and those events most likely skewed the data to some degree. Many businesses have reported some decrease in revenue since the event. However, staff recommends continuing with the data available since the data shows some patterns of parking behavior that are none the less significant. Additional sampling canbe performed at a later time if desired. Study Conclusions. Hourly parking data for a typical weekend day (Saturday) and weekday (Wednesday) was gathered and analyzed. The study report shows that at least for now, adequate parking does exist and that there is the minimum of 10% of parking spaces available in the Village needed for traffic circulation. The data further shows the following: Saturday · Lots 1 & 4 fill first · Lot 2 gets busy mid-afternoon and steadily fills until 10 pm · Lot 3 is least utilized; there are spaces available all day Wednesday · Lots 1 & 4 peak during lunch and dinner · Lot 2 peaks at lunch and on this particular day also had a spike at 5 pm (perhaps a meeting or other short event was scheduled at Viaggio's or other business) · Lot 3 fills first in the moming between 9 am and 11 am, and then drops off On-street parking demand remains constant regardless of day of the week with the exception of mid-day hours (roughly 2 pm to 5 pm)--on Saturdays, more parkers use on-street spaces. Parking Management Options. The perception of inadequacy can be addressed with parking management strategies including improved signage to alert drivers of parking lots (especially Lot 3); incentives such as no time limit spaces in areas farther from destinations to encourage business owners and employees to park in less used spaces; better enforcement of time limits on the premium spaces nearest businesses; development of a parking brochure that highlights all parking areas for distribution by businesses to their customers; broadcasting of parking information over the TIS radio system. FISCAL IMPACTS: Parking management strategies are fairly low cost and could be covered by the Economic Development budget. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Parking would remain the same in the Village: ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Council could choose to investigate the construction of a parking garage to increase the total number of spaces available. A parking garage feasibility study could be commissioned either in place of or in addition to implementing the parking management strategies. The study cost would be approximately $25,000; no funding source currently exists. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will work with the Saratoga Business Development Committee to develop and implement parking management strategies. After implementation, staff will reassess the perception of parking congestion in the Village. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Parking study conducted by Fehr & Peers. FEHR& PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants 255 North Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 408 278-1700 · Fax 408 278-1717 www. fehrandpeers.com October 17, 2001 Ms. Lorie Tinfow City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Parking Surveys for Saratoga Village 1015-413 Dear Ms. Tinfow: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. has completed parking surveys in the Saratoga Village area of Saratoga, California. The purpose of these surveys is to evaluate the parking supply to determine if it is sufficient to accommodate the existing demand. -. Parking Occupancy' Surveys Parking occupancy surveys were conducted in the village area on Wednesday, September 19 and Saturday, September 22 to measure the actual parking demand of the existing land uses for a typical weekday and weekend day. The numbers of parked vehicles were recorded once an hour between the hours of 9:00 am and 10:00 pm. On-street and off- street parking spaces included in the surveys are shown on FigUre 1. Results The proportion of spaces occupied were charted versus time and are presented on the attached graphs. The graphs illustrate the surplus spaces available at any given time that surveys were conducted. On-Street Parking The on-street parking surveys show that all the parking spaces were never fully occupied in the Saratoga Village area on a weekday or weekend day. The highest percentage of occupied spaces occurred during the evening hours between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm. As would be expected of areas with retail and restaUrant uses, the lunch hours between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm also showed an increase compared to the morning and afternoon hours. .i:' FEHRQ PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants Ms. Lorie Tinfow October 17, 2001 Page 2 Wednesday District Lot'Occupancy In general, parking lots should provide a surplus of approximately 10 percent for vehicles to circulate and find an open space. During the weekday, Lot 1 never exceeded this threshold. Lot 3 experienced the majority of the demand in the morning hours between 10:00 and 11:00 am. Lots 2 and 4 were at or very near capacity at the lunch and dinner hours during the weekday. Saturday District. Lot Occupancy On Saturday, all four of the lots generally showed the same occupancy pattern with occupied spaces increasing throughout the day and peaking in the evening hours. Lot 4 was 100 percent occupied from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Lots 1 and 4 also exceeded the 90 percent threshold during the Saturday survey period. If you have any questions regarding our findings, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely, FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. · Sohrab Rashid, ?.E. Senior Associate Transportation Engineer Parking Space Occupancy - Lots and On-Street Spaces 100% 90% 80% 70% 6O% 50% 40% -- 3(~% = Street-Wednesday I .'~. Street-Saturday ~. Lots-Wednesday & Lots-Saturday 2O% 10% 0% 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Time of Day 10:00 PM [~] 2 hour Loading' (~)15 minute 2 hr.: 9am-5pm Loading: 5pm-12am Unlimited time * value inside symbol indicates number of spaces Not to Scale ~--'~ ~&PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Consultants October 2001 Saratoga Village Parking DESCRIPTION OF ON.STREET PARKING SPACES 413-11-01 FIGURE 1 Parking Space Occupancy-District Lots Only (Saturday) lOO% 90% 80% 7O% 60% 5O% 4O% 30% 2O% X Lot 1-Sat - Lot 2-Sat .~, Lot 3-Sat I Lot 4-Sat 10% 0% 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Time 100% Parking Space OccuPancy. District Lots Only(Wednesday) 9O% 8O% 7O% 60% 50% 40% 30% -~-- Lot 1-Wed --e-- Lot 2-Wed e Lot 3-Wed 3( Lot 4-Wed 20% 10% 0% 9:00 AM 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Time SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Lorie Tinfow DEPT HEAD.X:-. - SUBJECT: Options for City Legal Assistance RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Direct staff to continue contracting for legal services or to create a staff position to meet those needs or some combination of the two. REPORT SUMMARY: The City of Saratoga currently contracts for all legal and litigation services, and typically spends approximately $300,000 each year. Specifically, expenditures for 2000-01 totaled $312,190 ($226,884 for legal services and $85,306 for litigation services). At a recent Council meeting, the City Council requested that staff investigate hiring a full-time City Attorney and report back to the Council. Because of prior interest by the City Council, the option of hiring an Assistant City Attorney is also included. Staff conducted salary surveys for Assistant City Attorney and City Attorney positions in nearby cities, and contacted the City of Dan~'ille for sample budget information to obtain a cost estimate for an in-house attorney's office. Salary Information for Assistant City Attorney Positions. Annual starting salaries for Assistants ranged widely from $64,908 in Cupertino to $124,344 in San Jose. A number of cities have Assistants on staff.. Typically the Assistant reports to a City Attorney and often there is more than one. Salary Information for City Attorney Positions. Most nearby cities of comparable size to Saratoga do not have full-time in-house City Attorneys on staff. Exceptions are Morgan Hill and Newark where the annual starting salaries ranged from $76,896 to $99,072. Other Costs. In addition to Attorney salaries, there are other costs associated with creating Jan attorney staff position. Typically, costs include secretarial or administrative support (which are generally shared with other administrative staff), miscellaneous expenses such as travel and supplies, and the development and maintenance of a law library. Budget Examples. Sample budget information gathered from Danville for budget year 2000-01 show costs to run as follows: Salaries & benefits for City Attorney and secretary: Misc. administration costs i.e., travel, postage, supplies: Reference materials for maintenance of existing law library': $193,111 $6,9OO '$7,000 $207,011 Holding library maintenance, secretarial and other miscellaneous costs constant, an' Assistant City Attorney would cost approximately $180,000. However, even with the addition of a staff position, it is likely some level of additional contract services would be necessary for land use issues and/or litigation. Note: The start-up costs of creating a law library are not included in either example and could be substantial although many resources are now online. FISCAL IMPACTS: Total costs depend on the scenario adopted. However, the most likely impact would be that creating a staff position would cost about the same as is currently spent on contract services. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The City of Saratoga will continue to contract for legal services. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): 1. Hire a full-time City,Attorney for the full range of legal services. Special counsel may be required for land use issues or litigation. Direct cost for City Attorney office is estimated to be approximately $200,000 and would be offset by funds currently budgeted for contract services. Special Council and litigation expenses are expected to cost $100,000 for a total of $300,000. Hire a full-time Assistant City Attorney as a city employee with supe~Msion provided by the existing contract City Attorney. This alternative would retain the expertise of our existing contract City Attorney for land use and litigation issues, while using an in-house Assistant City Attorney for contract r~view, nuisance ordinance violations/hearings, code enforcement, and personnel matters. Direct cost for an Assistant City Attorney office is estimated to be approximately $180,000 and would be offset by funds currently budgeted for contract services. Special Council and litigation expenses are expected to cost $120,000 for a total..of $300,000. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Direct staff to take appropriate action. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Copies of the salary surveys for each position. Assistant City Attorney Salary Survey August 2000 Bottom Top of of C t Title Range Range ........... ~.~ - ~ ........................ -~. -- ~ ~ . ~¥, Fremont Assistant City Attorney 8345 11266 Mountain View* Assistant City Attorney 6407 961. 1 San Jose Assistant City Attorney 10362 13263 Sunnyvale Assistant City Attorney 7700 9059 Average 8526' 10944 *Adjusted -7% for PERS Do not have like position - Belmont Campbell Los Gatos Menlo Park Milpitas City of~Saratoga Department of Human Resources City Attorney Salary Survey September 2001 Top Bottom Notes Contract. City pays PERS. Monthly retainer $9,420 for ...... 125 hours/mo. Additional billed at $125/hr - Clerk Campbell $55/hour. City pays PERS. Separate labor attorney. _._ Full -Time Contract with benefits (no LTD): City pays Cupertino $12,786 * ' PERS. Contract - $5,000/mo + $525 health benefit. Litigation ...... lan additional $125/hr. Use labor law firm at $220/hr Los'Altos (LCF). Approximately $15-20k/year. .._ :ull -Time Contract with benefits. Employee pays Los Gatos $8,940 PERS. .._ Full -Time Contract with benefits. Employee pays Menlo Park $8,025 F~ERS. Morgan Hill $8,010 $6,408 Employee with benefits. Employee pays PERS. San Carlos Contract with benefits - Annual Budget $182,631. Employee with benefits. Total Comp - Amount reduced Newark $11,973 $8,256 by 4.873% - Average $9,947 $7,332 - )/28/01 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: ~ _~~--~ SUBJECT: Release of Deferred Improvement Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Rector, Wardens and Vestryman of St. Andrew's Parish RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Move to adopt the resolution of satisfaction and release of Deferred Improvement Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Rector, Wardens and Vestryman of St. Andrew's Parish, located at 13601 Saratoga Avenue. REPORT SUMMARY: The City has been requested by the owners of St. Andrews Church and School to release the "Deferred Improvement Agreement by Owner or his Successors in interest to Construct Land Development Improvements" Recorded 5/23/1983 in Book H575, page 664. The agreement was recorded as a condition of Use Permit UP-530. Per .the agreement the owner agreed to construct the following off-site improvements: street grading, base and paving, curb and gutter, electroliers, and underground conduit with wiring and pull boxes. Staff has reviewed the agreement and concluded a site visit. All improvements required per agreement have been completed and accepted by the City. It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution to release the Deferred Improvement Agreement. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Deferred Improvement Agreement would not be released. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None to addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Satisfaction and Release of Deferred Agreement shall be recorded. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of s~tisfaction and release of deferred improvement agreement. RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED MAlL TO: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA OF SATISFACTION AND RELEASE OF DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, request has been made by the owners of St. Andrews Church and School to release that certain document entitled "Deferred Improvement Agreement by Owner or his Successors in interest to Construct Land Development Improvements" Recorded 5/23/1983 in Book H575, page 664; and WHEREAS, all improvements required per. agreement have been completed and accepted by the City; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The City relinquishes to the Rector, Wardens and Vestryman of Saint Andrew's Parish, any and all interest of any type that they may have received by the above referred to Deferred Improvement Agreement including, but not limited to, the improvements, access easements, temporary drainage facilities and any other required improvements. The City of Saratoga acknowledges that the improvements and all matters related thereto, described in the Deferred Improvement Agreement have been completed and accepted by the City. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the __ day of ., 2001 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: · John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk