Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-1997 Staff Reports SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. q 2 AGENDA ITEM 24/14/ MEETING DATE: December 17, 1997 CITY MGR. d ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM GREEN BELT ALLIANCE FOR RESOLUTION Recommended Motion: If desired, direct staff to prepare resolution to be adopted at next meeting. Report Summary: Councilmember Bogosian requested, at the November 19 City Council meeting, that the Green Belt Alliance be placed on the agenda under Oral Communications. The Alliance plans to make a slide presentation concerning the former Alma College property. Its purpose is to encourage the Council to adopt a resolution endorsing the permanent acquisition of the property from a willing seller by a public agency or land trust so that it may become the Bear Creek Redwoods Regional Preserve. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow Up Actions: After resolution is passed, forward to Green Belt Alliance. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: None. Attachments: Memo from Green Belt Alliance, with attached resolution. I Dec -12 02:05P P.02 111 040N m.r Q n ororetr i e l e re g ili et 4 ,04e. P E O P L E F O R O P E N S PAC E December 02, 1997 Mayor Donald Wolfe 1377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Support for Bear Creek Redwoods Regional Preserve Dear Mayor Wolfe: We are writing to enlist your support for the campaign, spearheaded by the local community group, Friends of Bear Creek Redwoods, to create the Bear Creek Redwoods Regional Preserve. This 1,100 acre property bounded by Highway 17 and Bear Creek Road has been of keen interest by parks agencies over the years, and we may finally have the opportunity to protect this land as a public open space preserve for all to enjoy. We are writing to area local elected and appointed officials because this property represents a true regional resource, within easy access by most Santa Clara County residents and connecting to other regional parks. II Formerly known as the Alma College property, Bear Creek Redwoods is the largest wild area left in the Lexington Basin area and has long been a priority property to acquire for open space. The land is stunningly beautiful, with open meadows studded with oaks above Lexington Reservoir, hillsides of maple, madrone and fir, and steep canyons thick with 100 year old redwoods. A rich variety of wildlife including deer, coyote, fox and horned owl, thrive on the property and many small streams course down the canyons and feed the reservoir. The Peninsula Open Space Trust has expressed strong interest in acquiring this property and MROSD has long held interest in preserving this property as open space, ranked by the County's Preservation 2020 Report in the highest category for open space preservation area in Santa Clara County. If acquired as a open space preserve, it would protect an important contiguous stretch of open land. A section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail also traverses the site. continued MAIN OFFICE 116 New Montgomery Suite 640, San Francisco CA 94105 (4151 543 -4291 SOUTH 13AY OFFICE 1922 The Alameda Suite 213, San Jose CA 95126 (401+) 983 -0539 NORTH BAY OFFICE 520 Mendocino Avenue Suite 200, Santa Rosa CA 95401 (707) 575 3661 I FAST BAY OFFICE 500 Ygnacio Valley Road Suite 250, Walnut Creek CA 94596 (510) 932 -7776 v7 Rt. Dec- 12 -97 02:05P P.03 page 2 The Bear Creek Redwoods is owned by Hong Kong Metro Realty and a local developer has an option to buy 210 of the acres. Recently, Hong Kong Metro sold timber rights to Big Creek Lumber Co. although no Timber Harvest Plan has been submitted. Luxury home development has also been proposed for this property. An application for a golf course, athletic club, restaurant and other facilities has been filed for the 210 acre piece. A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been circulated very soon and hearings on the project will begin in February 1998. Construction of a golf course with related facilities, logging, and home development would be devastating to this property and to the health of the Lexington Basin. We are asking for your support for the strong community efforts to create a beautiful redwood retreat preserve for the public to enjoy. We would appreciate the opportunity to be placed on the agenda at a future Board meeting to make a formal presentation and entertain discussion. We have received endorsements from the City of Monte Sereno, the County Parks Commission and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Thank you for your consideration. Please call me at 983 -0539 in the meantime if you have any questions. Sincerely, 11 Vicki Moore Associate Policy Director DEC -09 -1997 11:23 4153908497 P.02 i l i DRAFT RESOLUTION Whereas there is a community effort to permanently preserve the former Alma College property in its natural state for future generations to enjoy as Bear Creek Redwoods Regional Preserve, and Whereas the property is stunningly beautiful and biologically diverse with oak studded meadows, hillsides of maple, madrone and fir, and steep canyons thick with 100 year old redwoods which harbor numerous species of mammals, birds, and reptiles, and Whereas is the largest privately held wild area in the Lexington Basin and its protection would preserve a contiguous stretch of undeveloped land critical for watershed and wildlife protection, and Whereas public acquisition would opportunities for recreation and trails linking regional open space areas, and Whereas the site has long been identified by public agencies as a priority for acquisition, and Whereas this open space will provide tremendous benefits to the residents of Saratoga, and Therefore be it resolved that the City of Saratoga endorses the permanent acquisition of the 1,100 acres known as the "Alma College Property" from a willing seller by a public agency or land trust so that it may become the Bear Creek Redwoods Regional Preserve. j E seweJ Zet.puignf i TOTAL P.02 I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 -q`lq AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1997 CITY MANAGER: i ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: 1 SUBJECT: Letters from Warren Lampshire requesting support for 1998 Saratoga Parade RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Determine what, if any, City support should be provided to the 1998 Saratoga Community Parade. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are two letters from Warren Lampshire, both dated November 20, requesting City support for the 1998 Saratoga Community Parade. The first letter requests staff support from the Recreation Director as has been provided in the past to secure and manage VIP participation in the Parade. The second letter requests financial support of $2,500. As Council will recall, all funding for Community Events was eliminated from the budget this year in the wake of the budget balancing effort undertaken last spring. Any appropriation of funds at this time would need to come from either the Council's Contingency budget or from the General Fund balance. Another option would be to consider restoration of some funding in the FY 98 -99 budget during budget hearings next spring since the funding presumably would not be needed until next fiscal year anyway. As for staff support, I believe that either Jennie Loft or Joan Pisani could satisfactorily handle the VIP coordination activities and that one, but not both, should be authorized to participate on the Parade Committee. In my view, it is better for the City to be "in the loop" during the planning efforts of these types of community events rather than wait to hear about the plans at the last minute and then have to scramble around to accommodate whatever is planned. City staff, acting as a liaison to the Committee, can very effectively keep the lines of communication open between the event organizers and the City and can relay concerns and other information back and forth more efficiently. i FISCAL IMPACTS: Depends on Council's decisions. If the Council opts to provide financial support to the Parade, then an appropriation of $2,500 would need to be made either this year or next. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Again, depends on Council's decisions. Either staff support and /or financial support would not be provided to the Parade. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Mr. Lampshire will be informed of Council's decisions. ATTACHMENTS: Letters dated November 20 (2). I i SAR Arc, GA 4r Jos November 20, 1997 PWAlk Mr. Larry Perlin City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Larry: COMMUNITY PARADE Last week you and I discussed the planned 1998 Saratoga Community Parade, which is now scheduled for October 4, 1998. In a separate letter to you, I have requested the City of Saratoga be a Sponsor of the Parade in 1998. 14457 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 When you and I talked, I asked that Joan Pisani be approved to participate in our Parade meetings. Joan has been a tremendous (408) 867 -2582 asset with an in depth knowledge and experience gained during the 1995 and 1996 Parade, and we really would like to have her on our Parade committee again. Joan has the required experience and important contacts which is a primary position, in the proper, efficient lineup and manage- ment of the VIP'S in the Parade. Joan has the ability to obtain the numbers of required convertibles in which the Mayor and all other Council members and other VIP'S ride in the Parade. This year I have arranged for Joan to have an assistant, as the VIP job is extremely important. I understand your desire to have Jenny Loft participate in our committee, and I completely agree with you that Jenny would be a natural as a City Liaison representative. I have worked with Jenny on the Saratoga Business Council and I think she would be great. At the risk of asking for some additional, but limited City Staff time, I would like Jenny and Joan to be on our Parade Committee. Our meetings are every other month starting in January. Jenny as the City Liaison could attend some of the five meetings, but it would not be required for her to attend them all. I sincerely need Joan Pisani, so if you can allow us her time as I have outlined, I will really appreciate it. Of course I would like Jenny too, as that would be the best of all worlds. We want the 1998 Parade to be the best ever. Thanks Larry. Si Wa amps i� e 746 Parade Chairman 1998 SARATOGA R i 1 November, 20, 1997 prA T, Mr. Larry Perlin City Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 dal Dear Larry: COMMUNITY I am writing to request that the City Council of the City of PARADE Saratoga consider our request, for the City to accept the position as a Major Sponsor for the 1998 Saratoga Community Parade, scheduled for October 4, 1998. 14457 Big Basin Way In 1995 and 1996, the City of Saratoga assisted us with major Saratoga, CA 95070 help as a sponsor, and provided us with many benefits such as the Certificate of Insurance under the ABAG Insurance policy; the (408) 867 -2582 forgiving of fees for permits, and support of needed City Staff. Additionally, the City made a financial contribution in the amount of 3,000.00 in 1996. The Saratoga Rotary Club, and the Chamber of Commerce, are the other two major sponsors of the Parade. This year we wish to request reduced funding from the City in the amount of $2,500.00. We have a very strong and active 1998 Parade Committee. We will not require the amount of time from the Streets and Maintenance Dept., as we have in the past. This will measurably reduce the infrastructure and City Staff costs. We will work with the Sheriff's Department and Fire Department, direct, and our volunteer staff will step up to perform many of the duties in order to save City time. I I I have had many calls from citizens of Saratoga, as well as past Parade entries, asking why we did not have a Parade in 1997. The Saratoga Community Parade was really missed. I We truly need the City of Saratoga's help, and I am hopeful that we can count on you and the City Council to assist and support us in our request of the 1998 Parade Sponsorship. Thanks Larry, and I. would be pleased to provide any information at the next Council meeting in December, at which time this written communication may be presented. Sincerel Warren Lam it Parade Chairman 1998 I l �I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. zgg6 AGENDA ITEM C MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 1997 CITY MANAGER: MI I O r ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Letter from Principal Kevin Skelly, Saratoga High School, requesting $200,000 from the Park Development Fund for a community aquatics center RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Refer request to the Parks Recreation Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a letter dated December 4 from Principal Kevin Skelly of Saratoga High School requesting a pledge of $200,000 from the Park Development Fund to help fund a "community aquatics center" to be built at the high school. The letter suggests that if within one year after the funds are pledged the High School is unable to raise the remaining funding for the facility, then the City's pledge of support could be withdrawn. Because the request is for an allocation of Park Development funds for a recreational facility, the request should be referred to the Parks Recreation Commission which should be charged with developing a recommendation for the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: y I Nothing additional. I I I I, CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The request would not be referred to the Parks Recreation Commission. The Council could either act on the request without input from the Commission or deny the request at this time. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The request will be referred to the Parks Recreation Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Letter dated December 4. SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL ',A!. 20300 Herriman Avenue 401'40 Saratoga, CA 95070 -4999 Principal: Kevin Skelly, Ph.D. December 4 1997 Phone 408/867 -3411 Assistant Principals: Karen Hyde, Charles Krause Fax 408/867 -3577 7't Ali fi g HIG'�' The Honorable Gillian Moran Members of the Saratoga Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Moran and Members of the Saratoga City Council: I am writing to ask you to consider once again our request to join with us for the purpose of building a new community aquatics center at Saratoga High School. In July you made the detiSiron f to follow the Parks and Recreation Committee regarding budgeting for the Parks and Recreation Development Fund. This money has been allocated for other recreation upgrades in Saratoga. It is my understanding, however, that roughly $200,000 beyond the budgeted amount has been generated through new home construction. We respectfully ask that you budget this money for the pool. We are now launching a major effort among our school community to renovate our aquatic facilities. To date, we have over $300,000 pledged toward this project. Our Annual Appeal will target a new pool. Our Annual Appeal asks parents to make contributions to our school for improvements on our campus and has raised over $300,000 over the past four years. Saratoga Athletic Booster Club funds and the facility rental money we raise will be devoted toward this upgrade. This letter asks that the City Council again consider devoting $200,000 in Parks and Recreation Development Funds toward this project. This money would be available to the school for one year for the purpose of building a pool. It would be our responsibility to raise the additional money from other sources. If, at the end of the year, we have not been successful in raising the additional money, the City Council could allocate this money for some other recreational use. We have previously outlined to you and the Parks and Recreation Committee the rationale for this program. While the details would have to be negotiated, we believe that, unlike other uses for Development Fund monies, this pool project would help the City's recreation department°finariciaily: Of the money that you allocated from the Parks and Recreation Fund in July, it is my understanding that none of it has yet been spent, in part because the City of Saratoga lacks the personnel to implement these projects. With the City's support, I am confident you will see prompt results from your investment in this important recreational facility for our city. Thank you for your attention. Kevin S elly Principal A DISTINGUISHED CALIFORNIA SCHOOL NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE Id SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 -q'"U AGENDA ITEM ,51:0 6 MEETING DATE: December 17, 1997 CITY MGR.: p, 'I ORIGINATING DEPT.:COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Civic Theater Lighting System Bid Results Recommended Motion(s): 1. Reject bid received on the project. 2. Direct staff to re- advertise the project. Report Summary: Sealed bids for the Civic Theater Lighting System retrofit project were opened on November 25. One contractor submitted a bid for the work. McDonald Electric, Inc. of San Martin submitted a bid of $94,685 which is 37% above II the Engineer's Estimate of $60,000. Staff has carefully checked the bid and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids dated October 29. Although the bid is responsive, the combination of the bid being $30,000 above the project budget and the lack of interest by bidders are reasons staff recommends Council reject the bid. Staff discovered from interviews with McDonald Electric, with plan holders who failed to bid the project, and with the consultant who designed the project, that the combination of higher than anticipated cost of specified components, the insufficient amount of time given to order materials and start construction, and the current hyperactive climate of the construction industry were primary reasons for the outcome of the bid. Staff recommends looking at the feasibility of advertising the project towards the end of next summer followed by construction next December when the Theater will again be vacant. This will allow additional time to accumulate revenues from the ticket surcharge to fully fund the project and provide ample lead time for the successful bidder to order materials prior to the short window of time allowed for construction. i I j I 1 1 f fr Fiscal Impacts: II None at this time. The project will incur approximately $800 for re- advertisement. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. The Theater companies have been advised of this recommendation. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Council may award the contract to McDonald Electric, Inc. and appropriate the additional funding needed to construct the project at this time. Follow Up Actions: The bid bond will be returned to the contractor. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. i I �I I lam. City of Saratoga Bid Summary: Saratoga Civic Theater Lighting System Bid Opening Date: November 25, 1997 Engineer's Estimate McDonald Electric, Inc. Item Item Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Install Lighting System Per Plans 1 LS N/A $60,000 N/A $94,685 I I ,I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Q'4 7 AGENDA ITEM 1_ s( 7_ MEETING DATE: December 17, 1997 CITY MGR. gi ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services, Peter Gonda SUBJECT: Approval of a Letter of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Employees Association (SEA) regarding temporary modification to accumulated leave carryover and payout policies in the recently adopted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SEA. Recommended Motion(s): Approve the attached Letter of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Employees Association (SEA) regarding temporary modification to accumulated leave carryover, and payout policies as defined in the recently adopted Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SEA. Report Summary: Attached hereto is a Letter of Understanding which, if approved, would modify the MOU adopted on December 3, 1997 as follows: At the end of calendar year 1997 only, employees may carryover all accumulated leave earned during calendar year 1997 into calendar year 1998. In January, 1998, employees whose accumulated leave balances exceed 320 hours may request payout for all or a portion of their accumulated leave balances in excess of 320 hours. Upon request, the City will pay each employee for one -half of the accumulated leave balance in excess of 320 hours requested for payout at the employee's regular rate of pay. This payout is a continuation of the current leave payout plan which considers half of the accumulated leave to be vacation leave and the other half sick leave. For calendar year 1998, the leave carryover limit and payout policies defined in the MOU shall remain in effect. Fiscal Impact(s): Unknown, however leave payout in 1998 will likely be less than budgeted. To minimize increased payout of excess accumulated leave balances in January, 1999, supervisors are being directed to encourage employees to use accumulated leave carried over from 1997 in 1998. Follow Up Action(s): None. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion(s): If not approved, employees who were unable to use their accumulated leave as a result of staffing changes made pursuant to the reorganization will either lose a portion of their accumulated leave or will be paid out at one -half of excess leave balances over 320 hours. Attachment(s): 1. Letter of Understanding I i i I SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. --C 1 AGENDA ITEM 9 A MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 1997 CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Public Hearing on use of COPS (Citizens Option for Public Safety) funding in FY 97 -98 RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Conduct the required public hearing. 2. Move to approve the use of the FY 97 -98 COPS allocation as recommended by the Sheriff. REPORT SUMMARY: As a result of the legislature's reauthorization of the COPS funding program for FY 97 -98, the City Council must conduct a public hearing to consider uses for the funding. Further, the statutes pertaining to the COPS program require submission of a written request for uses of the funding by the City's Chief of Police (in Saratoga's case, the Sheriff), and consideration and action on the request by the City Council. In FY 97 -98, Saratoga is expected to receive approximately $70,645 in COPS funding. The budget, when it was adopted, included a revenue estimate of $68,829. During the budget hearings last spring, the Council tentatively earmarked all of the COPS funding for the new Sheriff's Technician position to supplement the City's code enforcement and lower level law enforcement activities. This decision was supported by the Public Safety Commission and by the Sheriff. Consequently, the Sheriffs written request for the use of this year's COPS funding is to partially fund the cost of the new Sheriffs Technician. FISCAL IMPACTS: As noted. Because of the additional amount of COPS funding the City will receive, the City's own cost for the Sheriff's Technician will be reduced by $1,816. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: As previously directed, the Public Safety Commission was separately notified of the Public Hearing. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Sheriff's written request would not be approved. In that event, the City Council would essentially be deciding not to spend the COPS funding since the law does not allow the City Council to modify the request. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The Sheriff will be notified that the funding request has been approved. I I ATTACHMENTS: 1. Written request from Sheriff for use of COPS funding. I I tERot RFC/PAWED 1 ....v... OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF NOV 1 8 1997 S ANTA CLARA COUNT t CITY OF SARAT OGA. SHERIFF CHARLES P. GILLINGHAM CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Larry Perlin, City Manager City of Saratoga eed0 From: Captain R. Wilso Date: November 18, 1997 Subject: C.O.P.S. Money Attached for your review is our recommendation for the C.O.P.S. funding. I believe we have funded your specific needs. We also used the remaining funds from last year to help fund our needs. Vendors for purchases will be decided using your city's standards. These requests should go to the city council for vote. We will then forward to the county for funding. Any questions, please advise either Deputy Mark Eastus or me. REW:kg cc: A/S Sing Lt. Colla COPS File i 1 I I: CITY OF 1 i 1 1 SARATOGA 1 1 1 or,„„ I ;...,:v..1.:6:- 4,.........i_i_71„..,,:•,,,.,,,., 4 ft-,, C itizen s i .‘..,...,,,..,..,,,,,k,...,, ,,...,..44,,,, '441 k..,..,., ,A:,A,:. t...._.—..,,, ''''"Fr I l 1 --P, a. 440t'' •.,,,tztf., .44 or; X i,r v 4.40:. ..4..,. Azt, ,7 x,v,,,‘ ,,,,,e, timitry, t 4 Option for is, A .A, 't I .t t$ ,,,,I 46. e.*.a.:a..t.^.=„tv: 111VM A fto4r,_.-,==.. '14‘1414..-4; Iv, rZ7:, tR 1 ".1: i\-"-Ntm. fi lOW0, 4 21.." 4 4 ...1F,'31' 4,tit,140, 472,1/4tio,,,,,,! il., w ,.:„.7y4,,,Nt4i. At Av e,'4 44-/ t .1.ftr",..„, p 4,47; '''''IL 14. 21 ,N• safe ty i t Office of the Sher County of Santa Clara CITIZENS' OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAM TOTAL Sheriffs Community Service Officer 70,644.66 70,644.66 I TOTAL 70,644.66 I u Sheriff's Community Service Officer The Sheriff's Community Service Officer is under the supervision of the Westside Patrol Commander, performs non -sworn duties to include: enforcing City of. Saratoga and other codes providing assistance and/or support to sworn law enforcement personnel; and provides community education and relations services related to law and code enforcement issues; enforces a variety of City and State codes through h' ty gh investigation of conditions personally observed or reported by citizens or other law enforcement personnel, such as, parking, noise abatement, abandoned vehicles, animal control ordinances and regulations, assists in traffic and crowd control at the scene of traffic accidents and fires. Prepares reports regarding vandalism, theft, and threatening/obscene phone calls with no known suspect. The position of the Sheriffs Community Service Officer will enhance the community relations as well as add an additional liason person for the residents and businesses of Saratoga, enabling community issues to be resolved in a timely manner. This position will be funded in part with "COPS" funds and the remainder will be paid by the City of Saratoga. COST Sheriff's Community Service Officer "COPS" Funds $70,644.66 Remainder to be paid by the City of Saratoga I I i 1 li SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 2 t i 4 AGENDA ITEM: 17 MEETING DATE: December', 1997 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Co ity Environment CITY MANAGER: 4,�,tqi I. (Ailii(i DEPARTMENT MANAGER: _614Arel___ SUBJECT: Response to request to reduce /waive permit fees to construct a soundwall at 13533 Saratoga Avenue. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Direct staff to collect the appropriate fees when, and if, the Cefalus' apply for a soundwall permit. REPORT SUMMARY: At the November 19 City Council meeting, the Council was addressed by Annette C. Peterson under oral communications requesting relief on her parents behalf from current soundwall permit fees. A letter from Ms. Peterson is attached further clarifying her request. She also raised concerns regarding current traffic circulation restrictions affecting her parents access to their home. The Cefalus live at the intersection of Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues, at 13533 Saratoga Avenue. The traffic circulation issues are being addressed separately by the City's Engineering Division. The City Council directed Planning Division staff to prepare a response outlining the required soundwall fees. Soundwalls are permitted along certain identified arterial roadways through the issuance of an administrative soundwall permit. The current Planning fee for a soundwall permit is $500. The permit process includes the applicants submitting plans and staff reviewing them for zoning compliance and visiting the site to ascertain the appropriateness of the wall in relation to adjoining structures /improvements. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to landscape the exterior side of the wall and enter into a landscape maintenance agreement to ensure the continued maintenance of this planting. Soundwall Fees Page Two Planning staff prepares the landscape agreement for the applicant and it is recorded through the City Clerk's office. On average, Planning staff will spend roughly three to five hours total processing a soundwall permit. The Building Division also collects a $70 to $200 plan check, permit and inspection fee. The fee varies depending on the type of wall proposed and its construction valuation. Ms. Peterson's letter also refers to construction related to the opening of Highway 85 and more recent Saratoga Avenue intersection improvements that have worsened her parents ability to access their property. In response to her inquiry about "grandfathering" a permit fee based on what was in effect before the opening of Highway 85 in 1993 the fee was approximately $350. In 1995 the fee was increased to $525. In the current fee schedule, the fee has actually been reduced to an even $500. (Though the fee schedule was adjusted across the -board for FY 97/98 in an attempt to achieve full cost recovery for development related services, some fees for minor applications actually decreased while fees for major applications increased.) The City Council may want to consider one of the following options: a. Direct staff to assess the current $500 Planning fee and approximately $70 Building permit fee. b. Waive a percentage of the Planning fee, based on the fees in effect prior to the opening of Highway 85, but direct staff to collect the full Building permit fee. c. Waive the entire Planning fee, but direct staff to collect the full Building permit fee. d. Waive both fees entirely. If the Council does agree that the Cefalus are in a unique situation and that reducing, or waiving, the fees for them would not be a grant of special consideration, staff would recommend option c. This option would grant them financial relief from a large part of the required fees, but would still pay for the Building Division's plan check and inspection costs. FISCAL IMPACTS: None if full fees are charged. If the Council opts to reduce fees in one of the manners discussed above, then three to five hours of staff expenditure would not be recovered if the Planning fees are waived. Additional hours of staff expenditure would not be recovered if both fees are waived. Ij �I 'I. I i I I' I I I Soundwall Fees Page Three I j ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: None, staff will charge the appropriate fees as directed by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence 2. Soundwall Ordinance I I I ;I c I I it ,q November 21, 1997 Gillian Moran, Mayor City Council Members Larry I. Perline, City Manager Dear Mayor Moran, City Council Members and Mr. Perlin: Thank you for allowing me to speak in my parents behalf at the City Council meeting on November 19. During the discussion period there were a few points that came up that, unfortunately, time did not allow me to respond to. I apologize for confusing my north and south directions. I'm sure that you have a good understanding of our problem and have determined the direction correctly. There never was an "existing sidewalk" in front of our property. However, there was a bicycle path. Our row of trees was removed by the City at the same location where the sidewalk now exists. In my letter of October 3 my reference to "enacting" a Grandfather Clause was perhaps the wrong choice of words. I am aware that no such clause exists. Perhaps a better choise would have been to "create" such a clause. My hope is that a decision in their favor would be made considering that my parents have lived in this same location for 33 years. They are in this predicament because of decisions made by the City which did not take their needs into consideration. They neither want nor can afford the costs of putting up a barrier wall. Moving them from their home is out of the question and we can think of no other solution. According to the City Attorney there is no legal obligation, how- ever, perhaps there is a moral one. Granted, we knew Hwy 85 was a certainty several years ago. However we did not anticipate the impact it would have on their living conditions nor did we anti- cipate the City putting a signal light at the end of their driveway or six lanes of traffic emitting gaseous fumes in through their kitchen windows. We hope you will understand our family's concern for our parents well being and the tremendous stress this situation has placed on them. We have consulted with their respective physicians, who between them have arrived at the same conclusion. I made refer- 1 ence to their letters at the meeting and am enclosing copies for your files. 1 11 I i ti i Again, I thank you for the time allowed me to present their 1' problem to you. A decision to relieve them from some of the financial burden that a wall would place on them, and the reinstallation of the U -Turn sign would be a most generous one to a pair of residents who have supported the City of Saratoga all these many years. Sin -rely, i Annette C. Peterson Encl. V I 4 e JAMES R. COHEN, M.D., F.A.C.P. P MEDICAL CORPORATION ONCOLOGY, HEMATOLOGY, INTERNAL MEDICINE DIPLOMATE, AMERICAN BOARDS OF ONCOLOGY AND INTERNAL MEDICINE I I October 1, 1997 RE: MR. JOSEPH CEFALU To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Cefalu is a patient of mine. He is complaining of severe headaches which occur daily. These headaches did not begin until Highway 85 was completed and there was a dramatic increase in traffic stopping in front of his house. No exact etiology of his headaches has been determined. It is the patient's feeling and his wife's feeling that they may be related to the fumes created by the cars, particularly carbon monoxide which is well -known to cause headaches. Very truly yours, James R. Cohen, M.D. JRC:pas i t 15400 NATIONAL AVE.. SUITE 201 LOS GATOS. CA 95032 -2432 (408) 358 8444 FAX #(408) 358 -4022 I i Rahnea L. Sunseri, M.D. 14543 So. Bascom Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 358 -0357 Oct 20,1997 RE: Mrs. Ann Cefalu To whom it may concern, I Mrs. Cefalu is a patient of mine since August 8, 1983. She is complaining of severe and constant headaches. These headaches did not begin until Highway 85 was opened and traffic increased in front of her house. No exact etiology of her headaches has been determined. It is the patient's and her husband's feeling that these headaches may be related to the fumes and noise created by the cars, particularly carbon monoxide fumes which are well -known to cause headaches. Sincerely, ./7 Rahnea L. Sunseri, M.D. Diplomate of American Broad of Internal Medicine C. RLS:tn I I 15- 29.020 Planning Commission, which approval may be granted in inches and the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend I' any of the following cases: with the terrain. Chain link fencing shall be permitted only (1) Where the Planning Commission finds and deter- for recreational courts and shall similarly be colored to mines that the visibility of the fence from public streets blend with the terrain. No barbed wire fencing shall be and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by allowed except as permitted by Section 15 -2 P pe y 9 050 of this the topography, landscaping or other features of the site. Article. (2) Where the Planning Commission finds and deter- (f) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to mines that the fence is required for safety reasons. any property located within and constituting a part of Tract (3) Where an exemption from the restriction against 7763, as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded fencing enclosure has been granted by the Planning Corn- in the office of the County Recorder. (Amended by Ord. mission for a "designated neighborhood area," as hereinafter 71.89 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 3, defined, in response to a petition for such exemption signed 1992) by the owners of lots comprising not less than sixty percent of the designated area. Before granting such exemption, 15- 29.030 Fencing to mitigate noise from the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing certain arterial streets. on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least (a) For the purpose of noise mitigation, a fence ex- ten days prior to the date of the hearing to all persons ceeding the height otherwise prescribed in this Article as owning property located within the designated neighborhood the limit for such fence may be located within any required area and within five hundred feet from the boundaries of yard abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, such area. As a condition for granting an exemption, the Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Planning Commission may establish alternative rules Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence Expressway or the portion j concerning the enclosure of sites in the designated neighbor- of Cox Avenue between Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and j hood area, including, but not limited to, rules pertaining Saratoga Avenue, upon the issuance by the Planning Direc- to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, tor of a fence permit and subject to the following provisions: and mitigation of visual impacts; provided, however, in (1) Where the fence is located within an exterior side no event shall such rules permit enclosure of more than yard or rear yard abutting one of the arterial streets specified sixty percent of the gross site area, or the installation of herein, the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height at any solid fences or walls, or use of any fencing material the property line, plus one additional foot in height for having exposed sharp points, or the installation of any each additional five feet of setback from the property line, fencing within an area dedicated as open space. The term up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still "designated neighborhood area," as used in subsection (c)(3) located within a required yard. of this Section, means a geographic portion of a hillside (2) Where the fence is located within a front yard zoning district, as designated by the Planning Commission, abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous may be located no closer than ten feet from the front to each other. Lots which are separated only by a street property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus shall be considered contiguous. If a petition for exemption one additional foot in height for each additional five feet is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded of setback from the front property line in excess of ten subdivision or tract map, the Planning Commission may, feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is in its discretion, require that all of the lots shown on such still located within the required yard. map be included within the designated neighborhood area. (3) Where a street line is located within a site, the Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to an existing location and setback of the fence as specified in subsections designated neighborhood area upon application by the (a)(1) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the property owner and approval by the Planning Director, street line rather than the property line. based upon his determination that the additional lot has (4) The applicant shall landscape and permanently similar topography, visibility, or other features shared by maintain an area parallel to and along the entire exterior the lots within the designated neighborhood area. side of the fence facing the street, in accordance with a (d) Wildlife trans. No fence shall unreasonably impede landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. All or I the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established any portion of such area may be located within the public trail or migratory route which crosses the site. right-of-way, subject to approval by the Planning Director. I (e) Wire fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, The landscaped area required herein shall be not less than barbed wire or galvanized wire, shall be permitted only five feet in width, except that where the available space 1 if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the between the fence and the interior edge of the sidewalk, 11 unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four (Saratoga 5 -95) 332 I 1 1 15- 29.060 or the edge of the street pavement where no sidewalk exists, the scenic qualities of the highway and will be compatible is less than five feet, the Planning Director may approve with the natural terrain. a landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance (d) Landscape screening. The applicant shall landscape of the fence permit, a landscape maintenance agreement and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office the entire length of the exterior side of the fence or wall of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute facing the scenic highway, in accordance with a landscape a covenant running with the land. plan approved by the Planning Director. Such landscape (5) The design of the fence shall be subject to approval plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation by the Planning Director, based upon a finding that the that are native to the area; fast growing, and require little fence is compatible with existing or proposed structures or no maintenance. The Planning Director shall not approve on the site and upon neighboring properties. the landscape plan unless he fmds that the proposed land- (6) No permit shall be issued if the Planning Director scaping will effectively screen the fence from public view finds that the fence will constitute a hazard for vehicular and enhance the visual appearance of the scenic highway. or pedestrian traffic or will otherwise be detrimental to Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a landscape mainte- the public health, safety or welfare. nance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and (b) Applications for a fence permit under this Section recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing (e) Height. The height of any fence or wall adjacent i fee in such amount as established from time to time by to a scenic highway shall comply with the regulations set resolution of the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71.110 forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article; provided, howev- 2, 1992) er, where the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that his property is subjected to 15- 29.040 Fencing adjacent to scenic greater noise impacts from the scenic highway as compared highways. generally with other properties located adjacent to such In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- highway, the Planning Director may approve a fence or 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to State designated wall not exceeding eight feet in height. As a condition of scenic highways shall comply with the following require- such approval, the Planning Director may require increased ments: setbacks and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence the higher fence or wall. or wall which faces and is located within one hundred feet (f) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence from the right -of -way of a State designated scenic highway lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, if such fence without first obtaining a fence permit from the Planning does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to to the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe, or from adjacent properties; and provided further, that upon and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the amount as established from time to time by resolution of length of such nonconforming fence, any replacement fence the City shall comply Council. p y with the permit pe requirement and restrictions (b) Setback. No fence or wall shall be constructed specified in this Section. within fifteen feet from the property line abutting the right- of-way of a scenic highway. The Planning Director may 15- 29.050 Barbed wire prohibited. require this minimum setback to be increased to a maximum No fence or wall constructed or installed within the City of one hundred feet if he determines that such increased shall contain barbed wire unless approved by the Planning setback is necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the Commission, based upon a finding that the barbed wire highway. is necessary for security purposes and that measures will (c) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adja- be taken, when appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts 1 cent to scenic highways may be constructed of wood, stone, of such wire. 1 stucco, masonry, wrought iron or similar material, but no I chain link, plastic or wire fencing shall be permitted. The 15- 29.060 Fences adjacent to heritage lanes. design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- I subject to approval by the Planning Director, based upon 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a designated a finding that the fence or wall will not adversely affect heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements: 333 (Saratoga 1 -93) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1997 CITY MANAGER: It i 1. ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Environment- DEPT. HEAD: 4 .e Rebecca Spoulos, Code Enforcement SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Article 6 -10 of the Municipal Code related to Alarm Systems. RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to introduce the Ordinance by title only waiving further reading.. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a proposed Ordinance which, if adopted, will do three things. First, it will enable City staff to process false alarm charges with the H.T.E software. Previously, the billing was done on a database software called Paradox, which the City stopped using when the computer system on which it was located, crashed. All data input has either been lost or misplaced within the hard drive of the computer. Also, there is a backlog of over 400 false alarm cards that have not been processed since June of this year. The current method for billing the false alarm charges cannot be done on the new H.T.E software because of the rolling billing period defined in the Ordinance. The Ordinance now reads that two false alarms are allowed within any twelve month period, called a window year. Since the H.T.E system cannot track receivables on a rolling year basis, the billing period must be changed to a twelve month calendar year. Also, to discourage excessive unpaid false alarms, it is suggested to allow only one false alarm before charges incur. The current backlog of false alarm billings will be handled manually by an outside contract person, who has knowledge of the old billing system. Secondly, the proposed Ordinance updates the references to departments and staff members, which are accountable for false alarm procedures, and appeals. The Ordinance will reflect current City staffing, since many changes have been made in the City's organization since 1989 when Ordinance No. 71.49 was last amended. Thirdly, the proposed Ordinance will increase the false alarm charges to reflect cost recovery for staff time and some of the charges incurred by the Sheriff's Office responding to false alarms. Approximately, 90% of all alarms within the City of Saratoga are found to be false, as defined by City Code. The cost for the Sheriff's Office to respond to these false alarms can exceed $50,000 dollars annually, in addition to the time that deputies are unavailable to perform other law enforcement activities.. The proposed false alarm fees are comparable to neighboring cities with similar alarm ordinances. FISCAL IMPACTS: Printing charges for the revised false alarm cards, alarm applications and alarm stickers is estimated at $1200. The cost for the contract employee to clear the existing false alarm backlog will be recovered from any false alarm penalties collected for the 1997 billing. Beginning in 1998, revenues under the proposed fee schedule are estimated to be $35,000. ADVERTISING, NOTICITNG AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The public will be informed of the proposed Ordinance amendments, if accepted, through the local media. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Ordinance will not be introduced or accepted. The current backlog of the false alarm billings will remain unprocessed, and the City would likely not recover any revenue on uncollected fees from outstanding false alarm penalties, which is estimated to be $15,000. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The Ordinance will be scheduled for second reading and adoption on January 7, 1998. fl ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Comparison Chart of Neighboring Cities ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTIONS 6- 10.020,6 10.050,6- 10.080, 6- 10.100, 6- 10.110, 6- 10.120,OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Paragraph (c) of Section 6- 10.020 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "6 10.020 Definitions. (c) Alarm system means any mechanical or electrical device which is designed or used for the detection of fire or intrusion into a building, structure or facility, and which emits a sound or transmits a signal or message when activated. Alarm systems include, but are not limited to, direct -dial telephone devices, audible alarms, and proprietor alarms. Devices which are not designed or used to evoke a police or fire response or used to register alarms that are intended to be audible, visible or perceptible from outside of the protected building, structure or facility are not included within this definition, nor are auxiliary devices installed to protect the telephone systems from damage or disruption by the use of an alarm system." SECTION 2: Paragraph (a) and Paragraph (b) of Section 6- 10.050 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "6 10.050 Application for permit; issuance. a. Application for an alarm permit shall be made to the Community Services Director City IVfanager or lit e3� designee on such form as he-may preset b which shall include the following information: b. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Community Services Director Cttj' aager o °h�s designee shall issue an alarm permit to the applicant; provided, however, if the application discloses that a permit previously issued to the same applicant or for the same alarm system has been revoked, a new permit shall not be issued unless the applicant demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Wlllandger or hislleerctesigneethat the prior grounds for revocation will not reoccur. No fee shall be charged for issuance of the alarm permit." I 'I 1 �i SECTION 3: Section 6- 10.080 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows li "6- 10.080 False alarms prohibited; investigation of false alarms. (a) It shall be unlawful to maintain, use or posses an alarm system which has caused more than #we one false alai414.s Win to be transmitted within any twelN =e month penied calenda>• year to the County communications center, or the County Sheriff's Office-e any fire district, by communication from an alarm business or a person responding to the false alarm. (b) A representative of the police er-f re department responding to each emergency alarm shall attempt to ascertain by investigation whether said alarm was activated with reasonable cause therefor or was a false alarm. In the event his /her investigation indicates that the alarm was a false alarm, the investigator shall prepare a report ofa false alarm cards i, this investigation stating his /her conclusions and the factual basis for such conclusions, and shall forward such report rd to the Community Services Director Cats M anager or hislher designe The investigator shall also serve a copy of his /her report on the alarm owner or occupant of the premises on or in which the false alarm occurred by delivering the same to and leaving it with some person of suitable age and discretion upon the premises or by mailing a copy of the report to such alarm owner or occupant." SECTION 4: Section 6- 10.100 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "6- 10.100 Revocation of permit. (a) An alarm permit issued pursuant to this Article may be revoked on any one of the following grounds: (1) The occurrence of tie two false alarms within any twelve month periec- calendar y ear (a) A violation by the permittee of any regulation set forth in this article. (b) The failure by a permittee to pay any fine prescribed in Section 6- 10.120. (b) The Community Services Director ity fans a or his/he ilesiknee shall give written notice to the permittee of the City's intention to revoke the alarm permit and the grounds for such revocation. The notice shall advise the permittee that the alarm permit will be revoked after the expiration of fifteen days, unless prior to that time the permittee shows good cause as to why such action should not be taken. If, in response to the notice and within the time specified therein, or such longer period of time as may be allowed by the Community Services Director the permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director City Manager or. his/her esrgne that all grounds for revocation stated in the notice have been remedied, II said Director City ;Manager or haslher designee may terminate the revocation proceedings. If the permit is revoked, the alarm system shall not be utilized by the alarm 2 owner or any other person unless and until a new permit has been issued pursuant this Article." SECTION 5: Section 6- 10.110 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "6- 10.110 Administrative review; appeal procedure. Any person charged with a false alarm penalty under Subsection 6- 10.120(e) of this Article may tipper:// request an administrative review of such penalty to by the Community Sorvices Director City M ager or its /her designee by filing agn o f, appeal in.the Of�ice ofithe City Cl w ritten within days o recei t o suc peitaltyr The ap ea/ shallbe uecnanied by Tho request shall be submitted in writing, the accumulated falsealarmppenalties, on such form as the Community Sorvices Director City .Man or his/her designe may prescribe. Within a rcaconablo time Within 2l days after his/her receipt of such appeal request, the Community Services Director the City Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a lmariri on the,matter conste.ring all: relevant evidenre and may affirm, reverse, or mod! the penalty the admini trativo review and furnish a written decision to the person making the request. Tho Director if} authorized to cancel any false alarm penalty if he determines that a false alarm did not actually occur, or that the person charged with such penalty is not responsible for payment of the same. In such event, Xf a penaity is reiersed, the penalty shall promptly be refunded. if previously paid. If the Director ity or his/her, designee determines that the false alarm penalty was properly charged and such penalty has not previously been paid, the penalty shall be paid in full within fifteen days after the Director Crty Manager or hislheiiiesagnee renders his /her decision on the administrative review The decision of the'City anaj(or has /he designee shall hefinal assessment of any penalty pursuant to the Section 6 10.120 of this Article, may bo appealed to the City Manager or his /her designee by filing a notice of appeal in the offico of the City Clerk within ten days after the date of such decision or determination. The Community Services Director Tho decision of the City Manager or his /her designee (hall bo final." SECTION 6: Paragraph (e) of Section 6- 10.120 in Article 6 -10 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "6- 10.120 Violations of Article. (e) Maintaining, using or possessing an alarm system which has caused any false alarm to be transmitted to the County communications center, or the County Sheriff's Office or any fire district by communication from an alarm business or a person responding to the false alarm: 3 (f) For the thifd se onii' erred false alarm within any twelve month fifty dollars calendar ar seveafy`fave dollars. (g) For the fourth Third vertu d false alarm within any twelve month pefiedigone hundred Dollars cal n,`dar ear one hundred twin m 've dollars.. (h) For the me o ru th very aed false alarm within any twelve month hundred dollars calendar year, wo hun red d tars. (i) Fort heJfth and subsequent. rafted *false alarms within any calendar y> t t hundredjftydollars." SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 9: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1997, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 4 False Alarm Schedules for Similiar Sized Cities December 17, 1997 Proposed Ordinance Changes 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Subsequent Billing Yr Campbell free free free $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 tolOth then police do not respond 12 mon. Cupertino free $63.00 $80.00 $97.00 $97.00 $97.00 12 mon. Los Gatos free free $75.00 $150.00 $250.00 $250.00 6 mon Monte Sereno free free $50.00 $75.00 100.00 $100.00 12 mon. Saratoga free free $50.00 $100.00 $200.00 $200.00 Window PROPOSED SARATOGA free $75.00 $125.00 $200.00 $250.00 $250.00 12 mon Page 1 II� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 24§ AGENDA ITEM a MEETING DATE: December 17, 1997 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk SUBJECT: ORDINANCE MAKING CITY CLERK APPOINTIVE POSITION SEPARATE FROM CITY MANAGER Recommended Motion: Introduce ordinance by title only, waiving further reading. Report Summary: In connection with the appointment of the new City Manager, the Council has tentatively agreed to make the City Clerk's position separate from that of the City Manager. This ordinance would accomplish that goal and allow the City Clerk to be appointed by the City Manager. Fiscal Impacts: None as a result of enacting the ordinance. However, the current salary range for the Deputy City Clerk position should be examined to determine if P Y Y the position of City Clerk it is appropriate for Y iven the greater g P responsibilities and duties of the new position. Follow Up Actions: Council actions: the second reading and adoption of the ordinance would take place on January 7. Staff actions: the City Manager would appoint the City Clerk. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: City Manager will continue to be designated as City Clerk. Attachments: I I Memo from City Attorney. Ordinance. DEC -12 -97 FRI 15 58 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I LV, FAX NO, 510 351 4481 P. 02/03 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON MICHAEL R. NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION NORTH RAY OFFICE STEVEN R. MEYERS ELIZABETH S A S RIBACK H. SILVER M GATEWAY PLAZA 555 FIFTH STREET. SUITE 230 MICHAEL KENNETH A WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 UAVIU W SKINNER TELEPHONE: (707) 646.8008 STEVEN T.MATTAS SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 FACSIMILE: (7071 545.6617 CUFFORDF,CAMPBELL TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KAIHLEENFAUBION, FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4491 CINTRALVALLEYOFFICE R)CK W. JARVIS LARISSA M. SETO 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE DEBBIE F. LATHAM STOCKTON, CA 95207 WAYNE K SNODGRASS TELEPHONE: (2091 991 AOlS0 ARNE O. SANDBERG FACSIMILE: (203) 351 3009 BENJAMIN P. FAY DANIEL A. MULLER LIANE M. RANDOLPH PATRICK WHRNELL KATHARINE C. WELLMAN MEMORANDUM M OF COUNSEL ANDREA J.SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST TO: Larry Perlin DATE: December 12, 1997 City Manager City of Saratoga FROM: Michael S. Riback City Attorney RE: Creation of an Appointed City Clerk Position I have reviewed the municipal code provisions relating to the creation of a City Clerk position, as well as relevant sections of the Government Code. Government Code §34856 authorizes the City Council to make the appointment or to vest the power in the City manager to make the appointment of City Clerk. I have revised the draft ordinance so that the City Manager would appoint the City Clerk position and that the City Clerk with the consent of the City Manager, would delegate the duties of the City Clerk position to deputies who would perform the functions of the City Clerk in the absence of the City Clerk. Section 2- 20.050(b) would be repealed. The draft ordinance is included herewith for your review and comment. Michael S. Riback City Attorney MSR:dsp Enclosure F: \W PD\MNRSW\ 273 \01\MEMO\DEC9TCLERKPOS.D 12 DEC -12 -97 FRI 15:59 MEYERS, NAVE, R I BACK &S I LV, FAX NO, 510 351 4481 P. 03/03 ORDINANCE NO. 71- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK POSITION, SEPARATE FROM THAT OF CITY MANAGER The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: ,Section 1: Section 2.20 -030 of the Saratoga City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2- 20.030 Manager to appoint City Clerk. The City Manager shall appoint the City Clerk, whose duty it shall be to perform the statutory functions of the office of City Clerk. The City Clerk may, with the consent of the City Manager, designate deputies to perform the statutory functions of the City Clerk in the absence of the City Cleric. Section 2: Section 2- 20.050(b) of the Saratoga City Code is hereby repealed. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of Saratoga held on the day of 1997, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk December 12, 1997 F: \W PD\M NRSW\2 73 \ORD.97\CITYCLRKORD November 29, 1997 GILLIAN MORAN 14701 Farwell Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Moran;. The following letter was sent to the City of Saratoga, however, we are mailing a copy to each of the Council Members in case the letter should be misplaced at the City. We would like to refer to the issue of a Use Permit Approval to allow One World Montessori to utilize the facilities at Immanuel Lutheran Church for approximately 145 of their children, and the Appeal that has been made to the City Council and is coming up for a hearing on December 3, 1997. We are writing this letter due to the fact we will be out of town at that time and unable to attend this hearing or meeting in person, but we do want to confirm our stand on this issue as it was discussed in the original hearing before the Planning Commission. We live approximately 1/2 block from the Immanuel Lutheran Church and we feel the noise of an added 145 children playing on the grounds of the Church and the cars driving these children to and from the Church could create a problem for day to day life. We live several blocks from the Saratoga High School and we can hear their band playing and the children playing sports on the playgrounds and I am sure this short distance could cause an unbearable situation. More importantly is the traffic issue. We enter our Street from Saratoga Avenue and there is already a traffic problem on Saratoga Avenue. Several times a week when we come home from work, the traffic is backed up along Saratoga Avenue from downtown Saratoga to the Library or different areas along Saratoga Avenue and we are unable to get in or out of our driveway. We feel this impact of 145 cars in the morning hours and 145 cars back in the afternoon /early evening hours would make this traffic problem, unbearable along Saratoga Avenue as well as the feeder Streets, such as, Herriman, Jerries, I Council Member Page #2 Loma Rio and Seagraves, as well as other Streets leading to this area, such as Beaumont, Scotland, Thelma, Lutheria, La Poloma and others, We also feel it is a problem that will cause a drain on the already strained funds of the City of Saratoga, and the School will not contributing any revenue to offset this drain, due to the fact this is a. School that is mostly Cupertino residents. It may be necessary for the City of Saratoga to put in stop signs, paint crosswalks, paint special lanes, provide manpower to monitor, if necessary, and policemen when there are accidents which will happen from this added influx of vehicles all in a hurry to drop off and pickup their children at times when the traffic is already strained. We feel there are more important areas our tax dollars need to be spent than to be drained out for a situation that can be created by this added traffic in an already problem area. This is definitely a Commercial Venture for the Immanuel Lutheran Church only, and will not provide any revenue for the City of Saratoga. There have been many other Commercial Ventures that have been turned down by the City of Saratoga for "traffic reasons" that would have been revenue producing that is badly needed by the City, and trust you will give all the same considerations to this matter as was given those issues and will vote against this Use Permit as a Council Member of our City should, who has the interest of the City in their hands. We could go on and on about reason why this School should not be allowed to operate at this particular Church facilities, but we feel the main reason is the traffic issue which is already a problem for the City of Saratoga. Yours trul Sa Faye Fisher 1422 Worden Way Saratoga, CA 95070