Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2006 Supplemental Council AgendaMEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 ORIGINATING DEPT: CDD /Public Works PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP Com. Dev. Director SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: /J CITY MANAGER: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: REPORT SUMMARY: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Expedited Annexation Program for County Islands John Cherbone Receive report and provide direction to staff regarding annexation of the 104 acre Prospect Road Area and the 20 acre Hidden Hill Road Area. In order to encourage cities to annex urban unincorporated islands, the State of California has created a streamlined process that does not require protest or election requirements. This process is only available to January 1, 2007. To further encourage annexation the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors has agreed to subsidize the costs of the survey mapping, Board of Equalizations Fees, and provide street improvements. On September 7, 2005 the City Council reviewed a staff report requesting their guidance on the expedited annexation process being encouraged by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). At the September meeting the Council asked that staff prepare a Geotechnical evaluation prepared for two sites that meet the requirements for the expedited annexation process. On February 15, 2006, the City reviewed the geotechnical information prepared by the City's Geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires Associates (Attachment #1), for the Prospect Road area and the Hidden Hill area. The report uses a scale of 1 to 5 to rank the condition of the roadway with the number 1 being a satisfactory condition, and number 5 indicating an active landslide. The Hidden Hill area identified in the report as the Southern Urban Pocket received several rankings of 3. The Prospect Road area identified as the Northern Urban Pocket received several rankings of 4 indicating recent severe distress. At the February meeting several of the residents residing in the County showed up and spoke about the proposed annexation. Generally the speakers had concerns about the proposal and asked to be noticed the next time the item was discussed. One of the questions that have been generated by the neighbors since the noticing has gone out is whether or not the County residents' taxes will increase. The only additional tax from the City of Saratoga will be the City of Saratoga General Obligation Bonds, Series 2001 (Saratoga Library Project). The Library Bond tax adjusts slightly every year, but last years figure was based on 0.01170 per $100 of property tax assessed value. In other words if you paid $20,000 in property taxes your additional tax would be less than $250 a year. Staff has solicited a proposal from the City Geotechnical consultant for a more detailed investigation of the problem area highlighted in the initial report and will provide this information as part of the staff presentation. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ANNEXING THE AREAS: As the County Island areas are developed the City will have limited input as to the design of the homes. Currently the County does not have a floor area limit and has a maximum height of 30 feet. The County has passed a Resolution (Attachment #4), which encourages an amendment to the County Zoning Ordinances to eliminate significant differences between the County and City ordinances. FISCAL IMPACTS: The annexation will require planning staff time, noticing, the City Surveyor, City Attorney, Public Works, and the City Geologist's time. The Community Development Department is a self funded department, thus any projects that are similar to this proposed project that cannot be billed to an applicant and will reduce the Department's budget. Costs associated with maintenance of the public infrastructure are harder to estimate due to the risks associated with unstable geologies. The County is currently offering to cover the mapping costs upon completion of the annexation process which would significantly reduce the costs of the City Surveyor. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Recommend detachment of certain areas from the City's Urban Service Area (USA). If the City Council is not interested in annexing a certain area it may be feasible to look into taking the area out of the City's Urban Service Area. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: If the Council recommends annexation staff will start the annexation process by bringing a resolution of intent to initiate the annexation of County Islands back to the Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The agenda for this meeting was properly posted. In addition each proposed annexation area and a radius of 500 feet around the area were sent notices. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Geotechnical Evaluation of Roadway Distress by Cotton Shire Associates, Inc. 2. LAFCO handout Keeping the City Whole 3. Santa Clara County Resolution recommending the County adopt the City's development regulation for Unincorporated Islands 4. Public Notice and the list of addresses where the notices were sent 5. E -mail from a neighbor 2 Attachment 1 Northern California Office 330 Village Lane COTTON, SHIRES ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TO: Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer QTY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Evaluation of Roadway Distress RE Urban Pockets Road Stability Saratoga, California Dear Ms. Harvancik: In accordance with the scope of work outlined in our proposal of March 23, 2005, we have completed geotechnical evaluations of roadway conditions within two urban pocket areas. The locations of the two urban pocket areas are illustrated on Figure 1. Our work included compilation of pertinent technical maps, inspection of site conditions, mapping of pavement distress areas, geotechnical evaluation of collected data, and preparation of this letter- report. Field observations were completed in October 2005. We anticipate that the project budget will allow us to complete joint inspection of high priority roadway distress areas with City Staff. SOUTHERN URBAN POCKET The Southern Urban Pocket area consists of approximately 20.5 acres accessed from Ravine Road off of Highway 9 in southern Saratoga. An annotated aerial photograph illustrating the site locations of observed pavement distress features is included in Figure 2. We identified 12 pavement distress sites in this pocket area. We ranked the severity of roadway distress conditions in accordance with the following system: Pavement Condition Ranking Pavement Condition Status 1 Monitor 2 Older Distress 3 Recent Moderate Distress 4 RecentSevereDistress P1,10 November 29, 2005 G0185 Potential for future problems because of noted adverse geotechnical conditions (current pavement condition satisfactory). No signs of recent distress (last year) but signs of older distress evident. Distress inducing processes are active yet use of roadway not threatened and required maintenance relatively minor. Recent distress observed that includes vertical (downward) displacement across cracks. Likely need for roadway bed stabilization. Ongoing failure may reduce width of roadway. Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249 -9640 Iveta Harvancik November 29, 2005 Page 2 G0185 5 Active Landsliding Signs of active landsliding observed beneath pavement such that a significant portion of the available roadway width could be lost, impacting traffic use. Segments of roadway not ranked according to the above system were observed to display generally acceptable to good pavement condition performance. Descriptions and comments about pavement distress noted in the Southern Urban Pocket area are provided below. Site 1- Ravine Road (northern) Ranking 1- Monitor Ravine Road in this vicinity has received a recent slurry seal and any previous pavement distress was thereby concealed. The southern edge of the roadway is located 7 feet from the top of a creek channel that has a precipitous bank of approximately 8 feet in height. Adverse migration of the creek channel over time could remove necessary support from the roadway resulting in distress. Site 2 Ravine Road (northeast of intersection with Hidden Hill Road) Ranking 2 Older Distress The southern edge of Ravine Road is approximate 5 feet from the top of a creek bank (approximately 15 feet in height, inclined at 60 degrees). A 20 -foot long segment of the concrete curb displays vertical and lateral displacement (from 1/2 to 1 inch) and is likely impacted by the dose proximity of the creek channel. Iveta Harvancik Page 3 Site 3 Hidden Hill Road (western terminus) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress The cul -de -sac bulb in this vicinity shows signs of pavement distress likely related to fill settlement and creep. The fill slope descending from the northern side of the road has a height of approximately 11 feet and is inclined at approximately 1.5:1. Three parallel lines of pavement cracks (open to 0.25 inch) have broken through the recent slurry seal. The northern concrete curb and gutter is cracked and offset between 1/4 to 1/2 inch in width toward the north (downslope direction). Site 4 Hidden Hill Road (east of cul-de -sac) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress M November 29, 2005 G0185 Iveta Harvancik Page 4 November 29, 2005 G0185 A 55 -foot long crack (open 1/8 inch) was observed 5 feet from the northern edge of the roadway. This cracking has occurred since recent application of a slurry seal (suggesting an ongoing problem). An irrigation system was observed near the crest of the roadway fill prism that extends beneath the northern edge of the roadway. Site 5 Hidden Hill Road (middle) Ranking 1- Monitor An area of seepage was observed adjacent to a relatively new curb. No pavement distress observed at this time. Site 6 Hidden Hill Road (intersection with Ravine Road) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress Water is present beneath the pavement in this vicinity and seepage was observed in several locations out of pavement cracks. A 40 -foot long roadway segment is impacted. Water will likely cause accelerated pavement section deterioration in this area. Consideration of a subdrain system appears warranted. Iveta Harvancik Page 5 Site 7 Ravine Road (western) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress November 29, 2005 G0185 Cracks of approximately 65 feet in length (1/8 to 1/4 inch wide) are located 5 feet from the downslope edge of pavement. The road has no downslope shoulder in this vicinity. The edge of the roadway is located at the top of a 10 -foot deep drainage channel with a bank inclined at approximately 70 degrees. Site 8 Ravine Road (vicinity of residence at 158791 Ranking 2 Older Distress Settlement was observed above a trench connecting to a manhole in the center of the roadway. Iveta Harvancik Page 6 Site 9 Lomas Lane (southwestern) Ranking 2 Older Distress Site 10 Lomas Lane (middle, above turnout) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress November 29, 2005 G0185 '24;53 .+3.� ogalatit., Two circular (approximately 4 -foot diameter) areas of concentrated pavement cracking were observed. Well developed "alligator" pattern cracking was also noted nearby. Pavement and subgrade removal and replacement appears warranted in these areas. Iveta Harvancik Page 7 November 29, 2005 G0185 A 100-foot long segment of roadway displays pavement cracks 5 to 6 feet from the downslope edge of pavement. The edge of pavement is adjacent to the top of a very steep ravine (approximately 40 feet in depth). The downslope edge of the roadway lacks adequate lateral confinement of underlying soils. Site 11 Lomas Lane (middle adjacent to turnout Ranking 2- Older Distress 4 .01- t A 5-foot wide strip of pavement (75 feet in length) displays concentrated cracking (alligator pattern) distress. Full pavement and subgrade removal and replacement could be warranted in this area. Iveta Harvancik Page 8 Site 12 Lomas Lane (vicinity of residence at 15621) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress November 29, 2005 G0185 An 80 -foot long segment of roadway was observed with pervasive small cracking over the downslope half of the roadway. A steep descending bank is present along the downslope edge and distressed areas are likely underlain by fill materials. Iveta Harvancik Page 9 NORTHERN URBAN POCKET The Northern Urban Pocket area consists of approximately 104.7 acres gaining access from Prospect Road off of DeAnza adjacent to the northwestern portion of Saratoga. An annotated aerial photograph, illustrating the site locations of observed pavement distress features, is included as Figure 3. Regional geologic maps illustrate 3 large -scale landslides in this area crossing portions of Blue Hills Drive, Arrowhead Lane, and Rolling Hills Road. We did not observe signs of pavement distress that suggest recent movement of these mapped landslides. We identified 15 pavement distress sites which are summarized below. Site 13 Blue Hills Drive (middle) Ranking 2 Older Distress November 29, 2005 G0185 A 3 -foot wide by 30 -foot long segment along the uphill side of the road displays cracks (alligator pattern) open 1/8 to 1/4 inch. This is likely an area warranting patchwork including areas of full pavement and subgrade removal and replacement. Iveta Harvancik Page 10 Site 14 Blue Hills Drive (western) Ranking 3 Recent/Ongoing Moderate Distress November 29, 2005 60185 A 40 -foot long section of roadway displays cracking across the full width of the pavement (alligator cracks from 1/4 to 1/2 inch wide). Area warrants consideration for full pavement and subgrade replacement. Iveta Harvancik Page 11 Site 15 Blue Hills Drive (eastern) Ranking 4 Recent Severe Distress November 29, 2005 G0185 A 140 -foot long by 5 -foot wide segment of roadway displays trench settlement and severe pavement distress. Local seepage appears to adversely impact pavement performance. A tilted and partially failing wood retaining wall is present (approximately 250 feet in length) along the uphill side of the roadway. A new retaining wall could be necessary in the near future as well as a subdrain and removal and replacement of the pavement and subgrade in this area. November 29, 2005 ,Iveta Harvancik Page 12 G0185 Site 16 Arrowhead Lane (western) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress A 250 -foot long section of roadway near the residence at 21965 Arrowhead Lane was observed with 1/2 to 1 inch wide cracks along the upslope and downslope edges of the roadway. This portion of the roadway has recently been repaved. The downslope edge of the roadway appears to be impacted by creeping soils. Iveta Harvancik Page 13 Site 17 Arrowhead Lane (western) Ranking 1- Monitor November 29, 2005 G0185 A 200 -foot long segment of roadway displays signs of trench settlement and cracking parallel to trenches (cracks open 1/8 to 1/4 inch). Cracks are apparent in a section of the roadway that has been recently been resurfaced indicating recencey of displacement. Site 18 Arrowhead Lane (middle) Ranking 2 Older Distress A 5 -foot by 5 -foot area of pavement is impacted by dense cracking (alligator pattern) generally open 1/8 to 1/4 inch. Isolated patching and possibly subgrade removal and replacement appears warranted in this area. Iveta Harvancik Page 14 Site 19 Arrowhead Lane (middle) Ranking 2 Older Distress it November 29, 2005 G0185 A widely spaced pavement cracks (open 1/8 to 1/4 inch) area present over a 90- foot long section of roadway. These cracks are located above the top of a steep driveway cut slope. This cracking is also located near the top margin of a mapped landslide. Site 20 Arrowhead lane (eastern) Ranking 1, 2, and 3 Monitor, Older Distress, and Recent Distress Iveta Harvancik Page 15 November 29, 2005 G0185 An approximately 200 -foot long section of recently resurfaced roadway displays surface undulations, trench settlements, several small existing patches, and miscellaneous cracking. Local soils appear to have a relatively high expansion potential. The need for ongoing maintenance of pavement in this area should be anticipated. Landslides have been mapped in this immediate vicinity. Site 21- Rolling Hills Road (northern) Ranking 2 Older Distress A 150 -foot long segment of roadway displays cracking along the alignment of a trench and general cracking along the downslope half of the roadway (cracks open 1/4 to 3/8 inch). Iveta Harvancik Page 16 Site 22 Rolling Hills (northern) Ranking 2 Older Distress November 29, 2005 G0185 A 75 -foot long section of relatively old pavement displays widely spaced cracks (open 0.25 to 0.5 inch) and broad surface undulations. Surface deterioration may be largely attributed to pavement age. Site 23 Rolling Hills Road (middle) Ranking 2 Older Distress A 70 -foot long section of roadway displays distress very similar to Site 22 but with additional areas of alligator pattern cracking. Surface deterioration may be largely attributed to pavement age. Site 24 Rolling Hill's Road (south) Ranking 2 Older Distress An 85 -foot long section of roadway displays distress as described for Site 23. Pavement along this portion of Rolling Hills Road shows signs of being resurfaced with approximately 2 -inch thick overlays of asphaltic concrete on 3 to 4 occasions. November 29, 2005 Iveta Harvancik Page 17 G0185 Site 25 Prospect Road (western) Ranking 4- Recent Severe Distress A 5-foot wide by 50-foot long section of pavement on the downslope edge of the roadway displays cracking. Up to 1-inch vertical offsets were observed across individual cracks. Rapid creep or active shallow landsliding is impacting this portion of the roadway. Loss of pavement and partial use of lane should be anticipated in the downslope edge of the roadway is not stabilized. Site 26 Prospect Road (western) Ranking 4- Recent Severe Distress November 29, 2005 Iveta Harvancik Page 18 G0185 Approximately 3 to 4 feet of the downslope edge of the pavement displays severe distress over a distance of approximately 125 feet. Cracks may be probed from the surface down to a depth of approximately 4 inches. Rapid creep or shallow landsliding is impacting pavement stability. Loss of pavement and partial use of a lane should be anticipated in the downslope edge of the roadway is not stabilized. Site 27 Prospect Road (western) Ranking 3 Recent Moderate Distress Style of distress is similar to that noted for Sites 25 and 26 but less severe. A 125 foot long section of roadway displays creep related cracking along the downslope edge of pavement. SUMMARY In general, more severe pavement distress was observed in the Northern Urban Pocket Area than the Southern Urban Pocket Area. Both expansive soils and previous landsliding are evident in portions of the Northern Urban Pocket Area. We suggest completion of a joint site inspection with City Staff to further discuss our observations, evaluations, and potential options for remediation. LIMITATIONS This geotechnical evaluation has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City with decisions regarding geotechnical matters. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the roadways. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally Iveta Harvancik November 29, 2005 Page 19 G0185 accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT TS:DTS:kdc Attachments: Figures 1, 2 and 3 _:T2ef Ted Sayre Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 z Aziwiy\, David T. Schrier Associate Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 Attachment 2 MAKING YOUR CITY WHOLE Taking Advantage of the Current Opportunity to Annex Urban Unincorporated Pockets Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County September 2005 Contents A SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIES Part 1: Introduction 1 Part 2: How Were Urban Unincorporated Islands (i.e. Pockets) Created? 3 Part 3: Streamlined Process for Annexing Pockets 5 Streamlined Annexation Process Flow Chart 7 Part 4: Reasons for Cities to Annex Pockets 8 Part 5: Benefits of Annexation to Pockets Residents and Property Owners 10 How TO CAPITALIZE ON THIS OPPORTUNITY Part 6: Five Elements of Successful Pocket Annexation Efforts 12 Part 7: Dispelling Myths About Urban Unincorporated Island Annexations 15 USEFUL BACKGROUND INFORMATION Part 8: Changing Conditions for Urban Pockets 17 Part 9: Why the County Supports Annexing Pockets 18 Part 10: Why LAFCO Supports Annexing Pockets 19 We would like to thank Don Weden, Former Principal Planner, Santa Clara County, for his assistance in developing this report which contains excerpts from various documents prepared by him on the topic of Pocket Annexations. The excerpts have been updated to reflect current laws and policies on annexations. A SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIES PART 1: INTRODUCTION Purpose of This Report The California Legislature has enacted a special law that greatly simplifies the task for cities seeking to annex certain, inefficient, unincorporated urban island within them. Some of the provisions of this law will be "sunsetting" out of existence soon. This report is intended to help your city and community take advantage of this special legislation, before some of its provisions expire. This report provides background information and advice to community and local government leaders and local agency staff who may become involved in issues and projects involving annexation of the remaining urban unincorporated islands in Santa Clara County. Urban Pockets: An Ongoing Problem Left Over from the 1960s Unincorporated urban pockets completely or sub- stantially surrounded by cities are a byproduct of the annexation and land use policies that existed in Santa Clara County back in the 1960s. Ever since the early 1970s, it has been city, County, and Local Agency Formation (LAFCO) policy that urban development should occur only within cities and that these islands of unincorporated lands should be annexed into cities. And, over the past 35 years, the vast majority of the land within pockets that existed in 1970 has, in fact, been annexed into cities. Nonetheless, there still remain today more than 180 unincorporated urban pockets in Santa Clara County, 89% of which are smaller than 150 acres. They are scattered all the way from Gilroy to Mountain View and from Los Gatos to Milpitas. They remain, in large part, due to inertia and the somewhat cumbersome annexation procedures that existed until recently. The continued existence of these unincorporated pockets creates problems for cities, the County, pockets residents, adjacent city residents, and various agencies and special districts responsible for providing them with urban services and facilities. Annexation of these remaining pockets would result in more efficient and responsive local government, greater consistency of planning and development within urban areas, and increased ability of local residents to participate in and affect the decisions that most impact their neighborhoods. Amended State Law Makes Annexation of Urban Islands Easier In recognition of the greater problems caused by urban pockets, the California Legislature enacted special legislation in 2001 that made it easier for local governments to annex small urban pockets that are 75 acres or less. This legislation was amended in 2005 to apply to urban pockets that are 150 acres or less. 1 2 The law allows cities to annex urban pockets through a streamlined process that does not require protest proceedings or elections, provided the island meets special criteria and is 150 acres or less. To encourage local governments to accelerate their efforts to annex small urban pockets, the Legislature included provisions that portions of the law would "sunset" (i.e. go out of existence) after January 1, 2007. In particular, the provision that eliminated formal protest would cease to be in effect. By moving forward and annexing these pockets now, cities can take advantage of these streamlined provisions of state law, before some of them go out of existence. LAFCO and County Provide New Incentives to Cities for Annexing Pockets As an incentive for cities to actively pursue the annexation of entire pockets, LAFCO is waiving its filing fees for pockets annexations and the County has committed to: Covering annexation mapping costs, Surveyor's review costs, Assessor's review costs, Paying State Board of Equalization filing costs, and Budgeting for needed road improvements in unincorporated islands approved for annexation. In addition, LAFCO has committed to collaborating with the cities and the County in facilitating annex- ation of pockets. LAFCO's fiscal year 2005 -2006 Budget includes some funds for LAFCO to provide assistance to cities in developing annexation plans, gathering technical information, developing or parti- cipating in community outreach programs, and assisting in annexation process /project management. However, all of these incentives are only available for the next 18 months (i.e. until January 1, 2007). Therefore, now is the best time for cities to annex the pockets. 2: HOW URBAN ISLANDS (i.e. POCKETS) WERE CREATED What Is an "Urban Unincorporated Island For purposes of this report, an "urban unincorporated island" is defined as unincorporated land that is located within a city's urban service area (USA). It may be either completely or substantially surrounded by incorporated lands, i.e. lands already annexed to a city. Despite the fact that they are completely or substantially surrounded by a city, they remain under the land use authority of the County, which is respon- sible for providing them with basic urban services. In Santa Clara County "unincorporated islands" are sometimes also referred to as unincorporated "pock- ets" However, state law refers to these areas as "islands" The terms "pockets" and "islands" are used interchangeably in this report. How Were Pockets Created? Most of the unincorporated pockets in Santa Clara County are a product of urban development policies and practices that existed in the county back in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, before the urban areas of our cities had grown together as they are today, there were still substantial areas of unincorporated agricultural land separating them. During the 50s and 60s, most of our cities competed actively with one another to annex and develop as much land as they could, based on the assumption that the larger the city, the larger its tax base, and the more prosperous it would be. As the cities competed to annex lands, most of the current state laws governing annexations did not exist. As a result, the patterns of annexation were often based more on opportunity than on rational planning and orderly urban development and provision of urban services. If, for example, a property owner a mile or so out of town wanted to be annexed and the intervening property owners did not, the city would sometimes annex the road leading out to the willing property owner, and bypass the closer in lands through which the road passed. As a result, by the late 1960s, the incorporated areas map of Santa Clara County looked like a piece of Swiss cheese, with unincorporated urban pockets scattered throughout the northern Santa Clara Valley from San Jose to Palo Alto. (It existed to a lesser extent in the South County around Morgan Hill and Gilroy where rapid urban development was just beginning). Some of these annexations passed over unincor- porated lands that were developed "in the county i.e. under the County's zoning and development regulations. Until the late 1960s, the County functioned much like a city in approving urban development. Sanita- tion districts provided sewer service to urban 3 4 development approved in unincorporated areas. Consequently, there was little incentive for urban subdivisions approved by the County to annex to the adjacent or surrounding city. Why Do Pockets Still Exist? A few of the pockets in Santa Clara County remain unincorporated because they have not been devel- oped for urban purposes and thus have not needed development approvals nor urban services that would have required them to annex to cities. Most of the remaining pockets, however, were developed back in the 1950s and 1960s and remain unincorporated for a variety or reasons. These include: opposition to annexation by some pocket residents and /or property owners, cumbersome annexation procedures, and limited effort by cities in recent years to annex them. Most cities have actively pursued annexation of smaller pockets on a parcel -by- parcel basis as they have been developed or redeveloped. Statelaws have, until recently, made it difficult for them to annex parcels that aren't located around the immedi- ate periphery of the pocket, which is another one of the reasons why most of the larger pockets still remain unincorporated. PART 3: STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR ANNEXING POCKETS Amended Law Makes Annexation of Certain Pockets Easier In recognition of the greater problems caused by urban pockets, the California Legislature enacted special legislation in 2001 that made it easier for local governments to annex small urban pockets that are 75 acres or less. This legislation was amended in 2005 to apply to urban pockets that are 150 acres or less. No Protest Hearings or Elections Required for Annexation of Certain Pockets The normal procedure required under state law for the annexation of pockets includes provisions that may require elections if there is sufficient formal protest with the area proposed for annexation. The new streamlined island annexation process eliminates these provisions for protest and election for pockets that are 150 acres or less. "Pockets" Referred to as "Islands" in State Law Government Code 56375.3 refers to urban pockets as "islands." Its basic provisions with regard to island annexations are summarized in the following section. Basic Provisions of Government Code 56375.3 An island annexation may be approved without protest and election if all of the following require- ments are met: Annexation is proposed by resolution of the annexing city. The islands is 150 acres or less. The island is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city or by the annexing city and adjacent cities. The island is not a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district. The island is substantially developed or developing based on the availability of public utility services, presence of public improvements or the presence of physical improvements on the parcels within the area. The island is not prime agricultural land as defined in Government Code Section 56064. The island is receiving benefits from the annexing city or will benefit from the city. The island was not created after January 1, 2000. 5 6 City Councils Hear Island Annexations In Santa Clara County, city councils, not LAFCO, hold the public hearings for island annexations. Sunset Provisions in Government Code Section 56375.3 To encourage local governments to accelerate their efforts to annex small urban pockets, the Legislature included provisions that portions of the law would "sunset" (i.e. go out of existence) after January 1, 2007. After January 1, 2007, protest proceedings will be required for island annexations initiated under Government Code Section 56375.3. However, if a majority protest is not received to defeat the annexation proposal, the annexation is ordered without an election. Why State Law Allows Annexation of Certain Unincorporated Islands to Occur Without Protest and Elections As mentioned earlier, the California Legislature enacted special legislation that made it possible for certain unincorporated islands to be annexed without a protest hearing or an election. In approving this legislation, the Legislature recognized that: Urban unincorporated islands continue to represent a serious and unnecessary statewide governmental inefficiency and that this inefficiency would be resolved if these islands were annexed into the appropriate surrounding city, Property owners' ability to vote on boundary changes is a statutory privilege and not a constitutional right, and Urban unincorporated islands are inherently inefficient and that these inefficiencies affect not just pocket residents, but also those residing in the city and the entire County. In theory, if all residents affected by the urban island issue were to vote, then that vote would need to be held countywide. Furthermore, the County Board of Supervisors represents pocket residents and the Board demonstrated its support for island annex- ations by recently providing new incentives for cities to annex urban unincorporated islands. If cities annex the pockets, County resources that are currently directed toward serving pocket resi- dents could be directed towards addressing countywide service needs (e.g. health care, social services, and courts and criminal justice). FLOW CHART: Streamlined Annexation Process Recommended ISLAND ANNEXATION PROCESS (Section 56375.3) For Islands 150 acres or less, that meet certain criteria (See Page 5) Without Protest Proceedings or Elections PREPARE TO INITIATE ISLAND ANNEXATIONS 1. Contact LAFCO staff to discuss process, timeline and mapping requirements. Then, obtain Surveyor's Report any required annexation mapping from County Surveyor 2. Apply pre zoning designation to proposal area, determine if proposal includes Williamson Act lands, prepare CEQA Analysis 3. Obtain County Assessor's Report and determine which special districts to detach COMMUNITY OUTREACH Optional but Recommended when Appropriate FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WITH 21 -DAY NOTICE City Council Adopts Resolution to INITIATE Annexation pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.3 Set date for Second Public Hearing SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WITH 21 -DAY NOTICE City Council Adopts Resolution to APPROVE Annexation FINALIZATION OF ANNEXATION BY LAFCO STAFF Forward Certified Resolution and other required information to LAFCO Annexation becomes effective on the date that LAFCO records the Certificate of Completion (Generally, within 7 -10 days of LAFCO receiving the complete application from city) 7 8 REASONS FOR CITIES TO ANNEX POCKETS Cities have a variety of reasons for annexing unincorporated urban pockets within their urban service areas. These range from the philosophical to the practical. It's the "Right Thing to Do" At the philosophical end of the spectrum, most city officials simply feel that annexing pockets and bringing their residents into the social fabric and political life of the city that surrounds them is "the right thing to do." It is consistent with their basic desire to meet the needs of their communities and improve their cities. Urban Development Responsibilities They also realize that annexing pockets is one of their responsibilities under the basic urban deve- lopment policies the cities and the County agreed to and have been implementing for many years. By performing complementary roles with regard to urban development, our cities and the County have avoided the kinds of city- county competition and conflict that exist in many other counties in California. Inherent Inefficiencies of Pockets From a practical perspective, they are aware that the existence of scattered, unincorporated pockets in the midst of cities is inherently inefficient both to the city and to the County. Some of these inefficiencies arise in conjunction with the delivery of basic urban services, where there often are two different departments one city, one County providing the same kinds of services to different portions of the same neighborhood, and crisscrossing each other's territory on their way to provide them. Other inefficiencies result from the substantial cumulative daily effort required just to determine whether customers calling in to a city or County department seeking assistance in an area where pockets exist actually lives in the city or the county. The existence of pockets in the cities also means that city and County staffs need to spend consider- able time in coordination activities that would be unnecessary if the pockets were annexed to the city. These include the staff effort that goes into administering inter jurisdictional referral processes related to land development proposals within urban pockets. (These inter jurisdictional referral pro- cesses can also be inefficient and time consuming for the applicants who find their development applications caught up in these processes.) Impacts of Pockets on Surrounding Neighborhoods Cities also recognize the impacts that unincorpo- rated pockets can sometimes have on surrounding city neighborhoods. Some of the remaining urban pockets in Santa Clara County are older, primarily residential neighborhoods that have aging infrastructure, housing stock in need of rehabilitation, and various other problems. Since the County does not provide the same level and array of services to urban pockets that the cities provide to incorporated areas, problems that arise in pockets may not receive the same degree of attention by the County that they would if they were in the city. These problems have the potential to become worse and to spread to surrounding city neighborhoods. The cities generally recognize that the most cost effective way for them to minimize these negative impacts on city neighborhoods is by annexing them and addressing their problems and needs through existing city programs. Consistency of Development with City Plans and Policies Another reason cities annex pockets is to be able to regulate development and land uses in a manner consistent with their plans, policies, and standards. Since County development standards and other regulations are often less rigorous than those of the cities, annexation is the best way for cities to assure that development within the pockets in the midst of their neighborhoods is consistent with basic city policies and standards. Pockets Residents Use City Facilities But Don't Pay City Taxes Another reason is that pockets residents often use city facilities including streets and parks, but pay no taxes to the city to help support the upkeep of these city facilities. Similarly, cities do not receive the benefit of additional state and federal funds that are allocated on a per capita basis based on the city's incorporated area population. 9 10 PART 5: BENEFITS OF ANNEXATION TO POCKETS RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS Why Should Pockets Annex: From a Resident's Perspective Pockets residents sometimes ask, Why should we annex? What will we gain by annexing that we don't currently have? The simplest answers to these questions are: 1. Improved services and programs to benefit your neighborhood, 2. Greater ability to influence the decisions that are most likely to affect the quality of life in your neighborhood, and 3. Increased governmental accountability for the provision of services Annexation Benefit #1: Better Neighborhood Services With regard to services and programs to neighbor- hoods, it should be noted that one of the primary reasons that cities exist is to provide neighborhood services and programs to residents of urban areas. That, in fact, is what the vast majority of their bud- gets go toward providing. By comparison, the primary reason that Santa Clara County government exists is to provide and adminis- ter services relating to health and human services and law and justice. This is what the overwhelming majority of the County's budget goes to. Although the County does provide some urban services to unincorporated pockets, it does not provide the same level or array of neighborhood services that cities provide. And given how relatively few pockets remain and the recent increase in city interest in annexing them, it would seem extremely unlikely that the County will ever significantly in- crease its services and programs to urban pockets. Annexation Benefit #2: Political Empowerment Another major advantage to residents and property owners in pockets that annex is that they will gain greater influence over the decisions that most directly impact the quality of life in their communi- ties, i.e. the decisions of the city council of the city that surrounds them. So long as they remain unin- corporated, they remain largely disenfranchised from those decisions. Residents of unincorporated areas do not have the ability to vote in city council elections and other city elections. Consequently, when they go to city council hearings on matters that will affect their communities, their voices and opinions do not always carry the same weight as they would if they were residents of the city. Similarly, when they call city agencies to seek assistance concerning issues within the city that are affecting their neighborhood, they may not receive the same level of attention that they would if they were city residents. On a purely statistical basis, it is more likely that a concerned resident will be able to get the attention of a city councilperson than a County Supervisor, no matter how committed that Supervisor may be to serving her or his constituents. Each County Supervisor represents approximately 360,000 people in his /her district. By comparison, even in San Jose, our county's largest city, each city councilperson represents about 90,000 people or about 1/4 the number of constituents of a County Supervisor. In smaller cities, the ratio of constituents to elected city officials is even smaller. Annexation Benefit #3: Increased Governmental Accountability The third major advantage to residents and pro- perty owners in pockets that annex is the potential for greater governmental accountability for provi- ding services and meeting the needs of their neighborhoods. Many residents of urban pockets live in areas where incorporated and unincorporated parcels are intermixed like a checkerboard. Because of these complicated jurisdictional boundaries, resi- dents often experience problems of decreased governmental responsiveness and accountability when they seek to have their neighborhood's needs addressed. If they call a County department, they may be told that it is a city problem. If they call a city department, they may be told that it is a County problem. When these pockets are annexed this problem of jurisdictional uncertainty is resolved, since there is no question about whether it is the city or the County that is responsible for the provision of services. 11 12 How TO CAPITALIZE ON THIS OPPORTUNITY PART 6 FIVE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL POCKET ANNEXATION EFFORTS Five Basic Elements for Success Each project to seek to annex larger, developed urban pockets will have its own issues and its own individual stakeholders and participants that make it different from all others. Nonetheless, there appear to be several key factors that can greatly increase the potential for success. These are: City, County, and LAFCO cooperation Extensive outreach and public information Sensitivity to community concerns Supportive leadership within the community Active support on the city council City, County, and LAFCO Cooperation Under the streamlined island annexation process, the power to annex certain developed pockets inside city urban service areas (USAs) rests with the city council. Although resident and property owner support is not required, it is helpful if residents and property owners support the annexation. Under California state law, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and Santa Clara LAFCO have no official vote in the annexation process within city urban service areas. Nonetheless, close city, County, and LAFCO cooperation is an essential ingredient of any successful annexation effort. Close cooperation is necessary; first of all, in order to provide the community with accurate information to enable it to make comparisons between the services and programs it is currently receiving from the County and those it can expect to receive from the city, if the city decides to annex the island. City and County cooperation is also important as a reminder to pocket residents that it is longstanding policy of the fifteen cities and the County that unin- corporated urban pockets should eventually be annexed into the city and that the County is not in competition with the city to retain control over urban pockets. Outreach and Public Information Program Recommended The two fundamental questions that residents and property owners have when they learn that a city is considering whether to annex their area are: 1. "Will I and my family be better off if the city annexes my area or if my area remains in the county and 2. "Will my neighborhood be better served by the city or the county Given the likelihood that the community may not have another opportunity to annex for twenty years or more if it wholly objects to being annexed, it is critical that those residents' viewpoints are based on accurate information and a realistic view toward their community's future. An effective community outreach program is key to aiding residents and property owners in making informed judgments that will have long term conse- quences for them and their neighborhood. This effort should provide accurate information concerning the potential impacts of annexation on taxes, public services and facilities, development within the community, and a variety of other topics likely to be of concern. The outreach effort can and should include commu- nity meetings (with staff of both the city and the County present to answer questions), newsletter, fact sheet(s), telephone numbers to call for informa- tion, e-mail addresses to send inquiries to, etc. It may also be helpful to include surveys about issues of concern to the community. However, given the widespread misinformation and mythology that commonly exists concerning annexation, it is very important not to force residents and property owners to make premature, uninformed decisions concerning annexation before they have the facts and have had an opportunity to get answers to their questions. Consequently, surveys asking residents and property owners whether they support or oppose annexation should be circulated only after extensive community outreach, not at the beginning of the process. Sensitivity to Community Concerns Residents of unincorporated pockets commonly approach the prospect of annexing into the city with reservations and concerns. Since they have probably never gone through an annexation process before, they are not quite certain what to expect. In such situations, their basic instincts are probably to hang on to what they are familiar with and remain unincorporated. To overcome this natural reaction, cities need to be particularly sensitive and, whenever possible, responsive to those concerns. While there may be some city policies that are not negotiable with regard to annexation (e.g. payment of special fees or taxes that all other residents of the city must pay), there are some aspects of annexation where pockets residents' concerns can be addressed and accommodated. One issue that is commonly of concern to pockets residents is the city's zoning and related develop- ment standards that will be applied to their property if they annex. This is normally addressed through the pre- zoning process. Most of the remaining unincorporated pockets in Santa Clara County were developed many years ago under County zoning and development stan- dards that were different from those of the surround- ing city development. In some instances, for example, the County approved development may have created larger parcels than those of the city. As a result, the standard city zoning currently applied to the sur- rounding city neighborhoods may have unintended, undesirable consequences if applied unmodified to parcels in the pocket. It may, for example, allow for re- subdivision of existing, developed lots and thus pose a potential threat to the preservation of existing community character. This possibility can become a major concern to pocket residents and property owners. 13 14 Providing flexibility to accommodate unique condi- tions within the pocket, possibly through special "overlay" zoning districts, may be a reasonable accommodation to legitimate community concerns and increase the potential for a successful outcome. Leadership and Organized Support Within the Community Although annexation of developed residential pockets has impacts on city and County govern- ments, ultimately it is the impacts that annexations have on the people in the community that matter the most. For this reason, active leadership and organized support within the community can be a critical element in a successful annexation effort. Campaigns to annex developed residential pockets are most often led by individuals or groups of indi- viduals who have a strong commitment to their community and its future. These are people who can listen to all viewpoints and assist their commu- nity in taking an objective look at the alternatives. Some of these people may already be leaders within the community, active in neighborhood associations, local school groups, or youth organizations. Others may not previously have been so active in community affairs but may decide to get involved because they feel it is important for their community to consider annexation as a means of meeting its current and future needs. Active Support on the City Council A fifth element that is critical to pocket annexation efforts is having active support among the members of the city or town council that ultimately must conduct the public hearing and make the decision to annex the pocket. The city or town council may want to form an annexation subcommittee (consist- ing of 2 or 3 Council Members) to work closely with City, County and LAFCO staff, as well as with neighborhood groups. MYTHS ABOUT POCKET AN Because annexation of existing, developed neigh- borhoods is a relatively infrequent phenomenon, most people know very little about how it occurs and what its impacts are on properties that are annexed. As a consequence, there is substantial opportunity for misinformation and mythology when it comes to the topic annexation. A number of myths have evolved around annexation that cause some people to automatically oppose it. These myths are obstacles to successful annexation efforts. Listed below are some of the more common myths that exist with regard to annexation and factual information that refutes them. Myth #1: Annexation Triggers Reassessment of Property (FALSE) Some people believe that if their property is annexed from the county into a city that Assessor will auto- matically reassess its value for property tax pur- poses and that, as a result, their property taxes may increase dramatically. This is not true. Proposition 13 determines the conditions under which a property may be reassessed for property tax purposes, and annexation is not one of them. The assessed value of property remains the same following annexation. (The only exception is when a property is developed or substantially redeveloped, which can trigger a requirement that a property must be annexed into a city. In such cases, the property is likely to be reassessed. But the reassessment is triggered by the development, not the annexation. The property would have been reassessed when it was developed, even if it had not annexed.) Myth #2: City Taxes Are Much Higher Than County Taxes (FALSE) Another common annexation myth is that taxes in a city are much higher than taxes in the unincorpo- rated area. This is not true. The total taxes that a residential property owner would pay if their property were annexed are gener- ally very similar to those they are already paying in the county. The most common difference between city and County taxes is that most cities have a utility tax, and the County does not. However, this tax is offset to a large extent by the fact that residents in county pockets are likely to pay for a lighting assessment district for streetlights, which they would no longer have to pay if they annexed into the surrounding city. The other relatively common difference between city and County taxes is that some cities may have parks and /or library bonds that annexed properties would have to pay. Again, the amount of these additional taxes is generally quite small, especially when com- pared to the value of the improved services and pro- grams that the pocket residents would receive from the city. 15 16 In some cities or towns, which do not have utility taxes or assessments for bonds, residents' overall taxes would actually decrease if they were annexed. Myth #3: Annexation Triggers Requirement to Install Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters (FALSE) Some pockets property owners believe that they will have to install sidewalks, curbs, and /or gutters if they annex. This is not true. Most cities require that such facilities be installed only when there is substantial redevelopment of the property, and even then it may not be required if the property is not along a designated safe route to school or if it is in a neighborhood that generally does not have such facilities. (Some cities have large, annexed neighborhoods that do not have these facilities and where the city does not require them.) Myth #4: Annexation Affects School District Boundaries (FALSE) Some people believe that if they are annexed into a city that may change the school district they are in and the schools their children attend. This is not true. Annexation of property from the county into a city has no impact on school district boundaries or the schools that children in the annexed area attend. USEFUL BACKGROUND INFORMATION PART 8: CHANGING CONDITIONS FOR URBAN POCKETS Never Before So Few Pockets The number of unincorporated pockets in Santa Clara County has decreased substantially over the last several decades as pockets have been annexed into cities. Never before have there been so few remaining urban pockets in Santa Clara County, nor has the pockets population been such a small percentage of the countywide and unincorporated area populations. Most of the remaining urban pockets in Santa Clara County now contain fewer than 20 parcels. Remaining Pockets Widely Scattered The remaining pockets are not concentrated in any one location, where it might be possible for the County to serve them efficiently. Instead, they are scattered widely around the county from Los Altos to Los Gatos, and from all parts of San Jose to Gilroy. Pockets Population is Small Part of Countywide Population Several decades ago, the population living within unincorporated urban pockets constituted a signifi- cant portion of Santa Clara County's population. Today it accounts for less that 3% of the total countywide population. The total population of all unincorporated urban pockets throughout Santa Clara County is currently Tess than 49,000 (which is smaller than the population of Cupertino). Aside from the declining percentage of the unincor- porated area population, the remaining urban pockets have little in common with one another. Not only are they not in close geographic proximity to one another but they also vary widely in their demographic and socio- economic characteristics. Some have large single family homes are very affluent, while others contain overcrowded, higher density housing and have substantial numbers of persons living below or near poverty level. Because of their lack of geographic proximity and their diverse socio- economic characteristics, the pockets have little in common with one another. In fact, they generally have far more in common with their nearby city neighbors that they do with one another. Pockets Conditions Unlikely to Improve Residents of unincorporated urban pockets should understand that there is little likelihood that urban services and infrastructure serving their neighbor- hoods will ever improve significantly, so long as they remain unincorporated. As the pockets continue to decline as a percentage of the county population and it becomes increasing more inefficient for the County to serve the remain- ing pockets, it becomes less likely that County will allocate substantially increased resources to provide improved services and facilities to the pockets especially since they can be provided more effi- ciently by the cities and County has many other competing funding priorities. 17 18 PART 9: WHY THE COUNTY SUPPORTS ANNEXATION OF POCKETS The County supports annexation of urban pockets because it provides a number of benefits to resi- dents in unincorporated pockets and nearby city neighborhoods, to County and city governments and other local service providers, and to residents throughout Santa Clara County including those who live in cities where there are few or no remain- ing urban pockets. Annexation of unincorporated urban pockets into their surrounding cities: Eliminates existing inefficiencies and unnecessary expenses in the delivery of urban services to developed areas throughout Santa Clara County Makes city and County governments more accountable to local neighborhoods by eliminating mixed jurisdictional situations in which problem solving responsibilities are ambiguous. Enables pockets residents to receive more and generally higher quality services and programs to benefit their neighborhoods than the County is able (or will ever be able) to provide. Allows County staff and decision makers to focus their efforts and County resources on addressing the countywide issues and services for which County government is primarily responsible, including health care, social services, courts and criminal justice functions. Empowers pockets residents to have more influ- ence over the decisions that most directly impact the quality of life in their neighborhoods, by enabling them to participate in the decision making processes of the cities that surround them. Contributes to greater sense of community by eliminating the psychological "distance" between pockets residents and residents of surrounding city neighborhoods. PART 10: WHY LAFCO SUPPORTS ANNEXATION OF POCKETS The Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO) is encouraging cities to annex the remaining unincorporated pockets in order to: Fulfill the intent of the State Legislature, Implement the Joint Urban Development Policies of the Cities, County and LAFCO that were adopted in early 1970's, and Encourage the efficient provision of services and orderly growth and development. Fulfill the Intent of the State Legislature In 2004, the State Legislature, in recognition of the inherent inefficiencies of unincorporated islands, passed legislation aimed at assisting cities in their efforts to annex unincorporated islands throughout the state. The legislation provides a two -year window (January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006) of opportunity for cities to annex urban unincorporated pockets through a streamlined process that does not require protest proceedings or elections, provided the island "pocket meets specific criteria and is 150 acres or Tess. Implement the Joint Urban Development Policies of the Cities, County and LAFCO That Were Adopted in the Early 1970's This legislation provides a unique opportunity for cities, the County and LAFCO to work together to fulfill the joint urban growth management policies that form the foundation of land use planning in this County. The policies include the following fundamen- tal policy agreements and obligations: Cities, not the County, are responsible for managing and accommodating urban population growth and development; Urban forms and densities of development may occur only within cities' Urban Service Areas (USAs); Outside USAs, the County will prohibit urban forms, densities, and intensities of development; Inside USAs, development occurring on unin- corporated lands will be according to city's general plan, regarding type of use and density of development allowed; Inside USAs, islands or pockets of unincorporated lands should be annexed to the applicable city. Encourage the Efficient Provision of Services and Orderly Growth and Development From a practical perspective, the existence of scat- tered unincorporated pockets in the midst of cities is inherently inefficient for both the city and the County. Some of the inefficiencies arise in conjunction with the delivery of basic urban services, where there are often two different departments on city, one County providing the same kinds of services to different portions of the same neighborhood, and crisscrossing each other's territory on their way to provide the services. 19 20 Other inefficiencies result from the cumulative daily effort required just to determine whether customers calling in to a city or County department seeking assistance in an area where urban pockets exists actually live in the city or the County. These ineffi- ciencies can sometimes have potentially life threat- ening consequences particularly when they involve confusion over the provision of emergency services. The existence of pockets in cities also means that city and County staffs need to spend considerable time in coordination activities (e.g. administering inter jurisdictional referral processes related to land development proposals within urban pockets) that would be unnecessary if the pockets were annexed to the city. Lastly, annexation of unincorporated islands would also result in a more efficient and effective provision of land use planning and development services within a community. County development standards and other regulations are often Tess rigorous than those of the cities. These differences result in local land use conflicts. Annexation is the best way for cities to assure that development within the unincor- porated islands, which are in the midst of city neighborhoods, is consistent with basic city policies and standards. Attachment 3 A RESOLUTION Of THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN'T'Y OF SANTA CLARA IN SUPPORT OF THE FUTURE EVALUATION, CONSIDERATION ANTI AMENDMENT OF COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS REGARDING RESIDEN'T'IAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE URBAN UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS "URBAN POCKETS WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County General Plan has long supported. and encouraged the annexation of urban unincorporated lauds located within the Urban Scrvicc Areas of the Jiifttcn cities of Santa Clara County, defined in State law as urban unincorporated islands or "pockets;" and WHEREAS, the County and Cities have agreed through countywide urban growth management and urban development policies originating in the 1970's that the annexation of urban pockets by thc cities is in the general public interest and welfare, and that the continued existence of such urban pockets results in (a) inefficient and illogical political boundaries, (b) costly, inefficient, and impractical provision of urban services and infrastructure, (c) unnecessary division of urban communities and neighborhoods; (d) the disenfranchisement of those unincorporated citizens of the County who are unable to vote for city elected officials and unable_ to receove certain city- providcd services for benefit o community, (e) differences in Fend development outcomes, and (f) other related inequities; and WHEREAS; the' State„ Legislature, in recognition of the significant disadvantages of retaining urban unincorporated islands, has enacted legislation signed into law which facilitates annexation of certain urban islands of up to 150 acres which cannot be contested by resident protest or election, and these "streamlined," reduced cost tr nexation procedures are available to cities through the end of 2006; and WIIEREAS, thc County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) have further agreed to facilitate annexation by providing procedural and financial assistance to cities that successfully complete the annexation of their qualifying urban pockets within the 2005 -2006 time period, including waiving of fees, payment of mapping casts and other related processing costs, and road surface improvements; and WHEREAS, differences in residential development standards between the County's Zoning Ordinance regulations and those of certain cities have been a hindrance, to annexation efforts in the past, and such differences may continue to inhibit the actions of certain cities to annex pockets eligible for the streamlined annexations, because such differences may signi ficantly contribute to residents' desires fbr their iirhan islands to remain unincorporated; and WHEREAS, the cities, County and LAPCO believe the present favorable opportunities for island a/ moxat:ion are unprecedented and limited in duration due to the aforementioned circumstances, and that all effective, practical efforts should be trade to facilitate actions by the cities to complete island anuex.ations during this window of opportunity; and 'WHEREAS, for those urban islands not eligible for streamlined annexation provisions of State law, the cities, County, and'L.AFCO recognize; that annexation of these islands may require more concerted, strategic planning by those agencies in the near future, but which are not the immediate priority (luring the period 2005- 2006. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as follows: SECTION 1. The Board of Supervisors strongly encourages the Cities of Santa Clara County to initiate and complete the annexations of urban unincorporated islands located within cities' Urban Service Areas, consistent with countywide u development and growth management policies, and more particularly, during the period 2005 -2006, to annex those islands or pockets eligible to be annexed under the State's 2005 2006 streamlined annexation taws. SECTION 2. Consistent with the County General Plan goals and policies for the urban unincorporated areas, partieutlarly Policy U -LM 9, the Bowl of Supervisors supports the evaluation, consideration, and amendment of County Z ring Ordinance regulations governing residential development standards for the purpose of eliminating sign�ificailt differences between the standards and development outcomes possible under County Zoning regulations and those of each city, potentially including, but necessarily limited to, such regulations as floor area definitions and floor area ratios governing house size, building height, story limits, lot coverage, setbacks from property lines and rights-of-ways, and review procedures. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on NOV 1 S 2009 by the following vote: AYES: ALVA 1 T441"' C NOES: GAG, BEALL ABSENT: of ABSTAIN: None Signed and certified that a copy of this document has been delivered by electronic or other-means to the chair, Board of Supervisors. AT'T'EST: Pl ylli erez Clerk, Board of Sup APPROVED AS TO IrOFtl`I AND LE,CA1,I'I'Y: Lizanne Reynolds Deputy County Counsel Attachments; Exhibit A Excerpt from County General Plan Page 2 of 2 Liz I(n.iss, Chair Board of Supervisors General Land Use Management tr t lii r curporatc4rArea ar:d.1`oiicle� 4> Strate7: Enstu'e gy Contorrntty Of E; everopment With Cities' Genera! Plans Within cittes' Urban Service Areas, the County dons not apply any General in designation or classification of prescriptive and as or densi- ties to unincorporated parcels. Instead, allow- able land 1190.5 and densities are determined by the applicable city's general plan. This arrange ment reflects one aspect of the division of authority between the cities and the County under the jointly- adopted countywide "urban development policies," Assuming that all urban unincorporated areas will eventually he annexed by the cities, it is.appropriate that the city which will have ultimate jurisdiction over an area have the ongoing authority to plan for what are presently unincorporated areas. The reponsibilities of the jurisdictions (County and city) are fairly straightforward. For urban unincorporated lands ineligible for annexation or for which annexation has been refused or deferred, the County is obligated to administer current planning functions, such as permit processing, zoning administration, and code enforcement; whereas, each city addresses through its general plan the long range planning issues of land use, density and other issues, In order to ensure' that development permitted under County jurisdiction is generally in con- fornnance with what would be permitted accord- ing to each city's general plan, the County applies zoning districts and development regulations compatible with the applicable city's general plan designation. Given the variety and complexity of some cities' development regula- tions, it is Jnfeasible for the County to attirnpt to administer the actual regulations of the cities. When there are diffiuences between County and city development regulations of some conse- quence, such as for setbacks, building height and bulk restrictions, or other standards, the County may be able to adjust its Ftandards to minimize those inconsistencies In any case, the Ceunly strives to work cooperatively with the applicant, the city and other interested parties to ensure that the resulting development is as R-6 Exhibit A to Resolution of Intent County Pockets Develupnient Standards consistent as possible with the policies and regulations of the city involved and will not present future problems for either the property owner, the city, or adjacent residents. 1 Policies and Implementation 1I-LM 6 County laid use and development regulations within a city Urban Service Area shall be gener- ally compatibles with the applicable city's general plan designations and accompanying policies. ti -LM 7 Subdivisions, use permits and zone dia.nges for unincorporated property within a city Urban Service Area shall conform with the applicable land use and density criteria of the city's general plan. trIJf County zoning, laird development, and building regulations should be designed and adminis- tered to: a. preserve and enhance the quality of existing urban unincorporated areas; and maintain community identity, through heritage resource preservation, conservation of historic situ 0.1.119- and places, and other similar measures. b, Exhibit A to Resolution of Intent County Pockets Development Standards 1.t -ILV1 9 In cases where significant differences exist between County and city development stan- dards (i.e. setbacks, height, bulk regulations), resulting in potentially inappropriate develop- ment or conflicts, the County should consider adjusting or modifying its ordinances and standards to minimize problems and achieve greater conformance with city standards. if-LW 10 No applications for subdivisions, use permits or zone changes for property within any city's Urban Service Area may be accepted by the County for processing unless it is accompanied by a statement from the applicable city affirming city general plan conformance. Implementation Recommendaiiotl U- Litf(i) 3 Review all present County zoning districts applied within Urban Service Areas and cum- pare with applicable city general plan designa- tlons. Identify Significant inconsistencies and if needed, rezone inappropriately zoned areas to zoning districts that crrnform with City general plans. ti-LMO lU Inform cities of County general plan conform ance policies so that pblicies and authority are fully undentnod by city staff and officials. tl -LM(i) 21 Evaluate County and city development stan- dards and regulations for possible inconsisten- cies of significance and modify Countyregula tients where necessary to rectify or minimize the impacts of inconsistencies. irelates to policy 61 Genera! Land Use Management Urn tinincerporated Area Imes arui policies Strategy #3: Provide Services as Efficiently and Equitably as Posslbla Although joint County, city, and LAFCO policies promote the annexation of urban "pockets," partly on the Lasts that urban services are most efficiently provided by cities, in reality many developed urban unincorporated areas rrtay not be annexed in the i trunediately foreseeable future, in the interim, the County should ensure that necessary urban services and facilities are provided as efficiently and cot effectively as possible to these areas. Not only doe -s the County have a responsibility to provide basic levels of urban services to urban unincorporated area residents, but by maintaining and upgrad ing existing services and facilities, the County and the cities facilitate the ultimate ann of these areas. Nevertheless, it remains difficult for local governrnetnts to pay for basic urban services, much less improve upon them, in light of outcomes of Prop 13. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978,.2 new funding sources have become virtually non,exlsient, to the 2/3 voter approval requirement for new taxes and reduced growth in property tax revenues overall. Because it is recognized that cities should not be expected to provide services without compensation, the financial burden falls to the County. "Therefore, cooperation among Jurisdictions to explore creative, cost effective measures hecrmes the only option to costly provision of services in the unincorporated urban areas. R -7 Attachment 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 5 day of April 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for a public hearing on: Consideration of a Proposal to start the Annexation process to bring two areas of unincorporated land currently under County jurisdiction into the City of Saratoga. The two areas are: A. The Prospect Road Area which is approximately 104 acres of land along Prospect Road starting at Blue Hills Road and ending at the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve; and B. The Hidden Hill Road Area which is approximately 20 acres of land in the vicinity of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Austin Way. If the Proposal is approved, the City would begin an investigation to evaluate whether to proceed with annexation. A minimum of two additional public hearings would be held prior to annexation. If annexation is ultimately approved the annexed land would become a part of the City of Saratoga. Maps showing the general location of these areas are attached. A staff report on the Proposal is available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at www.saratoga.ca.us for the City's work schedule. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the Proposal that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of —date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. In order for information to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. Questions may be addressed to the City Clerk, (408) 868 -1269. /s /Cathleen Boyer City Clerk Saratoga 5 of 5 Urban Pockets 2004 :_+X Maps depicting unincorporated lands located w thin the cities' Urbai Service Areas (USAs) THIS AREA IS NOT IN CONSIDERATION Urban Service Area Urban Pocket 150 acres EN Urban Pocket >150 acres n Incorporated Lands n Unincorporated Lands 6000 Scale Index Map 0 125 250 500 Feet 714 nrp ',Would by h Sant. ant Canty Rooming 011oa. Ti. o1S dots w oompind San vaaan aaaa. WOLL downed nWNa, 11.a plandp 011oa.rns no Y+dty y. WOtalbWOrtolo1Pooke20DtwgaaaLSrampa pa:IMamd 0 Detail Area 20.46 Urban Pockets 2004 M depicting unincorporated lands located wdnmahe c ties Urham Service Areas (USAs) Saratoga 5 of 5 Urban Service Area Urban Pocket 150 acres Urban Pocket >150 acres Incorporated Lands Unincorporated Lands 6000 Scale Index Map 0 125 250 500 Feet T+. mop Fmdud by rim dada Clam Casty Planning Olio. Ta OI& rhino .n. aam from various warm. Uhl. drn.d ullmhM. IN Planning Olh mm.um.. noBadly. ywapet,P tlalMakolsZO Wrd.6.t8a lny Paaalamd Detail Area CUPERTINO SAN PSE SARATOGA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Clerk of the Saratoga City Council, State of California, has set Wednesday, the 5 day of April 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for a public hearing on: Consideration of a Proposal to start the Annexation process to bring two areas of unincorporated land currently under County jurisdiction into the City of Saratoga. The two areas are: A. The Prospect Road Area which is approximately 104 acres of land along Prospect Road starting at Blue Hills Road and ending at the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve; and B. The Hidden Hill Road Area which is approximately 20 acres of land in the vicinity of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Austin Way. If the Proposal is approved, the City would begin an investigation to evaluate whether to proceed with annexation. A minimum of two additional public hearings would be held prior to annexation. If annexation is ultimately approved the annexed land would become a part of the City of Saratoga. Maps showing the general location of these areas are attached. A staff report on the Proposal is available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. City Hall is closed every other Friday. Please check the City web site at www.saratoga.ca.us for the City's work schedule. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the Proposal that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of —date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. In order for information to be included in the City Council's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge the subject projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearings is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. Questions may be addressed to the City Clerk, (408) 868 -1269. /s /Cathleen Boyer City Clerk RATOGA__ Saratoga 1 of 5 Urban Pockets 2004 Maps depicting unincorporated lands located within the cities' Urban Service Areas (USAS) Q Urban Service Area Urban Pocket 150 acres al Urban Pocket >150 acres Incorporated Lands Unincorporated Lands 6000 Scale Index Map o 125 250 500 Feet Ti. nmP Produsd by the San. Clara Carry Namkra Oran. Ttm COS data was aampibd from squaws souses. NM. dawned mamba., tab Plamnp Can amble. no liability. ylProle ts1Pcb etsWotl ata2CO Wrotml.lSaralea. Poabl..mut i0 Detail Area 1 j :3- i i s V,- w;�Hi ���i C ✓ice _EGEND i 9D0it.Bullef and Ann oc'Nea'' Pa cols W rthm�W legit Pl pnnex W e MEM H dln Hi Ils 3H AfrnoCW a l'\ i 509 Hidden A way Prospect Road Area Annexation '_E VEND cMUmb WO PI. BuNer Around/inn. Area 1 Parcels Within 500 feel of Arne %Ared P....et Road Ne. Ann. Sarab Q.Par cols Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® MAWLA SHAMIL A AND CAROL C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12301 VISTA ARROYO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6547 APN #36648025. GOEL AJIT AND RANJAN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12467 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6538 APN #36649006 ABELAR PHILLIP J AND KAYLA R TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21299 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621006 PARKER RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOC OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3077 SARATOGA CA 95070 -1077 APN #36644001 WILLS RICHARD AND DONNA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12091 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6534 APN #36643020 KAMIL HASAN AND HASAN TALAT TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12182 PARKER RANCH RD 9 ARATOGA CA 95070 -6535 APN #36643021 GREENSTEIN MARTIN R AND STEVENS JUDITH OR CURRENT OWNER 55 S MARKET ST UNIT 16TH FL SAN JOSE CA 95113 APN #36629025 GOU PERNG FEI AND BINNIE C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12609 STAR RIDGE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6510 APN #36649002 SEVEN SPRINGS RANCH LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 11801 DOROTHY ANNE WY UPERTINO CA 95014 -5258 \PN #36609043 :VU TSUNG -CHING AND CHEN YUH- MING OR CURRENT OWNER 12161 PARKER RANCH RD 'SARATOGA CA 95070 -6536 APN #36643007 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY CHO KI SU AND YONG CHO TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 2130 TRADE ZONE BL SAN JOSE CA 95131 APN #36648006 GOTTIMUKKALA KISHORE B AND VANI OR CURRENT OWNER 12496 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36648001 FARA JOHN W AND CAROL J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12385 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6538 APN #36648023 GAMBILL HAROLD AND LORETTA E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12245 ARROYO VISTA CT SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36648005 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 DISTEL CL LOS ALTOS CA 94022 APN #36608006 PENINSULA RECREATION INC C/O SARATOGA COUNTRY CLUB PO BOX 2759 SARATOGA CA 95070 -0759 APN #36629007 EDWARDS JOHN D AND LYNN M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12217 VISTA ARROYO CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6547 APN #36648004 EAST PAMELA M TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 12147 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6536 APN #36643006 VASQUEZ ELEUTERIO AND MARY C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21290 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6521 APN #36606004 VLAHOPOULIOTIS BOB AND KATERINA OR CURRENT OWNER 21166 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621015 C\ AVERY® 5160® MCCURDY DUDLEY P AND JANE S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21284 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621010 KOELTL RICHARD J AND MAUREEN F OR CURRENT OWNER 21150 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621016 SARASWAT KRISHNA C AND SONIA OR CURRENT OWNER 12356 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6537 APN #36648003 CLARK NOBUKO TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12189 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36643008 LIU YUH -YUN M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12497 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6502 APN #36649043 SARATOGA COUNTRY CLUB INC OR CURRENT OWNER 21990 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6541 APN #36629009 YAU CHAD C AND WENLI Y TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12637 STAR RIDGE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6510 APN #36649001 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT OR CURRENT OWNER 330 DISTEL CL LOS ALTOS CA 94022 APN #36607012 AGARWAL RAMESH C AND SHASHI OR CURRENT OWNER 21277 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621005 SAN JOSE WATER WORKS C/0 ACCOUNTING DEPT. 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113 -1502 APN #36629011 'Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 2HEN MU -YUAN TRUSTEE OR 2URRENT OWNER 12601 STAR RIDGE CT 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6510 APN #36649045 DEVINE DAVID A TRUSTEE ET AL DR CURRENT OWNER ?2451 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6544 !LPN #36607013 !EINDEL JOHN H TRUSTEE OR :;URRENT OWNER 1 2468 PARKER RANCH CT ARATOGA CA 95070 -6501 ‘PN #36648002 kNDREWS CHARLES W AND CAROL 2 OR CURRENT OWNER 11239 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 LPN #36621004 vIARIA LANE MUTUAL WATER CO 2/0 RICHARD LEE OR CURRENT )WNER 11151 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 PN #36621017 EVEN SPRINGS RANCH LLC OR "URRENT OWNER I 1 801 DOROTHY ANNE WY 2UPERTINO CA 95014 -5258 LPN #36608005 3AY RONALD S AND LESLIE J OR 2URRENT OWNER [2357 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6538 kPN #36648024 \NDERSON DAVID R AND CHRISTINE OR CURRENT OWNER !1348 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 1 PN #36621009 -OCHRANE PAMELA L TRUSTEE OR "URRENT OWNER :1975 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6551 PN #36606047 )ODGE RALPH C OR CURRENT )WNER 2100 ROLLING HILLS RD ARATOGA CA 95070 LPN #36631003 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY WIENKOOP GLENN R AND PAULA OR CURRENT OWNER 21178 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621014 BERGERON DOUGLAS G AND SANDRA E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12441 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6538 APN #36648021 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 DISTEL CL LOS ALTOS CA 94022 APN #36609029 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 DISTEL CL LOS ALTOS CA 94022 APN #36629020 MURANO KATSUYOSHI AND ANN F OR CURRENT OWNER 12413 PARKER RANCH RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6538 APN #36648022 CHEN HOOVER J AND MELINDA N TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21396 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621008 TANDON PANKAJ AND SEEMA OR CURRENT OWNER 21192 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621013 TAN THIAN 1100 AND CHAT LAN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21925 ARROWHEAD LN CUPERTINO CA 95014 APN #36606016 HUANG CHIEN YUN OR CURRENT OWNER 21550 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6550 APN #36606030 LESTER WILLIAM W III OR CURRENT OWNER 22265 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6559 APN #36607014 C\ AVERY® 5160® BALAKRISHNAN BALU AND MOHINI OR CURRENT OWNER 13917 ALBAR CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -9718 APN #36621007 CHANG JIA -HWANG AND WANG LIN OR CURRENT OWNER 21200 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621012 STEPNER DAVID AND JUDIE TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12553 PARKER RANCH CT SARATOGA CA 95070 -6502 APN #36649044 ANDERSON CHARLES L AND VACHASA OR CURRENT OWNER 21240 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 'APN #36621011 NELSON JEROME R AND ATSUKO T TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21350 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA 'CA 95070 -6521 APN #36606026 KHAN IMDAD H AND SITARA A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21169 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621003 LEE RICHARD E AND PAULINE TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 21151 MARIA LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6532 APN #36621002 SNOW FRANKLIN D AND DIANE T TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 22101 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6558 APN #36632007 DAVIS LEON JR OR CURRENT OWNER 21450 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6500 APN #36606038 HILYARD RICHARD L AND JEANETTE M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 22500 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36607004 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® NORTON GARTH L TRUSTEE ET AL DR CURRENT OWNER 22361 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6560 APN #36607015. 5PORCK ALISTAIR N AND JUNE M OR URRENT OWNER 1430 ARROWHEAD LN ARATOGA CA 95070 ,?N #36606034 5REENWELL WILLIAM A AND BONNIE L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT DWNER 1518 W CLIFF DR SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 APN #36607016 LESTER WILLIAM W III TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 12525 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6546 4PN #36607007 sTEVITT JAMES E ET AL OR CURRENT DWNER 11465 PROSPECT RD sARATOGA CA 95070 -6539 LPN #36606011 kRROWHEAD COOPERATIVE CO INC JR CURRENT OWNER 10050 N WOLFE RD UNIT SW2 -106 7.UPERTINO CA 95014 .PN #36606008 CRISTOVICH NEDJELKO AND NNDREA C OR CURRENT OWNER 11555 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6539 LPN #36606012 PITZEN JAY M AND SALINGER L'ARRIE J OR CURRENT OWNER 1965 ARROWHEAD LN 3ARATOGA CA 95070 -6551 .PN #36606048 SAND DENT JR AND MARY OR 2URRENT OWNER !1400 ARROWHEAD LN ARATOGA CA 95070 \PN #36606042 'SENG MEAU HUEY VIVIAN C 'RUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER :1621 PROSPECT RD ARATOGA CA 95070 -6543 ON #36632009 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY IYAR SUBRAH AND RUPAR OR CURRENT OWNER 15292 KENNEDY RD LOS GATOS CA 95032 APN #36606031 SHIE YAW SHI AND WANG JING MAY OR CURRENT OWNER 21981 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36631007 TASDIGHI ALI F AND FAR PANTEA B OR CURRENT OWNER 15230 FRUITVALE AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -6272 APN #36606019 MOORE ARNOLD W Y AND CATHERINE C L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21601 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6543 APN #36632008 ARROWHEAD COOPERATIVE CO OR CURRENT OWNER 10050 N WOLFE RD UNIT SW2 -106 CUPERTINO CA 95014 APN #36632006 ROYBAL PHILIP M AND JULIE A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21351 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6539 APN #36606043 BRANDT JAMES H AND STEPHENSON BRANDT LYNNE OR CURRENT OWNER 22505 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36607009 HANDELSMAN MOSHE AND TAMMY OR CURRENT OWNER 21453 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6549 APN #36606044 DONG CLARK OR CURRENT OWNER 21398 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36606027 SARKISSIAN VAHE A AND NORA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 22000 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6556 APN #36631005 C\ AVERY® 5160® MURPHY PATRICIA A OR CURRENT OWNER 21440 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6500 APN #36606039 AGRAWAL ANANT AND CARMEN C TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 22501 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6546 APN #36607008 PATEL SANJAY M AND DARSHNA S OR CURRENT OWNER 21991 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6543 APN #36632010 PERSING DAVID H AND CAROL J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21995 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36632011 HUSAIN ASIM AND ROOHI OR CURRENT OWNER 21456 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6550 APN #36606041 SOOHOO EDMUND L AND BARBARA J OR CURRENT OWNER 21755 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36606032 ANNAMALAI KADIRESAN AND THAMILARASI OR CURRENT OWNER 21360 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6521 APN #36606025 SHAH DINESH D AND CHANDRIKA D TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21441 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6549 APN #36606014 JOHNSON CHARLES L AND ANNE S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21270 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6517 APN #36606005 FINLEY ENTERPRISES LLC OR CURRENT OWNER 70 GILMARTIN DR TIBURON CA 94920 APN #36632002 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® DODGE RALPH C OR CURRENT OWNER 22100 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36631006 MARSHALL STEVEN C AND RENEE D OR CURRENT OWNER 22549 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6546 APN #36607006 RADISH KATIE TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 21399 ARROWHEAD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6549 APN #36606046 LEE YISHENG AND RUEI C OR CURRENT OWNER 21403 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6539 APN #36606040 ARROWHEAD COOPERATIVE CO OR CURRENT OWNER 10050 N WOLFE RD UNIT SW2 -106 CUPERTINO CA 95014 APN #36607005 SANTA CLARA COUNTY OR CURRENT OWNER BAINTER AV SARATOGA CA 95030 APN #51024009 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT OR CURRENT OWNER 5750 ALMADEN EX SAN JOSE CA 95118 APN #51024037 MARSHALL ROBERT E AND JULIE A OR CURRENT OWNER 15790 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3020 APN #51024022 DAVIS KIRK B AND ALISON C OR CURRENT OWNER 19122 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2902 APN #51024012 OSINSKI WALDEMAR W AND KRYSTYNA OR CURRENT OWNER 15768 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3020 APN #51024026 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY SNOW FRANKLIN D AND DIANE T OR CURRENT OWNER 44 22101 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6558 APN #36632005 BOONE DAVID W AND DIANE E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 8487 LINCOLN NEWCASTLE HY NEWCASTLE CA 95658 APN #36606045 SARKISSIAN VAHE A AND NORA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 22000 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6556 APN #36631004 HANSEN PAUL E AND DEE A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21401 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36606010 SHIE YAW SHI AND WANG JING MAY OR CURRENT OWNER 21981 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #36631001 BRIDGE ROBERT G AND NANCY B OR CURRENT OWNER 15806 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3001 APN #51024041 MADHVANI MARIA AND KANTILAL J OR CURRENT OWNER 19144 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2902 APN #51024011 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 ALMADEN EX SAN JOSE CA 95118 APN #51024039 POZOS CARYL B TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15780 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3020 APN #51024024 LITCHKO MICHAEL AND SIMON RHONDA C/O SIMON /LITCHKO OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 320880 LOS GATOS CA 95032 -0114 APN #51024015 0 AVERY® 5160® LUNDMARK CHESTER H AND ELEONORE TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 21260 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6517 APN #36606021 CHEN HUEY C OR CURRENT OWNER 21250 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6517 APN #36606022. PACE STANLEY L AND BONNIE B OR CURRENT OWNER 4700 NANTUCKET CT FLOWER MOUND TX 75028 APN #36606002 CARLSON NANCY TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 22301 ROLLING HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6560 'APN #36631002 MST PAULINE A OR CURRENT OWNER 22001 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA 'CA 95070 -6561 APN #36632004 NELSON GEORGIA B TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 15821 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3001 APN #51024017 PARASKEVOPOULOS DEMETRIS E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19160 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2902 APN #51024010 YOST DONALD. E AND PATRICIA TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15835 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3001 APN #51024018 YIP THOMAS C AND WENDY L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15803 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3001 APN #51024016 KUHAR JOSEPH E AND BETTY M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15759 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3001 APN #51024014 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® MCINTYRE WAYNE F AND LOUISE S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15774 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3020 APN #51024025 FLORES STEPHEN A AND SANDRA E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15784 HIDDEN HILL PL LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3020 APN #51024023 CHEN HSIANG -WEN AND PI -YUN HSU TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15774 LANCASTER RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3022 APN #51007046 TRAN TAI A AND LE HUONG T OR CURRENT OWNER 15770 WOOD ACRES RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3023 APN #51007052 CHADHA KANWAR AND ASHU OR CURRENT OWNER 15740 WOOD ACRES RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3055 APN #51007053 HOLTON JOHN P AND KOWNACKI WANDA OR CURRENT OWNER 19280 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 APN #51024027 CRANE KEITH F TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 1 9298 CITRUS LN gARATOGA CA 95070 -6410 APN #51006011 MEYERS LEE ANN M OR CURRENT OWNER 15910 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007065 ROSSI VIRGINIA M TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 14500 FRUITVALE AV APT 5323 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6195 APN #51006059 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 3AINTER AV SARATOGA CA 95030 f1PN #51024030 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY STORY MICHAEL S AND LUCILLE L OR CURRENT OWNER 15745 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 APN #51007007 HENDERSON DAVID W AND NOELLE. C OR CURRENT OWNER 19100 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2902 APN #51024013 CHARLES EARL C AND PATRICIA A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19200 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6409 APN #51006035 SIDDIQI AZMAT AND SAIRA OR CURRENT OWNER 19101 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #51006013 BONY MARK J AND SHEILA A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15760 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3052 APN #51007019 NAYAK VISHWANATH D AND VAISHALI V OR CURRENT OWNER 19287 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6409 APN #51006041 SCHIRTZINGER DAVID L AND JEANNETTE L OR CURRENT OWNER 15681 LOMAS LN LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3025 APN #51007004 PALMER PETER AND ANASTASIA OR CURRENT OWNER 15930 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007012 BROYLES DOUGLAS W AND BARBARA L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19145 BAINTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -6456 APN #51006061 WHITELEY ANGELA M AND ANDREW P OR CURRENT OWNER 15621 LOMAS LN LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3025 APN #51007064 AVERY® 5160® SOGG RICHARD L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19262 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3001 APN #51024040 CONKLIN LANA V TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER P.O. BOX 126 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 APN #51029031 ASKEW KARMEN M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19066 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA. CA 95070 -6405 APN #51006024 GRIMES DONALD E TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15895 RAVINE RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3043 APN #51029056 WILLIAMS HILARY J TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19317 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2928 APN #51025024 BLACKWELL MARCHANT PATRICIA A ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 15681 ROBLES DEL ORO SARATOGA CA 95070 -6430 APN #51008009 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 ALMADEN EX SAN JOSE CA 95118 APN #51024031 THOMAS MIWAKO TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19239 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6409 APN #51006058 LYDDON GRANT S TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 37 SARATOGA CA 95071 APN #51024034 SHU DAREN AND LEE -YING TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 11583 UPLAND WY CUPERTINO CA 95014 APN #51007014 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® SCOFFONE ALDO J TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 15722 LANCASTER RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3022 APN #51007056 NAVI BAHRAM AND TABATABAEI MARYAM OR CURRENT OWNER 19418 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2928 APN #51024002 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 ALMADEN EX SAN JOSE CA 95118 r■PN #51024033 2,EAY FRANK D AND LYNNE T TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15965 LANCASTER RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3021 APN #51007057 KUMAR HIMANSHU AND SINGH SAIRA S OR CURRENT OWNER 15'875 WOOD ACRES RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3031 APN #51007049 HOLTON JOHN AND KOWNACKI WANDA OR CURRENT OWNER 19280 BAINTER AV .OS GATOS CA 95030 -2902 "_PN #51024035 -4OOPER STEPHEN B AND LIANNA F OR CURRENT OWNER 15881 RAVINE RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3043 APN #51029033 VIRDEH FRED AND RIDLEY T TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15731 WOOD ACRES RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3017 APN #51007006 JUDD EVAN V AND GAYLE W 'RUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 9288 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WY ARATOGA CA 95070 -6409 PN #51006039 .LAUSMEIER DANIEL E TRUSTEE ET AL CIO PABLO, PILAR L OR �URRENT OWNER 15970 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007066 CIRAULO DONALD J AND JANELLE OR CURRENT OWNER 15911 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007011 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY IPSER EDWARD A JR AND WIDJOJO SURJATINI TRU OR CURRENT O JNER 15880 LOMAS LN LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3025 APN #51007002 LAURIDSEN FRAN E AND ROBERT W OR CURRENT OWNER 19450 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2928 APN #51024001 CONKLIN LANA V TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER P.O. BOX 126 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 APN #51029055 CHADWICK ARTHUR D AND SUBEDAR FARAH J TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER 19120 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6455 APN #51006021 WONG ALLEN AND LILLIAN OR CURRENT OWNER P 0 BOX 700005 SAN JOSE CA 95170 APN #51007031 GLAJCHEN DEON AND DAWN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19100 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6455 APN #51006022 LULLA SULOCHINA H OR CURRENT OWNER 19099 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6404 APN #51006017 BROYLES DOUGLAS W AND BARBARA L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19145 BAINTER AV SARATOGA CA 95070 -6456 APN #51024038 JU KOCHAN AND ALLEGRANZA JU OLETTA OR CURRENT OWNER 15840 LANCASTER RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3059 APN #51007042 0 AVERY® 5160® DIERKES CARL L TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 495 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0495 APN #51024036 LOFGREN THOMAS D AND CATHERINE OR CURRENT OWNER 15850 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007009 COTTINGHAM JOHN AND KATE OR CURRENT OWNER 19350 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2901 APN #51025069 FLOWERS. GREGORY S TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 19266 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6409 APN #51006038 KEEBLE PAUL T AND JUDY G OR CURRENT OWNER 1904I AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6404 APN #51006016 FURSDON JOHN AND WOIWODE NORA OR CURRENT OWNER 19400 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2928 APN #51024003 BONY MARK J AND SHEILA A TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15760 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3052 APN #51007018 ROBSON WILLIAM G OR CURRENT OWNER 15891 RAVINE RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3043 APN #51029057 PALMER PETER AND ANASTASIA OR CURRENT OWNER 15930 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007013 SCOFFONE ALDO J TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER 15722 LANCASTER RIB MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3022 APN #51007055 Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ONG THOMAS G AND KUAN -LI OR CURRENT OWNER i10•BOX 2176 SARATOGA CA 95070 PN #51006014 JOCHHEIM JERRY AND SUSAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15900 LOMAS LN LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3025 APN #51007001 STURDEVANT DONALD E AND GALE N TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2695 SARATOGA CA 95070 APN #51006036 2ERTELSEN CARL A AND CAROL K RUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER `_5900 WEST RD `:,OS GATOS CA 95030 -3051 APN #51007062 STAVELEY BRENDAN G AND MARY T OR CURRENT OWNER 15810 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3052 APN #51007008 ALEXANDER WANDA B TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX IE LOS GATOS CA 95031 APN #51029032 LAWTON CHARLES B II AND MARION Y; TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 5780 LANCASTER RD I /IONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3022 APN #51007044 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY MALHOTRA VINOD AND NEEMA B OR CURRENT OWNER 19088 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6405 APN #51006060 CONKLIN LANA V TRUSTEE ET AL OR CURRENT OWNER P.O. BOX 126 MARYSVILLE WA 98270 APN #51029035 GONG HAYMAN AND CHADINE F TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15910 RAVINE RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3074 APN #51007063 DULIN DAVID L AND DENISE M OR CURRENT OWNER 15710 WEST RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3050 APN #51007029 SINGH INDER M AND RAMAN R OR CURRENT OWNER 16303 RAVINE RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3043 APN #51029062 RITCHIE DAVID B OR CURRENT OWNER 15901 RAVINE RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3043 APN #51029037 HARRIGAN MATTHEW AND THERESA OR CURRENT OWNER 15705 LANCASTER RD MONTE SERENO CA 95030 -3021 APN #51007030 Q AVERY® 5160® SELL DARRELL D AND MARILYN M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER I 19330 REDBERRY DR LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2928 APN #51024032 NEWMARK RICHARD A AND EVELYN M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19165 AUSTIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6404 APN #51006018 DEAS DUDLEY D AND PHILOMENA M TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15873 WOOD ACRES RD LOS GATOS, CA 95030 -3031 APN #51007060 KOTHARI MUDER AND YASMEEN TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 19244 BOUNTIFUL ACRES WY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6409 APN #51006037 WICKHAM PHILIP G AND SACHI N OR CURRENT OWNER 15839 HIDDEN HILL RD LOS GATOS CA 95032 APN #51024019 JAGUSCH PETER R TRUSTEE OR CURRENT OWNER 15700 LOMAS LN LOS GATOS CA 95030 -3025 APN #51007003 HWANG GEORGE F AND HELEN T OR CURRENT OWNER 19288 BAINTER AV LOS GATOS CA 95030 -2902 APN #51024006 Attachment 5 John Livingstone From: Pace, Stan [Stan.Pace ©Bain.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:39 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: Consideration of Proposal to Start Annexation Process Dear John: Would you please read the attached and enter into the records my comments with regard to the proposed annexation process of county land along prospect road. I have been a land holder and owner for the past 20 years in Santa Clara County. I currently own a 15+ acre parcel of open property at the end of blue hills lane and have been quietly and patiently paying my taxes and letting my neighbors enjoy the quite and peaceful use of that land and that space unimpeded by development. I am strongly opposed to the annexation of this property which I bought as county land many years ago. I believe it is not in my interest to have it annexed into Saratoga. I hereby reserve the right to pursue all legal means to prevent the annexation of this property into Saratoga. Furthermore, if I find that for whatever reason I cannot or am not likely to prevail in that contest I will seek either to immediately develop the property and /or sell it to a developer which will clearly degrade, not enhance the quality of life for all of my good neighbors around this property. I do not believe that that is in the greater interest of the residents of the city of Saratoga nor in particular the residents of this unincorporated portion of county land along Prospect Road Respectfully Yours, Stanley L. Pace Land Owner Stan Pace Director Bain Company, Inc. 1 5215 N O'Connor Blvd #500 I Irving, Texas 75039 I United States tel: (972) 869 7990 fax: (972) 869 7915 mailto:stan.pace.Ctain.com 1 web: www.bam.com 3/31/2006 Page 1 of 1 PS John, Please send me back a response acknowledging that you received this email and that it will be read at the hearing. thanks Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 4 City of Saratoga City Clerk's office Attached is a letter from Neelima Palacherla, LAFCO Executive Officer and cost estimates from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc. regarding agenda Item 4. April 5, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Annexation of Islands Honorable Mayor and City Council members: Unfortunately, both of the LAFCO staff persons (Dunia Noel and myself) are unable to attend this meeting. We would like to make reference to a report prepared by LAFCO and provided to cities titled," Making your City Whole" which includes information on the annexation process, and provides background information/ advice to help cities and communities take advantage of the special legislation for conducting island annexations. A copy of this report is also available on the LAFCO web site at santaclara.lafco.ca.gov. Since the early 1970's it has been the policy of all fifteen cities in the County, the County and LAFCO that annexation of unincorporated islands should be pursued to achieve more logical boundaries and more efficient provision of services and facilities. LAFCO supports and encourages the annexation of Saratoga islands. Annexation of the islands would allow Saratoga to regulate land use and ensure that development within the islands adjacent and surrounded by city neighborhoods is consistent with city policies and standards. It would allow the City to comprehensively plan for the entire community and carryout those plans. The City would have the ability to directly address any neighborhood issues that arise and minimize the negative impacts of those issues on other adjacent city neighborhoods. This would eliminate the need to coordinate time consuming inter jurisdictional referral processes related to service or land development requests. The residents would benefit by having the ability to vote in elections for Saratoga city elected officials, and more effectively and easily participate in and have greater influence on the decisions directly affecting their community. The residents will benefit from improved services and programs for their neighborhoods with greater accountability for service provision. As you know, the legislation allowing streamlined annexation proceedings for urban islands that are less than 150 acres is set to expire at the end of this year. Although there are efforts to extend the law, there is no certainty at this point that the law will be extended. Furthermore, to facilitate island annexations, the County has offered to cover state annexation filing fees, provide free services for preparation of annexation maps and reports and provide road upgrades. LAFCO has agreed to waive its fees for processing such annexations. On behalf of LAFCO, we strongly encourage the City of Saratoga to take advantage of this unique opportunity and move forward with annexation proceedings for the islands. Thank you. Sincerely, Neelima Palacherla LAFCO Executive Officer CC: LAFCO members E l COTTON, SHIRES ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TO: SUBJECT: RE: Dear Ms. Harvancik: In reply to your request, we have prepared the following approximate cost estimates to complete geotechnical investigation of portions of County roadways that may be annexed by the City. In November 2005, we prepared a report entitled "Geotechnical Evaluation of Roadway Distress Urban Pockets Road Stability." In that report, we identified various distress sites in two pocket areas that may be annexed by the City. We ranked pavement condition in four categories: (1) monitor, (2) older distress, (3) recent moderate distress, and (4) recent severe distress. At your request, we prepared this cost estimate to investigate on previously identified distress areas ranked as 3 and 4 located in the following roadway areas: We have identified 6 roadway distress sites along the above roadways with a ranking of 3 or 4. We anticipate that subsurface investigation of these areas will require approximately 16 exploratory borings ranging from 5 to 25 feet in depth plus installation and monitoring of 2 slope inclinometers. Costs to measure cross slope profiles and topography in the vicinity of active landslides has been considered. Cost of soils laboratory testing of collected samples have been considered, along with geotechnical engineering analyses of collected data. A summary report will be prepared presenting collected data, results of geotechnical analyses, and figures illustrating conceptual mitigation alternatives for the roadway distress sites. Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (406) 354 -5542 Fax (408) 354 -1852 C•mail: losgatos@ cottonshires.com Iveta Harvancik Associate Engineer CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Approximate Cost Estimate for Geotechnical Services Urban Pockets Road Stability Saratoga, California Prospect Road (County portion) (2 locations) Rolling Hills Road Ravine Road (from Fainter to Hidden Hills Road) Hidden Hills Road Hidden Hills Place www.cottonshires.com April 4, 2006 P0165A Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249 -9640 (209) 736 -4252 Fax (209) 736 -1212 e -mail; cottoraires@starband -net Iveta Harvancik April 4, 2006 Page 2 P0165A Our approximate cost estimate for the above geotechnical investigation is $40,000 to $45,000. Almost half of this amount is associated with investigation of distress sites previously identified as 25 and 26 along Prospect Road where active landsliding was observed. We trust that the above cost estimate provides you with information needed at this time. We will prepare a detailed scope of work and proposal upon request. Please contact us with any questions. TS:DTS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC, Ted Sayre Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Associate Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SATIRES ASSOCIATES, INC. March 27, 2006 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 95070 Delivered by hand Dear Saratoga City Council, I am writing in support of the annexation of the Hidden Hill area to the City of Saratoga. My wife and I live in unincorporated Santa Clara County very close to the area in question. Recent experience with residential development in our neighborhood has led us to believe that hillside areas within the sphere of influence of Saratoga should be annexed to the City as soon as possible. We believe this is the only way to protect the natural environment and ensure appropriate development that is sensitive to the aesthetics of our neighborhood. We strongly urge you to annex the Hidden Hill area as soon as possible. Thank you. Ki Fennell\ 19425 Redbe#ry Drive March 27, 2006 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 95070 Delivered by hand Dear Saratoga City Council. members, It has come to my attention that you are considering annexation of the Hidden Hill area to the City of Saratoga. My wife and I live in unincorporated Santa Clara County very close to this area. We believe that it is in the best interest of Saratoga and its residents to annex unincorporated hillside areas to the City. We believe this is the only way to protect our community from inappropriate residential development that is not sensitive to the natural hillside environment we value. We strongly urge you to annex the Hidden Hill area as soon as possible. Thank you. Sin, n fei berry Drive March 27, 2006 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 95070 Delivered by hand Dear members of the Saratoga City Council, I understand that you are considering annexation of the Hidden Hill area to Saratoga. My wife and I live in Saratoga on property that adjoins this area. We strongly urge you to annex this area to the City of Saratoga. We believe that leaving this land under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County will result in inappropriate development of residential property. We support annexation of any area within the sphere of influence of Saratoga so that further development of these areas will occur under the planning codes and guidelines of the City. We believe that the long term benefits of annexation outweigh the costs of maintaining the roads of these areas. Thank you. Sincerely, George Hwang 19288 Bainter Avenue I March 27, 2006 Saratoga City Council Saratoga, CA 95070 Delivered by hand Dear Saratoga City Council members, I am writing in support of the annexation of the Hidden Hill area to the City of Saratoga. My husband and I live in unincorporated Santa Clara County very close to the area in question. We feel strongly that leaving land such as this under the jurisdiction of the County will result in inappropriate development and damage to the trees and environment of our hillside neighborhood. We encourage you to annex this area within 2006 while annexation guidelines permit. Thank you. Since ly yours, Jill ilton 19392 Bainter Avene Personal Services Ordinance Completed Completed (Ordinance extended, will come back in September) Conditions of Approval Village Parking Completed City Landmark Ordinance Completed (Two homes designated) Density bonus Ordinance Scheduled for Planning Commission meeting April 22 Noise Ordinance In progress SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Com. Dev. Dir. DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Status Report on Advance Planning Activities RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Direct staff accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: Ordinance Status Jo n F. Livingstone On September 7, 2005, the City Council reviewed a staff report requesting their guidance in prioritizing fifteen proposed ordinances. At the meeting the Council recommended that staff work on the following six ordinances: In addition to the above ordinances staff is working with the consulting firm of Ungo McCormick on updating three Elements of the City's General Plan: the Land Use Element, Conservation Element and the Open Space, Recreation and Trails Element. The Land Use Element was last updated in 1983, the Conservation Element in 1988, and the Open Space Element in 1993. Staff will be combining the Conservation Element with the Open Space, Recreation and Trails Element. Staff has met with both the Land Use Advisory Committee and the Trails Committee on several occasions and has prepared the first draft of the proposed updates. The following is the list of ordinances which were not scheduled as part of the work program: Fence Ordinance The Council asked that this ordinance be updated. Staff would like the update to include a fence exception process to allow for taller fences. This may reduce city staff and attorney time spent dealing with code complaints on fences. Miscellaneous Zoning Code Update The Planning Commission is interested in having several sections of the code updated. Staff has been maintaining a list of code sections that need to be updated or corrected. Most of the items are small adjustments to help clarify code sections. Sign Ordinance The sign ordinance has not been updated in some time and does not reflect recent developments in the law. This ordinance will require more time than some of the other ordinances due to the need for staff to work with the business and real estate community. Nonconforming Use Ordinance This ordinance has not been updated in some time and does not reflect recent developments in the law. Antenna Ordinance The City Council has expressed interest in a new ordinance. Bed and Breakfast The Council expressed interest in looking at an ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establishments as a conditional use permit. Streamline the Design Review Process During last year's joint PC /CC meeting the Council gave staff direction to review ways to streamline the Design Review process. Village PD At a City Council retreat last year the Council recommended looking into an ordinance that would allow greater flexibility for projects being developed in the village. Remove the cap on the amount of floor area allowed for large parcels The Council has discussed removing the cap on the amount of floor area allowed to permit homes greater than the district allowed maximum for large lots. At the last joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council they agreed to have the Council review the issue of Story Poles. It is included in this staff report so that the City Council can provide staff direction on the issue. During the City Council retreat the Council directed staff to look into updating the Housing Element and Zoning Ordinance to allow market rate owner occupied residential units in the Mixed Use Zone. Staff is including this item to the proposed advance planning work program and will proceed with the proposed update as directed by the Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Planning staff and the City Attorney's Office can accomplish the ordinance updates. The Community Development Department is a self funded department. The time spent on the ordinance updates will reduce the amount of billing hours available to staff. The time spent for the City Attorney to review the ordinances will be paid for out of the Development Fund reducing Department funding levels. The budget for the General Plan update has been anticipated through a 1% General Plan Maintenance Fee on building permits. Based on average building permit fees generated in past years the Planning Department is estimating available revenue to be approximately $70,000.00 a year, which will be able to provide for the update of the three elements. 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: As Directed. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Staff will continue to work on the tasks recommended by the Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The agenda was properly posted for this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Time Line. So, tsn5nv September '05 October '05 November '05 December '05 January '06 February '06 March '06 90.10V 90. A411 90. eunr 90. AInf August '06 September '06 October '06 November '06 General Plan Update RFQ Issued 8/5 RFQ Due 8/24 DONE RFP Issued 9/1 RFP Due 9/23 RFP review with Team 9/27 DONE Interviews 10/18 DONE Contract to CC 12/7 Start of Project Gathering Resources/ meeting with staff DONE Liason w /Sub- Committee DONE Submittal of 1st Draft to Staff DONE Submittal of 1st Draft to Sub- Committee Proposed changes incorporated 5/1 CEQA doc. Released to State 45 day review PC Hearing set CC Review Approv Density Bonus Program Environ. DONE PC Review CC Review Approv. Personal Bus. Ord. PC Review DONE CCReview DONE Approved DONE City Landmarks Approve DONE Noise Ord. PC Review CC Review Approv. Village Parking PC Study Session DONE Environ. DONE PC Review DONE CC Review DONE Approved DONE Conditions of Approval Ord. CC Extend DONE CC Review Approv Streamlined Annex. To be determined. Must be completed by Jan 2007 Could Start Here Helen Lemmon, Chairperson Library Commission City Council and Library Commission Meeting April 5, 2006 I am happy to report that our Library is functioning very well with very few problems. Saratoga citizens are truly fortunate to have such a wonderful facility and they are using it. On average 163 people visit the library every hour it is opened. During the past year 353 programs were presented to our children, teens and adults. 17,337 people attended these programs. 1,341,847 items were checked out last year. The Library Commission is a diverse group of six talented people with contacts throughout the community. We meet every fourth month. Both the County and the Saratoga Librarians meet with us. Tom Scott and Cathleen Boyer have been most helpful in their support of the Commission, and in keeping us informed of city activities and direction. One of our members prepares excellent minutes of our meetings, which aids Cathleen's with her busy workload. The Library flag pole is up, and the flag is one of the first important sights seen as a person enters Saratoga. I personally believe the flag is too small for such a tall pole. If you concur, I will ask the Saratoga Lions to donate to the Library an appropriate flag for such an impressive flag pole. Tom Scott reports night lighting of the flag is being improved. The gravel walk thru the orchard has eliminated dirt and mud entering the Library. By the way, the walk is a very pleasant way to enjoy the heritage orchard. Tom Scott reports the following: The Monument Sign is out for bid, and the inside signage problems are being corrected. Library lighting and air conditioning problems are being corrected. The building's south facing walls are being re- stained. I am personally surprised as to how soon this repair has had to be made. The Commission requests that the City Manager meet with us at our June 21 meeting to clarify the status of the Capital Improvement Fund. Are there any questions or comments from the Council? MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager' PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Cathleen Boyer, Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution of Support Yes On Parks ice CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson, City Manager FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council can choose not to adopt the resolution of support. 2 <-fL The City received the attached letter from Garnetta Annable, Executive Director, from the "YES On Parks" Campaign Committee (Attachment A). The "YES On Parks" Campaign Committee supports the measure that will appear on the June ballot, which the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved on December 5, 2005. If the measure is successful it would: Extend the Parks Charter Amendment for another 12 years Preserve the current level of funding (1.425 cents per $100 of assessed valuation Dedicate at least 15% of the fund for parkland acquisition, 5% for needed capital improvements, and the remainder for park operations "Yes On Parks" is requesting that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) endorsing the Park Charter Amendment. Matt Hahn, a member of the Bay Area Ridge Trail Santa Clara County Committee, will appear on behalf of "Yes On Parks FOLLOW UP ACTION: Send certified copy: YES on Parks, 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213, San Jose, CA. 95126. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Letter from Garnetta Annable, Executive Director Attachment B Fact Sheet Attachment C Resolution of Support RESOLUTION NO. 06- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA IN SUPPORT OF RENEWAL OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PARK CHARTER WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund, which provides the primary mechanism for financing the Santa Clara County Parks System, was enacted in 1972 through a vote of the people and has since been consistently renewed by Santa Clara County voters, and; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved submitting to the voters a proposed amendment for the renewal of the Park Charter Fund to be placed on the June 6, 2006 primary election ballot, and; WHEREAS, the proposed Park Charter Fund amendment would extend funding for the Santa Clara County Parks System through June 30, 2021, providing an assured financial base for park acquisition, development and operation without creating new taxes, and; WHEREAS, Santa Clara County parklands, park facilities and programs are essential in meeting the current and future needs of County residents, and; WHEREAS, the Park Charter Fund contributes necessary funding to operate a "necklace of parks" that is one of the most diverse in all of California and consists of 28 regional parks, 45,000 acres and over 260 miles of trails located along the County's precious streams, lakes, foothills, mountains and other areas of outstanding natural beauty, and; WHEREAS, City of Saratoga is dedicated toward the planning, acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, trails, and other recreational areas and facilities promoting a better living environment and assuring that Saratoga continues embracing its most valued natural and historic resources so that citizens may enjoy neighborhood and community opportunities now and in the future; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga have partnered to create a rich and diverse regional park and open space network and to improve the quality of life for Santa Clara County residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Saratoga supports the renewal of the Park Charter Fund by the voters of Santa Clara County on June 6, 2006. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5`'' day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Norman Kline, Mayor Pat Dando, Honorary Co -Chair Mary Davey, Honorary Co- Chair Yes On Parks! 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213, San Jose,'CA 95126 www.YesOnParks.com Lawrence Ames, Treasurer ID# 1278470 Garnetta Annable,.. Executive Director February 23, 2006 Honorable Mayor Norman Kline and Councilmembers City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Endorsement of the Park Charter Fund Renewal Dear Honorable Mayor Kline Attachment 1 There is a movement underway to renew the County's Park Charter in order to assure an essential and stable funding source for the Santa Clara County park system. On December 6, 2005, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved placing a measure on the ballot to: Extend the Park Charter Amendment for another 12 years; Preserve the current level of funding (1.425 cents per $100 of assessed valuation); and, Dedicate at least 15% of the fund for parkland acquisition, 5% for needed capital improvements, and the remainder for park operations. While the Supervisors' action is promising, their decision must be supported by majority voter approval in the June 6, 2006 primary election. The "Yes On Parks!" Campaign Committee is fully committed to ensuring the successful passage of the Park Charter and is seeking endorsements from several public and private institutions, including the City of Saratoga. Many have already committed support to the campaign a partial list of supporters is attached. The Park Charter is not a new or additional tax and the amendment will continue the mandate to set aside a small portion of existing County property taxes for the care and expansion of our County parks and regional trail system. Since 1972, voters have approved five extensions of the Park Charter Amendment, most recently in 1996 by over 80% of voters. The Park Charter is a responsible and proven way to maintain and enhance our quality of life. "Yes On Parks!" respectfully requests an endorsement of the Park Charter Amendment by the Saratoga City Council. Please assist us by on placing the endorsement on your Council's agenda. Enclosed in support of the action are: An endorsement list for organizations who have already formally supported the Park Charter Amendment Brief Fact Sheet Sample Resolution The amendment and ballot text (Note this is what the Board approved on 12/6/05) Please let me know if there is any other background information that I can send you. If you can let me know what date this will be agendized for your council and if it's a regular item, what time certain that would be helpful. We'll have a committee member attend if it is a regular item. Let's join together to make an investment in the future of County Parks! Sincerely, Garnetta Annable, Executive Director "Yes On Parks! (408) 371 -9210 formal Endorsements Received for the Park Charter Amendment, 2/12/06 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Congressman Mike Honda Sheriff Laurie Smith Santa Clara Valley Water District MROSD Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Santa Clara County League of Women Voters Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Girl Scouts Bay Area Ridge .Trail Council Bay Area Open _space Council Audubon Society of Santa Clara Valley Greenbelt Alliance Native Plant Society California Apartment Association /Tri- County New Almaden Quicksilver County Park Association Friends of Guadalupe River Park and Gardens Friends of Stevens Creek Trail Santa Clara County Horsemen's Association Quicksilver _Endurance Riders Youth Science Institute Silicon Valley Land Conservancy Santa Clara County Volunteer Coordinating Council Willow Glen Neighborhood Association Almaden Valley Community Association ROMP Santa Clara County Park Rangers' Association Friends of Santa Teresa County Park Bear Flag Foundation, Morgan Hill New Almaden Community Club, Inc. Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Committee for Green- Foothills South County Democratic Club Yes On Parks! Pat Dando, Honorary Co -Chair (President, San Jose Chamber of Commerce) Mary Davey, Honorary Co -Chair (Board Member, MROSD) Attachment 2 Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund Fact Sheet Information provided by Yes on Parks! Photo: Uvas Canyon County Park 1/30/06 What is the Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund? The Park Charter Fund is not a new or additional tax it simply requires that the County dedicate a small portion of existing property tax revenue for County Parks. Since 1972, Santa Clara County voters have demonstrated a commitment to County Parks through the establishment and renewal of the Park Charter Fund. County voters have approved the Park Charter Fund six times, most recently (1996) by an overwhelming 80 The current set aside equates to less than 1% of the County's total budget and includes a mandate to acquire land to expand the regional park and trail network. Why is our Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund needed? In the next 20 years, the County is projected to grow by another 400,000 residents to a population of over 2 million. The Park Charter Fund is vital to: Protect watersheds and preserve natural areas of outstanding scenic quality; Assure that County Parks can meet the current and future needs of Santa Clara County residents; and Contribute to the "quality of life" for County residents who want areas of natural beauty that are close to home, yet provide an escape from the pressures of urban life. What are the benefits of our Park Charter Fund? The Park Charter Fund provides a stable funding source for the Santa Clara County Parks system in order to provide an array of outstanding recreational opportunities while also protecting water quality and preserving areas of natural beauty. Today, the County Park system consists of 28 regional parks including urban parks such as the ever popular Vasona Lake and Hellyer parks, and hillside parks such as Ed Levin, Rancho San Antonio, Almaden Quicksilver, Mt. Madonna, Anderson Reservoir and the newly- enlarged Coyote Lake Harvey Bear Ranch. This park system includes almost 45,000 acres encompassing over 260 miles of regional trails and 10 reservoirs offering traditional water- and land -based recreational activities such as hiking, picnicking, boating, camping and bicycling. County Parks also offers unique activities such as off-road motorcycling, sport shooting practice, archery, golf, flycasting, hang gliding and bicycle racing. The County Park Charter funds a variety of programs, including: An Active Acquisition Program during the last 10 years, 6,500 acres of new parkland has been added to your County Park system, including 3,600 acres (and 14 new miles of multi -use trails) opened in May 2005 at the Coyote Bear Harvey Bear Ranch County Park. A Comprehensive Natural Resource Management Program dedicated to the protection, preservation and restoration of the County Park system's unique and varied natural areas. Three Interpretive Centers all opened in the past decade to inspire and educate our school children and the general public on the County's rich cultural and natural history: Chitactac Heritage County Park, the Mining Museum at Almaden Quicksilver, and the Bernal Ranch at Santa Teresa. A Dynamic Volunteer Program over 1,400 volunteers donate almost 35,000 hours annually to help efficiently manage park resources, and receive meaningful opportunities for personal growth and community connections. Many Valuable Partnerships with Community Organizations including, the Youth Science Institute, Via Services (Camp Costanoan), Wildlife Rescue of Silicon Valley, Girl Scouts of America, Billy Jones Wildcat Railroad and American Youth Hostel. Leadership in Planning and Building the County's Regional Trail Network including the Bay Area Ridge Trail, the Bay Trail and the Juan Bautista deAnza National Historic Trail. Popular Recreational Activities appealing programs accessible to all cultural, ethnic, age and economic groups at a reasonable cost. Who manages the Park Charter Fund? Under the guidance of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the management of the Park Charter Fund. Celebrating its 50th year in service, County Parks recently completed a comprehensive Strategic Plan which can be viewed on the Department's website www.oarkhere.orq. The plan, developed through an extensive public outreach process, reflects the long -term community vision for County Parks. As part of that vision, the Park Charter Fund must be maintained as an essential foundation to assure the health and vibrancy of the County Park system. Complete Text of the Park Charter Amendment (1) Beginning on July 1, 2009, through and including the 2021 fiscal year, the Board of Supervisors shall transfer from the general fund to the County Park fund an amount of money which shall not be less than an amount estimated by the Auditor Controller to equal the amount that would be raised for that year by a tax of $0.01425 per One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation of all real and personal property situated within the County of Santa Clara. In addition, the Board of Supervisors shall transfer into such fund all fees and revenues generated by the operation of county parks and all other monies received from the United States Government, State of California, or any other public agency or any person for county park purposes. Any interest earned on the investment of money in the county park fund shall be credited to the fund. (2) The Board of Supervisors shall appropriate the money in the county park fund for the acquisition, development, or acquisition and development of real property for county park purposes and for the maintenance and operation of county parks. At least 15% of the funds transferred from the general fund shall be set aside and used for the acquisition of real property for county park purposes and at least 5% used for park development for county park purposes, and the remaining funds shall be used for county park operations. (3) The county shall not acquire real property for any park purpose until the Board of Supervisors has determined that the acquisition is in conformity with the adopted county parks and recreation element of the general plan. (4) This section shall be operative commencing with the 2009 -2010 fiscal year (July 1, 2009) and shall be repealed at the end of the 2021 fiscal year; provided, however, any unobligated monies remaining in the fund on June 30, 2021, shall be used only for the purposes set forth in subsection (2) of this section. (5) The intent of this section is to ensure that a minimum amount of money will be placed into the county park fund for acquisition, development, operation and maintenance purposes. Nothing in this section shall be construed as a limitation on the amount of money the Board of Supervisors may transfer into the county park fund for county park purposes or otherwise appropriate for county park purposes. Measure COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE Amendment to the Without increasing taxes, shall the Santa Clara County Charter of the County Charter be extended to provide for the acquisition, of Santa Clara development, maintenance, and operation of parks, Yes by continuing the annual transfer from the general fund of an amount estimated to equal $0.01425 per No one hundred dollars of assessed valuation of all real and personal property commencing on July 1, 2009 for twelve years? RESOLUTION OF THE (Governing Board/Council) IN SUPPORT OF RENEWAL OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PARK CHARTER WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund, which provides the primary mechanism for financing the Santa Clara County Parks System, was enacted in 1972 through a vote of the people and has since been consistently renewed by Santa Clara County voters, and; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved submitting to the voters a proposed amendment for the renewal of the Park Charter Fund to be placed on the June 6, 2006 primary election ballot, and; WHEREAS, the proposed Park Charter Fund amendment would extend funding for the Santa Clara County Parks System through June 30, 2021, providing an assured financial base for park acquisition, development and operation without creating new taxes, and; WHEREAS, Santa Clara County parklands, park facilities and programs are essential in meeting the current and future needs of County residents, and; WHEREAS, the Park Charter Fund contributes necessary funding to operate a "necklace of parks" that is one of the most diverse in all of California and consists of 28 regional parks, 45,000 acres and over 260 miles of trails located along the County's precious streams, lakes, foothills, mountains and other areas of outstanding natural beauty, and; WHEREAS, the (personalized words about the agency's mission and vision for regional parks and open space), and; WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara and have partnered to create a rich and diverse regional park and open space network and to improve the quality of life for Santa Clara County residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the supports the renewal of the Park Charter Fund by the voters of Santa Clara County on June 6, 2006. RESOLUTION NO. 06- Attachment 3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA IN SUPPORT OF RENEWAL OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PARK CHARTER WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund, which provides the primary mechanism for financing the Santa Clara County Parks System, was enacted in 1972 through a vote of the people and has since been consistently renewed by Santa Clara County voters, and; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved submitting to the voters a proposed amendment for the renewal of the Park Charter Fund to be placed on the June 6, 2006 primary election ballot, and; WHEREAS, the proposed Park Charter Fund amendment would extend funding for the Santa Clara County Parks System through June 30, 2021, providing an assured financial base for park acquisition, development and operation without creating new taxes, and; WHEREAS, Santa Clara County parklands, park facilities and programs are essential in meeting the current and future needs of County residents, and; WHEREAS, the Park Charter Fund contributes necessary funding to operate a "necklace of parks" that is one of the most diverse in all of California and consists of 28 regional parks, 45,000 acres and over 260 miles of trails located along the County's precious streams, lakes, foothills, mountains and other areas of outstanding natural beauty, and; WHEREAS, City of Saratoga is dedicated toward the planning, acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, trails, and other recreational areas and facilities promoting a better living environment and assuring that Saratoga continues embracing its most valued natural and historic resources so that citizens may enjoy neighborhood and community opportunities now and in the future; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Saratoga have partnered to create a rich and diverse regional park and open space network and to improve the quality of life for Santa Clara County residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Saratoga supports the renewal of the Park Charter Fund by the voters of Santa Clara County on June 6, 2006. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Norman Kline, Mayor 4 Za J T))) Incomoraed. October 22, 1956 April 10, 2006 Yes On Parks Garnetta Annable, Executive Director 1922 The Alamdea, Suite 213 San Jose Ca 95126 Dear Ms. Annable: ru C77" L i LI' 13777 PRUTTVALP AVENUE SARATOGA, RE: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING YES ON PARKS 76) ,ivri n s" LC r CALIFORNIA 9 /LT\ 5070 (408)8'38-1200 COUNC..T1, ME:\113 Aieer K0 Kaihisen King f.1 Kilns Nick An WE. ifonsmith Enclosed is a certified copy of the Resolution 06-032, which was adopted by the Saratoga City Council on April 5, 2006. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at (408) 868-1269. Sinierety, Caileen Boyer, CMC \eity Clerk Enc. gJc( Incorporated October 22, 1956 April 10, 2006 Joe Gonsalves Sons 925 L Street Suite 250 Sacramento Ca 95814 Dear Mr. Gonsalves: 41 Ys., oyer, CMC Enc. Ln 'N C5P `-j A 1'3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CALIFORNIA 93070 a (408) 868-1200 RE: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AB117 COUNCIT MP Aileen Kao KaThlear Keno NOTMar? Nick Streit Ann Via!tonsmith Enclosed is a certified copy of the Resolution 06-029, which was adopted by the Saratoga City Council on April 5, 2006. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at (408) 868-1269. r _cerylfe Ou2 r 151,d— p 44./1 MA kvvy� �I 2 6 z Pros�e c� mil 6tvL4A---(--c.ji c7 V V1L is 2.16 Z l 1P ro s,2e- c )e). S 04 9 -o 7 v Attachment 5 John Livingstone From: Pace, Stan [Stan.Pace @Bain.com] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:39 PM To: John Livingstone Subject: Consideration of Proposal to Start Annexation Process Dear John: Would you please read the attached and enter into the records my comments with regard to the proposed annexation process of county land along prospect road. I have been a land holder and owner for the past 20 years in Santa Clara County. I currently own a 15+ acre parcel of open property at the end of blue hills lane and have been quietly and patiently paying my taxes and letting my neighbors enjoy the quite and peaceful use of that land and that space unimpeded by development. I am strongly opposed to the annexation of this property which I bought as county land many years ago. I believe it is not in my interest to have it annexed into Saratoga(I hereby reserve the right to pursue all legal means to prevent the annexation of this property into Saratoga. Furthermore, if I find that for whatever reason I cannot or am not likely to prevail in that contest I will seek either to immediately develop the property and /or sell it to a developer which will clearly degrade, not enhance the quality of life for all of my good neighbors around this property. I do not believe that that is in the greater interest of the residents of the city of Saratoga nor in particular the residents of this unincorporated portion of county land along Prospect Road Respectfully Yours, Stanley L. Pace Land Owner Stan Pace Director Bain Company, Inc. 1 5215 N O'Connor Blvd #500 1 Irving, Texas 75039 I United States tel: (972) 869 7990 fax: (972) 869 7915 m_a. i.lto stan..pa4e. @ba.n com I web: www.bain.com. 3/31/2006 Page 1 of 1 PS John, Please send me back a response acknowledging that you received this email and that it will be read at the hearing. thanks F1,:t4.04 lege 54/141i4 ut444z.€4. P.D. Bolt 2642 smitzei, CA 1s00-0642 Book -Go -Round NEWS O L,G °-R O USED 14410 Oak St. Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. (HWY 9) BOOK one block south of Big Basin Way, downtown Saratoga STORE www.BookGoRound.com 0, Of OOA 23 Years Benefiting Saratoga's Library STORE HOURS: SUNDAY FRIDAY: NOON 5 P.M. SATURDAY: 10 A.M. 5 P.M. (408) 867 -5552 info@BookGoRound.com STORE COMPLETES 23 YEAR Congratulations to all BGR volunteers, with special applause for Volunteer Coordinator, Mary Jean Gravkin; manager's right hand, Jeanne Alexander; and Merchandising Crew Coordinators: Pat Mahler and Cathy Foscato, along with the dedicated crew: Don Aanestad Jeanne Alexander Morgan Blackwood Candy Brooks Dorothy Burnham Peter Buzanski Janet Cazel Alice Chiou Carole Cobb Patty Coffin Tristan Colson Wren Conroy Yasuko Corbet Eunice Cox Anne Cunningham Sharon DeMartini Meg Ferguson Judy Field Jill Fine Larry Fine Syd Foscato Karen Grebene Pat Himel Phil Howard Fleur Ketteman Alan King Mary Ann Kretschmar Marlene Lamb Dottie Lathuras Mark Lively Tricia Lively Esfandiar Lohrasbpour Bette Loomis George Lundquist Jim MacDonald Marilyn Manies Ray McAdoo John McCartney Jack McElravey Hester O'Gara Jan Pemberton Elizabeth Rhein Melinda Root Clare Smith Bobbi Stek Mary Swentzel Hilary Walsh Christine Way Don Wilson Malcolm Wilson Sheila Wilson Ken Witthaus (there's space for more. JOIN US!) NON PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID SARATOGA, CA PERMIT 4 FEB. BOOK AUCTION REPORT: The sale of 83 books earned $3,042, with 80% from outside Saratoga. Of the 53 bidders, 38 came from out of town, including Danville, Modesto, Monterey, and Indianapolis. The books earning the most: Trending into Maine, signed by author, Ken- neth Roberts, illustrator, N.C. Wyeth, $325; L'Album de le Guerre, 1914 -1918, $200; Edward Weston's My Camera on Point Lobos, $170. Books receiving the most bids: Baum's Emerald City of Oz, 1910, with the books on Japanese Relo- cation a close 2nd. Another auction is planned for May '06. WANTED WANTED WANTED WANTED PAPERBACK SALE COORDINATOR Begin with the April sale, or receive on the job training in April to be ready to take over for the July sale. The sales, held 4 times a year, reap a goodly sum for the library. An important volunteer opportunity! For information, contact Mary Jeanne Fenn, 867 -0564. PAPERBACK SALE: APRIL 29 -30 Saratoga Library Community Room Saturday 10:00 6:00 (Books misc, 4 for a dollar) Sunday 11:00 5:00 (Grocery bag full for $3) SARATOGA LIBRARY F ftiotztih f Lait Aiva4 Marc 2006 John Steinbeck in the Santa Clara Valley Beloved Author Subject of April 5 Lecture S usan Shillinglaw, Professor of English at San Jose State University and widely recognized Steinbeck expert, will speak at a free public event sponsored by the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries on Wednesday, April 5, at 9:00 a.m. in the Community Room of the Saratoga Library. Her subject: "John Steinbeck in the Santa Clara Valley: Author as Activist." She will include many photos of Steinbeck illustrating his local connections. Dr. Shillinglaw says that she read The Red Pony in junior high, and was so appalled by the death of the pony that she never wanted to read him again. As fate would have it, however, she has taught Steinbeck for the last 20 years. She has published many articles about Steinbeck, and has edited five books about him. For 18 years she was the director of the Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State, a position she resigned last year in order to write her own book about Steinbeck, A Journey into Steinbeck's California, shortly to be published by Roaring Forties Press in Berkeley. Steinbeck lived in our area and wrote The Grapes of Wrath and completed Of Mice and Men while he lived here. For a time, he lived on Greenwood Lane, near Highway 9, in what is now Monte Sereno. He also lived on Brush Road, off Highway 17. Dr. Shillinglaw will talk about his friendships with Martin Ray, who owned the Mountain Winery and lived in Saratoga, and Charles Erskine Scott Wood, who for 20 years owned The Cats, a landmark on Highway 17. If you haven't read Steinbeck for a while, it may be time to revisit his books. Dr. Shillinglaw says that every time she teaches Of Mice and Men or The Grapes of Wrath, she sees something new and her experience becomes richer. Come to the Saratoga Library on April 5 and reconnect with one of our great American novelists. The lecture is one of the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries' Breakfast Club presentations. Coffee and breakfast pastries will be served. What's Going On at the Library This April FOR ADULTS Library Book Discussion Discuss Motherless Brooklyn, Tuesday, April 4, 7:30 p.m. Share Wartime Memories I— Writing. Turn in written memories by March 25 to appear online. Submit at www.siliconvalleyreads.org /forum or ask at the Adult Reference Desk. Share Wartime Memories II. Discuss memories and share mementos of war. Wednesday, April 5, 2:00 p.m. FOR TEENS Screenplay Dynamics. With Oliver Chin. Wednesday, April 5, 6:30 -8:00 p.m. FOR KIDS "Bee" Storytime With a visit from "H.T. Bee." Thursday, March 30, 10:30 a.m. Plants, Ants, and You! Garden tales and crafts. Grades K and up. Wednesday, April 26, 3:45 p.m. SAN FRANCISCO City to fight illegal dumping with hotspot surveillance cameras Pilot program initially to focus on southeast side By Rachel Gordon CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER San 'Francisco is moving to ex- pand its surveillance camera pro- gram to catch lawbreakers, this time with the goal of going after illegal dumping and graffiti van- dalism. City authorities began using the electronic eyes a decade ago to nab red -light runners, and last year placed them in high -crime neighborhoods where drug deal- ing and violence were rampant. The trend of monitoring people's activities in public with surveil- lance cameras is expected to accel- erate and feed the emerging de- bate over how to balance privacy rights versus public benefits. Public works officials an- nounced Tuesday their intention to install surveillance cameras at dumping hotspots on the city's southeast side used by contractors and haulers who want a fast and cheap way to get rid of construc- tion debris, old oil drums, used ap- pliances and other refuse. "It would be naive not to con- sider that technology can be used in an advantageous way," Mayor Gavin Newsom said. `But we have an equal obligation to preserve and protect people's civil liber- ties." Newsom said the city is moving slowly with the surveillance cam- eras, installing them on a pilot ba- sis and only after residents request them. "This is a citizen driven initia- tive, not a Big Brother initiative coming out of City Hall," he said. But Nicole Ozer, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Northern California branch, is concerned. "The reality is," she said, "sur- veillance cameras are creeping in- to neighborhoods all over the city," she said. "And we're not talk- ing about the grainy surveillance cameras of yesteryear. These can zoom in and see what you're wear- ing, who you're talking to and who you kiss goodbye. This is scary stuff." City officials say they only will use the cameras for their intended purposes to catch people engag- ing in illegal activity. But Ozer said the city has yet to adopt en- forceable guidelines to assure that the images won't be used for other purposes. San Francisco's initiative began in 1996, with the installation of surveillance cameras at key inter- sections to catch motorists run- ning red lights. Last summer, Newsom confronted with a ris- ing homicide rate erected the first two anti -crime cameras out- side a public housing project in the Western Addition that had been the scene of violence and il- legal activity. Since then, 31 more have been put up in other high -crime areas. The administration has requested that the Board of Supervisors free up $250,000 to pay for another 20 or so in the coming months, said Allen Nance, who runs the May or's Office of Criminal Justice. The mayor will seek even more funding in next year's budget. He said preliminary results show that crime is down in the im- mediate vicinity of the cameras. What he couldn't say was whether the illegally activity was simply moved to another location The Department of Public Works, meanwhile, is eager to start a pilot project in which sur- veillance cameras will be installed in known areas of illegal dumping. Mohammed Nuru, deputy di- rector of operations for the De- partment of Public Works, said city work crews now haul away an average of 24 tons of refuse left on the streets and in vacant lots every day a problem' that not only adds to urban blight but also costs taxpayers a lot of money. Officials estimate that they spend $2 mil- Surveillance cameras like these can be used to monitor illegal dump sites. lion a year getting rid of discarded junk. On Tuesday, representatives from a variety of city agencies crowded around a table at the city maintenance yard on Cesar Cha- vez Street to watch a demonstra- tion of a surveillance camera oper- ation set up at three locations in the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods where illegal dumping is the worst. Representatives from the firms CBX Technologies and Dotworl z Systems showed what their joint program was capable of with the use of a computer mouse, they could manipulate the cameras in the field to zoom in on a vehicle's license plate or zoom out to a building more than 400 yards away. The footage can be stored indefinitely. Authorities hope to use the footage to nab people who dump waste illegally. Eventually, the cameras could be erected around spots favored by graffiti vandals. "I think it could be a very useful tool," Nuru said. The department has identified 25 unofficial dump Photos by FREDERIC LARS ON /The. Chronic Bret Watson of CBX Technologies and Christine Falvey of the San Francisco Departmeri.t of Public Works look at a pile of trash left behind at Thomas Avenue and Griffith Street. sites where officials believe the cameras are needed. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents Bayview- Hunters Point, fought to put $150,000 in this year's budget to fund a camera program to go after illegal dump- ing, but now, more than halfway through the fiscal year, not a dime has been spent. The test program put in place by CBX Technologies has been done at no cost to the city. The company, of course, hopes to land the contract. Maxwell hopes the city moves forward quickly. "It's extremely important, espe- cially for my district because there's so much illegal dumping," she said. As for concerns that peo- ple's privacy could be erode( Maxwell had a diffe rent take. "Right now the c. ivil liberties the people who live there are n( being considered," ;he said. "Pe( ple are having every thing dumpe in their neighbonce •ods." E -mail Rachel Gory don at rgordon @sfchronic le.com. Norman Please pull Consent Calendar tem 2E Matt Hahn, a member of the Bay Area 'tlge Trail Santa Clara County Committee will appear on behalf of Yes on Parks April 5, 2006 City Council of Saratoga Saratoga, California 9507 Re: Subway as a new Eatery Council Members: I've been driving through Saratoga Village on Big Basin Way for the past 50 years. I remember Corinthian Corners as an antique shop and the small space as the Persian Rug Store. Being in my own business, I often stop and have lunch at one place or another in Saratoga Village and relax for a time. I have found all of the people very interesting and polite; however, it's TIME FOR A CHANGE in the food and atmosphere. I would enjoy sitting on the patio at Corinthian Corners with a Subway sandwich and a Starbucks coffee. A Subway location is actually great for my purposes and I presume it would be great for others. I encourage you to approve Subway and I support having Subway in the Village. I am convinced it would bring more life to the area. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Howard Krause 3762 Ottowa Court Sunnyvale, California 94086 408 245 -2140 TIME FOR A CHANGE April 4, 2006 Norman Kline Mayor, City of Saratoga I377 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, C:\ 95070 /4/4/4 Blanca Alvarado /LA F(0 Commissioner Su per'v i.sor, Second District c; City Council. City of Sarato8a Liz Kniss, Supervisor, Fifth District BLANCA BARM)c:) SU1-1kKP!SCC. t)itickia :r T■10 13OARJ) OF SUPERVISORS Dear Mayor Kline, SUBJECT: EXPEDITED ANNEXATION PROC,'RAM FOR COUNTY ISLANDS As a Commissioner for the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (I.AFCo) and County- Supervisor,, 1 strongly encourage cities to annex urla it unincorporated pockets. For over 30 years, tlw cities, the County, and i.:AFCo have had principles and policies stating that cities: with urban pockets will eventually annex them into their city limits. In fact, it is in the County's General Plan fhat cities would annex urban pockets, Annexing urban pockets improves delivery of government services and programs that benefit local neighborhoods; gives more local control to cities on land use compatibility, code enforcement and infrastructure provisions; rc.duce:s; confusion for residents,; and creates greater governmental accountability. In addition, for many years county unincorporated residents have remained largely disenfranchised from local decisions. With annexation, these residents will have the ability to vote in city council elections and other city elections. Since Januarys I, 2005, cities have had a greater opportunity to annex urban Unincorporated islands through a streamlined process that dos not require protest proceedings or elections. LAFCo is providing technical support, waiving frees, and expediting the application process. In addition to LAFCo`s efforts, the County is subsidizing the cities' cost of map surveying, the Board of Equalization filing fees, and the County Roads Department will provide street improvements in the ireaas annexed. Furthermore, the Berard of Supervisors approved a resolution in support of amcnding the County Zoning Ordinance regulations governing residential development standards. The resolution was passed to eliminate significant differences between County and (_,it stalndards, zoning regulations and development outcomes_ I strongly urge the City Council to annex the county islands using the streamlined annexation provisions in state law. If you have any questions or comments, please_ feel free to c :ialI rile fit (408) 299 -5020. Sine: -e1y, COUN7n G iivrRNITNI t :I N FR l sT LV'`rtic, t l 'rtir1-1ErmiNciSrir'= :i SAN ,Josr CA S''5I10. 408/299-2323, FAN .'r7tt1i08, a'w www.theepochtimes.com Special Edition March 2006 FREE Chinese By LEESHAI LEMISH Epoch Times China Affairs Correspondent A secret concentration camp in Su- jiatun, China has stockpiled thousands of Falun Gong practitioners who are being killed for their organs, say two separate witnesses. They say the organs are removed at an adjacent hospital, the Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hos- pital of Integrated Chinese and West- ern Medicine, while the prisoners are still alive. A subsequent investigation has provided corroborating details. "Organs harvested from live bodies are worth far more than organs taken from dead bodies," says a woman whose ex- husband was a brain surgeon at the hospital who removed corneas from the still living practitioners. "After their organs were cut out, some of these people were thrown di- rectly into the crematorium to be burnt, thus leaving no evidence," she says. The woman estimates that three quar- ters of the 6,000 Falun Gong practitio- ners believed to be held at the concen- tration camp have already been killed. Her March 17 testimony corrobo- rates an account given by a former Chinese reporter the previous week. "Mr. R" was the first to disclose the (Continued on page 4) 20 Years of Organ Harvesting Paved Way for Sujiatun By STEPHEN GREGORY Epoch Times Chicago Staff The horrors of the Sujiatun death camp were prefigured and made possible by the system of harvesting organs that has been present in China for two decades. That system treats prisoners as raw mate- rial to be exploited for profit. It hopelessly confounds the roles of courts and doctors. Courts are given incentives by the trans- plant industry to schedule executions. Doctors become de facto members of the criminal justice system. Instead of hav- ing as their only priority healing the sick, doctors become assistants in executions. The Epoch Times Epoch Times International D eath The Beginning According to traditional Chinese be- liefs, only a whole body can go on to the next life. For this cultural reason, or because the Chinese Communist re- gime has never really tried to develop a system of voluntary organ donation, there are almost no voluntary donors of organs in China. According to Professor Tsuyoshi Awaya of Tokuyama University in testi- mony given before the U.S. Congress in 1998, from the beginning organ trans- plants in China have depended on or- gans from executed prisoners. In 1983 the immuno suppressive drug Ca m p R Hearts, kidneys, and corneas removed from live prisoners; witnesses corroborate: of the 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners held, none have come out alive EVIDENCE CREMATORIUM: Burned here are the bodies of those whose organs were removed, some of them while still alive. The photo shows the incinerator unit on the southwest side of the building complex where the concentration camp in Sujiatun is hidden. The public face of the building complex is a hospital housing several institutions, including the Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine. cyclosporine was approved for use, greatly increasing the chances of suc- cessful transplant operations. Also in 1983, a series of "crackdown on crime" campaigns began, which resulted in a large increase in the number of execu- tions of prisoners and thus a big supply of available organs. These two developments provided the occasion for the birth of China's regime of organ harvesting. In 1984 six agencies, including the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Public Security, issued a secret directive (Continued on page 7) evealed Inside Epoch Times Cleerwisdom.net Looking for her missing sister...P.2 JOYCE NALTCHAYAN /AFP /Getty Images "an obligation to stop such things from happening P.6 L. I Special Edition March 2006 Missing Relatives on Chicago Resident's Mind By R. GALLUCCIO Epoch Times Boston Staff She cried every day. The worst fears of her childhood were coming true: she was losing her family, which was rap- idly being consumed by persecution in China. "It happened so fast I couldn't take it," Michelle Zhang said. There was nothing she could do. The 34 year -old Chicago resident has lived overseas since 1998, before the wide -scale per- secution of Falun Gong —and her fam- ily— began. Ms. Zhang's brother -in -law, Song Tao Zou, was first. He was taken away by police because of his practice of Falun Gong. "He was arrested so many times our family lost count," she said. Detained yet again on May 3, 2000, Song Tao was beaten with the bottom of a shoe by a local police chief until his head was swollen to twice its size. He Michelle learned of all of this from a phone call from her father in March 2001. He broke down on the phone, she said. "They had been trying to keep this a secret from me because I was pregnant at the time. They wanted to protect me and the baby." Around the same time, Michelle began speaking with her sister on the phone— taping her reports about the persecution taking place in China, and trying to make sense of it all. "I was crying every day; day and night. I was surfing the Internet to learn more" about what was happening in China. The last time she spoke with Yunhe was in May of 2001. Only later in July of 2002, did Michelle learn that her sis- ter had been abducted while vsiting her two- year -old daughter in Qingdao. A friend called the Dashun detention cen- ter in August of 2002, and the head of ported that no prisoners have ever been seen again after entering this facility. Michelle says Mainland Chinese people don't know or do not want to know about things like this. She herself said before she came to the West she never even knew about the Tibetans or dissidents being persecuted. Things like this are never talked about. "If they are, people will say, `I don't like politics. Let's not talk about this," she said. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) controls people, leaving them with no human rights or freedom of belief, and so they focus only on making money, she said. Hong Yuan, a doctor in a Shenyang hospital, said that "in China, it is known by many hospital staff members that the replacement organs used by regular hospitals basically all come from pris- oners. Until we came abroad, we did not even know this was immoral and was an invasion of prisoners' human ntor'natiof8l Community n Chinese Communist Reg i me 5 oration Camp for �n loners Bain LOOKING FOR ANSWERS: Michelle Zhang, holding her young child, speaks at a protest outside the Chinese consulate in Chicago on March 17. Her sister, a Falun Gong practitioner in China, has not been missing for four years. was so badly beaten he still had bruises behind his ears after being released in July. Eighteen days later he was called back to the police station for a "casual talk" and was never seen again. He died in Wangchun labor camp on November 4, 2000, and was hastily cremated. A Sister Disappears Her sister, Yunhe Zhang, began go- ing to Beijing to appeal against the per- secution, having no other way to have her voice heard. She had practiced Falun Gong since 1997 and was aware of the persecution, but felt she had to do something about it. She was arrested immediately, said Michelle. In the detention center she was beaten by seven or eight police officers until she passed out. Yunhe awoke to find a police officer banging her head against a cement floor. Upon her return to Qin- gdao from the detention center, she was constantly harassed by local police un- til she lost her job in July of 2000. the detention center acknowledged that Yunhe was indeed there. Yunhe was se- cretly transferred out of the detention center after 6 months there, and her cur- rent whereabouts are unknown. Thousands Gone Without a Trace Three years is a long time to have no news about a family member. Like Yunhe, many practitioners of the spiri- tual practice of Falun Gong have dis- appeared in China without a trace, or a word. Countless family members both in China and abroad have no idea where their loved ones may be held, or if they are still alive. A recent report that says 6,000 Falun Gong adherents have been abducted and brought to a secret facility in Su- jiatun district of Shenyang may indicate the fate of some of the unaccounted- for. This facility was created for use in China's burgeoning organ trade, as those detained there are killed and their organs harvested for transplants. It has been re- rights. In China, although there were no discussions among colleagues, every- one knew about it. Most pathetically, no one thought it was a problem." Michelle explains: "In China you are not taught about human rights. You do not know what human rights mean, you are not taught about anything," she said. "What kind of beliefs are avail- able? There are no such things avail- able so people have no idea about, and were not taught that, a human, a human has dignity, you know? That people should respect each other. We do not know that life is very precious. When nobody in society knows what the stan- dards are to be a regular person in this world...when the whole society is like this people begin to feel if somebody dies, it's okay." To help the people in China to awak- en to the violence and persecution hap- pening around them, Michelle makes phone calls. During one recent call she spoke to a staff The Epo r..•r En Times Intetnata;nal member at a hospital in Shenyang, where the organ harvesting is taking place. "The hospital staff, they know about it," she said. "When I talked to them over the phone their voices are trem- bling. I can feel that they know about the whole thing. They just don't want to touch the issue." Michelle continues to share the story about her family with those in the U.S. and inside China, and though she lives in the U.S. and far away from the per- secution, she still feels its effects. Her father's phone is tapped, she says, and she misses her sister a lot. "I believe she is still alive," she says quickly. However, as for the thought of her sister being detained in a place like Sujaitun, "I do not even want to think about it," she says. THE EPOCH TIMES "A Fresh Look at Our Changing World" Published by The Epoch Group National Editors Nation: Genevieve Long, Vanessa Rios World: Maria Chow, Jim Fogarty Business: Kent Konkol, Frank Yu Sports: Jim DeArruda, Riordan Galluccio Opinion: Stephen Gregory Entertainment: David Kute, Mark Gardner Science Technology: Andy Ellsmore Leisure: Ham Harrison Travel: Harri Harrison Health: Franklin McCoy Living: Lisa Sim People: Jared Pearman Arts: Sharon Kilarski,Yvonne Marcotte Style: Anna Skibinsky, Elisabeth Reynolds Youth: Jared Pearman Edition Editors New York: Evan Mantyk, Tim McDevitt, Georgia Heyward, Benjamin Youngquest Boston: Martin Fox, Connie Phillips Chicago: Conan Milner, Maureen Zebian Los Angeles: Linda Slupsky San Diego: Michelle Brazeau San Francisco: Kevin Gao, Dean Tsaggaris Washington, DC: Brian Marple, Gary Feuerberg Editor -in -Chief John Nania Chairman of the Board Stephen Gregory Please submit letters to the editor to: LetterToEditor @epochtimes.com To comment on something you read in The Epoch limes, please write to us at: feedback @epochtimes.com The Epoch limes welcomes submissions of articles, essays, and commentaries. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and simplicity. Please include your name and daytime telephone number: LettertoEditor @epochtimes.com For advertising please contact: 1- 800 608 -8268 Advertising @epochtimes.com 255 W. 36th St., Suite 1105 New York, NY 10018 U.S.A. 212 239 -2808 (Tel) 212- 239 -2806 (Fax) The EpochTimes Epoch Times Intema•.mna! A STILL MIND: Practicing the Falun Gong sitting meditation beside a lake. The practice of Falun Gong is reported to bring peace of mind and better health to those who practice it. Falun Gong, from Popularity to Persecution By BRIAN MARPLE Epoch Times Washington, D.C. Staff On July 20, 1999, Chinese state media announced a ban on Falun Gong. Then a new, violent communist purge movement began. While the state -run media forceful- ly and repeatedly denounced Falun Gong, police rounded up practitioners from parks and from their homes across China. The campaign spread to the general public, as Falun Gong books were col- lected and burned. Falun Gong practi- tioners were sentenced to up to 18 years in jail in widely publicized show trials. Many Falun Gong practitioners were fired from their jobs, detained, and sen- tenced to jail or forced labor. As the mass political fervor against Falun Gong continued, disturbing daily reports leaked out of China's prisons detailing beatings, torture, injections with nerve damaging drugs, and violent force feedings. Most recently, it was revealed that Chinese authorities have constructed at least one elaborate, underground facili- ty where thousands of Falun Gong prac- titioners have been incarcerated before being killed for their organs. But what is Falun Gong, and why does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seek to eradicate it? In many ways, Falun Gong would appear to be the Chinese regime's least likely target. Most practitioners are stub- bornly apolitical, and many are middle aged and elderly citizens who had come to the practice seeking improved health. Beginning in the 1970s, hundreds of varieties of qigong slow -mov- ing, meditative exercises, such as tai chi— achieved widespread popularity in China. Many of the qigong practices spreading throughout China claimed roots in Buddhism or Taoism, and some had been passed down for centuries. Tens of millions of Chinese took up dif- ferent forms of qigong, assembling in parks at dawn to practice exercise regi- mens aimed at improving their health and increasing longevity. In 1992, a qigong master emerged in northeastern China to found what would become the fastest growing spiritual movement in China. Li Hongzhi, the practice's founder, introduced himself as one who had studied under Buddhist and Taoist masters from a young age. Unlike the other qigong forms in China at the time, which focused solely on the improve- ment of the body through physical exer- cises, Mr. Li's Falun Gong stressed that improvements in health must follow from spiritual self cultivation. This was to be achieved by gradually striving to live in accordance with Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance, along with practicing Falun Gong's exercises and meditation. Falun Gong, which was taught and practiced free of charge, spread quickly by word of mouth, as adherents credited the discipline with curing their health problems as well as helping them achieve inner balance and peace of mind. By 1998, a government survey estimated that upwards of 70 million people, including mid and high -level government and mili- tary officials, had taken up the practice. But despite Falun Gong's rise to pop- ularity in China, it remained almost un- known to the international community until the morning of April 25, 1999, when upwards of 10,000 of its practitio- ners silently gathered near the Zhong- nanhai government compound in the heart of Beijing. Practitioners had come to the State Office of Appeals to call for an end to early signs of government suppres- sion— mostly criticism in the state -run media and disruption of their mom ing exercise practice secessions. For a whole day, they sat quietly on the side- walk, meditating or reading books as a few practitioner representatives met with China's then premier, Zhu Rongji, to voice their concerns. By nightfall, an agreement had been reached and the practitioners dispersed as quickly and quietly as they'd come. However uneventful the manifesta- tion was, then -CCP leader Jiang Zemin reportedly perceived the gathering as a shocking challenge to his rule. It was the first time in a decade that such a large protest had been staged in Beijing, and like the student demonstra- tions on Tiananmen Square ten years earlier, the retribution it met with was swift, and brutal. By mid July 1999, practitioners all over the country were rounded up in jails, and long -term prison sentences were meted out to those believed to be Falun Gong activity coordinators. Much like other political mass movements in CCP history, the suppression featured blanket media coverage, victims pa- raded in dunce caps, and political study sessions. Although the political fervor Special Edition 13 March 2006 of the campaign has died down since, deaths from persecution continue to ac- cumulate —the Falun Dafa Information Center has verified over 2,800 Falun Gong deaths since 1999. But why the large -scale campaign? Many say that the Zhongnanhai appeal showed that Falun Gong was becom- ing a political force that could mobilize quickly, and that the Communist Party needed to suppress the practice in order to demonstrate its absolute power. Yet signs of suppression were present even before Zhongnanhai. As early as 1996 the publication ofFalun Gong books was banned, and undercover police was sent to monitor Falun Gong practitio- ners. Many were harassed and detained, and adherents protested these abuses on a local scale before they felt compelled to petition together in Beijing. The Nine Commentaries on the Com- munist Party, an Epoch Times editorial series critical of the CCP, suggests that the Party persecutes Falun Gong be- cause it fears Falun Gong's firm beliefs. According to the editorial, by calling itself "great, glorious, and correct" the Party has made itself the standard for good and evil. Falun Gong's belief in Truthfulness, Compassion, and For- bearance, the Nine Commentaries posit, indirectly challenges the CCP by giv- ing Chinese people an alternative set of standards to live by. Many practitioners have attested that their faith is what helps them overcome the hardships of prison and torture. Per- haps this strength and individual will that comes from firm belief are precise- ly what the Party fears most. A I Special Edition March 2006 Chinese (Continued from page 1) existence of the secret concentration camp in Sujiatun, a suburb of Shenyang City, located in China's northeast. They say the camp has been operating since 2001, with routine organ harvesting producing significant revenue. According to a separate investigation conducted by the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG), doctors involved have become psychologically trauma- tized by the bloody proceedings. Some have even been pushed to suicide. Oth- ers are afraid to that they will be killed if they disclose any information about what goes on in Sujiatun. `Something Unimaginable' Choosing to remain anonymous, Mr. R says that even locals are unaware of what takes place behind three -meter high, barb -wired walls that surround an old civil defense facility that is con- nected to the hospital. He describes himself as a long -time re- porter who had worked for a Japanese tele- vision news agency, specializing in news on China. Chinese himself his ability to obtain taboo images, such as of last December's shooting in Shanwei, caused him to be ar- rested for "revealing state secrets." Through connections he was able to get out of jail on the pretext of poor health, and then prompt- ly fled to the United States. "To be honest, I am not afraid of D each Camp Revealed death," says Mr. R, reflecting on mea- sures that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might try to take against him for his disclosures. "I believe this is an issue of whether or not I am a responsible journalist and human being," he says. "The faith of my profession...drives me to expose these atrocities." While conducting interviews in Shenyang City, Liaoning province, Mr. R learned that few Falun Gong practitioners were still detained in Dabei Prison or the notorious Masanjia Labor Camp. Instead, the practitioners jailed there as a result of the CCP's campaign against Falun Gong had been transferred to Sujiatun. "Most prisons and labor camps have Once practitioners are sent to Sujiatun, `the CCP won't let a prisoner consume food forever. So what are they up to, then he asks. `Why was a crematorium built detainees going in and out, and eventually information will be brought out," he says. "But this Sujiatun Concentration Camp has not had anyone come out yet," so nearly nothing is known of its existence. Once practitioners are sent to Su- jiatun, "the CCP won't let a prisoner consume food forever. So what are they up to, then he asks. "Why was a crematorium built "The answer is something unimagi- nable," he says, the "practitioners are killed for their organs." Many of the' practitioners die on the operating ta- ble, according to Mr. R, who says he has numerous information sources in the area around Sujiatun, and confi- dence in their reliability. He says Falun Gong practitioners are The Epoch Times seen as a prime source of organs, ow- ing to their nearly limitless supply —as many as 2 million Falun Gong adherents are said to be currently held in China's vast system of labor camps and prisons. "They [CCP authorities] can't find enough bodies through executions, and no bodies are more readily available for this business than those of the [Falun Gong] practitioners," he explained. "Even doctors are involved in this trade." A Bustling Business According to the China Internation- al Organ Transplant website, whose The EpochTimes Epoch Times Internatinnat Chinese mirror URL has mysteriously stopped working as the Sujiatun story got out, at least 5,000 kidney trans- plants are conducted in China every year, attracting overseas customers. Akidney transplant costs US$62,000, according to the site, while a heart can cost up to $170,000 and a cornea for as little as US$30,000. According to the second witness, her ex- husband the brain surgeon had a cell phone specifically for this line of work. "No matter when and where, as soon as the cell phone rang, he would go to perform the operation," she recalls. "During the 2 years of working at Su- jiatun, he did several cornea removal operations per day." It is very hard for her to retell these experiences. She and her husband had both worked at the Sujiatun hospital since 2001. He became a surgeon in 2003, and she soon started noticing that he often be- came absent minded. She recalls how he would watch TV holding a sofa pillow, and would not notice when she turned the TV off. He began having nightmares and became unable to drive. "My ex- husband simply said he wanted to find another job. I was very surprised," she recalls. "I knew that my family had easy money, but didn't know the source. Later on, my ex -hus- band told me about this." `Do Your Job' He told her that those detained in the Sujiatun concentration camp were all Falun Gong practitioners. For others prisoners, even ones who were sen- tenced to death, organ removal could not take place without proper paper- work. But due to the CCP's policy that the deaths of Falun Gong practitio- ners "counted as suicide," the hospital could remove their organs without any formal procedure. There was no need to bother with getting permission from the family for cremation, as they did not know where their relatives were to begin with. Hospital staff began privately dis- cussing that the living practitioners had been secretly transferred to the hospital vast underground chambers adjacent to the hospital. They all knew that the rear part of the hospital was forbidden, and it was always watched, the woman recalls. She says some staffmembers questioned the hospital administration as to why such large amounts of food and so many daily supplies were purchased for the hospital's disproportionately smaller needs. The hos- pital authorities replied: "You only need to do your job well. There is no need for you to ask any other questions." Every surgeon knew these people The Epoch limes Epoch Times Irnernaiiona. Sujiatun Death Camp 1. Liaoning Provincial Throm- bosis Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine presented a respectable front for the organ harvesting op- eration which peaked in 2003, according to sources. 1. Hospital China Traditional Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center, formerly the Liaoning Provincial Thrombosis Hospital of Integrated Chi- nese and Western Medicine 3. The furnace of the large incinerator unit was used to incinerate the bodies of practitioners whose organs had been removed. 2. Single -story residential build- ing behind the hospital where Falun Gong practitioners were said to have been originally kept. This building was demolished in 2003. 2. Residential Building 4. Underground Chamber 4. Underground chambers where Falun Gong practitioners are reported to have been de- tained, and where the organ harvesting opera- tions are said to have taken place. Sources say the underground chambers were built as a bomb shelter during the Cultural Revolution. were Falun Gong practitioners, the woman says. They were told that har- vesting the organs of live Falun Gong practitioners would not be considered a crime. Instead it was considered "cleaning" for the Chinese Commu- nist Party. Medical personnel were told that these people were facing the death penalty for murder, or had become in- sane from practicing Falun Gong. The amount of anesthetic was limited and the secret surgeries could not use the required doses. "In order to save on anes- thetic, they economized on the anesthet- ic used in surgeries on these Falun Gong practitioners," she says. "The amount of anesthetic used was very small." When her husband did not want to con- tinue the work his supervisor told him: "You are already on this boat. Killing one is murder. Killing several is also murder." "You don't understand my suf- fering," she recalls him telling her. "Those Falun Gong practitioners were alive. It might be easier for me if they were dead, but they were alive." "He told me this with his own mouth," she says. "The fact that he could tell me this indicated that he had a little conscience left." But she says her husband had chosen money over life, and decided to get a divorce. "Your entire life is ruined," she told him. Worried that he might some day be Carol Wlckencemp/lhe Epoch Times killed to keep him from talking, he went abroad. The woman, now in the United States after a friend had suggested she get away, believes that the organ har- vesting continues. "Three- quarters of these 6,000 peo- ple have died, having their hearts, kid- neys, retinas, and skins harvested and their bodies disposed of," she says. As for the rest, she says she is afraid that the authorities will kill them in order to destroy the evidence. World Investigation After the first witness had stepped forward with information about Sujia- Special Edition 1 March 2006 5 tun, WOIPFG began digging for evi- dence of the secret camp's existence. WOIPFG investigators called the Su- jiatun District and Shenyang City hos- pitals, posing as prospective organ buy- ers. They were shocked at how soon they were told they could get organs. "[We] were so surprised —the an- swer is probably about two days," said WOIPFG researcher Kevin Yang. "That's impossible if they don't have anyone there to kill." WOIPFG further found that the Sujiatun hospital, located on a 21,087 -meter site, employs 460 people in 24 departments and 20 specialized offices. The organiza- tion suspects that the concentration camp is indeed located underground, built upon the existing infrastructure of an old aerial defense facility. The camp has at least one exit at the back of the hospital. A hospital boiler may have been converted into an on -site incinerator for cremation. The camp is heavily guarded and has its own supply sys- tem, including underground shops. From above ground, one cannot detect anything unusual about the complex. WOIPFG President John Jaw says that most all of Falun Gong practitio- ners believed to be held in the camp were likely arrested on extrajudicial grounds and administratively sen- tenced. They have been detained "for their affiliation with the Falun Gong as opposed to having committed some sort of criminal act," he says. Adherents of the popular spiritual discipline have been detained by the hundreds of thousands since 1999, ac- cording to the Falun Dafa Information Center. While the info center has de- tails of 2,829 Falun Gong practitioners who have died as a result of mistreat- ment and torture in custody, countless remain missing. "The pattern seems to be that they are first sent to the labor camps, without trial or hearing, and if they don't break down there and `repent' or renounce their beliefs, they are... transferred to Sujiatun," Jaw said. "There they've found a `solution' for such people. They are turning `the Falun Gong problem' into a source of dirty money." With confirmation of the Sujiatun death camp, WOIPFG and other organizations are now hurrying to investigate whether additional ones exist in other parts of China. Word of concentration camps for Falun Gong have circulated since at least October2000, when a source toldAgence France Presse of two camps, each ca- pable of holding up to 50,000 persons. Another report that same month told of a similar camp in northwestern China's remote Xinjiang region. Jennifer Zheng, a Falun Gong prac- titioner who has authored a book on her experience in a labor camp, recalls how Beijing police had threatened her during detention. "We will send you to a huge concentration camp, in a far area in north, northwest China," they said, "and you will never ever have a chance to come back again." 6 I Special Edition March 2006 Horror Built by Histor How the Sujiatun labor camp fits into the violent legacy of the communist regime By SIMON VEAZEY Epoch Times UK Staff H ow could human beings cre- ate and sustain an abomina- tion such as the concentration camp called Sujiatun? For those of us living in normal free societies, its very existence defies belief. What kind of so- ciety can give birth to such horror? LUKE FRAZZNAFP/Getry Images WASHINGTON Somporn Lotgeranon (L), the recipient of a kidney transplant while living in China testifies June 2004, while an unidentified congressional aide holds photos of a Chinese hospital during U.S. House International Relations Committee hearings on human rights on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Lorg- eranon discovered after the operation that the kidney he received came from a Chinese prisoner who had been executed. The camp at Sujiatun has been in existence since 2001, according to one eyewitness. But its real foundations go back much further —laid through 50 years of tyranny under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Over the last half century, the CCP's numerous mechanisms of persecution and control have thrust their roots deep into the minds of the Chinese people and into China's culture and social structure. To try to understand the hor- rors of Sujiatun —and the persecution of Falun Gong —from the perspective of the present alone doesn't tell the whole story. The violent, open mass slaughter of individuals involved in political move- ments that tore through China, such as the "Great Cultural Revolution may have passed, but their legacy has not. They have shaped the culture and even the mindset of Chinese people into a mechanism of persecution itself that re- mains to this day. Indeed, such restruc- turing of the society was arguably the ultimate goal these campaigns. To describe the mechanisms of per- secution and control developed by the CCP in brief is impossible. The CCP's perfection of espionage, deception, pro- paganda, information control, incite- ment to hatred and killing is an array of topics each vast in its own right. Perhaps the most obvious mechanism one needs to comprehend in the case of Sujiatun is that of killing. Examining the CCP's history of killing, the horrors of Sujiatun remain shocking —but come as no surprise. Sixty to eighty million people have died of unnatural causes under the CCP. For the CCP, killing is natural. Chair- man Mao once gave the following or- der: "In rural areas, to kill the reaction- aries, there should be over 1 /1000 of the total population killed...in the cities, it should be less than 1 /1000." In his book Enemy Within, Father Raymond J. De Jaegher tells the story of some Chinese children led to the local square from school during the Sino Japanese war. After they were gathered together, their teacher was ordered to make the children sing. But it was not an occasion of entertainment, but a public execution. The children's sing- ing turned to screams at the roll of the first head. The teacher tried to keep the singing going. After all the victims were killed, the soldiers cut them open and pulled out their hearts. The real purpose of such executions and the presence of the children was not to remove from society those elements that threatened the CCP. Its real purpose was to lay the foundations of terror deep in the psyche of the Chinese people. Public slaughters were by no means un- common during the first decade or so of communist rule. The other purpose was to numb people to the horrors of murder and violence. The aim was to turn them into violent revolutionaries, unmoved by the sight and thought of murder and gush- ing blood. Father De Jaegher goes on to add that after this occasion, he often saw chil- dren being forced to watch killings. The gruesome spectacle —which on the first time had made the children vomit and turn grey— eventually became a normal event to them, and theybecame numb to the killings. Some would even become excited about the prospect. Killing under the CCP has often ap- peared random, irrational and without pattern. This has been deliberate. Un- predictable, irrational, random killing is the most terrifying. It is the most ef- fective means to control people through fear. Never knowing who could become the next target of the next movement, people only worried about surviving. The Chinese people have become self censoring. The generation brought up as witnesses to the full- blown, open terror of the political movements in Chi- na is now the generation who forms the workers and doctors in hospitals like the ones attached to Sujiatun. With think- ing tempered by years of propaganda and the horrific memories branded into their psyche, the first response to a hint of trouble, hearing rumours or witness- ing things is reflexive and almost sub- conscious —say nothing and stay out of trouble. The CCP's history holds horrors equal to those of Sujiatun. The following ex- tract from Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party describes the most repulsive killing of all: cannibalism. The EpochTimes Epxn Tunes Iruernetmnal "Veteran killers had gained experi- ence in how to remove hearts and livers while the victim was still alive, and they taught others, refining their techniques to perfection. For example when cutting open a living person, the killers only needed to cut a cross on the victim's belly, step on his body (if the victim was tied to a tree, the killers would bump his lower abdomen with the knee) and the heart and other organs would just fall out. The head killer was entitled to the heart, liver and genitals while others would take what was left. These grand yet dreadful scenes were adorned with flying flags and slogans." Referring to incidents 40 years in the past, perhaps such passages no longer seem relevant. At first impression, pres- ent day China does indeed give the im- pression that it has shaken off its heri- tage of butchery. But the reality is that it is still the same CCP in power. And its nature has not changed. It is not moral restraint which holds the CCP back from mass campaigns of slaughter —it is sheer pragmatism. Af- ter half a century of terror, the CCP has intimidated the Chinese people to the point that they are obedient to its will and there is no longer any need for such campaigns. The CCP also needs money from the human rights conscious West. The CCP's bloodlust and capacity for slaughter remain the same: it is just half dormant, played out behind the closed doors of concentration camps such as Sujiatun. For those who have come to under- stand the nature and history of the Chi- nese Communist Party, the news about Sujiatun is not beyond belief. In the words of Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng: "Don't be a bit surprised that the CCP established such a place, especially for those who have experi- enced or witnessed its crimes. There is nothing it would not do. Even extermi- nating a whole group seems reasonable to the CCP." JOYCE NALTCHAYAN/AFP /Gefry Images FIRST ACCOUNT: Former Chinese political prisoner Harry Wu an- swers reporters questions during a press conference on human rights in China at the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. After Wu 's release from prison he formed the Laogai Research Foundation to expose China's forced labor practices. The Epoch Times Epoch Times International Harvesting Organs in China: the Preparation for Sujiatun STR/AFP/GeIly Images GROUP EXECUTION: Chinese police show a group of prisoners at a sentencing rally in the east Chinese city of Wenzhou, where 11 prisoners were later executed. (Continued from page 1) that was published for the first time by Human Rights Watch: Asia in its report on "Organ Procurement and Judicial Execution in China." "Temporary Rules Concerning the Utilization of Corpses or Organs from the Corpses of Executed Criminals" contin- ues to this day to govern the procedures for harvesting organs in China. Secrecy Organ harvesting involves collusion between security agencies and medical officials that the rest of the world consid- ers grossly unethical, and the treatment of prisoners that is considered not only unethical but inhumane. Organ harvest- ing is therefore carried out in secrecy. This directive stipulates that "The use of the corpses or organs of executed criminals must be kept strictly secret..." In order to assure secrecy, "a surgical vehicle from the health department may be permitted to drive onto the execution grounds to remove the organs, but it is not permitted to use a vehicle bearing health department insignia or to wear white clothing. Guards must remain posted around the execution grounds while the operation for organ removal is going on." `Consent is not an issue.' This directive appears to protect the rights of the prisoners by assuring that organs may only be taken from them with consent. In fact, prisoners retain no rights to their own bodies. According to the directive, organs may be used if any one of these conditions is met: "1. No one claims the body or the family refuses to claim the body; 2. The executed criminal has volunteered to have his corpse provided to a medical treatment or health unit for use; 3. The family con- sents to the use of the corpse." These conditions are hardly strict. Even so, it is always the case in China that the rules as written down, even in secret doc- uments, are not necessarily what counts. A report in the South China Moming Post in January 2000 on liver transplants at Sun Yatsen Hospital in Guangzhou Prov- ince quoted one of the transplant doctors as saying "Consent is not an issue." Indeed, when a death sentence is handed down, the convicted prisoner is also stripped of all political rights, which immediately nullifies the guaran- tees provided in the 1984 directive. Harry Wu of the Laogai Foundation explained in testimony before the U.S. Congress in 1998, the time and location of executions are kept secret, which means the family has no opportunity to make a claim for the body. They are simply given the ashes after it has been cremated. Or, families may be offered "pennies" for consent, and, as a cadre told Wu, "see if they dare say `no. The prisoner may give consent, but un- der the extraordinarily coercive conditions on death row in a Chinese jail, the giving of free and informed consent is not possible. The prisoner may be offered a slightly less painful regime of confinement if he con- sents, and at the same time knows more bru- tal mistreatment may follow upon refusal. The Execution Dr. Wang Guoqi, in testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2001, described one execution gone wrong in which he skinned a prisoner who was still alive. There are numerous accounts of or- gans being harvested from prisoners who are still living. In some cases, or- gans have been taken before the execu- tion. In other cases, the execution by gunshot has been deliberately bungled to assure that organs are not damaged. The use of lethal injection, which has been introduced in China over the last five years, may to be more humane than execution by gunshot. But it is also more sure —no organs are damaged by lethal injection. This method is pre- ferred by China's transplant doctors. The number of executions in China is considered a state secret. Amnesty In- ternational can verify 2,468 executions in China in 2001. It estimates the actual number of executions to be far higher, perhaps as many as 10,000 each year. Liu Renwen, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, recently stated that he believed the number of ex- ecutions each year to be around 8,000. 70 offenses in China may now in- cur the death penalty, including theft and embezzlement. Four men in China were recently executed for falsifying VAT tax reports. Among those executed each year are prisoners of conscience. Because of the widespread use of tor- ture to coerce confessions, and the gen- eral failures of the criminal justice sys- tem, a large percentage of convictions are believed to be false. Money Organ transplants in China are big busi- ness. Visit http: /www.bek- transplant. Special Edition I 7 March 2006 com/en/index.htm and one will find an English language website set up to assist those seeking transplants in China. Prices vary, but transplants do not come cheap. According to an article in the Daily Telegraph, a transplant mid- dleman offered a kidney transplant for $40,000. In an article in the Globe and Mail, a middleman quotes a price of $125,000 for a new kidney. In any case, the money by the trans- plant patients is spread widely. Once in China, the patients are expected to offer "red envelopes" of cash to all their doc- tors and nurses. Doctors involved in the transplant pay judges and bailiffs. Ev- eryone profits, and everyone has a stake in keeping the system going. Harry Wu in the introduction to "Communist Charity," the Laogai Foundation's report on organ harvest- ing, reflects on how this system could come into existence. "The materialis- tic philosophy of the Communist Party sees human life as coming from mat- ter. They think life has no value. In their re- education camps some people became so hopeless they took their own lives. Then the official would say `death only makes a piece of dirt smell.' During my 19 years in re -edu- cation camp, I heard this line innumer- able times. "If even life and freedom do not have any value, let alone the dead, and the or- gans of the dead, then this is the basic per- spective of Chinese Communist regime's use of the organs of death row inmates." /AFP/Getty Images IDENTITY ERASED: A prisoner in Sheynyang, China who is about to be executed stands with police. On the top row of the placard around is neck is his crime. Below that is his name, which has been crossed out, indicating he has been sentenced to death. 8 I Special Edition March 2006 The Epoch Times Eooch 1;r s .5,0(1T! Initial Reactions to Sujiatun Death Camp By MATT GNAIZDA Epoch Times Los Angeles Staff Harry Wu, founder of the Laogai (Labor Camp) Research Founda- tion: "In Russia there were gulags, in Germany they had concentration camps, and because of the silence of the international community a lot of people were killed there...We should realize that we have an obligation to stop such things from happening... And it's not just Falun Gong," he says. "There's just such a system [of organ harvesting] in China. The CCP is most scared of Falun Gong because they have a different belief system, other than communism." Nina Shea, Freedom House: "In light of Harry Wu's past reports on or- gan harvesting from executed prison- ers in China, this story must be taken seriously and investigated." Dr. Tom Diflo, Director of Kidney Transplantation at NYU Medical Center: "Knowing what I know about the Chinese government, it would not surprise me if they were suppressing that information, and if they're pull- ing organs out of people. I'm sure they don't want anyone to know about it... The non consensual taking of organs out of people is perhaps the greatest violation of their human rights that I can think of." Lord Avebury, Vice Chairman and founder of the U.K. Parlia- mentary Human Rights Group: "It is shocking to hear the allegation that a secret concentration camp in Sujiatun, Shenyang, China, has detained over 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners, and it has been engaged in the harvesting of hu- man organs from those imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners. This practice of mur- dering people who peacefully exercise their freedom of belief and expression, and selling their organs for profit, if true, is the most barbarous and inhuman be- haviour; totally unacceptable in today's world." He called on the international community and the U.K. government to further investigate the allegations and to "speak up loudly to condemn such bru- tality rather than keep quiet for commer- cial or political gains." Dr. Charles Lee, a U.S. citizen who had been tortured and illegally detained in China for three years because he practices Falun Gong: "It's horrifying and I believe it's true because...from my experience, the Communist Party can do anything to Chinese people inside China." Dr. Lee was once a medical doctor in China. He said that in 1990, before Falun Gong had even been taught in public, he was required to perform organ re- moval operations on criminals on be- half of the Chinese Communist Party. He and a group doctors were taken to an execution ground and told to re- move organs, especially the heart, im- mediately after the people were shot in the head. "In China the organ trade is very popular and very profitable." We Must Face the Darkest Hours to See the Dawn By D.J. MCGUIRE Special to The Epoch Times Today, we gather to express our out- rage at the Sujiatun prison camp, so bravely exposed by the Japanese report- er, "Mr. R." The existence of this camp shocks us all, but it should surprise no one. With 6,000 victims, the murder at Sujiatun does not yet compare with Auschwitz, Treblinka, or the Gulag Ar- TM Epoch Tina SPEAKING OUT: D.J. McGuire, President of the China Support Network and founder of the China e- Lobby, speaks at a Nine Commentaries forum sponsored by The Epoch Times. chipelago, to say nothing of the Mao's Great Leap Backward and the Cultural Revolution. However, the same combi- nation of evil, contempt for human life, and assembly -line efficiency that fu- eled the death camps of the Nazis and the Soviets is there in Sujiatun. For this, the Chinese Communist Party must be treated as the pariah and enemy of hu- manity that it truly is. However, the Communists have not limited their victims to Sujiatun, or even to Communist China. Their will- ingness to coverup the extent of SARS in 2003 allowed the disease to spread around the world. Today, we now know what we have long suspected: the Com- munists repeated this coverup with bird flu. The ramifications of that still have yet to be suffered. Finally, but certainly not least of all, we have now seen the long arm of the Communist regime inflitrate the United States itself. The attack on Yuan Li, the numerous break -ins against Epoch Times staffers and officers, and now, possibly, the assassination of Allen Leung. While we do not yet know for certain why Mr. Leung died, it is quite plausible that he has become the first Communist casu- alty on American soil, and a frightening escalation of the Communists' plans to silence and intimidate the overseas Chi- nese people, in San Francisco, here, and around the world. Yet, despite, all of this blood, despite this collection of horror and outrage, we gather here not in despair, or anger, but with hope; for we know that these gro- tesque actions are not signs of strength, but of desperation. They are not the ac- tions of a secure regime, but of a regime well aware it is in a race against time, and that it is losing. We know this because we know the truth about the "new socialist country- side." We see the verdict the Chinese people have given the regime in Hanyu- an, Taishi, Shanwei, and throughout the rural interior. We know that the Nine Commentaries have not only led more than one in every eight Communists to leave the party in disgust, but by that number alone, they have reached one in every 150 Chinese citizens. This means the Nine Commentaries has reached ev- ery village, every farm collective, and every high -rise apartment complex in Communist China. The truth is not only out there, it is everywhere. This is why the Communists are killing their own people; it is why the Communists are working with the ter- rorist regimes around the globe: the Ira- nian mullahcracy, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the Assad family, and al Qaeda itself. The Communists know they must destroy the democratic world before the truth destroys them. It is the only card they have left to play. We in the democratic world must recognize this, and act accordingly. In order to defeat the Chinese Communist Party, we must isolate it, contain it, and undermine it. With the Nine Commen- taries spreading faster than a Harbin chemical spill, the third plank is already in place. However, we must still isolate and contain the regime if we are to de- feat and survive it. By isolating the regime, I mean we must sever the economic ties that the Communists use to damage our econo- mies and fatten their own pockets. That means an end to Permanent Normal Trade Relations. Normal Trade implies a normal government. The Chinese Communist Party, with organ harvest- ing killing camps, hidden epidemic vic- tims left to die, and an unrivaled record of support for terrorists and other anti American regimes, is many things; nor- mal is not one of them. This also means the regime cannot be allowed to enjoy the propaganda bo- nanza that is the 2008 Olympic Games. The Games must be moved out of Com- munist China, or barring that, the demo- cratic world must boycott them in favor of its own, Communist -free competi- tion. The values of Lenin, Mao, and Ji- ang Zemin are completely incompatible with those of the Olympic spirit. Finally, this means the democratic world must be prepared to stand togeth- er against the Communist menace. The Bush Administration has started well here, by rebuilding the alliance with Ja- pan, and creating a new one with demo- cratic India. From these alliances, a ring of freedom including South Korea and Taiwan can not only surround Com- munist China and protect the rest of the democratic world, but it can also serve as a constant beacon to the Chinese people, an endless reminder that liberty need not only be ours, but can be theirs too. This three -part strategy isolation, containment, and undermining —can lead to a free China. I know many of you have heard the motto: it's always darkest before the dawn. My friends, the dawn of freedom is coming to China, but first, we must get through the dark hours together. The democratic world and the Chinese peo- ple must rely on each other, build upon our own strengths, and remain vigilant against our common enemy: the Chi- nese Communist Party. If we do, we will indeed see the end of that regime, and China will take its rightful place in the democratic world. So from Sujiatun to San Francisco, let us take these outrages for what they are: the dangerous but desperate flailing of a dying regime. However, let us also re- member that with each day that regime limps along, more people will die. Thus let us add not anger, but urgency to our mission; let us not despair, but double our efforts to bring freedom to China, security to America, and peace to the globe. D.J. McGuire is co-founder of the China e -Lobby and President of the China Support Network. He is also the author of Dragon in the Dark: How and Why Communist China Helps Our En- emies in the War on Terror. Li To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 3 Testimony in support of Subway approval. City of Saratoga City Clerk's office Attached are additional correspondences regarding agenda item 3- Subway Appeal. APR 5 2005 IN SUPPORT OF SUBWAY COMING TO SARATOGA VILLA CITY OF SARATOGA We wish to show our support of the request by Subway to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for 14410 Big Basin Way, Suite D, Saratoga, California 95070. April 3, 2006 City Council Members Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Subway Approval of a Conditional Use Permit To the Members of Saratoga City Council: I am now retired from the Retail Industry but was in business for many years. During that time, I had the opportunity to view the various behaviors of stores throughout the country. Not only am I familiar with large cities, small and midsize towns, historical villages and general areas. I wish to support the request of Subway to come to Saratoga Village. Regardless what their opponents say, Subway can provide a service to the public which is not offered by anyone else on the street of Big Basin way. To complain about this small space which appears to be only 10 feet or so on the streetfront seems to be unnecessary. Not only is this store not in the center of your small shopping and restaurant area but it is known to be a compatible store with Starbucks which you approved some time ago. It is NOT "the entrance to the village" as so many of your opponents have said. The entrance is the corner with a beautifully done parking lot, Starbucks, outdoor seating and a park. Please do not say that my opinion doesn't count because I am not a resident of Saratoga. I am an illustration of the people that you have visiting and shopping in your town. If you were to take a poll i would bet that the majority of Saratoga residents don't even go the your small village area. why? Kindly consider the positive influence that Subway may bring to saratoga....a younger group, more residents and more visitors. if we don't encourage our young people to visit this village it will, indeed, be dead before too long. Sincerely W.B. Zebrock 2565 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 wtS April 5, 2006 To The City Council Members Saratoga, California Re: Subway Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Honorable Members: RECEIVE[ APR 5 ?005 CITY OF SARATOGA My husband and I have been involved in Business, real estate and Civic organizations for many years. We have come to Saratoga Village at various times for dinner. We are long time residents of Monte Sereno and find it interesting to keep abreast of the happenings in Saratoga as well as Los Gatos and Monte Sereno. I have had the opportunity to discuss with friends and business acquaintances about Corinthian Corners, its redevelopment, its Tenants and its potential tenants. When I heard that Starbucks received their Conditional Use Permit I was pleased. Having been involved in retail investments, I understood the advantage to a Landlord, to other tenants nearby but even more so I understood the advantage to the Village of Saratoga. Saratoga has long been in need of revitalization as I'm sure you will agree. With the leadership of the Council, there has proven to be a greater emphasis toward that objective and as a citizen I thank you for that. Saratoga Village has been rather downtrodden for some years and to see a spark of life is wonderful. I was surprised when the Planning Commission, after being overturned on their findings with Starbucks, again voted to deny Subway an opportunity to enhance the area. It appears to me that if Saratoga ever wants to enjoy having the "unique" shops it so wants throughout the Village, then it needs to have something that may make those "unique" shops look at Saratoga as a place to bring their businesses. We have seen it in many retail areas. Once a well known name comes, then the unique shops want to be there to receive the advantage of the name's advertising. I encourage you to vote in favor of Subway. As a sister to Starbucks in so many retail areas, this is the best opportunity to begin a true revitalization of Saratoga Village. Sincerely, Mrs. Grant Bishop 16010 Viewfield Monte Sereno, California 95030 April 3, 2006 City Council Members Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Subway Approval of a Conditional Use Permit To the Members of Saratoga City Council: I wish to present to you the definition of the following: Noun 1. restraint of trade any act that tends to prevent free competition in business restraint the act of controlling by restraining someone or something; "the unlawful restraint of trade" I find that all of the complaints by the opposition are unworthy of a City like Saratoga. S'n rely Joel Zebrock 5334 Monterey Highway San Jose, California 95111 408 324 -4855 RECOVF. A PR 5 2005 CITY OF SARATOGA April 2, 2006 To The City Council Members Re: Subway Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Honorable Members: Although I am not a resident of Saratoga, I have many friends in Saratoga and shop at the Westgate Centers, the Nob Hill Center in addition to the other Saratoga centers. I have been especially interested in Saratoga Village and have been reading, hearing and watching the various comments. I came to the meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission regarding the Subway request for a Conditional use Permit and was astounded not only at the Commission's refusal but at the attitude and behavior of certain members on the commission. I personally would like to see Subway go into Corinthian Corner and feel that it would be important that you look at what this would mean to all of the residents of Saratoga and visitors to Saratoga, not just listen to the individuals on the planning commission who are opposed, the tenants in Saratoga Village who are afraid their business will be impacted, the Village Gardeners who feel the village belongs to them personally, and the group called the SVDC who seem to be ruled by a few. I also question why the leaders of these various Village committees are also on the Planning Comission. It certainly appears to be prejudicial. Not only do they push their influence on the various groups I listed above but they want to be in total control of what happens in Saratoga and Saratoga Village. Cronyism seems to be rampant. The opposition wants more business in the village yet they don't want traffic. The City wants more business for taxes but it doesn't want any business that might attract other businesses and thus more dollars. I understand that even the application for a Conditional Use Permit (as Subway has done) brings in money to the city. I have consistently heard of the concerns of the Village tenants about the sad state of affairs of their income. How they want something to bring business yet, they refuse to allow stores that might bring some business. Why is this Village not successful 1) The stores close early because there is no business, yet they won't stay open to attract business. APR 5 2005 CITY OF SAF;A TOGA j 2) Many of the tenants are operating on a shoestring and can't afford to advertise to bring business. Why not have one or two tenants who ARE financially able to do that thus bringing other businesses to the Village. 3) Many of the people who want to keep the "historical value" of the Village are not financially impacted because they are not business owners in the village. It's easy to have a vision when your pocketbook isn't impacted. 4) The Traffic Issue This too astounds me. In any village environment like this one, there is a traffic and parking problem. It is the nature of things. When the traffic becomes too heavy a new parking garage is constructed as in Los Gatos. WHY wouldn't the Village WANT to increase traffic thus bringing more business. I guess you want stores that don't bring business so that there won't be a traffic impact. INTERESTING CONCEPT! 5) These same people don't seem to want children or young people in the Village. It appeared that certain members of the Commission didn't seem pleased with the idea that children and their parents might go to Subway for a sandwich. With all of the schools in the area and a Junior College why couldn't they go to Subway for a sandwich. Oh right that impacts traffic which isn't wanted! Besides, who WANTS young people in the Village? Not these opponents. INTERESTING CONCEPT! 6) From my experience, I have been in only one or two sandwich places in your downtown that have any reasonably priced decent food. No wonder they are concerned about a Subway that will bring healthy sandwiches and good food. 7) These opponents say that Subway should not be in the "historical section" of Saratoga. A member of the commission literally challenged the applicant over her Subway in Los Gatos. The applicant's store in Los Gatos is in the historical section. Many of the buildings in Saratoga Village appear to be built in the 40's through 60's so the complaint of keeping the "historical value" does not relate to Subway because Subway would be located in a brand new center. Of course, I guess many of the tenants in the "historical downtown" shouldn't be there because they aren't historically oriented? Yes, there are some historical buildings but if you want unique shops they have to be shops that are able to stay in business and still pay their rent as the rents are raised. I would not call MANY of the businesses in the Village "unique 8) A Mrs. Benson suggested that Landlords lower their rents. Those tenants need to be with a landlord who doesn't have high building costs Yes, some have owned their buildings for years.....the property is paid for and those landlords can afford to have low rents. BUT what will happen when they sell? The new owner will be paying higher costs for these buildings, will probably want to improve their building and thus the rents have to go up. Landlords are not a charity. In addition, when I come to shop, eat or visit, I have found much negativity from the various shop owners. How can they attract business if they are complaining all the time. Lastly, I have been following the Los Gatos situation of the American Apparel Store that was refused by the City Council. I also saw that an attorney wrote a letter to the city regarding this issue. Is that a lawsuit waiting to happen? Restraint of trade? Restraint of allowing an owner to receive rents from a viable business? In conclusion, it is not necessarily just the refusal by the Planning Commission but the way in which they refused and the way they influenced others to come forward, write letters and speak. If Subway is able to provide a tactful upgraded store and sign, I would certainly suggest that you would approve their request. If you approved Starbucks which has brought improvement to the Village, I would think that Subway should be approved as well. G Krause P.O. Box 3216 Santa Clara, California 95055 408 245 -2202 Jill Hunter SVDC Chair; Saratoga Planning Commission Brian Berg SVDC Secretary; Berg Software Design Lillian Benson M.E. Benson's Antiques Marc Benson M.E. Benson's Antiques David Blanchard Gallery Saratoga Bill Cooper Bella Saratoga Flora Gendelman FloBell Women's Fashion Boutique Mel Gilman Pat Smith's Extravaganza Catering Deli Donna Guldiman Saratoga Swings David Home Breakaway Bike Shop Abby Krimotat Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Marilyn Marchetti AFM Promotions John Marian Big Basin Chiropractic Yvonne Mendy Saratoga Historical Foundation Lee Murray Saratoga Arts Commission; Saratoga 50 Anniversary Committee Vance Nelson Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Laurel Perusa Village Gardeners Adam Rockwood Rockwood Design Associates Susie Schechter The Butter Paddle MaryAnn Serpa Skin Prophecy Boutique Pat Smith Pat Smith's Extravaganza Catering Deli RECEA ,.L APR 5 Z005 April 4, 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA To the City Council of Saratoga Re: Subway Being Allowed Into Saratoga Village Below are the complaints of the SVDC which is chaired by a Planning Commission Member and attended to by several of the downtown tenants. First Listed are the members who were at this meeting. Secondly let's take each complaint and see what can be done to address it. It appears that there are already some prejudicial members. Saratoga Village Development Council (SVDC) Meeting Minutes: March 28, 2006 The 21 meeting attendees were as follows: Pros if Application Approved Cons if Application Approved Since it's on the Village periphery, this known business attracts passers by Health and safety issues associated with this location Parking issue can be beneficial to expose the Village to those trying to find a parking spot There are enough places to get a sandwich in the Village already This business creates a threat to existing Villlage businesses Overturning the Planning Commission's resounding rejection sets a bad precedent Saratoga -owned businesses tend to take better care of their storefronts This shop would destroy much of the Village's historic ambiance This would be a poor representation of the Village at its Entryway Numerous traffic and parking issues with this kind of stop and run business The city receives no taxes on takeout food, the majority of Subway's sales Subway's signage is not aesthetic Approval of this second chain business sets a strong precedent for future chains in the Village POSITIVES The positives seem to automatically outweigh the total negative comments. COMPLAINTS FOLLOWED BY A RESPONSE 1)Complaint Health and Safety Issues Associated with this Location. Response By city code no back door is required for this food establishment. How is healthy food a health detriment here? Safety issues? Traffic Would be driving up Big Basin if there was not an availability to turn Left. Last traffic study showed no impact. This is too small a business for a traffic study according to head of the Planning Department, John Livingston. 2)Complaint There are enough places to get Sandwiches in the Village Response There are places to have sit down breakfast, lunch and dinner in theVillage. There are NO sandwich places at this end of Town. Village Rendevouz is going to be a Thai restaurant which is not going to be serving sandwiches. Very petty attitude. 3)Complaint This business creates a threat to existing village businesses. Response How can this ever be a threat when Subway is a different entity. Why are all auto dealerships together? Why are clothing shops together? Why are there numerous restaurants in the Village. Do they cause a threat to each other or bring in more people. Variety That is the issue! If Subway creates a threat then the "Sandwich shop" should make better food. I've only had a good sandwich in two places in the entire village. 4)Complaint Overturning the Planning Commission's vote sets a bad precedent. Response They overturned the Planning commission's vote on Starbucks. If that is the case than the "bad precendent" was already set. A bad precedent for who Perhaps the planning commission doesn't really have a feel for the community. 5)Complaint Saratoga- Businesses take better care of their storefronts. Response I find this to be completely without merit. First of all the building housing Subway is new and much better than the majority of the storefronts in Saratoga Village. 6)Complaint This shop would destroy much of the Villages historic ambiance. Response I guess then Tapioca Express and the Wine Cork should be removed. Does this mean that the shopping center should remain the same? It isn't historic, it is dated as are many of the buildings in the downtown. If Saratoga Village isn't sophisticated enough to understand and accept the concept of "change" for the better, it will eventually die on the vine. 7)Complaint This would be a poor representation of the Village at its entryway. Response How can a small space with a Starbucks on one side and a bikeshop on the other be such a poor representation. It is not as if this is a large store. This is NOT the entryway to the Village. The Center is but that would be Starbucks and whoever goes into the large space adjoining Starbucks. 8)Complaint Numerous traffic and parking issues with this kind of stop and run business Response With the Village Atmosphere I would think that we will always have parking and traffic issues until a parking garage is planned traffic and parking also bring business and dollars. If Subway is planning to be "stop and run" WHY have they taken the patio along side for their private seating area? 9)Complaint Subway's signage is not aesthetic Response I heard the Tenant say to the Planning Commission that she would 10)Complaint Approval of this second chain business sets a precedent for future chain businesses in the Village. Response Tappioca Express is a chain. I guess that means that we shouldn't have Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, Le Boulangerie. Heaven forbid that any company with more than three stores be allowed into Saratoga Village. "Chains" do bring business because they are successful. In conclusion, I ask the City Council to please allow this long time Saratoga Resident to bring her store into Saratoga Village and offer an option to anyone who happens to come to Big Basin Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road area. I would like to think that Saratoga and the City Council are aware of the issues and will vote in behalf of Subway. Ann Mitchell like to cooperate with the City in providing an attractive sign. Perhaps the complainers should look at the signs along Big Basin and see some of the unpleasant signs there. 1 Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 3 City of Saratoga City Clerk's office Attached are additional correspondences regarding agenda item 3- Subway Appeal. Cathleen Boyer From: Nick Streit [NStreit @cpa- online.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:00 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; John Livingstone; Dave Anderson Subject: FW: Subway Sandwich Original Message From: jill hunter [mailto:jhunter95070 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:26 AM To: Nick Streit Subject: Subway Sandwich Dear Nick, As Chairman of the Saratoga Village Development Council and the Village Gardeners I wanted to express my concern about the Subway Sandwich appeal. Not only do I think that the Planning Commission findings were very strong and it was a 5 -2 vote, but also I have deep concerns for the future of the Village if Subway is allowed in. Already Starbucks has affected the shops serving food and drinks up to 10% they estimate but if Subway comes in they are truly afraid they will go out of business. With just a three block downtown and approximately 25 businesses serving food that leaves too little retail and too many food places. I have heard it on a good source that a retail shop will consider that space if Subway is not approved. That would be a much better choice. Secondly, parking and traffic will be just terrible. The Subway owner estimates that between 40 -60 people will come to Subway for lunch. Where will they park while they are getting their sandwiches? Highschoolers will be rushing in during their lunch break, some will drive around the block while other ones will go in to get the sandwich. Azule or Quito village would be a much better location. Thirdly, the Village is a very special place. By putting a Subway with a Starbucks and a gas station at the entrance we are signaling nothing unique in the shops up the street. Our historic downtown will look very common indeed. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Jill Hunter Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations, as well as many states, require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and /or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. 1 Cathleen Boyer From: Nick Streit [NStreit @cpa- online.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:57 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; Dave Anderson; John Livingstone Subject: FW: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop From: Michelle Blake [mailto:michelleblake @mac.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:04 PM To: kline @caspr.com; akao @saratoga.ca.us; awaltonsmith @saratoga.ca.us; Nick Streit; kk2king @saratoga.ca.us Cc: MARTE FORMICO; Robert Blake; Michelle Blake; Greta Jackson; debbie cantelmo Subject: Re: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:40 AM, MARTE FORMICO wrote: Dear Council, I would like to voice our strong opposition to a Subway Sandwich Shop in downtown Saratoga, what's next, McDonalds? The neon green and yellow subway logo is not what I'd like to look at as I walk through our beautiful downtown. I'm surprised it's even up for discussion. Michelle and Robert Blake 14394 Old Wood Road Saratoga Page 1 of 2 Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations, as well as many states, require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax- related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may Cathleen Boyer From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:02 PM To: Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: MARTE FORMICO [mailto:martefor @yahoo.com] Sent: Mon 4/3/2006 11:40 AM To: Norm Kline; Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Kathleen King; Nick Streit Subject: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop Dear Council, I would like to voice our opposition of opening a subway sandwhich shop in downtown Saratoga. As mention in the Saratoga news, there are over 15 places currently to get some kind of sandwhich in downtown. More importantly is that the image for our downtown? I believe there are better solutions for downtown...Please oppose subway. Marte and Linda Formico 14456 Sobey Rd r Page 1 of 1 r Ted Cathleen Boyer From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 1:03 PM To: Dave Anderson; Dave Anderson; Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga Ted Macauley AP Executive Search 408.986.8310 Office 408.986.1411 Fax tmacauley @accountindpartners.com n i ')nnV Page 1 of 1 From: Ted Macauley [mailto: tmacauley @accountingpartners.com] Sent: Mon 4/3/2006 1:02 PM To: Norm Kline; Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Kathleen King; Nick Streit Subject: RE: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop I had read that there had been a petition for a Subway Sandwich shop to move into downtown Saratoga. I wanted to write the Council to voice my opposition. While I do believe that changes need to be made to revitalize downtown Saratoga, I do not think that opening a Subway Shop is what we need. There appears to be too many places to get a sandwich as it is now and I don't see how adding a Subway will help the downtown area and the citizens of Saratoga. Memo City of Saratoga City Clerk's office To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 4 REQUEST TO READ INTO TESTIMONY AT COUNCIL MEETING Attached is additional correspondence regarding agenda item 4 Expedited Annexation Program for County Islands. Memo from LAFCO Commissioner Blanca Alvarado, County Board of Supervisors, in support of annexing county islands using the streamlined annexation provisions in state law. 04 -05 -06 01:32pm From-SUPERVISOR ALVARADO April 4, 2006 Norman Kline Mayor, City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Sinc 11414 r ely, 414/441e lanca Alvarado LAFCo Commissioner Supervisor, Second District c: City Council, City of Saratoga Liz Kruss, Supervisor, Fifth District BLANCA ALVARADO �t:YFU a V1,u. 1)”,.11l Two 030A.R0 OF SUPERVISORS C4�i v il' uF SAN CI.Aa +4082958642 T -189 P.02/02 F -435 Dear Mayor Kline. SUBJECT: EXPEDITED ANNEXATION PROGRAM FOR COUNTY ISLANDS As a Commissioner for the Local Agency formation Commission of Santa Clara County LAFCo) and County Supervisor, I strongly encourage cities to annex urban unincorporated pockets. For over 30 years, the cities, the County, and LAFCo have had principles and policies stating that cities with urban pockets will eventually annex them into their city limits. In fact, it is in the County's General Plan that cities would annex urban pockets. Annexing urban pockets improves delivery of government services and programs that benefit local neighborhoods; gives more local control to cities on land use compatibility, code enforcement and infrastructure provisions; reduces confusion for residents; and creates greater governmental accountability. In addition, for many years county unincorporated residents have remained largely disenfranchised from local decisions. With annexation, these residents will have the ability to vote in city council elections and other city elections. Since January 1, 2005, cities have had a greater opportunity to annex urban unincorporated islands through a streamlined process that does not require protest proceedings or elections. LAI=Co is providing technical support, waiving fees, and expediting the application process_ In addition to LAFCo's efforts, the County is subsidizing the cities' cost of map surveying, the Board of Equalization filing fees, and the County Roads Department will provide street improvements in the areas annexed. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution in support of amending the County Zoning Ordinance regulations governing residential development standards. The resolution was passed to eliminate significant differences between County and City standards, zoning regulations, and development outcomes. I strongly urge the City Council to annex the county islands using the streamlined annexation provisions in state law. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call m at (408) 299 5020. COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, EAST WING 70 WEST r HEUC) Sit &t•: T, SAN Juste, CA 951 i 0, 108 /299 23.43, rAX -rOS /15 -a6h '11)1) 4U6/)U3-S272 Dave Anderson From: Javier Aguirre [Javier.Aguirre @bos.sccgov.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:24 PM To: Norm Kline Cc: Kathleen King; Cathleen Boyer; Dave Anderson Subject: Supervisor Alvarado's Letter to the City Council Dear Mayor Kline, Attached is a letter from Supervisor Blanca Alvarado urging the City of Saratoga to commence annexation proceedings of the county urban pockets. Supervisor Alvarado requests that you read her letter into the public record at your city council meeting tonight. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Javier Javier Aguirre Senior Policy Aide Office of Supervisor Alvarado Tenth Floor East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 408/299 -5020 TEL 408/295 -8642 FAX 1 Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 4 City of Saratoga City Clerk's office Attached is additional correspondence regarding agenda item 4 Expedited Annexation Program for County Islands. Resolution from County Board of Supervisors in support of conforming residential development standards in County areas adjacent to Cities. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA IN SUPPORT OF THE FUTURE EVALUATION, CONSIDERATION AND AMENDMENT OF COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE URBAN UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS ("URBAN POCKETS") WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County General Plan has tong supported and encouraged the annexation of urban unincorporated lands located within the Urban Service Areas of the fifteen cities of Santa Clara County, defined in State law as urban unincorporated islands or "'pockets;" and WHEREAS, the County and Cities have agreed through countywide urban growth management and urban development policies originating in the 1970's that the annexation of urban pockets by the cities is in the general public interest and welfare, and that the continued existence of such urban pockets results in (a) inefficient and illogical political boundaries, (b) costly, inefficient, and unpractical provision of urban services and infrastructure, (c) unneee.sary division of urban communities and neighborhoods, (d) the disenfranchisement of those unincorporated citizens of the County who are unable to vote for city elected officials and unable to receove certain city- provided services for benefit of the community, (e) differences in land development outcomes, and (f) other related inequities; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature, in recognition of the significant disadvantages of retaining urban unincorporated islands, has enacted legislation signed into law which facilitates annexation of certain urban islands of up to 150 acres which cannot be contested by resident protest or election, and these "streamlined," reduced -cost annexation procedures are available to cities through the end of 200(1; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) have further agreed to facilitate annexation by providing procedural and financial assistance to cities that successfully complete the annexation of their qualifying urban pockets within the 2005 -2006 time period, including waiving of fees, payment of mapping casts and other related processing costs, and road surface improvements; and WHEREAS, differences in residential development blandards between the County's Zoning Ordinance regulations and those of certain cities have been a hindrance to annexation efforts in the past, and such differences may continue to inhibit the actions of certain cities to annex pockets eligible for the streamlined annexations, because such differences may significantly contribute to residents' desires for their urban islands to remain unincorporated; and WHEREAS, the cities, County and LAFCO believe the present favorable opportunities for island annexation are unprecedented and limited in duration due to the aforementioned circumstances, and that all effective, practical efforts should be made to facilitate actions by the cities to complete island annexations during this window of opportunity; and WHEREAS, for those urban islands not eligible for streamlined annexation provisions of State law, the cities, County, and LAFCO recognize that annexation of these islands may require Pano 1 01'2 YAW 1 more concerted, strategic planning by those agencies in the near future, but which are not the immediate priority during the period 2005 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as follows: SECTION 1. The Board of Supervisors strongly encourages the Cities of Santa Clara County to initiate and complete the annexations of urban unincorporated islands located within cities' Urban Service Areas, consistent with countywide urban development and growth management policies, and more particularly, during the period 2005- 2006, to annex those islands or pockets eligible to be annexed under the State's 2005 2006 streamlined annexation laws. SECTION 2. Consistent with the County General Plan goals and policies for the urban unincorporated areas, particularly Policy U -LM 9, the Board of Supervisors supports the evaluation, consideration, and amendment of County Zoning Ordinance regulations governing residential development standards for the purpose of eliminating significant differences between the standards and development outcomes possible under County Zoning regnWions and those of each city, potentially including, but necessarily limited to, such regulations as floor area definitions and floor area ratios governing house size, building height, story limits, lot coverage, setbacks from property lines and rights -of -ways, and review procedures. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on NOV 1 S 2An5 by the following vote: AYES: Ativl AD°' a 4596111 88' ?tea NOES: GAGE, B€►ALL ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: ?,lone Signed and certified that a copy of this document has been delivered by electronic or other tne3M to the chair, Board of Supervisors. A1TES'r: Phyllia'P Clerk, Board ofSupe visors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Lizar ye Reynolds Deputy County Counsel Attachments: Exhibit A Excerpt from County General an Page 2 of 2 Liz Kniss, Chair Board of Supervisors R-6 General Land Use Management Urn an Unincorporated Area IFsues and Policies Strategy #2: Enst Conformity of Development With titles' General Pfans Within cities' Urban Service Areas, the County does not apply any General Flan designation or classification of prescriptive land uses or densi- ties to unincorporated parcels. Instead, allow- able land uses and densities are determined by the applicable city's general plan. This arrange ment relleds one aspect of the division of authority between the cities and the County under the jointly adopted countywide °urban development policies," Assurntng'that all urban unincorporated areas will eventually be annexed by the cities, it le appropriate that the city whirl► will have ultimate jurisdiction over an area have the ongoing authority to plan for what are presently unincorporated areas. The responsibilities of the jurisdictions (County and city) are fairly straightforward. For urban ttnincorporated lands ineligible for annexation or for which annexation# has been refused or deferred, the County is obligated to administer current planning functions, such as permit processing, zoning administration, and code enforcement whereas, each city addreae tiu^ough its general plan the long range planting issues of land use, density and other issues. In order to ensure that development pent under County jtirisdidion is generally in con- formance with what would be permitted accord- Ing.to each city's general plan, the County applies zoning districts and development regulations compatible) with the applicable city's general plan designation. Given the 'variety and Call ple9dty Borne cities' development regula- tians, it is Infeasible for the County to attempt to administer the actual regulations of the cities. When there are differences between County and city development regulations of same conse- quence, such as for setbacks, building height and bulk restrictions, or other standards, the County may be able to adjust its standards to minimize those inconsistendes. In any case, the County strives to work cooperatively with the applicant, the city and other interested parties to ensure that the resulting development is as 3 Exhibit A to Resolution of Intent County Pockets Development Standards consistent as possible with the policies and regulations of the city involved and will not preset future problems for either the property owner, the city, or adjacent residents. Pilules and lmp!ementdflon 11-1.1,4 6 County land use and development raegulations within a city Urban Service Area shall be gener. ally, compatible with the applicable city's general plan designations and accompanying policies. 11-LM 1 Subdivisions, use permits and zone changes for unincorporated property within a ,city Urban Service Area snail conform with the applicable land use and density criteria of the city's general plan. f. IM8 County zoning, land development, and building regulations should be designed and adminis- tered. to: a. preserve and enhance the quality of existing urban unincorporated areas; and b. maintain conununity identity, through heritage resource preservation, conservation of historic structures and places, and other similar measures. EXhibit A to Resolution of Intent tounty Pockets Development Standards II -LAI 9 In cases where significant differences exist between County and city development stan- dards (.e, setbacks, height, bulk regulations), resulting in„potentially inappropriate develop- ment or conflicts, the County should oonaider adjusting or modifying its ordinances and standards to minimize problems and achieve greater conformance with city standards. U IZVf 10 No applications for subdivisions, use permits or zone charges for property within any city's Urban Service Area may be at3cepted by the County for processing unless it is accompanied by a statement from the applicable city affirming cit Viral plan conformance. Itplemerttotion Recommendation CI IM(i) 9 Review all present County zoning districts applied within Urban Service Areas and com- pare with applicable city general plan deaigna- tions. Identify significant inconsistencies and if needed rezone inappropriately zoned areas to zoning districts that conform with city general plans. II- 1140)1© inform cities of County general plan coeform- ance polkies so that pblicies and authority are fully understood by city staff and official 11- I.ikM(0 11 Evaluate County and city development stan- dards and regulations for possible huonsisten- cies of significance and modify County regula tons where necessary to rectify or minimize the impacts of tc►consistenciea.'relates to policy 6} General Land Use Management Urban tirdncerporated Area issues and Policies 5 Strategy #3: Provk#e Services as Efficiently and Egtiitzbty as Possible Although Joint County, city, and LAPCO policies promote the annexation of urban "pockets," partly on the basis that urban services are most efficiently provided by cities, In reality rnany developed urban unincorporated areas may not be annexed in the immediately foreseeable ;Future. In the interim, the County should ensure that necessary urban Services and facilities are provided as efficiently and east- effectively as possible to these areas. ttIet only does the County have a responsibility to provide basic Levels of urban services to urban unincorporated area residents, but by maintaining and upped- ing existing services and facilities, the County and the cities facilitate the ultimate annexation of these areas. Nevertheless, it remains difficult for local govemmeeta to pay for basic urban services, rnuch improve upon them, in light of outcomes of Prop 13. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 198, new funding somas have become virtually nvn.exlstent, due to the 2/3 voter approval requirement for new taxes and reduced growth in property tax revenues overall. Muse it is recognized that cities should not be expected to provide services without eompensaiion, the financial burden falls to the County. Therefore, cooperation among jurisdictions to explore creative, cost effective measures becomes the only option to costly provision of services in the unincorporated urban areas. R -7 MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: (A ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: N/A hl n B DEPT HEAD: D Ander 'n er SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Month of April 2006 as "Voter Education Month" RECOMMENDED ACTION: Acknowledge proclamation. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached is a proclamation declares the month of April 2006 as "Voter Education Month The City Clerks Association and the Secretary of State have always maintained a partnership to encourage all eligible citizens to register and vote. City Clerks have historically been among the most active partners in supporting voter education programs in cities across California, and the organization's co- sponsorship with the Secretary of State is a key part of efforts to promote citizen interest in the democratic process. The Secretary of State and the City Clerks Association have declared April to be "Voter Education Month," and are requesting California cities to approve the attached proclamation. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Copy of proclamation. CITY OF SARATOGA PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF APRIL 2006 "VOTER EDUCATION MONTH" WHEREAS, The City Clerks Association of California and the Secretary of State have worked as partners to encourage all eligible citizens to register and vote; and WHEREAS, the month of April 2006 has been designated as "Voter Education Month" for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election; and WHEREAS, the strength and vitality of a democratic society depend on the "consent of the governed" and that consent is given at the ballot box; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga supports programs to provide nonpartisan information to citizens to encourage them to participate in the election process, including how and when to register to vote, how to vote by mail, how to find information about candidates and issues, how to locate the appropriate polling place, and how to find election results on the night of the election; and WHEREAS, the City has several programs, venues, and activities to communicate with its residents and voters about the importance of voting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga officially endorses April as "Voter Education Month" and directs the City Clerk to forward a copy of this resolution to the Secretary of State, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk take appropriate action to encourage all eligible citizens of Saratoga to register for and vote in the June 6, 2006 Primary Election. WITNESS OUR HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5 day of April 2006. Norman Kline, Mayor Saratoga, California Check Issued to Fund Dept Purpose Amount 101677 Arbor Resources Various Various Arborist services $11,329.50 101705 County of SantaClara General 2015 Law Enforcement -March $262,892.88 101716 Gachina Landscape Various Various Landscape services -March $14,821.92 101732 Lake Traffic Soultions CIP 1701 Speed Cushion $14,265.96 101780 Shute,Mihaly Weinberg Various Various Legal Services January $30,260.40 Type of Checks Date Starting Checks Ending Check Total Checks Amount Account Payable 03/22/06 101670 101794 125 $441,436.76 Payroll 03/02/06 31489 31515 27 $114,761.28 TOTAL $556,198.04 MEETING DATE: 04/05/2006 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Svcs. CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Usha Dhulipala SUBJECT: Check Register for 03/22/2006 AGENDA ITEM: DEPT HEAD: RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council accepts the Check Register for 03/22/2006. REPORT SUMMARY: z C Michele Braucht Attached is the Check Register for 03/22/2006. The checks were released on 03/23/2006. Payroll checks were released on 03/02/2006. The prior Check Register for 03/07/2006 ended with check number 101669. Following is a list of checks issued for more than $10,000.00, and a brief description of the expenditures. Fund Fund Description A/P Total PR Total Total 001 General 356,221.24 18,725.24 374,946.48 150 Streets Roads 9,934.84 15,381.87 25,316.71 201 Manor Dr. LLD 201.82 201.82 202 Fredericksburge LLD 266.00 266.00 203 Greenbriar LLD 767.50 767.50 205 Azule LLD 123.48 123.48 206 SaraHills LLD 83.64 83.64 209 McCartyVille LLD 215.00 215.00 210 TriciaWoods LLD 84.44 84.44 211 Arroyo De Sara LLD 183.96 183.96 212 Leutar Court LLD 85.00 85.00 215 Bonnet WayLLD 255.00 255.00 216 Beauchamps LLD 227.81 227.81 217 Sunland Park LLD 446.59 446.59 222 Prides Crossing LLD 450.00 450.00 224 Village Comm LLD 5,204.99 5,204.99 225 Saratoga Legends LLD 463.26 463.26 226 Bellgrove LLD 1,985.00 1,985.00 227 Cnnghm/Glasgow LLD 177.52 177.52 228 Kerwin Ranch LLD 488.06 488.06 229 Tollgate LLD 110.90 110.90 231 Horseshoe LLD 403.15 403.15 250 Development Services 15,217.09 53,110.92 68,328.01 260 Environmental Program SRF 4,858.58 4,858.58 290 Recreation 21,294.83 17,664.10 38,958.93 291 Teen Services 253.49 2,743.77 2,997.26 351 Public Safety CIP 634.12 634.12 352 Infrastructures CIP 4,376.96 2,276.80 6,653.76 354 Park Trail CIP 1,510.00 1,510.00 502 Infomlation Technology 1,999.86 1,999.86 604 Planning Deposit Pre 2006 240.00 240.00 605 Planning Deposit 07/01/05 462.00 462.00 701 Traffic Calming 14,265.96 14,265.96 791 Kevin Moran 2,478.25 2,478.25 800 Deposit Agency Fund 325.00 325.00 TOTAL 441,436.76 114,761.28 $556,198.04 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Register in the Expenditure Approval List format. PREPARED 03/22/2006 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L EAL DESCRIPTION: EAL: 03222006 UDHULIPALA VOUCHER SELECTION CRITERIA Voucher /discount due date 04/03/2006 All banks A REPORT SEQUENCE OPTIONS: Vendor X One vendor per page? (Y,N) Bank /Vendor One vendor per page? (Y,N) Fund /Dept /Div Fund /Dept /Div /Element /Obj Proj /Fund /Dept /Div /Elm /Obj This report is by Vendor Process by bank code? (Y,N) N Print reports in vendor name sequence? (Y,N) Y Calendar year for 1099 withholding 2006 Disbursement year /per 2006/09 Check date 03/22/2006 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST REPORT PARAMETER SELECTIONS 'REPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002677 $15 DOLLAR ROOTER SEWER AND DRAIN 482000 005313 00 03/28/2006 001 1060 513.55 -37 FMO2KC *CLEAN SEWER LINE 69.00 VENDOR TOTAL 69.00 0002928 ABLE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTIONS INC 03/01/06 005271 00 03/11/2006 001 3030 532.56 -19 PK03UD *PMPD OUT HLDNG TNK 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 0002575 ACCENT GRAPHICS 14043 005007 00 03/21/2006 001 1020 511.35 -21 MG02KC *DESK PLATE POWELL 23.82 VENDOR TOTAL 23.82 0002645 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUPPLY 15114 -1 005123 00 03/22/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FMO2KC *JANITORIAL SUPLS 15.16 15362 005124 00 03/27/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FMO2KC *JANITORIAL SUPLS 746.36 15505 005330 00 04/03/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FM03KC *JANITORIAL SUPPLY 194.22 15362 -1 005331 00 04/03/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FM03KC *JANITORIAL SUPPLY 451.21 15382 005332 00 04/03/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FM03KC *JANITORIAL SUPPLY 395.91 VENDOR TOTAL 1,802.86 0001964 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS PLAN #5A94 APRIL 2006 005319 00 03/20/2006 001 0000 210.20 -07 PR04KC *APR DNTL INSUR -DMO 352.68 VENDOR TOTAL 352.68 0001963 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS- PLAN #30710 APRIL 2006 005318 00 03/20/2006 001 0000 210.20 -07 PR04KC *APR DNTL INSUR -DPO 4,142.24 VENDOR TOTAL 4,142.24 0000005 AMIT SUSIE NAGPAL 1985 005552 00 03/17/2006 605- 4605- 444.31 -00 ZA08JI *PL DEP REFUND 186.00 VENDOR TOTAL 186.00 0002715 ARBOR RESOURCES 3/17/06 005565 00 03/21/2006 250- 4010 444.49 -00 ZA09JI *ADV PYMT PER J.L. 10,000.00 93015 005571 00 03/20/2006 791- 4791- 622.52 -41 CP02UD *TAGS TREES@ KMORAN 1,329.50 VENDOR TOTAL 11,329.50 0004058 AT SYSTEMS WEST, INC 169 073006 005414 00 03/17/2006 001 1040 513.50 -63 FNO3UD *ARMED GUARD -MARCH 207.10 VENDOR TOTAL 207.10 0003059 AWARD COMPANY OF AMERICA ACAINV0078165 005423 00 03/21/2006 001 1005 511.35 -21 CCO1KC *FRAMES COUNCIL 653.50 VENDOR TOTAL 653.50 0000005 BARRON, RUTH 65047 005367 00 03/14/2006 290- 0000 260.00 -00 RCO3KC *DEPOSIT REFUND 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 0000005 BARTON, MAUREEN PAGE 1 'PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000005 BARTON, MAUREEN 30460 005363 00 03/10/2006 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 RCO3KC *CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0001733 BAY AREA FLOOR MACHINE COMPANY 95980 005297 00 04/03/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FM03KC *BUFFER SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 0003064 BELANGER, CHRISTINE 11408 -3 005298 00 03/07/2006 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- DANCE 11408 -2 A 005299 00 03/07/2006 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- DANCE 11408 -1 A 005300 00 03/07/2006 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- DANCE VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 BELLGROVE REALTY 65076 005368 00 03/14/2006 290 0000 260.00 -00 RCO3KC *DEPOSIT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0000050 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 271295 005416 00 03/28/2006 250- 4015- 542.35 -21 IS02UD *MP CATRIDGE VENDOR TOTAL 0004174 BUSINESS 2000, INC FINAL 005554 00 03/28/2006 001 3005 532.55 -46 ST02UD *05 -06 DBE GOAL VENDOR TOTAL 0000593 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM 4486449 005373 00 03/27/2006 001 0000 210.20 -18 PR02KC *PR 031606 DEDUC VENDOR TOTAL 0001513 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 556737 005272 00 03/08/2006 001 1045 513.51 -48 HR01UD *FINGER PRNTNG -JAN 556737 A 005273 00 03/08/2006 290 6005 564.51 -48 RC01UD *FINGER PRNTNG -JAN VENDOR TOTAL 0002632 CALTRANS 173226 005558 00 03/17/2006 150- 3015 532.50 -92 GT03UD *JAN -SGNLS &LIGHTS VENDOR TOTAL 0002821 CASEY PRINTING 5872 005393 22007 00 03/30/2006 290- 6005 564.55 -81 RCO3UD *SPRNG ACTVTY GUIDE VENDOR TOTAL 0002905 WT97828 WT97828 A CDWG, INC. 005310 005311 0002941 CHANG, JOHN TAI 13512 -1 A 005354 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/13/2006 502- 1092 513.53 -17 IS02KC *IT UPS 502- 1092 513.53 -14 IS02KC *SWITCH /FIBER CARD VENDOR TOTAL 124.00 124.00 82.38 82.38 260.00 325.00 130.00 715.00 300.00 300.00 167.79 167.79 2,000.00 2,000.00 50.40 50.40 32.00 96.00 128.00 472.92 472.92 5,265.40 5,265.40 544.00 1,455.86 1,999.86 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC KARATE 520.80 PAGE 2 PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002941 CHANG, JOHN TAI 13512 -2 A 005355 13512 -3 A 005356 13515 -1 A 005357 13515 -2 A 005358 13515 -3 A 005359 13516 -3 A 005360 0004171 11517 -1 0002828 14704 -1 14704 -4 CHIN, OLIVER 005346 CHOW, JACKSON 005338 005339 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 0004053 CHRISTINE KAISER LI 41360 -3 A 005306 00 03/07/2006 41360 -3 C 005307 00 03/07/2006 0002800 2535 2536 2537 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 005409 22205 00 03/15/2006 005411 22205 00 03/15/2006 005410 22205 00 03/15/2006 0000682 CITY OF SARATOGA- PETTY CASH 03/10/06 005567 00 03/13/2006 03/10/06 A 005568 00 03/13/2006 03/10/06 C 005570 00 03/13/2006 03/10/06 B 005569 00 03/13/2006 0000085 CITY OF SARATOGA /PETTY CASH 10/25/06B 002497 00 03/21/2006 10/25/05C 002498 00 03/21/2006 03/13/06 G 005471 00 03/21/2006 03/13/06 I 005473 00 03/21/2006 03/13/06 M 005477 00 03/21/2006 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC KARATE 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC KARATE 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC KARATE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE VENDOR TOTAL 00 03/10/2006 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC -ART VENDOR TOTAL 00 03/10/2006 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC -PUBL SPEAK 00 03/10/2006 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC -PUBL SPEAK VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- PILATES 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- PILATES VENDOR TOTAL 001 3025 532.54 -34 MP02UD *ALLNDLE MAINT -FEB 001 3030 532.54 -36 LL02UD *FOOTHILL MAINT -FEB 231- 3231 532.54 -36 LL02UD *HSHOE MAINT -FEB VENDOR TOTAL 0003042 CIM AIR, INC. 15678 005395 22096 00 04/01/2006 001 1060 513.52 -81 FMO2UD *3 HVAC PROJECTS VENDOR TOTAL 0004151 CITY OF FOSTER CITY 3850 005312 00 04/02/2006 001 1045 513.56 -50 HR03KC *2006 CALOPPS ORG VENDOR TOTAL 001 1045-513.51 -48 HR03KC *FINGERPRNTG -EMP 290 6005 564.35 -22 RCO3KC *COOKIES 290 6005 564.35 -22 RCO3KC *TREATS FOR SENIORS 291- 6010 564.35 -22 RCO3KC *PRODUCE VENDOR TOTAL 001 1005 511.34 -61 CC10UD *SMNR 10/13/05 001 1005 511.34 -61 CC10UD *MNTLY LNCH MTG MYR 001 1005 511.34 -61 CCO3KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG 001 1005- 511.34 -61 CCO3KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG 001 1005 511.34 -61 CCO3KC *SUPLS- COUNCIL MTG 1,330.11 128.40 160.80 160.80 561.60 702.00 3,564.51 546.00 546.00 144.00 720.00 864.00 50.00 474.50 524.50 200.00 178.00 320.00 698.00 510.00 510.00 3,250.00 3,250.00 25.00 1.99 16.43 3.49 46.91 15.00 25.00 8.00 25.00 19.58 PAGE 3 'REPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. NO NO NO BNK CHECK /DUE DATE 0000085 CITY OF SARATOGA /PETTY CASH 03/13/06 Q 03/13/06 R 03/13/06 S 005483 03/13/06 T 005484 03/13/06 Y 005489 03/13/06 AA 005502 03/13/06 AB 005503 10/25/05D 002496 03/13/06 005462 03/13/06 C 005465 03/13/06 F 005470 03/13/06 H 005472 03/13/06 J 005474 03/13/06 L 005476 03/13/06 N 005478 03/13/06 X 005488 03/13/06 E 005468 10/25/05E 002499 03/13/06 P 005480 03/13/06 Z 005490 10/25/06A 002495 03/13/06 A 005463 03/13/06 B 005464 03/13/06 D 005466 03/13/06 K 005475 03/13/06 0 005479 03/13/06 U 005485 03/13/06 V 005486 03/13/06 W 005487 005481 00 03/21/2006 005482 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 0000162 COAST OIL COMPANY, LLC 57023 005538 00 03/21/2006 0004109 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS 36442 005274 00 03/08/2006 0002768 COVAD COMMUNICATIONS ACCOUNT NO 001 1005 511.35 -51 001 1005 511.34 -61 001 1005 511.34 -61 001- 1005 511.34 -61 001 1005-511.34 -61 001 1005 511.34 -61 001 1005 511.34 -61 001 1020 511.34 -61 001- 1020 511.31 -70 001 1020 511.34 -61 001 1020 511.34 -61 001 1020 511.34 -61 001 1020 511.34 -61 001 -1020- 511.34 -61 001 1020 511.35 -21 001 -1020- 511.34 -61 001 1025 511.34 -61 001 1030 511.56 -10 001 1040 513.35 -51 001 1040 513.35 -21 001 1045 513.34 -61 001 1045 513.35 -22 001- 1045 513.35 -22 001 1045 513.35 -22 001 1045 513.36 -71 001 1045 513.36 -43 001 -1045- 513.35 -21 001 3035 532.35 -21 250- 4010 542.35 -21 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION CCO3KC *PSTG HOLIDAY CRD CCO3KC *COUNCIL MTG DEC CCO3KC *COUNCIL MTG 1/4 CCO3KC *COUNCIL MTG JAN CCO3KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG CCO3KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG MAY MG03KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG MAY MG10UD *MNTLY LNCH MTG DAV MG03KC *TRIP- SACTO -CTY CLK MGO3KC *ROTARY MTG MG03KC *WVMM MTG MG03KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG MG03KC *PRKG FEE YWCA MTG HR03KC *SUPLS EMGNCY TRNG MG03KC *CELL PHONE PARTS MGO3KC *WVMM LUNCH MTG AT03KC *PARKING FEE CK10UD *CNTY RECRDR OFFICE FNO3KC *PSTG -ADMIN SRV FNO3KC *WVMMLUNCH MTG HR08UD *FOOD FOR OS RCRMNT HR03KC *SUPPLIES -ORAL BRD HRO3KC *SUPPLIES -ORAL BRD HR03KC *SUPPLIES -ORAL BRD HR03KC *SUPLS -MGMNT TRNG HR03KC *SUPLS -SERV AWRDS HRO3KC *SALES TX -BUS CRDS EG03KC *SALES TX -BUS CRDS ZA03KC *SALES TX -BUS CRDS VENDOR TOTAL 001 1035 512.41 -01 EQ09JI *FUEL VENDOR TOTAL 351- 0203 622.52 -41 CP02UD *HKONE AD 02/08/06 VENDOR TOTAL 0000434 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES INC 02/02/06 005278 00 03/08/2006 250- 4020 542.56 -02 DR02UD #DR -00 -004 ANDERSN 02/02/06 -A 005467 00 03/16/2006 250- 4020 443.20 -00 DR02UD #DR -00 -004 ANDERSN 02/02/06 -5 005469 00 03/16/2006 604 4604 444.50 -12 DR02UD #DR -00 -004 ANDERSN VENDOR TOTAL 0000098 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA- SHERIFF OFFIC 1800007591 005337 00 04/01/2006 001 2015 523.52 -42 MGO3KC *SHERIFF CNTRCT MAR VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 22.57 18.00 13.76 17.21 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 18.00 8.00 25.00 10.00 34.70 43.27 25.00 7.50 44.00 21.43 25.00 19.75 9.28 15.31 18.55 16.60 15.43 2.83 2.83 2.83 654.43 2,642.83 2,642.83 546.00 546.00 192.00 240.00- 240.00 192.00 262,892.88 262,892.88 PAGE 4 HAND ISSUED PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002768 COVAD COMMUNICATIONS 43026307 005009 00 03/27/2006 0000941 CPRS 3/1/06 005545 3/1/06A 005546 0000005 CPRS DISTRICT IV 03/07/06 005508 0002805 1115 1114 1116 1117 1118 1119 CREEK MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE 005289 005290 005291 005292 005293 005580 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 001 1050 513.41 -03 GS02KC *MO CHRG 2/16 -3/15 VENDOR TOTAL 00 04/01/2006 001 3035 532.36 -71 EG09JI *MEMBERSHIP /MEEK 00 04/01/2006 001 3035 532.36 -71 EG09JI *MEMBERSHIP /SHAWN VENDOR TOTAL 00 03/21/2006 001 1015 511.31 -65 CM03KC *2006 YAC REGISTRTN VENDOR TOTAL 00 03/08/2006 00 03/08/2006 00 03/08/2006 00 03/08/2006 00 03/08/2006 00 03/20/2006 001 3020 532.51 -73 FD01UD *FNCE RPR @PRSPCT RD 001- 3020 532.51 -73 FD01UD *FNCE RPR WILDWD PK 001 3020 532.51 -73 FD01UD *FIX RAIL WILDWD PK 001 3030 532.57 -36 PK01UD *REPRS LIBRARY 001 3030 532.57 -36 PK12UD *RPR BBQ @WILD WD PK 354- 0306 622.52 -41 CP02UD *INSTALL 4 BENCHES VENDOR TOTAL 0000108 DATA TICKET, INC. 13029 005400 00 03/15/2006 001 2015 523.50 -08 PS02UD *CITATION -JAN VENDOR TOTAL 0001115 DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION 042506 005146 00 03/23/2006 001 3030 532.36 -71 PK02JI *EXAM APPL- MARSHALL 042506A 005147 00 03/23/2006 001 3030 532.36 -71 PK02JI *EXAM APPL S.JUAREZ VENDOR TOTAL 0003050 DOMINQUEZ, PAUL E. 02/09/06 005381 00 03/08/2006 291- 6010 564.51 -47 TNO3KC *DJ SCHOOL DANCE VENDOR TOTAL 0000144 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 51906008.001 005329 00 04/01/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FM03KC *EMERGENCY BALLASTS VENDOR TOTAL 0004140 ERGO VERA 921 005326 00 04/03/2006 001 1045 513.36 -71 HR03KC *ERGONOMICS CLASS VENDOR TOTAL 0000150 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 46013 005288 00 03/08/2006 001 3030 532.55 -33 PK02UD *DE FRUITING VENDOR TOTAL 0001794 15886 15610 0 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 005294 00 04/01/2006 005438 22203 00 04/01/2006 001 3005- 532.54 -32 ST03UD *LSCPE SERVS -MARCH 001 3025 532.54 -34 LL03UD *MAR- LSCPE- MEDIANS 759.95 759.95 585.00 585.00 1,170.00 30.00 30.00 800.00 1,030.00 300.00 200.00 600.00 1,510.00 4,440.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 250.00 250.00 300.10 300.10 350.00 350.00 650.00 650.00 175.00 3,555.00 PAGE 5 PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE NO NO NO DATE 0001794 A17192 A17192 -A 15610 15610 A 15610 B 15610 C 15610 D A17193 15610 E 15610 F 15610 G 15610 H 15610 I 15610 J 15610 K 15610 L 15610 M 15610 N A17183 A17184 0000164 538009 538007 538007 -A GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 005282 00 03/08/2006 005283 00 03/08/2006 005421 22203 00 04/01/2006 005422 22203 00 04/01/2006 005424 22203 00 04/01/2006 005425 22203 00 04/01/2006 005426 22203 00 04/01/2006 005284 00 03/08/2006 005428 22203 00 04/01/2006 005429 22203 00 04/01/2006 005430 22203 00 04/01/2006 005431 22203 00 04/01/2006 005432 22203 00 04/01/2006 005433 22203 00 04/01/2006 005434 22203 00 04/01/2006 005435 22203 00 04/01/2006 005436 22203 00 04/01/2006 005437 22203 00 04/01/2006 005285 00 03/08/2006 005287 00 03/08/2006 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT 005561 00 03/28/2006 005562 00 03/28/2006 005563 00 03/28/2006 0000005 GENIRBERG, CAROLYN 30504 005364 00 03/14/2006 0002714 GONG, VIVIAN 02/21/06 005593 02/22/06 005594 02/24/06 005595 02/24/06A 005596 02/24/068 005597 01/10/06 005592 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 00 03/21/2006 0004123 GUENTHER CONSTRUCTION 11357 005325 00 03/21/2006 0000005 HANRAHAN, KIM 30299 005296 00 03/07/2006 0000188 HAWKINS TRAFFIC SAFETY ACCOUNT NO 001- 3030 532.51 -03 001 3030 532.57 -36 201- 3201 532.54 -36 202- 3202 532.54 -36 203- 3203 532.54 -36 209- 3209 532.54 -36 210- 3210 532.54 -36 211- 3211 532.56 -16 211 3211 532.54 -36 212 3212 532.54 -36 215- 3215 532.54 -36 216 3216 532.54 -36 217- 3217 532.54 -36 222 3222 532.54 -36 226 3226 532.54 -36 227- 3227 532.54 -36 228- 3228 532.54 -36 229 3229 532.54 -36 352- 0210- 622.52 -41 352- 0210 622.52 -41 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION PK01UD *CNGRS PK LSCP UPGR PK01UD *CNGRS PK LSCP UPGR LL03UD *MAR LSCAPE -MANR DR LL03UD *MAR LSCAPE- FREDRCK LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE GRNBRIAR LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE MCCRTYVL LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE TRCIA WD LL02UD *PLNTS @ARIVA MEDIAN LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE ARROYO LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE LUTAR CT LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE BONNET LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE BCHAMPS LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE SUNLAND LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE PRIDES LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE BELGROVE LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE CNNGHAM LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE KERWN RA LL03UD *MAR -LSCPE TOLLGATE CP01UD *PLNTS @SAR /SVAL MED CP01UD *PLNT @SAR AVE -01/24 VENDOR TOTAL 001 1035 512.56 -15 EQ02UD *WHEEL /REPLACE TIRE 001 3005 532.35 -22 ST02UD *GENERATOR 001 3005 532.35 -22 ST02UD *GENERATOR VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005- 445.03 -00 RCO3KC *CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 001 1040- 513.31 -70 FNO2JI *CSMFO BRKFST 001 1040 513.31 -70 FNO2JI *CSMFO DINNER 001 1040 513.31 -70 FNO2JI *CSMFO AIR TICKET 001 1040 513.31 -70 FNO2JI *CSMFO CAR RENTAL 001 1040 513.31 -70 FNO2JI *CSMFO HOTEL 001 1065 513.34 -61 ITO1JI *HTE NEEDS ASSESS VENDOR TOTAL 001 1060 513.52 -44 FMO2KC *REPAIR FLOORS VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005- 445.04 -00 RCO3KC *CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 934.00 1,561.00 160.00 266.00 220.00 215.00 75.00 98.96 85.00 85.00 255.00 85.00 340.00 450.00 1,985.00 145.00 340.00 90.00 1,369.50 2,332.46 14,821.92 40.00 302.21 584.36 926.57 49.00 49.00 3.77 17.13 274.20 161.06 422.78 30.00 908.94 650.00 650.00 20.00 20.00 PAGE 6 HAND- ISSUED PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000188 HAWKINS TRAFFIC SAFETY 080353 005527 00 04/02/2006 0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS 25448 005281 00 03/10/2006 001 3030 532.57 36 PKO2UD *LITTLE LEAGUE CAGE 0002465 231233 231232 INDUSTRIAL WIPER SUPPY, INC. 005524 00 02/18/2006 005525 00 02/03/2006 0001745 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS 102089 005175 00 03/22/2006 150- 3015 532.35 -22 GTO2JI *CONE SIGNS 102160 005530 00 03/27/2006 150- 3015 532.35 -22 GTO9JI *TRAFFIC SIGNS 0000209 JAMELLO, NANCY 11317 -1 B 005301 11318 -1 B 005302 11319 -1 B 005303 11320 -1 B 005304 0000466 KUHN, BRIAN 13501 -1 A 005348 13503 -1 A 005349 13505 -1 A 005350 13507 -1 A 005351 13508 -1 A 005352 13509 -1 A 005353 00 03/07/2006 00 03/07/2006 00 03/07/2006 00 03/07/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 0004072 LAKE, ARTHUR DBA LAKE TRAFFIC SOLUT EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 150- 3015 532.35 -22 GTO9JI *TRAFFIC SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 001 3020 532.35 -22 FDO9JI *RAINSUITS /BOOTS 001 3020 532.35 -22 FDO9JI *RAINSUITS /GLASSES VENDOR TOTAL VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- YOGA 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- YOGA 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- YOGA 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- YOGA VENDOR TOTAL 0004176 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC 09346737 005591 00 03/15/2006 001 3030 532.35 -22 PKO2JI *POP UP ROTOR VENDOR TOTAL 0000220 JOSHI, BHARATI 11213 -1 005305 00 03/07/2006 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- COOKING VENDOR TOTAL 0001529 KELLY MOORE PAINT CO. INC. 808711182 005323 00 03/28/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FMO2KC *PAINT SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005 564.53-10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC KARATE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- KARATE 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC KARATE VENDOR TOTAL 0004162 KURTZMAN KOLLER 02/28/2006 005417 00 03/28/2006 001- 1025 511.54 -04 ATO2UD *ATTRNY SERVS- FEB VENDOR TOTAL 1,709.12 1,709.12 214.84 214.84 245.77 302.50 548.27 142.08 505.53 647.61 150.40 144.80 206.80 75.20 577.20 311.57 311.57 42.20 42.20 138.31 138.31 215.60 196.00 281.60 307.20 271.60 280.00 1,552.00 45.00 45.00 PAGE 7 PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0004072 LAKE, ARTHUR DBA LAKE TRAFFIC SOLUT 05- 1278 -1 005401 22176 00 03/22/2006 701- 1701 622.35 -22 CP02UD *SPEED CUSHION 14,265.96 VENDOR TOTAL 14,265.96 0002858 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC. 39236 005404 22202 00 04/01/2006 001 3030 532.54 -36 PK03UD *CNGRS PK MAINT -MAR 345.00 39236 -A 005405 22202 00 04/01/2006 001- 3030 532.54 -36 PK03UD *BCHAMPS MAINT -MAR 175.00 39236 -B 005406 22202 00 04/01/2006 001 3030 532.54 -36 PK03UD *RAVEN WD MAINT -MAR 95.00 39236-C 005407 22202 00 04/01/2006 001 3030 532.54 -36 PK03UD *AZULE PK MAINT -MAR 485.00 38891 005286 00 03/08/2006 224- 3224 532.54 -36 LL12UD *EMPTYTRASH DEC -JAN 1,000.00 39236 -D 005408 22202 00 04/01/2006 224- 3224 532.54 -36 LL03UD +VLG COMM MAINT -MAR 165.00 VENDOR TOTAL 2,265.00 0000005 M.S.A. /ATTN: LYNN PENOYER 3/16/06B 005550 00 03/17/2006 001 3005 532.31 -91 ST09JI *MEMBERSHIP /JESUS 60.00 3/16/06A 005549 00 03/17/2006 001 3025 532.31 -91 MP09JI *MEMBERSHIP /SHAWN 60.00 VENDOR TOTAL 120.00 0000005 M.S.A. /ATTN: LYNN PENOYER 3/16/06 005548 00 03/17/2006 001 3025 532.31 -91 MP09JI *MEMBERSHIP /MEEK 60.00 VENDOR TOTAL 60.00 0000005 MAGGIE LEVINE 66341 005551 00 03/17/2006 250- 4010 444.01 -00 ZA08JI *PERMIT REFUND 75.00 VENDOR TOTAL 75.00 0000287 MCDOWELL ASSOCIATES, INC. 03/20/2006 005572 00 03/28/2006 001 3035 532.51 -70 EG02UD *FEB -MT EDEN ROAD 1,260.00 03/17/2006 005573 22230 00 03/20/2006 250- 4020 542.56 -75 DR02UD *FEB -LAND OF SPITTS 3,150.00 VENDOR TOTAL 4,410.00 0002399 METAL FAB, INC. 24428 005160 00 03/23/2006 001 3020 532.35 -22 FD02JI *MONUMENT LIDS 303.10 VENDOR TOTAL 303.10 0002501 METEORA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. 1543 005415 00 04/01/2006 290 6005 564.55-80 RCO2UD *SPRNG 2006 BROCHUR 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 0000274 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 2006030016 005519 00 03/28/2006 001 1025 511.51 -20 AT02UD *LGL SERV -FEB -HEINZ 21.60 VENDOR TOTAL 21.60 0000277 MIKE'S GARDENING 285 005402 22204 00 04/01/2006 203- 3203 532.54 -36 LL02UD *GRNBRIAR GARD -FEB 210.00 285 -A 005403 22204 00 04/01/2006 225 3225 532.54 -36 LL02UD *LEGENDS GARDNG -FEB 255.00 VENDOR TOTAL 465.00 0002972 MILLMAN INDUSTRIAL CARPENTERS 03/02/06 005120 00 03/21/2006 001 0000 210.20 -16 PR03KC *PR03/02/06 DEDUC. 150.00 PAGE 8 PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0002972 MILLMAN INDUSTRIAL CARPENTERS 03/16/06 005374 00 03/21/2006 001 0000 210.20 -16 PRO2KC *PR 031606 DEDUC 150.00 0004167 MINORITY EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT NEW 6030194 005544 00 04/01/2006 001 3005 532.31 -01 STO9JI *SUBSCRIPTION 500.00 VENDOR TOTAL 500.00 0002606 MPA DESIGN, INC. 0010621 005556 00 03/17/2006 791- 4791 622.51 -50 CPO1UD *KVN MORAN PARK -JAN 1,148.75 VENDOR TOTAL 1,148.75 0001997 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 325691559 -001 005322 00 03/20/2006 326118237 -001 005321 00 03/20/2006 326813276 -001 005537 00 03/29/2006 0002994 OKIN, LENA 11501 -3 A 005308 0000302 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 02/26/06 005333 00 03/26/2006 2/26/2006A 005529 00 03/23/2006 2/26/2006 005528 00 03/23/2006 0004172 11605 -3 11605 -1 11605 -2 OROZ, DIANE 005378 005379 005380 0000307 PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC 03/03/06 005500 00 03/20/2006 03/03/06A 005501 00 03/20/2006 0000914 PAPA 042006 005165 051006 005166 071906 005167 051006A 005168 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/23/2006 00 03/27/2006 00 03/27/2006 00 03/27/2006 0000933 PENINSULA BUILDING MATERIALS EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 001 1045 513.35 -21 HRO3KC *OFFICE SUPPLIES 001 1050 513.35 -50 GS03KC *COPY PAPER 001 3035- 532.35 -21 EGO9JI *OFFICE SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 00 03/07/2006 290- 6005- 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- BEAD ART VENDOR TOTAL 001 1060 513.32 -51 FMO2KC *FACILITIES SUPPLY 001 3005 532.35 -22 STO9JI *STREETS SUPPLIES 001 3025 532.35 -22 MPO9JI *PARKS SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC ETIQUETTE 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC ETIQUETTE 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC ETIQUETTE VENDOR TOTAL 001 1035 512.41 -02 EQ02UD *NATURAL GAS -FEB 001 1035 512.41 -02 EQ02UD *NATURAL GAS -FEB VENDOR TOTAL 001 3030 532.36 -71 PKO2JI *CONFERENCE -ASHBY 001 3030 532.36 -71 PK02JI *CONFERENCE -BEAN 001 3030 532.36 -71 PKO2JI *CONFERENCE -BEAN 001 3030 532.36 -71 PK02JI *CONFERENCE -MEEK 231.97 382.12 32.91 647.00 88.00 88.00 211.17 379.79 365.69 956.65 280.00 140.00 455.00 875.00 12.80 274.33 287.13 0002574 PACIFIC PRODUCTS SERVICES 5004 005533 00 04/01/2006 001 3005 532.35 -22 STO9JI *ROLL UP SIGN 162.38 4650 005534 00 03/17/2006 001 3005 532.35 -22 STO9JI *CREDIT FOR SIGN 65.11- VENDOR TOTAL 97.27 65.00 65.00 65.00 65.00 VENDOR TOTAL 260.00 PAGE 9 PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND ISSUED NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 0000933 PENINSULA BUILDING MATERIALS 6243478 005173 00 03/23/2006 001 3005 532.35 -22 STO2JI *STREET SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL 0000979 PETROTEK 2006583 005564 00 03/28/2006 001 1035 512.54 -33 EQ02UD *OPERATR INSPECTN VENDOR TOTAL 0002923 POWERS, SUZANNE 14424 -1 A 005342 14424 -2 A 005343 14424 -3 005347 VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 QUEEN'S TREES 0602441 005370 00 03/14/2006 001 -1040- 413.05 -00 FNO3KC *REFUND DUP BUS LIC VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 R.C. S. AGARWAL 58593 005176 00 03/23/2006 001 3035- 422.03 -00 EG02JI *ENCRCHMNT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0001268 RAILWAY DISTRIBUTING, INC S1400394.001 005336 00 04/02/2006 001 1060 513.32 -51 FM03KC *CEILING TILES VENDOR TOTAL 0000005 RATHJENS, CORINNE 30506 005361 00 03/14/2006 290- 6005- 445.03 -00 RCO3KC *CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 0002893 RATRA, RICK 3595 005162 00 03/22/2006 001- 1035 512.41 -01 EQ02JI *PROPANE VENDOR TOTAL 0002329 0601961 1616 0601962 2157 1667 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, INC. 005275 00 03/08/2006 005276 00 03/08/2006 005277 00 03/08/2006 005557 00 03/17/2006 005559 00 03/17/2006 0003138 ROBINSON, LAURIE BF5MYO 005315 BWZMYZ 005316 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 00 03/13/2006 0000344 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 7806711 005398 00 03/28/2006 7804705 005439 00 03/17/2006 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- PONIES 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- PONIES 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- PONIES 150- 3015 532.57 -36 GT01UD *TRFC SIGNAL RSPNSE 150- 3015 532.57 -36 GT01UD *CALL RESPONSE 150- 3015- 532.50 -97 GT01UD *TRFC SGNL MAIN -JAN 150- 3015 532.57 -36 GT03UD *REPLACE FIXTURE 352- 9201- 622.52 -41 CP12UD *IRRGN CNTRL CONNEC VENDOR TOTAL 00 03/08/2006 290 6005 564.36 -71 RCO3KC *AIR FARE VERMNT TR 00 03/08/2006 290 6005 564.36 -71 RCO3KC *AIR FARE VERMNT TR VENDOR TOTAL 250 4015 542.55 -43 IS02UD *ENLRGMNTS /MICROFLM 250- 4015 542.55 -43 IS02UD *MAPS 81.62 81.62 200.00 200.00 92.00 92.00 276.00 460.00 126.50 126.50 300.00 300.00 139.66 139.66 50.00 50.00 35.95 35.95 3,009.71 2,279.90 1,050.00 765.58 675.00 7,780.19 99.30 69.30 168.60 448.51 180.80 PAGE 10 PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE NO NO NO DATE 0000344 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT 7805875 005399 00 03/22/2006 0000346 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 03/03/2006 005491 00 03/24/2006 03/03/2006 A 005492 00 03/24/2006 03/03/2006 C 005494 00 03/24/2006 03/03/2006 B 005493 00 03/24/2006 03/03/2006 D 005495 00 03/24/2006 03/03/2006 E 005496 00 03/24/2006 03/03/2006 F 005497 00 03/24/2006 03/13/2006 K 005523 00 04/03/2006 03/13/2006 H 005520 00 04/03/2006 03/13/2006 M 005576 00 04/03/2006 03/13/2006 I 005521 00 04/03/2006 03/13/2006 N 005577 00 04/03/2006 03/13/2006 J 005522 00 04/03/2006 03/13/2006 0 005578 00 04/03/2006 03/03/2006 G 005498 00 03/24/2006 03/13/2006 P 005579 00 04/03/2006 0000353 SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 03/03/06 005127 00 04/03/2006 6444 005314 00 03/02/2006 03/03/06 VOID 005372 00 04/03/2006 0000342 SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS TV 11064 -1 005383 00 03/21/2006 0000356 SARATOGA TREE SERVICE 5296 005420 00 03/15/2006 0000357 SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 0506037 0002887 SBC 02/20/2006 005504 0002814 SBC LONG DISTANCE 005449 00 03/16/2006 00 03/16/2006 ACCOUNT NO 351- 0203- 622.31 -01 CP02UD *PPC BOND STAPLING 001 1060 513.41 -04 001 1060 513.41 -04 001 3025 532.41 -04 001 3030 532.41 -04 201- 3201 532.41 -04 205-3205 532.41 -04 206 3206 532.41 -04 210 3210 532.41 -04 216 3216 532.41 -04 217- 3217 532.41 -04 224 3224 532.41 -04 225- 3225 532.41 -04 227- 3227 532.41 -04 228 3228 532.41 -04 229 3229 532.41 -04 231- 3231 532.41 -04 0004099 SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS 03/15/06 005396 00 03/15/2006 001 2005- 521.56 -09 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTAL FMO2UD *BUILDINGS -FEB FMO2UD *NORTH CAMPUS -FEB PK02UD *MEDIANS /PRKWAY -FEB PK02UD *PRKS /OPENSPACE -FEB PK02UD *MANOR DRIVE -FEB PK02UD *AZULE LIGHTING -FEB PK02UD *SARAHILL LITNG FEB PK03UD *TRICIA 1/09 -3/08 PK02UD *BEAUCHAMP1 /09 -3/08 LL03UD *SUNLND 01/09 -03/08 PK03UD *VLG COMM 1/09 -3/08 LL03UD *MINAWY 01/09 -03/08 PK03UD *CUNINGHM 1/09 -3/08 LL03UD *KRANCH 01/09 -03/08 PK02UD *TOLLGATE- FEB LL03UD *HSHOE 01/09 -03/08 VENDOR TOTAL CM03KC *TIS RADIO LICENSE VENDOR TOTAL 001 1020 511.35 -22 MG03KC *CITY MAP -50% PAID 001 1020 511.31 -91 MG03KC *Q4/05 INSTALLMNT 001 1020 511.35 -22 MG03KC *VOID VOUCHER005127 VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC ACCESS TV VENDOR TOTAL 203 3203 532.57 -06 LL03UD *RMV TREE ON FENCE VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005 564.50 -61 RCO3KC *RENT FIELD SEP -NOV VENDOR TOTAL 001 1050 513.41 -03 GS03UD *MNTLY 02/20 -03/19 VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 88.12 717.43 385.46 153.95 976.35 1,637.32 41.82 123.48 83.64 9.44 142.81 106.59 4,039.99 208.26 32.52 148.06 20.90 83.15 8,193.74 384.00 384.00 400.00 2,603.86 400.00- 2,603.86 380.00 380.00 337.50 337.50 100.00 100.00 87.34 87.34 PAGE 11 HAND ISSUED PREPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE NO NO NO DATE 0002814 SBC LONG DISTANCE 02/04/2006 004998 00 03/21/2006 0002581 SBC /MCI T4762182 005505 T4762190 T4778649 T4761324 T4762189 T4762169 T4778646 T4778667 T4778647 T4762177 T4762120 T4778668 T4778669 0004111 SELLERS ASSOCIATES 104 005397 22279 00 03/28/2006 0000005 SERRANO, GALDINA 65073 0000005 SEVEREIJNS, PETER 30378 005295 00 03/07/2006 0002125 11216 -1 11236 -1 A 0004166 SHARPENING MECHANICS 18370 005547 00 03/03/2006 0000005 30505 005506 005514 005517 005518 005507 005513 005515 005509 005510 005511 005512 005516 005369 SEVERO, ROSA 005340 005341 SHIMIZU, ROY 005362 0002179 SHINN, CORINNE A. 03/08/2006 005555 00 03/17/2006 0000005 SHIRIAM, VIJAY 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 04/03/2006 00 03/14/2006 00 03/07/2006 00 03/13/2006 00 03/14/2005 ACCOUNT NO 001 1050 513.41 -03 001 1050 513.41 -03 001 1050 513.41 -03 001 1050 513.41 -03 001- 1050- 513.41 -03 001- 2005-521.41 -03 001 2005- 521.41 -03 001 2005- 521.41 -03 001- 3030 532.41 -03 001 3030 532.41 -03 001- 3030 532.41 -03 001 3030 532.41 -03 001- 3030 532.41 -03 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION 001 1050 513.41 -03 GS01UD *MNTHLY BILL -JAN VENDOR TOTAL GS02UD *1/01 -2/12 ALRM PHN GS02UD *1/01 -2/12 SNR CNTR GS02UD *1 /1 -2/12 CPYRM XR GS02UD *1 /1 -2/12 MNTLY GS02UD *1 /1 -2/12 SUPR TRNK EP02UD *1/01 -2/12 EMGCY EP02UD *1 /1 -2/12 EMPEMGCY GS02UD *1 /1 -2/12 CM -EMGCY PK02UD *PH LNS &PK1 /01 -2/12 PK02UD *CORP YRD 1/01 -2/12 PK02UD *BLNY PH 1/01 -2/12 PK02UD *1 /1 -2/12 BUSINS LN GS02UD *1 /1 -2/12 CNGRS PK VENDOR TOTAL 001 1005 511.57 -08 CCO2UD *TEA CONSLTNG -FEB VENDOR TOTAL 290 0000 260.00 -00 RCO3KC *DEPOSIT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 RCO3KC *CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 290- 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- COOKING 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- COOKING VENDOR TOTAL 001 3025 532.32 -21 MP08JI *MANTIS TILLER VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005- 445.03 -00 RCO3KC *CLASS REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 250- 4010 542.55 -35 ZA03UD *PLNG COMM MIN -MAR VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 38.67 38.67 86.39 29.31 14.19 177.22 747.40 206.30 14.16 14.45 21.22 165.70 14.48 38.43 42.19 1,571.44 1,190.00 1,190.00 300.00 300.00 155.00 155.00 68.00 280.00 348.00 389.68 389.68 100.00 100.00 450.00 450.00 PAGE 12 HAND ISSUED PRPARED 03/22/2006, 8:41:09 PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE NO NO NO DATE 0000005 SHIRIAM, VIJAY 65014 005366 00 03/10/2006 0001843 13757 13758 13758 A 13758 B 13758 C 13758 D 13756 13756 A 13756 B 13756 D 13756 E 13756 F 13756 C 13759 13759 A 13759 B 0000272 36613 36433 36340 36253 75226E SHUTE, MIHALY WEINBERGER LLP 005427 00 03/28/2006 005450 005451 005452 005453 005454 005455 005456 005457 005459 005460 005461 005458 005581 005598 005599 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 00 03/28/2006 0002474 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 221984 -IN 005169 00 03/21/2006 SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY 005539 00 03/15/2006 005541 00 03/01/2006 005542 00 02/25/2006 005543 00 02/18/2006 0000384 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. 0000005 TERI DAHLBECK 1985A 005553 00 03/17/2006 0000005 TERRASAS, VANESSA 65048 005365 00 03/10/2006 0001795 TLC ADMINISTRATORS INC. 28212 005317 00 04/01/2006 0002438 TURF STAR, INC. 005279 00 03/18/2006 ACCOUNT NO 001 1025 511.51 -19 001 1025- 511.51 -21 001 1025 511.51 -21 001 1025 511.51 -21 001 1025 511.51 -21 001 1025 511.51 -21 001 1025 511.51 -11 001 1025 511.51 -13 001 1025- 511.51 -14 001 1025 511.51 -16 001 1025 511.51 -18 001 1025 511.51 -19 250- 2010 522.51 -15 250- 4010 542.51 -32 250 -4010- 444.30 -00 800 0000 260.60 -00 001 3030 532.35 -22 250- 4010 542.31 -02 250- 4010 542.31 -02 250- 4010 542.31 -02 250- 4010 542.31 -02 001 3020 532.51 -73 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION 290 0000 260.00 -00 RCO3KC *DEPOSIT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL ATO1KC *LGL SRV -CTY MGRJAN ATO1KC *LGL SRV -JONES JAN ATO1KC *LGL SRV -JONES JAN ATO1KC *LGL SRV -JONES JAN ATO1KC *LGL SRV -JONES JAN ATO1KC *LGL SRV -JONES JAN ATO1KC *GEN LGL SRV AS JAN ATO1KC *GEN LGL SRV PW JAN ATO1KC *GEN LGL SRV CD JAN ATO1KC *OFC MRS/CC MTG JAN ATO1KC *LITIGATION MGT JAN ATO1KC *GN LGL SRV CM JAN CEO1KC *LGL SV CO ENFR JAN ZAO1KC *LGL SERV CD JAN ZAO1KC *LGL SERV CD JAN ZA01KC *LGL SERV CD JAN VENDOR TOTAL PK02JI *CASCADE GRANULAR VENDOR TOTAL ZA08JI *PL COM HRNG 3/8/06 ZAO8JI *PL COM HRNG 2/22 ZA07JI *ZONING AMEND 2/20 ZA07JI *PL COM HRNG 2/8/06 VENDOR TOTAL FD02UD *CLEAN UP DEBRIS VENDOR TOTAL 605- 4605- 444.31 -00 ZA08JI *PL DEP REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 290- 0000 260.00 -00 RCO3KC *DEPOSIT REFUND VENDOR TOTAL 001 1045 513.57 -01 HR03KC *MAR2006FEE -SEC 125 VENDOR TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 300.00 300.00 337.50 1,049.49 6,138.18 5,974.83 355.95 3,054.22 54.23 5,337.50 1,246.00 3,062.50 52.50 3,237.50 35.00 325.00 325.00- 325.00 30,260.40 193.23 193.23 91.00 78.00 156.00 104.00 429.00 9,349.60 9,349.60 276.00 276.00 300.00 300.00 175.00 175.00 PAGE 13 HAND ISSUED PREPARED 03/22/2006, PROGRAM: GM339L CITY OF SARATOGA VEND NO VENDOR NAME INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. NO NO NO 0002438 TURF STAR, INC. 6453898 -00 005174 0000323 U.S. POSTMASTERS 03/15/06 005394 0000179 VERIZON WIRELESS 2023189725 005582 2023189725 A 005583 2023189725 H 2023189725 E 2023189725 F 2023189725 G 2023189725 D 2023189725 C 2023189725 B 0004014 VIEIRA, CIDA 11435 -1 0000426 WEST COAST BLDG, SERVICE 31217 005280 00 03/08/2006 0004170 11354 -1 11355 -1 005590 005587 005588 005589 005586 005585 005584 005309 WUERZ, ANGELA 005344 005345 0000440 XEROX CORPORATION 015859179 005000 00 04/01/2006 013447453 005499 00 03/16/2006 0000443 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 66504961 005320 00 04/02/2006 8:41:09 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST AS OF: 04/03/2006 CHECK DATE: 03/22/2006 BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT DATE NO 00 03/23/2006 00 03/15/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/30/2006 00 03/07/2006 00 03/10/2006 00 03/10/2006 ITEM DESCRIPTION 001 3030 532.35 -22 PKO2JI *WHEEL VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005 564.35 -51 RCO3KC *SUMMER BROCHURE VENDOR TOTAL 001 1020 511.41 -03 001 1050 513.41 -03 001 1060 513.57 -91 001 3005 532.41 -03 001- 3030 532.41 -03 001 3035 532.41 -03 250- 2010 522.41 -03 250- 4010 542.41 -03 250- 4015 542.41 -03 MGO2UD *CITY MNGR -FEB GSO2UD *GENARAL SERVS -FEB FMO2UD *REC- FACLTIES -FEB ST02UD *PW- STREETS -FEB PK02UD *PW -PARKS -FEB EG02UD *PW- ENGNRNG -FEB CEO2UD *CODE ENFRCMNT -FEB ZAO2UD *COMMNTY DEV -FEB ISO2UD *INSPECTORS -FEB VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC- DANCE VENDOR TOTAL 001- 3030 532.56 -18 PK1OUD *JNTRL SERV- OCT /05 VENDOR TOTAL 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC -YOGA 290 6005 564.53 -10 RCO3KC *INSTRUC -YOGA VENDOR TOTAL 001 1050 513.51 -71 GSO2UD *COPIER LEASE -FEB 001 1050 513.51 -71 GS1OUD *COPIER LEASE -OCTO5 VENDOR TOTAL 001 1045 513.35 -21 HRO3KC *FIRST AID SUPPLIES VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNT 124.54 124.54 2,200.00 2,200.00 558.23 218.11 182.81 273.32 230.21 172.18 49.39 88.93 187.84 1,961.02 282.00 282.00 695.00 695.00 176.00 154.00 330.00 726.90 726.90 1,453.80 55.42 55.42 441,436.76 PAGE HAND ISSUED 441,436.76 76e116 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Resolution to Provide Funding Allocation for the Joe Gonsalves Sons Contract RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: At the March 15, 2006 the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with Joe Gonsalves Son for the purpose of legislative representation. Gonsalves Son will assist our local legislative consultant, Greg Sellers, in advocating on behalf of Saratoga and the other affected cities before the State Legislature to support AB 117. The cost of this contract is $3,000 per month retainer, the remainder of the FY 05 -06 would total $12,000. A funding source was not designated at the March 15 meeting. Staff is requesting that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the allocation of $12,000 from Council Contingency. Funds for FY 06 -07 can be integrated in the upcoming budget process. The cities of Cupertino and Monte Sereno have agreed to contribute to the cost of the contract during this legislative session to facilitate the passage of AB 117. FISCAL IMPACTS: a DEPT HEAD: Cathleen Boyer.'Ci v Clerk Dave Anderson, City Manager Current YTD Balance Budget Revised Account Use of Funds Budget Expenses Available Revisions Budget Number 001- 1005 -511- Council Contingency 94,000 61,300 32,700 (12,000) 20,700 5135 Council Legislative 001- 1005 -511- Representative 12,000 12,000 5xxx Total Use of Funds 94,000 61,300 32,700 32,700 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Finding for this contract would not be available. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council could direct staff to use another funding source. FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING A BUDGET TRANSFER OF $12,000 FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY TO FUND THE CONTRACT WITH JOE GONSALVES SONS WHEREAS, on February 28, 2006, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to support the return of the full TEA allocation to Saratoga, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, and Los Altos Hills; and WHEREAS, the Board also supported AB 117, which would restore full funding to the four affected cities; and WHEREAS, the passage of AB 117 will be challenging because it will require a two thirds vote in the Assembly and Senate; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2006, in order to successfully move AB 117 through Sacramento, the City Council authorized a contract with Joe Gonsalves Sons; and WHEREAS, Gonsalves Sons are legislative lobbyist based in Sacramento, which have a reputation for being an advocate for low /no property tax cities and has an unparallel experience with the TEA issue; and WHEREAS, the Gonsalves firm will assist our local legislative consultant, Greg Sellers, in advocating on beheld of Saratoga and the other four affected cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby authorize the appropriation of $12,000 from the Council Contingency to be used to fund the Gonsalves contract for the remainder of FY 05 -06. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 5 day of April 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Norman Kline, Mayor MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public W rks n q-z-k PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik, Assoc. Engineer SUBJECT: Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair Award of Construction Contract RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Move to declare Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair project. 2. Award a construction contract for Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair to Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. in the amount of $189,300 and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract in the amount of $18,930 and for other miscellaneous expenses associated with the project up to $2,195. REPORT SUMMARY: Background As part of the Release and Settlement Agreement dated January 25, 2006 between the City of Saratoga and Cecil R. and Gudrun T. Jones, the City of Saratoga agreed to repair and restore an existing subdrain underneath Haymeadow Drive. Discussion SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: 2_ 31 eVJz JO Cherbone, PW Director Sealed bids for Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair project were opened on March 23, 2006. A total of two contractors submitted bids and a summary of the bids received is attached (Attachement 1). Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. of Redwood City submitted the lowest bid of $189,300. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the listed references and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice inviting Sealed Bids dated March 1, 2006. The scope of work includes furnishing all materials, labor, equipment, transportation and services for the replacement of a subdrain pipe underneath Haymeadow Drive to collect underground water and divert it directly into a storm drain system. Therefore staff recommends award of construction contract to Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. in the amount of $189,300. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for this project in the amount of $183,925 is available from the Council- approved Settlement Agreement. The remainder funding needed for the construction contingency and miscellaneous expenses is available in the adopted budget in contract services. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible bidder and a construction contract will not be awarded to that company. The Council may make specific findings to declare another bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all the bids and direct staff to re -bid the entire project again. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The contract will be executed and the contractor will be issued Notice to Proceed. Work will begin as soon as possible and be completed within 45 calendar days. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bid Summary. 2. Construction Contract. BID SUMMARY Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair CITY OF SARATOGA Bid Opening Date: March 23, 2006, 10:00 a.m. ATTACHMENT 1 Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. George Bianchi Construction, Inc. ITEM QUANTITY UNITS DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL BASE BID ITEMS 1 1 LS Subdrain repair including trenching, shoring, bracing, removal of existing damaged subdrain pipe, removal of existing outfall structure, intallation of new subdrain pipe and two cleanouts, subdrain connection to existing storm drain manhole, filter fabric installation, backfill, compaction, paving, curb repair, traffic control and all site work per attached plans and specifications. a a. 194,115.00 189,300.00 TOTAL BASE BID ITEMS 189,300.00 194,115.00 BID SUMMARY Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair CITY OF SARATOGA Bid Opening Date: March 23, 2006, 10:00 a.m. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION HAYMEADOW DRIVE SUBDRAIN REPAIR Contract No. 1 Contract for Construction 73 THIS CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION is made and entered into this day of 200 by and between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation (herein called CITY) and Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. a California corporation, a partnership or an individual (circle one) located at 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, CA 94063, herein called Contractor. (3) The Notice Inviting Bids RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared in the manner prescribed by law, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the public work of construction of Haymeadow Drive Subdrain Repair herein described and shown and has approved and adopted the Contract Documents, including the specifications and plans, and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law a Notice Inviting Bids for the work described in the Contract Documents, and B. WHEREAS, the Contractor in response to the City's Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10 of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed work in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents, and C. WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and declared the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to the Contractor a contract for all of the work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract. Accordingly, CITY and Contractor agree as follows: (1) CONTRACT SUM: CITY agrees to pay, and the Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for the above work, the sum of One Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred dollars ($189,300) to be paid in accordance with the Contract Documents. (2) COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: CITY is a public agency. All provisions of law applicable to public contracts are a part of this contract to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with by the Contractor. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The following Contract Documents relating to this Contract for Construction are hereby made a part of and incorporated by reference into this Contract: Contract for Construction 74 Information for Bidders Statement of Experience and Qualifications Bid Form Contract Proposal, Faithful Performance Bond Labor and Materials Payment Bond Contractor's Certificate Regarding Worker's Compensation Certificate of Insurance and Endorsements, Affidavit Concerning Conflicts of Interest and Noncompetitive Practices Fair Employment Practices Certificate General Conditions, Special Conditions and Attachments thereto, State of California Department of Transportation Standard Plans and Specifications, current year Plans and Specifications prepared by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates dated February 23, 2006 and supplemental agreements, certifications, and endorsements applicable to this work, with all modifications incorporated in said documents prior to receipt of the Contract Proposals. Any work called for in one contract document not mentioned in another is to be performed and executed the same as if mentioned in all Contract Documents. This Agreement (including all documents referred to above and incorporated herein) represents the entire and integrated Agreement between CITY and Contractor for the Project and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by written instrument, as provided in the General Conditions. (4) PROHIBITED INTEREST. Contractor represents that to the best of its knowledge no director, officer, or employee of CITY has any interest, contractual or non contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor. If any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information shall be made in writing to CITY, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article IV Division 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Division 4.5 (commencing with Contract for Construction 75 (5) (7) Section 3600) of the Government Code of the State of California. No member, officer, or employee of CITY or of any of its member jurisdictions during his /her tenure of office, or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract or the proceeds therefrom. NOTICES. Any notices to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal delivery, fax or mail. Mail shall be sent registered or certified, postage pre -paid, return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth below, but each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. Notices delivered personally shall be effective immediately. Notices sent by mail shall be effective one (1) day after mailing. Notices sent by facsimile shall be effective upon transmission to the number set forth below. CITY OF SARATOGA Public Works Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1241 CONTRACTOR George Drew Soil Engineering Construction 927 Arguello Street Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 (6) Warranties. The Contractor hereby warrants and guarantees for one (1) year from and after the date of completion of the services provided for in this Agreement that said materials and labor necessary for the HAYMEADOW DRIVE SUBDRAIN REPAIR, Contract No. 1 shall operate as provided for in the Technical Specifications and Contract Documents. During the term of this warranty, Contractor shall provide all materials, parts and labor, at its own expense, which are necessary to repair and /or correct any and all defects, installation or operational failures in the equipment from any cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be required to bear the expense of correction of any failure in the equipment that is caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of City. The warranties of each part or component supplied are in addition to the warranties required of Contractor in the Contract Documents. Waiver. No waiver of any breach of the terms, conditions or covenants of this contract shall be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or any other covenants, conditions or terms of this contract. The waiver by any party of a breach of this Contract shall not constitute a continuing waiver, or a waiver of any subsequent breach, either of the same of different provision of this Contract. (8) Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this contract. Contract for Construction 76 (9) Controlling Law. This contract and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. (10) Entire Agreement. It is expressly agreed between CITY and Contractor that this contract, including the documents listed in paragraph 3 and incorporated herein, expresses the complete agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, agreements and understandings between them regarding the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement between the parties as provided in the Contract Documents. CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD WHICH HAS JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST CONTRACTORS IF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A PATENT ACT OR OMISSION IS FILED WITHIN FOUR (4) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. A COMPLAINT REGARDING A LATENT ACT OR OMISSION PERTAINING TO STRUCTURAL DEFECTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD, P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826. Contract for Construction 77 This Agreement is executed by CITYlupon approval by the Council at its regular scheduled meeting of and the Contractor has caused this Agreement to be duly excuted. CITY OF SARATOGA CONTRACTOR: By: By: i .y C V Dave Anderson (Auth _d Re resentative of City Manager Contractor) Dated: 20 Printed Name: G Ce5r7ro GJr'ery ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer City Clerk Dated: 20 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, City Attorney Dated: 20,., (Contractor Signatures must be Notarized) Contract for Construction Title; Q (Attach Ack owiedgment for Aut r rized Representative! of Contractor) Contractors License No.: 4 Expiration Detr ?:?7 91a$ Dated: 3/36 2006 78 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Cathleen Boyer, SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting AB 117 (Cohen) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: ty Clerk Dave Anderson, City Manager MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: 'ty Manager's 1 ffice CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: QJ� Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) legislation was passed in the late 1980's to provide relief for smaller cities which historically taxed their citizens at a lower rate. These cities were called "low /no tax cities In Santa Clara County, low /no tax cities are: Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Altos Hill, and Monte Sereno. This legislation limited the four low /no tax cities in Santa Clara to 55% of what other low /no tax cities in the state received in property taxes. Because of this and the increased financial stress the four cities are under, the four cities determined to get the cooperation of Santa Clara County and the State Legislature to remedy the problem. On November 9, 2005 the four cities entered into a professional services contract with Greg Sellers to provide a strategy for approaching the County, develop an effective legislative component, and develop grass roots element that will develop community support. On February 28, 2006 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to support AB 117. On March 15, 2006 the City Council authorized a contract Joe Gonsalves Son for the purpose of legislative representation. Gonsalves Son will assist our local legislative consultant, Greg Sellers, in advocating on behalf of Saratoga and the other affected cities before the State Legislature to support AB 117. The attached resolution states that the City of Saratoga fully supports the passage of AB 117. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council can choose not to adopt the resolution of support. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Send certified copy of resolution to Greg Sellers, Legislative Consultant ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda according to the Brown Act. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Resolution of Support RESOLUTION NO. 06- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA IN SUPPORT OF AB 117 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has received only 55% of its property tax funding due to a legislative agreement put in place in 1988; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has had to cut back services vital to the community due to budget shortfalls; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga deserves the same level of funding as every other city in the state of California; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 117 (Cohn) will restore full property tax TEA funding to the City of Saratoga. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Saratoga does hereby support AB 117 (Cohn). The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Norman Kline, Mayor COMMUNITY SUPPORT Along with the corporate team in Milford, Connecticut the SUBWAY family of franchisees and developers around the world are proud to be active members of our communities. Always pitching in to lend a hand, the SUBWAY team has supported many of the following organizations on both a local, national and worldwide level. This partial listing does not include the many neighborhood efforts that our team supports. For more information about what support is provided in your area contact your local SUBWAY Development Office. American Heart Association- National Sponsor and supporter of Heart Walks around the United States Special Olympics -North American and Local Support Food Banks (Connecticut- corporate sponsor) and many food share programs throughout the world Little League- National Sponsor Jump Rope for Heart- American Heart Association- National and Local Support Junior Achievement SUBWAY Scholarship Fund- promoting continuing education for Sandwich Artists' and restaurant managers around the world American Red Cross- National and Local support SUBWAY Hurricane Katrina Support Fund National Restaurant Association Education Foundation American Cancer Society- National and Local Support SUBWAY Tsunami Relief Fund- supporting those in need Literacy Programs- National and Local support Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation Yale New Haven Hospital (Corporate Support) United Way- local chapter support Long Wharf Theater Internship Program Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (Local) Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Happiness is not so much in having as sharing. We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. Willow Glen 1141 Lincoln Ave San Jose CA 95125 Pacific Grove 190 Country Club Gate Ctr Pacific Grove CA 93950 -5022 Palo Alto 314 University Ave Palo Alto CA 94301 -1715 Palo Alto 421 California Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 Subway Locations in Upscale Small Towns Los Gatos 540 North Santa Cruz Ave., #B Los Gatos CA 95030 Los Gatos (In Development) 14777 Los Gatos Blvd Los Gatos CA 95032 Capitola 1200 41st Ave Begonia Plaza #A Mill Valley 256 Shoreline Hwy Mill Valley CA 94941 Half Moon Bay 80 N Cabrillo Hwy #V1 Strawflower Village Shop Ctr Half Moon Bay CA 94019 Beverly Hills 279 S Beverly Dr Beverly Hills CA 90212 -4542 Brentwood 4431 Balfour Rd Ste E Brentwood CA 94513 Brisbane 150 Old County Rd Brisbane CA 94005 Subway Locations in Upscale Small Towns Brentwood 11762 San Vincente Blvd Brentwood CA 90049 Dublin 7660 Amadora Valley Blvd, Ste F Dublin CA 94568 -2389 Dublin 6000 Dougherty Rd Dublin CA 94568 Pleasanton 1016 Stoneridge Mall Pleasanton CA 94566 Pleasanton 4555 Hopyard Road 23 Pleasanton CA 94588 Pleasanton 6700 Santa Rita Rd Pleasanton CA 94566 Burlingame 1308 Broadway Burlingame CA 94010 Burlingame 1857 El Camino Real Burlingame CA 94010 Danville 9000 Crow Canyon Rd A Village at Tassajara Danville CA 94506 Mill Valley 256 Shoreline Hwy Mill Valley CA 94941 MEETING DATE: April 5, 2006 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: DISCUSSION: ata Vasudevan, AICP Assoc. Planner CITY MANAGER: .1Q�� AGENDA ITEM: DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson A John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Application 06 -306 Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of Application 06 -216 for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Subway sandwich shop at 14410 Big Basin Way (Corinthian Corners). At the March 8, 2006 public hearing, the Planning Commission was presented with an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a Subway sandwich shop in a tenant space within the Corinthian Corners commercial complex. The Planning Commission denied the application with a vote of 5 -2, based on its analysis of the findings required for the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. On March 14, 2006, the applicant and franchise owner for Subway, Miya Glasauer, filed an appeal (Attachment 5) of the Planning Commission's decision pursuant to City Code Article 15 -90. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, consider all public testimony and base its decision on the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a new Subway sandwich shop within a tenant space at 14410 Big Basin Way pursuant to the findings stated in City Code Sections 15- 55.020 and 15- 55.070. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Subway sandwich shop in one of the tenant spaces located within an 11,836 square foot commercial property known as Corinthian Corners. The site is located at the corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and was formerly occupied by a flower shop. The sandwich shop will face Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and will occupy an approximately 960 square foot tenant space between Starbucks and a bicycle shop. Details of the proposed interior tenant space and signage are shown in Attachment 6. The proposed Subway is classified as a restaurant pursuant to the City Code. Establishing and operating a restaurant in any of Saratoga's commercial zoning districts requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. This process acknowledges that this use may be permitted if specified findings can be made, and allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions to ensure that a project is compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with applicable City regulations. A Conditional Use Permit may be granted by the Planning Commission if it has determined that the proposal is consistent with all of the findings stated in City Code Article 15 -55. At the public hearing held on March 8, 2006, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit with a 5 -2 vote. The Planning Commission determined that it could not make all of the findings stated in City Code required for the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 06 -021 denying the Conditional Use Permit for Subway is shown in Attachment 2 and includes the Planning Commission's determination of why the applicant failed to demonstrate that two of the required findings can be met. In summary, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed Subway does not contribute towards preserving and enhancing a pedestrian environment to make the Village more inviting to potential shoppers and diners and does not encourage a town center mix of uses in the Village. The Planning Commission was also concerned that the "drive to and make a quick sandwich pickup" nature of the business could result in some unsafe vehicular circulation in an area that the Planning Commission determined has an unusual road pattern. The Planning Commission minutes for this application are included in Attachment 3. The Planning Commission did not concur with Staff's recommendation of approval of this Conditional Use Permit application. As discussed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, Staff's evaluation concluded that all of the required findings stated in City Code Article 15 -55 could be met. Attachment 2 of this report contains the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the March 8, 2006 public hearing, as well as the Planning Commission Resolution of Denial 06 -021. Consistent with the Planning Commission's denial of this application, Staff is including a draft City Council Resolution of Denial in Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVES: The public hearing may be continued to allow the applicant an opportunity to restudy project related issues raised by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, posted notice, and advertised the notice in the Saratoga News. As of the writing of this Report, Staff has received several correspondences from citizens. They are included in Attachment 4. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft City Council Resolution of Denial 2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolutions 3. Excerpt of Minutes from the March 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting 4. Citizen Correspondences 5. Appeal application 6. Exhibit A to Resolution of Approval CITY COUNCIL REPORT Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06 -306 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING THE APPEAL, THEREBY DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION 06 -216 Subway; 14410 Big Basin Way, Bldg. B Area 1 WHEREAS, on March 8, 2006, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit application 06 -216 which proposes to establish a Subway sandwich shop in one of the tenant spaces located within an 11,836 square foot commercial property known as Corinthian Corners. The sandwich shop will face Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and will occupy an approximately 960 square foot tenant space between Starbucks and a bicycle shop. The Applicant and Owner are as follows: Miya Glasauer, Tenant and Franchise Owner and Heikali Aloga, LLC, Owner. The property is located within the CH -1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2006, the applicant, Miya Glasauer, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit application pursuant to the provisions stated in City Code Article 15 -90; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2006 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal application at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has considered the application and all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council upholds the determination and findings of the Planning Commission denying the Conditional Use Permit application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof as to certain of the required findings for approval under Article 15 -55 of the City Code. The following is a discussion of each of these unmet required findings: Finding #1: The proposed sandwich shop meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, including the following objectives of the CH -1 Zoning District: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small- scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; Applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that this use meets the objective of preservation and enhancement of the pedestrian character of the Village in that it is a sandwich shop to which many people drive and make a quick pick up of a pre- ordered sandwich. This type of customer activity does not contribute towards preserving and enhancing a pedestrian environment to make the Village more inviting to potential shoppers and diners. (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; No exterior changes are proposed to the Corinthian Corners building as a result of this application; hence this objective will not be affected by this proposal (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; The Applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that this sandwich shop use encourages a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences in that there is already an abundance of sandwich shops in the town center. (4) Conservation of historic structures. This objective is not applicable to this proposal. Finding #2: The proposed sandwich shop will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that conditions have been placed regarding the operation of Subway to minimize potential impacts. Applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that the sandwich shop would not be detrimental to the public safety in that particularly for the traffic coming from the direction of Los Gatos on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, due to fact that the "drive to and make a quick sandwich pickup" nature of the business could result in some unsafe vehicular circulation in an area that has an unusual road pattern. Now, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve that after careful consideration of the proposed use and floor plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the establishment of a Subway sandwich shop in a 960 square foot tenant space at 14410 Big Basin Way (Corinthian Corners) as shown on Exhibit A, incorporated by reference, is hereby denied based on the Applicant's not meeting the burden of proof as set forth in the findings set forth above. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga. State of California, the 5th day of April 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk Norman Kline, Mayor CITY COUNCIL REPORT Attachment 2 Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way, Bldg. B (Area 1- Corinthian Corners) Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit Applicant /Owner: Subway (tenant and franchise owner Miya Glasauer) /Heikali Aloga LLC (owner) Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: Lata Vasudevan AICP, Associate Planner' March 8, 2006 (Cont'd from February 22, 2006) 517 -09 -018, 043 044 Department Head: John F. I vingstone, AICP 14410 Big Basin Way, Subway 000001 CASE HISTORY Application filed: 01/04/06 Application complete: 03/01/06 Notice published: 02/08/06 Mailing completed: 02/07/06 Posting completed: 02/16/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to locate a Subway sandwich shop in one of the tenant spaces located within an 11,836 square foot commercial property known as Corinthian Corners. The site is located at the corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and was formerly occupied by a flower shop. The sandwich shop will face Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and will occupy an approximately 960 square foot tenant space between. Starbucks and a bicycle shop. At the applicant's request, the Planning Commission voted to continue this item from the February 22, 2006 Planning Commission hearing to the March 8, 2006. Approve the Conditional Use Permit application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. 000 File No. 06- 216;144.10 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date PROJECT DATA ZONING: CH -1 District: The CH -1 District has been written to implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan and achieve the following objectives with respect to the Village. (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small- scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; and (4) Conservation of historic structures. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designates this area as CR Retail Commercial. The property is located within Area J, which is the Village Area. MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 16,180 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TENANT SPACE: 960 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of lot is less than 10% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant proposes no changes to the grade ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS: Other than new signage, the applicant does not propose any changes to the exterior of the property. OOOOQ3 File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing a change of use and interior tenant improvements to locate a Subway sandwich shop in the Corinthian Corners commercial complex at the southwest corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga Los Gatos Rd. The tenant space is on the ground floor next to Starbucks, with its store entrance facing Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. The sandwich shop also has a portion of its facade with a window facing Big Basin Way. The floor area of Subway will be approximately 960 square feet with 6 tables for seating 16 people. Subway will have a maximum of 3 employees. No exterior changes are proposed to the facade or to the off- street parking configuration where there are six spaces. Facade improvements to the Corinthian Corners complex were approved as a design review application by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2004. Requirements for a Conditionally Permitted Use The proposed Subway is classified as a restaurant pursuant to the City Code. Establishing and operating a restaurant in any of Saratoga's commercial zoning districts requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. This process acknowledges that this use may be permitted if specified findings can be made, and allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions to ensure that a project is compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with applicable City regulations. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit shall be based on the findings stated in City Code Article 15 -55. A discussion of these findings is provided below. Correspondence, Comments and Neighbor Review Staff has received one written comment from the public as of the writing of this report that was originally sent to Commissioner Susie Nagpal. The applicant has spoken with adjacent tenants in the Village and four review letters indicating support from these tenants is attached to this report. At the February 22, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission heard comments from three citizens who were all opposed to the proposed Subway. Also at the February 22n meeting, Commissioner Hunter expressed that she would like information on the number of existing sandwich shops on Big Basin Way. Staff has determined that are are approximately 15 establishments that serve sandwiches. Hours of Operation The operating hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. everyday. The primary peak time is during lunch from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m. There is very little customer activity during the evening. The applicant has indicated that deliveries to Subway are once a week and can occur at 10:00 a.m. when demand for parking spaces for the adjacent businesses are low. Deliveries for the adjacent Starbucks coffee shop occurs in the middle of the night (2 3:00 a.m.). Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that deliveries for Subway occur at approximately 10:00 a.m. so that there is minimal conflict with delivery times of adjacent businesses. 000004 File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date Parking and Circulation The City of Saratoga recently adopted a zoning text amendment which relaxes all parking requirements in the Village. This ordinance was adopted on January 18, 2006 and became effective February 18, 2006. The new ordinance specifies that no off street parking shall be required for applications that are deemed complete between March 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009. Therefore, based on the parking ordinance, no additional off street parking will be required for the proposed sandwich shop. The new ordinance identifies a current parking surplus which serves as the basis for relaxing the off- street parking requirements in the Village. The identified parking surplus would accommodate 41,850 square feet of new floor area or intensification of use in the CH zoning districts. The establishment of a restaurant is an intensification of use from the prior flower store that was located at this site. In application of the new parking ordinance, the square footage of 960 feet will be deducted from 41,850 square feet of gross floor area, leaving 40,890 square feet that would be available for development in the Village. The Corinthian Corners complex has 6 off- street parking spaces which are not being credited towards the parking needs for Subway because they have already been allocated toward the parking needs for Starbucks. Customer on -site parking may be available for Subway since its peak hours of business are different from the morning peak hours for Starbucks. It is likely that customer parking demands for the proposed bicycle shop would be sporadic and likely to not consistently coincide with the peak times of Subway and Starbucks. As a side note, a condition of approval, like the one imposed on the conditional use permit for Starbucks, prohibiting on -site employee parking has been included in the attached resolution. Signage The applicant is proposing two `Subway' signs, one on each facade. The letters will be individual metal with exterior illumination from one goose neck lamp for each sign. The applicant would like to match the goose neck lamps that currently illuminate the Starbucks signage. The corporate colors of yellow and white will be used for the letters. Since signage is a highly visible feature in the character of a business, the applicant will provide material and color samples for the signage at the public hearing. Design Review Design Review approval is not required for this application. No exterior changes to the facade are proposed in this application. Project Findings Finding #1: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The General Plan designates this area as CR Retail Commercial. 000005 File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Establishing any restaurant requires considerable time and investment from the business owner. It is very difficult to determine the success of this sandwich shop or any restaurant use at this time. However, Staff does not see any reason that a sandwich shop or any other type of restaurant use located in a relatively small tenant space could have a negative impact on the economic viability of the Village. Furthermore, the CH -1 District is designed to implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan and achieve the following objectives with respect to the village: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; The proposed sandwich shop is a small- scale establishment situated adjacent to a retail shop and a coffee shop that could be found to promote a healthy pedestrian character with its visible outdoor seating. Any sandwich shop that is located at the relatively small tenant space would not, in Staff's opinion, diminish the pedestrian character of the Village. (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; No exterior changes are proposed to the Corinthian Corners building as a result of this application. (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; The proposed sandwich shop contributes to the mix of businesses in the Village and provides an alternate option for a convenient meal. Its location next to the bicycle shop is very complementary in that one can envision a customer frequenting both establishments in one outing. (4) Conservation of historic structures. This objective is not applicable to this proposal. Finding #2: The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The applicant will be required to meet all Fire District, Uniform Building Code, and applicable health and safety regulations and the project will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Finding #3: The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. This requirement is satisfied by means of the conditions of approval included in the resolution which grants the Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of Subway. Finding #4: The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The proposed Subway is a franchise establishment that is widely known because of its various locations. Based on the known character of Subway it is anticipated that it would not have an adverse impact on surrounding businesses. There are other sandwich shops in the vicinity. However, competition is not considered an adverse impact on existing or anticipated uses. In Staff's opinion, the location of the proposed Subway complements the retail character and services 0000b File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date provided by the adjacent bicycle shop and can be seen as a benefit to the other establishments in the Corinthian Corners. Conclusion Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make all of the required Conditional Use Permit findings required by Article 15 -55 of the City Code and adopt the Resolution attached to conditionally approve Application No. 06 -216 made on behalf of Subway. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels' 3. Letter of Justification from Applicant 4. Letters from citizens 5. New Village Parking Ordinance No. 240 6. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" Since this application was already noticed for the February 22, 2006 meeting and continued at a public hearing to the March 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, additional noticing for the new meeting date is not required. 000007 Attachment 1 000008' RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 06 216 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subway; 14410 Big Basin Way, Bldg. B Area 1 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Subway (a sandwich shop use) in a remodeled tenant space within the Corinthian Corners commercial complex. The sandwich shop will be approximately 960 square feet. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District; 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that all of the findings for approval required within Article 15 -55 of the City Code can be made in the affirmative. The following is a discussion of each of the findings: Finding #1: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The General Plan designates this area as CR Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Establishing any restaurant requires considerable time and investment from the business owner. It is very difficult to determine the success of this sandwich shop or any restaurant use at this time. However, Staff does not see any reason that a sandwich shop or any other type of restaurant use located in a relatively small tenant space could have a negative impact on the economic viability of the Village. Furthermore, the CH -1 District is designed to implement the Saratoga Village Specific Plan and achieve the following objectives with respect to the village: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; The proposed sandwich shop is a small scale establishment situated adjacent to a retail shop and a coffee shop that could be found to promote a healthy pedestrian character with its visible outdoor seating. Any 000009 File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date sandwich shop that is located at the relatively small tenant space would not, in Staff's opinion, diminish the pedestrian character of the Village. (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; No exterior changes are proposed to the Corinthian Corners building as a result of this application. (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; The proposed sandwich shop contributes to the mix of businesses in the Village and provides an alternate option for a convenient meal. Its location next to the bicycle shop is very complementary in that one can envision a customer frequenting both establishments in one outing. (4) Conservation of historic structures. This objective is not applicable to this proposal. Finding #2: The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The applicant will be required to meet all Fire District, Uniform Building Code, and applicable health and safety regulations and the project will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Finding #3: The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. This requirement is satisfied by means of the conditions of approval included in the resolution which grants the Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of Subway. Finding #4: The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. The proposed Subway is a franchise establishment that is widely known because of its various locations. Based on the known character of Subway it is anticipated that it would not have an adverse impact on surrounding businesses. There are other sandwich shops in the vicinity. However, competition is not considered an adverse impact on existing or anticipated uses. In Staff's opinion, the location of the proposed Subway complements the retail character and services provided by the adjacent bicycle shop and can be seen as a benefit to the other establishments in the Corinthian Comers. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed use and floor plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use Permit approval for Subway is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 000010 File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date PLANNING 1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The store shall operate as represented on the plans marked Exhibit A. The signage is also approved as shown on Exhibit A with the condition stated in item #4 below. 3. Any intensification of this use shall require approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit. 4. The approval of this conditional use permit is granted based upon Staff having deemed this application as complete as of March 1, 2006. Approval of the signage will be based on the action of the Planning Commission after reviewing the sign materials at the Planning Commission Hearing. 5. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for any internal tenant improvements, detailed construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for Zoning Clearance to verify consistency with the approved Exhibit "A" plans. The construction drawings shall incorporate a copy of this Resolution as a separate plan page. 6. Subway employees shall not use any on -site parking spaces. 7. Deliveries shall occur at approximately 10:00 a.m. in order to minimize impacts on parking demands for the adjacent businesses. 8. A Building Permit shall be obtained for the proposed signage. 9. If required by the Santa Clara County Health Department, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the owner /applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department verification from the Santa Clara County Health Department showing proof of compliance of the proposed facility with the Health Department's requirements. 10. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to, health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues. 11. The applicant shall obtain a Business License from the City of Saratoga prior to conducting business. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 12. Applicant shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District requirements. 00 File No. 06-216; 14410 Big Basin Way Bldg. B, Area 1 Conditional Use Permit Subway; March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Date CITY ATTORNEY 13. Applicant agrees to hold City harn>less 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. Section 2. A Building Permit or Business License must be issued and construction or business operations commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15- 55.080 and 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective ten (10) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of March 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date Susie Nagpal Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner 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 within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. 006012• Attachment 2 000013 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces a public hearing on the item described below on: Wednesday, the 22 day of February 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: APPLICATION #06 -216 (517 -09 -043, 517 -09 -018, 517 -09 -044) SUBWAY (tenant) /ATOGA LLC (property owner), 14410 Big Basin Way; The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a sandwich shop in an existing approximately 960 square foot vacant tenant space in the newly remodeled Corinthian Corners commercial complex. The sandwich shop will face Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and will be situated in a tenant space between Starbucks Coffee and a proposed retail bicycle shop. 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 court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, February 14, 2006. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of —date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Associate Planner 408 868 -1235 000014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Z. Signed AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES SS. being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 7 day of 2006, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to -wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15- 45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. o ooiS Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® SOWOLLA KRIS A CAROL A TRUSTEE or Cun Owner 219 JACKSON ST LOS GATOS, CA 95030 -0000 CALIFORNIA STATE OF or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SARATOGA CITY OF or Current Owner SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH INC or Current Owner 14370 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5953 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH or Current Owner 14370 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5953 SARATOGA CITY OF or Current Owner ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 GUNN SONJA A ETAL or Current Owner PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA, CA 95070 ENGINEERING INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC or Current Owner P.O. BOX 25 SARATOGA, CA 95071 -0025 'DUNCAN GORDON A HELEN J or Current Owner 20531 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5868 HIGGINS WILLIAM L VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5800 .09LS nAHMA1e/ COX FLORA M TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 20465 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5909 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST or Current Owner SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SARATOGA FIRE DIST or Current Owner SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH or Current Owner 20390 PARK PL SARATOGA, CA 95070 OSTROWSKI JOHN L M. CLAIRE ETAL or Current Owner 12750 IONE CT SARATOGA, CA 95070 -3804 3D PROPERTIES or Current Owner P O BOX 234 SARATOGA, OR 95071 -0234 or Current Owner www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY G G MCCANDLESS PROPS LLC or Current Owner 545 MIDDLEFIELD RD 130 MENLO PARK, CA 95025 LAVELLE THOMAS R GAYLE S or Current Owner 20571 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5868 JACOBS HUGH A GLORIA M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20510 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5800 A213AV 008 1 0 AVERY® 5160® SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST or Current Owner SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SARATOGA CITY OF or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 CALIFORNIA STATE OF or Current Owner SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SARATOGA FIRE PROTECTION DIST or Current Owner SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE or Current Owner 14376 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5953 JAVANMARD GHOLAMREZA EZAT or Current Owner 20440 ARBELECHE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5439 SCVWD or Current Owner SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 SEAGRAVES MARGARET TRUSTEE or Current Owner 13371 SARATOGA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -4535 HIGGINS WILLIAM L VIRGINIA B TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20550 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5800 BROCKETT PATRICK J or Current Owner 20620 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5831 ®0915 311f1dW31 ®LGaAV asfl R11n1111_1 nnu nnuicr nno 'nor Impression antibourrage eta sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® JOHNSTON DAVID S or Current Owner 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5831 TOSCO MARKETING CO DC17 )r Current Owner P.O. BOX 52085 ?HOENIX, AZ 85072 INN AT SARATOGA INC. or Current Owner 20645 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5867 CASABONNE YVES G ANNETTE E TRUSTEE or Current Owner P 0 BOX 247 EL VERANO, CA 95433 -0247 LOXHAM FAMILY LP or Current Owner 14610 BIG BASIN WY _ARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP or Current Owner 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 LEES PARTNERSHIP or Current Owner 14493 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6093 or Current Owner CUNNINGHAM DENNIS M or Current Owner 14407 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6080 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP or Current Owner PO BOX 192202 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94519 -2202 0,09LS al ?IaAtl www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY CANCELLIERI ROBERT SHIRLEY TRUSTEE or Current Owner 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6018 SARATOGA CITY OF or Current Owner 4TH ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS, CA 95032 -0000 CRAWFORD OTTO M BETTE R TRUSTEE or Current Owner 12471 GREENMEADOW LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -3032 SULLIVAN L M LOUELLA M TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 20570 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5876 WALLACE BERNARD A or Current Owner P O BOX 1060 DISCOVERY BAY, CA 94514 MASEK JOSEPH C MICHELLE or Current Owner 14467 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6093 or Current Owner ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE -5 ,KK CAROLYN HOLM or Current Owner 1 GOODWIN CT REDWOOD CITY, CA 94061 FRANK L BURELL III or Current Owner 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 All3AV 000016" V AVERY® 5160® CANCELLIERI ROBERT SHIRLEY TRUSTEE or Current Owner 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6018 or Current Owner ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE -5 KK PAYNE GEORGE M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 15940 ROCHIN TR LOS GATOS, CA 95032 -0000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE or Current Owner PO BOX 6000 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -6000 BLOXHAM FAMILY LP or Current Owner 14610 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 MELTON THELMA D TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 4710 SANTA LUCIA DR WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 ROSENFELD JAMES I ARLENE H TRUSTEE or Current Owner 14219 OKANOGAN DR SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5549 CUNNINGHAM SUSAN K or Current Owner P 0 BOX 2230 CUPERTINO, CA 95015 -2230 STARK CHARLES D KATHIE L or Current Owner P.O. BOX DRAWER 219 APTOS, CA 95001 FRANK L BURELL III or Current Owner 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 ®0915 31HldIN3l e fueAV 941 R11111111_1 run, ••IDF Impression antibourrage eta sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® KLEAR ELIZABETH P TRUSTEE or Current Owner 20387 THELMA AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -4946 FITZSIMMONS MICHAEL D TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 165 SUMMERFIELD ST DANVILLE, CA 94506 GASIK JEFFREY F or Current Owner 21070 DORSEY WY SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5336 FITZIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 4611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 FRANK L BURELL III or Current Owner 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 HELM RONNIE L or Current Owner 14516 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6087 OUR LADY FATIMA VILLA INC or Current Owner 20400 SARATOGA/LOS GATOS RD ARATOGA, CA 95070 -5927 SARATOGA CITY OF or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 or Current Owner or Current Owner n9L5 nA)IaAW www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 SORENSEN DAVID L or Current Owner 14493 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6025 JACKMAN ERNA B or Current Owner 14515 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6025 FITZSIMMONS JOSEPH J TRUSTEE ETAL or Current Owner 14611 BIG BASIN WY E SARATOGA, CA 95070 or Current Owner ESPINOSA GARY H DIANAGAY J TRUSTEE or Current Owner 14510 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6087 SARATOGA LODGE NO FOUR TWO EIGHT IOOF TRUS or Current Owner POBOX54 SARATOGA, CA 95071 -0054 ATLAS PROPERTIES LLC or Current Owner 48 ATLAS AV SAN JOSE, CA 95126 -3101 OUR LADY FATIMA VILLA or Current Owner 20400 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5927 or Current Owner Aa3AV-OD n�nr uwn 00 CA AVERY® 5160® ELLENIKIOTIS ANTHONY J GEORGIA TRUSTEE or Current Owner 14451 CHESTER AV SARATOGA, CA 95070 -5624 JAMES KENNEDY or Current Owner 540 SANTA CRUZ 215 LOS GATOS, CA 95030 KIM JOUNG S YOUNG H TRUSTEE or Current Owner 7221 SILVER LODE LN SAN JOSE, CA 95120 -3356 FRANK L BURELL III or Current Owner 470 VANDELL WY STE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 HIRSCHFELD HAROLDINE M TRUSTEE or Current Owner 14524 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6026 ALLEN JOHN N MARY or Current Owner 14500 OAK ST SARATOGA, CA 95070 -6087 SARATOGA CITY OF or Current Owner SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 DOMINICAN SISTERS OF THE CONGREGATION CONS or Current Owner 20400 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD SARATOGA, CA 95070 -0000 or Current Owner or Current Owner ®09LS 31V1dIN31 ®i(JaAV asn fiiuvuu aau annn,ue nun 'nor Klaus Yvonne Pache 14555 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -6013 C H Davies 0. Box 2039 Saratoga, CA 95070 -0039 LaBarbera 1426 Fruitdale Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 Tyler 13611 Saratoga Vista Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 -4937 Jladys P Hernandez 9641 Charters Avenue 'aratoga, CA 95070 -4407 Impression antibourrage et a sechage Utilisez le gabarit 5160® Im09LS an AW 11/1 rapide www.avery.com 1- 800-GO -AVERY Donald Hunt 14658 Nelson Way San Jose, CA 95124 -3517 Jeff Gasik 21070 Dorsey Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -5336 Joseph Arm Fitzsimmons 14611 Big Basin Way E Saratoga, CA 95070 -6073 Srinivasam 400 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ruth M. Long P. 0. Box 2095 Saratoga, CA 95070 -0095 AH3AV-O9-008 L 111AVAJAAP'AAAAM OooOi3 V AVERY® 5160® Virgil Evelyn Herring 14995 Wonderland Blvd Redding, CA 96003 -8522 Theresa Richard Sudholt 20610 Lomita Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 -6024 Barbara Michael Purcell 200 Via Genoa Newport Beach, CA 92663 Trafalgar Inc 1735 Westbrook Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024 -5321 ®09L5 31.V1dIN31®tiany asn 6wiwaa 98.14 a5DnwS clue wer Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® Abbott Usability 14407 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Assn for Investment 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Bank Bar 14421 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Blue Rock Shoot 14523 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Braid Box Knitting Studio 14554 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Braid Box 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bangkok Palace 14515 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 'the Coffee Grounds 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Carol's Gallery 14455 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Cathleen M. Peterson, E. A. 14583 Big Basin Way #4 Saratoga, CA 95070 —no! c r, 11.I =AM 1\ 111 Aegis Gallery of Fine Art 14531 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Basin 14572 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bella Saratoga 14503 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Big Basin, LLC 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Bruce Bartlett D. D. S. 14567 Big Basin Way #C Saratoga, CA 95070 Brenner Financial Group, Inc. 14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Brian Berg Berg Software Design 14500 Big Basin Way F Saratoga, CA 95070 Coldwell Banker/NRT 14506 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Curve's 14456 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Claudia Quella 14664 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 1.83AV -OD -008 -1 ELM AVERY® 5160® Advanced -HR, Inc. 14407 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bank of America 14476 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Benjamin's Salon 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Big Basin Chiropractic 14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bob Ray Creative Services, Inc. 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Butter Paddle Gourmet Kitchen 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Christine's Collection 14416 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Commerica Bank 14401 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 C R Motors 14585 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Clymer Cook 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 0000V ®091.5 31V7dIN31 ®i(aaAV as fl a...,.... as .lin, Impression antibourrage eta sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® Diamonds by Filice 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga,. CA 95070 Deborah Buonfiglio 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Daisy Beauty Studio 14435 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Floral Fantasia Saratoga 4440 Big Basin Way 'aratoga, CA 95070 The Front Window 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Fat Robin /La Mesa 14429 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ;olden Mirror 4415 Big Basin Way iaratoga, A 95070 Harmonie Skin Body Care 14501 Big Basin Way A Saratoga, CA 95070 Hill Design 14577 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 "Jong's Gourmet 14510 Big Basin Way =aratoga, CA 95070 A,nQLc 1 \�//l Dancing Yogi 14598 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Design Atelier 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Echo Shop 14477 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 FloBell 14519 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Fringe Culture 14577 Big Basin Way #B Saratoga, CA 95070 Gedanken 14500 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Gallery Saratoga Co /op, Inc. 14435 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hedge Trackers, LLC 14407 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Home Choice Pharmacy, Inc. 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Home Finance Assoc, Inc. 14583 Big Basin Way #5 Saratoga, CA 95070 A83AV 008 L www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 000020 C\ AVERY® 5160® Deja Company 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Divine Wear 14419 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Exclamation Point 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Florentine Rest. Group 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The French Tailor 14577 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Gervais Restaurant Francais 14560 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hair Studio 14451 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Hair Conception/Du Pont 14451 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hillview Cleaners 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Hyper.Calm 14577 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ®09LS 31.V1dW31 ®IGany asn FLIAIIIIJ nnii nnnsr• ruin Ill or impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® }Iakone Foundation Gift Shop 21000 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 KCR Communications 14407 Big Basin Way aratoga, CA 95070 Knitting Arts 14554 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 La Fondue 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Little Amsterdam 14490 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 L'Avenir Salon 20601 Third Street Saratoga, CA 95070 Mechanical Technology Services 14660 Big Basin Way A Saratoga, CA 95070 Michael Steinberg Photography 14572 Big Basin Way )aratoga, CA 95070 Pelio Associates. Inc. 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 n0915 anA2lgAlf James Craig Stanley/ Options 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Kirk Co. Hair Design 14443 A Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Kristy's of Saratoga 14531 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 La Mere Michelle 14467 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Louise M. Smith, M. S. 14567 Big Basin Way #B Saratoga, CA 95070 Martin B. Fenster, Attorney 14625 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Madam Shaunas 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Perfect Trainer 14584 Fifth Street Saratoga, CA 95070 A2l3AV-09 I I IfWg IaAP AA AA www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 0 AVERY® 5160® John Greene Insurance Agency 14500 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 International Coffee Exchange 14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Kurt Heisig Music 14428 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Law Offices Thomas W. Davies 14625 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Lupretta's Delicatessen 14480 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 M. E. Benson's Antiques 20603 Third Street Saratoga, CA 95070 Masu Japanese Bistro 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Pacific Art Design 14577 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Paperfunalia 14486 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 000021. ®09L5 31V1dIN31 ®tiaAV asn Flul]uuJ aa1J a6nnwc nue wer Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® Pat Smith's Extravaganza 14443 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Per -Am Ventures Inc. 14560 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 at Richard Insurance Agency 14540 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Rose Deli Market 14445 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Rezi /Reve 14417 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 `?,eve un Salon 14415 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Dry Cleaners, Inc. 14495 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ‘)aratoga Kitchen Bath Design i4482 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Studio 67 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 nn 1 C 11I AM www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Prime Cuts 14529 Big Basin Way #C Saratoga, CA 95070 Parkmark 14654 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Plumed Horse 14555 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Remax Team Advantage 14471 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Rapunzel 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Surfaceink Corporation 14415 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Shoe Topia 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Chamber of Commerce 14485 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Buy Save Market 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 AH3AV -L 000022 CA AVERY® 5160® Premier Real Esate Fin. Service 14583 Big Basin Way #2B Saratoga, CA 95070 Preston Wynne 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 RTM Enterprises, Inc. 14612 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Robert S. Pollack 14500 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Stewart Works, Inc. 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Skin Prophecy 14531 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Oaks Lodge 14626 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Sandra Kamiak, M. D. 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ®0915 311d1dW31 Faand asn Impression antibourrage eta sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® Saratoga Barbers 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Wine Merchants, Inc. 14500 Big Basin Way A aratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Pool Service 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga BP 14395 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Stephen M. Howard, Gemologist 4419 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Stoneham Design 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Tanner Asset Management Group 14417 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Viaggio 14550 Big Basin Way }aratoga, CA 95070 Warren Lampshire 14457 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 —mac rn 1317At1 14\ Sent Sovi 14583 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Shanthi Madrieddi 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Nails 14511 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Travel, Inc. 14479 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The UPS Store #1291 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Venz Fine Photography 14567 Big Basin Way #3A Saratoga, CA 95070 Village Shoe Repair 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 A113AV-09-008 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 000023 0 AVERY® 5160® Saratoga Cafe 14445 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga Plaza Bakery 14440 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Stephen D. Hall, CPA 14457 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Southwest Electric 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Santa Clara Construction 14428 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 The Trattoria Restaurant 14500 Big Basin Way #A Saratoga, CA 95070 U. S. A. Nails 14479 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Vienna Woods Delicatessen 14567 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Village Rendezvous 14420 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 ®0915 31V1dW31 ®A anV asn F...n1111 J 9 711 7Rnniii n,,n Ilinr Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5160® Wells Fargo Investments 14428 Big Basin Way Saratoga, A 95070 Ronald Barbara Worden P. 0. Box 52085 Phoenix, AZ 85072 -2085 Downey Savings Loan Assoc P. 0. Box 6000 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Otto M and Bette Crawford 12471 Green Meadow Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 -3032 Robert Shirley Cancellieri 14860 Cody Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 James Arlene Rosenfled 14219 Okanogan Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 -5549 Lees Partnership 14493 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Carl and ET Holm 1 Goodwin Court Redwood City, CA 94061 -2446 Wanda Robert Pollack 14500 Big Basin Way C Saratoga, CA 95070 -6076 Charles Elisbeth Stauss 20 Chestnut Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 -5804 mO9LS RAAIRAV Warren B. Heid AIA Assoc. 14630 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Zambetti Associates 14540 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Bloxham P. O. Box 95 Aptos, CA 95001 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Casabonne P. O. Box 247 El Verano, CA 95433 -0247 George M. Payne 15940 Rochin Terr Los Gatos, CA 95032 -4823 Bernard A Wallace 1999 Windward Pt Discovery Bay, CA 94514- 9512 Bank of Amer N T S A P. 0. Box 192202 San Francisco, CA 94119 2202 Helen Joseph Brozda 235 Linden Street Santa Cruz, CA 95062 -1019 Ruth M Long P. 0. Box 2095 Saratoga, CA 95070 -0095 Cali Investments 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 -6090 000024 1l213AV-O9 008 1. W OY/I,JBAP'MMM AVERY® 5160® W. Jeffery Heid 14630 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Zazoo 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 L M Louella Sullivan 20570 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Elizabeth P. Klear 20387 Thelma Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -4946 N D Matheny 720 Market Street 250 San Francisco, CA 94102 -2500 Thelma D Melton 4710 Santa Lucia Drive Woodland Hills, CA 91364-4218 William Julie Carlson 621 Del Roy Court Campbell, CA 95008 -1834 Mitch Tracy Cutler 14480 Oak Place Saratoga, CA 95070 -5929 Freda William Wyant 13991 Saratoga Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 -5457 Jose W San 374 W Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 -1502 ®09LS 31V1dIAI31 ®AJaAV asfl 6uiiwad aaJ4 a6pnws pue wer Attachment 3 000025 Letter of Justification Subway Sandwich Sho0 C E 0 V 14410 Big Basin Way, Saratoga JAN o 3 2006 The Operation Franchise operation, with more worldwide locations than any other food service, providing sandwiches, salads, beverages, soups, chips and cookies Hours of operation: 9am 9:30pm, 7 days a week Primarily a noontime lunch business, peaking from 11:30am 1:30pm Known as a healthy, fresh sandwich shop... and not for it's volume sales Number of employees: 2 3 Community Benefits Provides healthy food and convenience to neighbors and merchants in the area Well -known and quick service sandwich brand Owner believes in contributing to community, such that there's a mutually beneficial relationship. We are willing to support the Fire Department, Police Department, Little League, City Hall and schools in the spirit of recognizing/enabling those who make our community run. Jobs for residents Negligible Traffic Impact Peak business time is 11:30am 1:30pm Rush -hour time analysis lam 9am Not open 4pm 6pm Low customer count No impact to rush hour traffic Other issues to consider Owner is proven successful, has won numerous success awards for Baskin Robbins and Subway franchise operations. These include the Subway President's award and multiple Baskin Robins annual recognition awards for excellence. Owner has history of positive CUP experiences with city of Los Gatos Store adds economic value to the existing area, e.g. higher revenues, more taxes, and more jobs compared to the present situation Subway restaurant chain honored at Governor Schwarzenegger's September 15 summit on health, nutrition and obesity, for it's healthy eating commitment 40 years of successful franchise history means that this is a long term operation with staying power, which delivers satisfaction to both customer and owner CITY OF SARATOGA Attachment 4 000027 Laurel Thanks you for your note. We hear this application on March 8th. Please come to the meeting to speak if you would like.. I am also ccing the planning staff so that this is put into the record and incase you would like to talk to them as well. Thank you again Susie To cc Subject laurelperusa @comc ast.net 02/27/06 09:11 AM susie_vedantham@URSCorp.com Subway Sandwich in our village Dear Susie, How fortunate we are to love in Saratoga. How many California residents are able to refer to their downtown as a village? Not many. 0®0O2, FED 2 72 006 CITY OF n��,.M�NITYDF ELO °.'A��.,� Saratoga Village has a multitude of businesses that sell sandwiches. I see no need for another business that sells sandwiches in our village. An additional sandwich shop will not enhance our village. A sandwich franchise at the village entrance or any other location is not appropriate, detracting from the village. Our village is unique, a sandwich franchise does not lend itself to the existing charming ambiance. Please give the Subway Sandwich application careful consideration. Sincerely, Laurel Perusa 15085 Oriole Road Saratoga 40002'9 Date: /2 b /os Q PROJECT ADDRESS: Bi Aea 15 Applicant Name: M t/A 6/a 5a or Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: IL X.t.0 t cL t-4o C' rye. 4 reoK J CNa Neighbor Address: (M-410 (Jam 5 Signature: Printed: DAv‘p ■1--,©z e City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Neighbor Phone 50450 0 46 c 000030 J L� VJ E 0 U JAN 0 3 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA "irA //TV nrV1Cr. Date: 5 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4' b;,.9 ,3(1 /1 Iva/ 4-13 Applicant Name: PIiyG\ I c,5 tyr Sob w Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a l ter date during the actual public review and appeal periods. M y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 0-' V br i k Neighbor Address: ail 0 Neighbor Phone ({0() 5(Pt' q 2-1 v Signature: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Printed: cC v\s) r 000031. ElV t IN JAN 0 3 2006 L CITY OF SARATOGP •r Ip11T� r TWA r`-• Date: /2 /9/05- QQ PROJECT ADDRESS: �JO U ;/9 y- 3 Applicant Name: ii41/A 61a5Rtier, •uh&Ay Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. R i My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: (11/41 Cte /1' 11I1/- h Neighbor Address: 4/ f 6 i y &Ltht C bo_/ Neighbor Phone i t 6 3 FS 7 "'L TJ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form c/i Sri Sa V,4' 00003 ns n u JAN 0 ?_0 3 06 U CITY OF SARATOGA 'n�ItT' f1CVr City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: 1- VL S PROJECT ADDRESS: 4/ G 13 J3 r Applicant Name: t 1 6 5 0 Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. i signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understan .'the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 5 rL k Neighbor Address: l 4 /o b►� a»i i J re, 6/.5-No Signature: rn Neighbor Phone S J.) L T Printed: ZacbaceL 0®0033 C E D U JAN 032006 CITY OF SARATOGA i) J!r., nrvr! Attachment 5 000034 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING PARKING REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: a. The City of Saratoga's Village business district has long been recognized as an area that has a mix of businesses that included cross section of retail, service, restaurant, and personal service industries that contribute to our residents' quality of life. b. The City's Village Design Guidelines and Village Improvement Project both contain numerous goals to create a vibrant downtown where the mix of retail and service based businesses exist. c. A nationwide economic recession has reduced the demand for many retail goods resulting in retail business failures and increasing retail space vacancies in the Village. g. ORDINANCE 240 There is surplus parking capacity in the Village and this capacity can be used to attract new uses to the Village to promote a more diverse economic climate. e. The General Plan designates the downtown Village area as CR Retail Commercial. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states, "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City." Accordingly, relaxing the parking requirements would provide greater flexibility in attracting tenants and /or promote greater investment in individual properties which would be consistent with Policy LU 7.1 and the City's goals to revitalize the Village. f. The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan states under Goal CI.7.0a, "Provide adequate parking for non residential uses to minimize intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods.' CI.7.1, states, "Review on- street parking policies and utilization in the Village area" as a policy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan in that the proposed amendment relies on a review of current utilization of parking in the Village. The City Council has adopted a resolution pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adopting a Negative Declaration and finding no evidence that the amendments contained in this ordinance may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 1 000035 Section 2. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in bold italics (example) and deleting the text shown in strikeout (example) in the sections listed below: 15- 35.020 General requirements and regulations for of(- street parking spaces. (a) Except as specified in subparagraph (k) of this Section 15 35.030, at the time of initial occupancy of a site or structure or at the time of an alteration or enlargement of a site or structure, there shall be provided off street parking spaces for automobiles in accord with the schedule of off-street parking space requirements prescribed in Section 15- 35.030. For the purposes of this Section, the term "alteration or enlargement" shall mean a change of use or an addition which would increase the number of parking spaces required above the total number required prior to such change or addition. The number of parking spaces provided for an alteration or enlargement of a site or structure shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlargement, unless the pre existing number is greater than the number prescribed in Section 15- 35.030, in which instance, the number in excess of the prescribed minimum shall be counted in calculating the number provided to serve the alteration or enlargement. (b) If, in the application of the requirements of this Article, a fractional number is obtained, one parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one -half or more, and no parking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one- half. (c) If more than one use is located on a site, the number of parking spaces provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed in this Article for each use. (d) The off street parking requirements of this Article may be satis lied by a common parkin facility; provided, that the total number of spaces shall be not less than the sum of the individual requirements, and provided further, that a contract between the parties setting forth the agreement for joint use of a common parking facility is recorded in the office of the County Recorder and a certified copy there is filed with the City. (e) Where parking requirements are determined by gross floor area, such area shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for off street parking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use for which off street parking is required, but such gross floor area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establishment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which off street parking is required. (f)The Planning Commission may require that off street parking spaces in excess of the number prescribed in Section 15- 35.030 be provided for use on a site, if the Commission finds that such additional spaces are necessary to avoid traffic congestion or shortage of curb spaces. (g) For a use not specifically listed in Section 15- 35.030, the number of off street parking spaces shall be determined by the Planning Commission or the Planning Director Community Development Director, based upon the number of spaces required for the most similar specified use and such information as may be available to the Planning Commission or the Planning Director Community Development Director concerning the parking requirements of the proposed use. 2 000036 (h) In all districts except a C -H district, the off street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15- 35.030 shall be located on the same site as the use for which the spaces are required, or on an adjacent site or a site separated only by an alley from the use for which the spaces are required. In a C -H district, the off street parking spaces prescribed in Section 15- 35.030 may be located within three hundred feet of the use for which the spaces are required, measured by the shortest route of available pedestrian access. (i) With respect to any site or structure located within a C -N, C -V, C -H, P -A, R -M or MU- PD district, not more than twenty -five percent of the number of required off-street parking spaces may consist of compact parking spaces. If, in the application of this subsection, a fractional number is obtained, one compact parking space may be provided for a fraction of more than one -half and one standard parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one half or less. (j) No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in any parking area. (k) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, for applications deemed complete between Marc!: 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009, no off street parking shall be required of any new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any CH District until such time as a total of 41,850 square feet of gross floor area beyond that existing on March 1, 2006 "surplus floor area has been constructed or otherwise allocated as set forth below in the CH Districts. This provision shall be administered as follows: (i) Surplus floor area shall be allocated on a first-come-first served basis, based on the date that the application submittal is deemed complete by the Community Development Department; (ii) The amount to be deducted from the surplus floor area for a new or enlarged site or structure shall be the increased gross floor area calculated using the methodology for determining gross floor area in Section 15- 35.020(e); (iii) The amount to be deducted from the surplus floor area for a change in use in or alteration to an existing site or structure that does not increase the gross floor area of that site or structure shall be determined based on the gross floor area subject to the change in use reduced by 450 square feet for each parking space allocated to the prior use. This shall be calculated as follows: The total square footage subject to the change in use or alteration "changed use area shall be the gross floor area of that portion of the site or structure determined in accordance with Section 15- 35.020(e). The existing parking credit shall be calculated by determining the number of parking spaces allocated to the prior use of the area proposed for a change in use or alteration and multiplying that number by 450 square feet. The amount to be deducted from the surplus floor area shall be the changed use area minus the existing parking credit. For example, for a proposed change in use of a 2000 square foot structure with four parking spaces allocated to the prior use, the changed use area would be 2000 square feet and the parking credit would be 1800 square feet (4 parking spaces multiplied by 450 square feet); this means that the amount of surplus floor area allocated to the change in use would be 200 square feet (the 2000 square foot changed use area minus the 1800 square foot parking credit). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no deduction from the surplus floor area shall be made or 3 required for any change in use in or alteration to an existing site or structure within a City parking district that does not increase the gross floor area of that site or structure. (iv) Allocation of surplus floor area to an application shall be removed at such time as the application is denied or withdrawn and, for applications that are approved, upon the expiration of that approval. If an application is modified by the applicant or the approval in a manner that changes the gross floor area associated with the application, the allocation shall be adjusted accordingly; (v) The Community Development Department shall monitor and maintain an account showing the amount of surplus floor area that has been allocated pursuant to this section and the amount that remains to be allocated; and (vi) Any proposed new, altered, or enlarged site or structure in any CH District that would add more gross floor area than the remaining surplus floor area shall comply with the off street parking requirements set forth in Section 15- 35.020(a) and elsewhere in this Code as to the excess floor area unless the applicant applies for and pays the costs of a parking study to be completed by City Traffic Engineer and that study is approved by the Planning Commission and determines that excess parking capacity is available in the CH Districts and recommends that the amount of surplus floor area be increased at least by an amount that would accommodate the proposed new, altered, or enlarged site or structure. Section 3. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub section, paragraph, sub paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub section, paragraph, sub paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub section, paragraph, sub paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. [The Remainder of This Page is Intentionally Blank] 4 The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council o f the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of January, 2006, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 18th of January 2006: AYES: Councilmembers Kathleen King, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Aileen Kao, Mayor Norman Kline NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor CITY ATTORNEY Norman 'Kline MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 00003 Attachment 7 CID 0 N CD E o 1 I 1 1 I 26' •u F PEN WALL o N to B I S L°' BUILDING 0-05. PORTION (N) 1,410 a E. 1 Aev. GONG. SLAB 1 I- TENANT I 1 RETAIL SPACd re.) etas. To SE 1 EN IN/ WALL FOR FOR/RE DP., WAAL 4 5 6 SEE 2 /A8.O FOR ENLARGED FLR. PLAN WATER FLU•IYS DRAIN STUB FOR FUMtE O DESIZEO A V PER ONNER. P UNDER SLAB I FaRDTa„DMEN,DNCO RO PLAN1 SEE 5. AD, 1.16•766 ,FO E T NTERIOR STAIRS 1 2 x••OPf AREA I AREA 2 95]9 •1. 1 s.f. I- TENANT I- TENANT RETAIL RETAIL SPACE SPACE WOOD •000 FLOOR FLOOR OVER GONG. OVER GONG. SLAB SLAB MIN •P NAP 5, 5.6.1, AREA 2 2099.9 r•. GONG. SLAB BUILDING PORTION B S A R A T O G A -LOS G A T O S ROAD DR• MAO.. OPENINOS BLDG. PORTION A I- TENANT OPEN RETAIL SPACE AREA I 2155 5 •.f. RA15E0 FLOOR ow� RECesSED ILLUMINATED ELT LIGMi A6'•• OR INSTALL FIRESLOCKINO PER CSC 10e FRAMINSSEI 6 ENCLOSev Cx5TIN6 AT NEW NOT, PROVIDE PRTABLE FIRE EATINGUISNER5 OR EACH OCCLPANCV PER CCR 71T.E IA R t, EVERY O i3 FEET OF ....PA -GT AND ON CAC. FLOOR LEVEL. FOR TrPICAL WOOD SSA FRAIN.. SCE DETAIL 5/AD I PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN CL) 4j°�RPORT;i 9215 51. cu 1 13101, 6 0 AREA 3 1029.1 •.f. I- TENANT RETAIL SPACE AREA 3 BE REMO 9BB.9 -IEI �+I i E*t r Iw S ACE DT_. 0 C1 14000 FLOOR OVER GONG. BLAB �'X PER C. PRO /10L ALLANNATED ERN SECTION LS D o OP G FUN.L 6.0C FNS STIR ry P BD FIRE TAPEV A TERIOR FINISH eV V, PLASTER OJER rv,RE 1251 OVER 2 LAYERS &RADE PAPER DIERR PLT 6 .0 D O RETROFIT,E, ENTRY DOOR TO FIT w off. ENTRY HIw Pa SA SLOPE PER o IPJ SIDONALK. oVlce Iw CONC. RAMP I PROVIDE S on Bon 5141A OR TENANT TENANT STOREFRONT SPACE 570P AT DRAFT PROLIDE D TRUSS FOR FUTURE ATTIC SPACE APPLY 5, RPE LLEEN6Trl ACROSS OE, PTSPRoM ETN CORD TO SHEATH,. FOR DRAFT STO SEE I /AB.O FOR ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN TE IE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO SERVICE M LOO,ATlcn LL 151 OPEN:N05 IN CON'C v1/ .NCRETE LR. ALONG REFER TO LINE NOS DETAi STRUCTURAL DR OI .N LANDSCAPE AG 0 FOR LOCATION Fon E 5.7. AD o KEEP F CH BASIN CLEAN TO P T ROSL ASSOCIATED :.?Dl H LOOD�. DEBRIS /3 cl L eV ELN 4.0 T1.Sr 1 617-0.-0. 664 R ON.INGS AEY AA NOTED ♦TOO SARATOGA-LOS ORA!. TO PARKINS CR OSS SLO T AD A N.....6 517 ,,'7 AND LTY AFLLY FROM 5,01. IER iPiT 1 ALL PATIO 3 GATOS ROAD OLEND OU PATIO CO. IG, SIDC.1, 1.-..:4 11 ir .`2, :;L: V 1--- k -ill IL :',I4 11111111111b.L_ ;i ,m. litillik 3'7 Ifs Aigra19,1 'a .iiiiiceioE._ BUILDING PORTION AREA 2 1096.9 f. I -TENANT RETAIL SPACE VIOOD FLOOR OVER LOW: SLAB _PP—Aiill AREA 3 1024.1 f I -TENANT RETAIL L SPACE 1 HOOD FLOOR OVER CONC. 5L4 0 I 0 ED I-F-I—I ?z fi o VILLAGE DIRECTORY 4L I 3 mil iii1 A I A Mr I 1 i 0 1 4 NallIMMI L ORM II irmilily e i I, 1 71 -1 SEE 3/A0 4 ...X.': 'ILt 11. CONCRETE COLORED CONCRETE L. I. Al 4,. PROPOSED A OA VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKINS wece (_;,.1 BORDERS. f2.1 CORM:, 1, 1, E?,/ -OINTS Er APART, TYR BROOM FINIS., SALTED CON, H 2, SLOPE ENTRY 5 E --:74E rE 11 00 51,01., lLLS METER LOCATION PER PSCE PEOu.REPENTS BUILDING AREA I 952 3 s f 1 TENANT RETAIL SPACE 11000 F1.00R •0,1,..... .iu VIN.II Y.F.4• ii i ,0 'it 4. 1 YO A 'I -ft+ ?:,:',..,a'!”, 7 f" ,•■4 '1 ,f VERIFY M, A 2. PATIO I0.--.- 1 SLOPE. cowl', euev el ,I A FIELD PRIOR TO PO.AR K 6-; 6- "77 U\i A F'ORTION C.„ 0 1,410 S1 I GONG SLAB I-TENANT I RETAIL 5PAC.• le; a_as TO Se REMOVED (1162.5 w.1.1 ER CONC. SLAB CPRLI RALL. Z PAM., store A, i LOCATION FOR emote II WATER FEATURE. PROVIDE 0 t PO NOSE also rtP J.INCTION BO% 1 1 1 .....1 114 ram. II t471 0( 1 4 02, I 1 1 1 7 1 L 1 '"'L 1...d Ca0/17:4 1. T.. ,1= ■fr 1.1., ..p. Var ICALISEIKOSC ./71.■.....LL .,:=1, of vueyx..ar s L V"..1 reel Tile il 111 7 1 LANDINS FCR SECO.AALP ENTFLL.B ...ORA, PEOD COORDINATE FiNAL 7 al ELEVATION PROP FROm FIN.. FLOOR TO PATIO x A LOG. PORTION A -t ill 1 Illffilir =al Mrli co AREA 3 v BE REMO --5 ,,reot p.. it, FIELD NOTE■ PROVIDE EPPAPSION C. I-TENANT OPEN 2 -OINT AT DALCP.S ED.E AND --1 RETAIL SPACE ,---z, i AREA I FLZ:2 --1 1 AREA 2 zogq q GONG. SLAB 1 1 IFirk OF PP. MI 0,1PSTER LOCATION ''6 Z GEMO II REmOvE BLVAS A AREA 5 NETA- STRUCNRE TENANT OnNER AO,SED TO KLEEP CATCH BASIN cue,. TO PREVENT PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED PITH FLOODING DUE TO DEBRIS SEE PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN FOR LOCATION Or SITE LISP,. CONTROL PANEL AND AUTOMATIC r 0,9T F.11, ,PDI.FF 1=1 .'I BR LIG.. 0 PEL STAR en SCOPE or PORK IN THIS P.ASE INCORPORATES PANSINS LOMHESION SEPTEMBER 2004, SO TO PRO,POE O. ACCESSIBLE FA... SPACE P,L.N ACCESSIBLE/ 1 FIXTURE PER SARATOSA 10 ALL eccesule, ENTSANCES VILLASE SPIDELPES TO BE SELECTED OY ONPER 0 RECESSED C-AN FLUORESCENT FI.TLRE GkRFORT 1 921_5 s .4,• ,---/.:„b-i P r'' "P 4 .1...e I7-'_ Z Lt:, "---...!_..'_-___•„n" no ■■■••Kulas.S. LIG. ,,---I ADJUSTABLE WELL STAR);\ I 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 1,s. 1' cp r REVISIONS ELM ?•=--rE. »U) <0 g 3 I— r. z (7) 0 0 8 ..71 0 0< CD LLI E ‘r g cr o MI c o I— CD 0 0 0 2 CM CO 811-01,0111 017-0.441 SIT-0404S SRANN ONLOSED REV OATS 7/E1/04 C AS NOTED 'MAT A0.4 Terra/ p vveme /t 9do se c. N:sirsa7: rams r.1r.-.7111M1111111 n.:L HIs PIM a7.7.&171111 mr-r-� s}7: �f :r.�•I�r�Ir;:7 11nr:•:i R1C� -i 6'•71 ?1i�1 ■lli.T:�•11 v2 KWIC MO 00 110/1 11OA111 110 MOOT KM. REFER TO ng ROTOR 01100/10001 Moro- COMO OR rAl210 Wu WOW UM COMM REVISION j# 2 ""1 IONG IIIYA G LSAUER Mt ARo 14410 BIG BASS WAY SARATOGA, CA. DIANA KAZARIAN 1D4' 1. -1111111 38755 11 12/28/05 KAM Of p PATRICK ROSE X1 01 r una.s 7".00 NOTE: "THEM PLANS ARE FOR RENEW ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS FNAL APPROVAL' GUAIRAL ANTES Olw 1001110 V -4 OmOCM. our ROOM IWM 10 e01101 Of SOL Olt =MK AMOK KO 10 N 11%i10 M CKLOM a11a oa I RUMP. mm O oOURED M ML *V SLOES INK AWOKE 1100KCI M 110O011001D PIACOOM 101101MrAn711 YOM ®W STA SOUP ■OL w 00O —COLA ®EMT MAmYn 071011 0O1110 001 TO 01007 1MI. ONO I1TMtA001 WITH MOON KM M 1100 07111011101 O1R Wr DOOR QO ®1 WORM MOO KO MID 151 1? MLL YL111 001111 10 OK lls n lmrww 1//50110 1 T. rT Ar 1 OMO MMI MO MLR 110Ot PROMIXOLM. MONK AIM AT RMO 01 /1/101 t ;AOOiAQ 1s 1 1 IV E1aG I N 019ML MUM IN O.C. PIP 0701 wm MMMtm ar 100 tx.L MCC OG iR LOCK ��111q�1 n MCP 1101111 O IR 7 OMI 0ACM C7 0 0 U 477/✓ /J1 ti's+ t -col l`i (A S 40 0 d-9 6� t5 ry a le 1 1'- i 1-30rr1 J f� Aeltw $Nny L4f'(r:45J 1716 E %for sbwt 741 :140477744140 B.4 Jaw ca 9817 Fa:1FIB 2 7 4743 140) Mg Baal Vely iIty,f11BWAr 5 =8" 1. keivickial Non Mrntate d Metal Sift Sets) q Z 1547 x NIL) x2 Je S p Cafor ktliteColor f o r {Ir e n d Iblow Color for 4. lbtal Sip Arar 14 Feet i ekarLeuth NNW MIN r Yet4t Mon Act*, Sign Company 1.1ok0 C46J 1704ETaybrStreet Tel :f409297.µ0 San Jose, Ca 9!737 Fax :f409207.4743 1490 99 atlE1 ValY Sanooppi 11 0 RESOLUTION NO. 06-021 Application No. 06 -216 CITY OF PLANNING- COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subway; 14410 Big Basin Way, Bldg. B Area 1 WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Subway (a sandwich shop use) in a remodeled tenant space within the Corinthian Comers commercial complex. The Applicant and Owner are as follows: Miya Glasauer, Tenant and Franchise Owner and Heikali Aloga, LLC Owner. The sandwich shop will be approximately 960 square feet. The site is located in a Commercial Zoning District; 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed project consisting of the conversion of an existing small structure from one use to another is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, `flew Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (c) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Applicants have not met their burden of proof as to certain of the required findings for approval under Article 15 -55 of the City Code. The following is a discussion of each of these unmet required findings: Finding #1: The proposed sandwich shop meets the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located, including the following objectives of the CH -1 Zoning District: (1) Preservation and enhancement of the small- scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; Applicants have not met their burden of proof to show that this use meets the objective of preservation and enhancement of the pedestrian character of the Village in that it is a sandwich shop to which many people drive and make a quick pick up of a pre- ordered sandwich. This type of customer activity does not contribute towards preserving and enhancing a pedestrian environment to make the Village more inviting to potential shoppers and diners. (2) Preservation and enhancement of the architectural and landscape quality of the Village; No exterior changes are proposed to the Corinthian Corners building as a result of this application; hence this objective will not be affected by this proposal (3) Encouragement of a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; Applicants have not met their burden of proof to show that this sandwich shop use encourages a town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences in-that there is already an abundance of sandwich shops in the town center. (4) Conservation of historic structures. This objective is not applicable to this proposal Finding #2: The proposed sandwich shop will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the Vicinity in that have been placed regarding the operation of Subway to minimize potential impacts .—Applicants have_ not_ met_ their_burden -of- proof_ to -showw that_the sandwich_shop would not be detrimental to the public safety in that particularly for the traffic coming from the direction of Los Gatos on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, due to fact that the "drive to and make a quick sandwich pickup" nature of the business could result in some unsafe traffic maneuvers due to the unusual configuration of the roads and intersections in that area Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the proposed use and floor plan and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for a Conditional Use, Permit approval for Subway is hereby denied based on the Applicants not meeting their burden of proof as set forth in the findings set forth above. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15- 55.080 and 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become final fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 8th day of March 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kundtz, Schallop, Hunter, Uhl and Nagpal NOES: Commissioners Rodgers and Capello ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None usie Nagpal Chair, Planning Commission AT hn F. Living ne, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL REPORT Attachment 3 ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATION MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 8, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 22, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 22, 2006, were adopted with a correction to page 4. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl abstained) Mr. Paul Fortenot, 19537 Eric Drive, Saratoga: Reminded that he had made comments at the joint Planning Commission /City Council meeting held in October 2005. Stated his belief that Saratoga is exposed without having a Wireless Facilities Ordinance. Said that the City of Saratoga needs to take control. Suggested that the City consider the City of Cupertino's Wireless Master Plan as it offers an approach that Saratoga should look at. Pointed out that Cupertino has a Telecommunications Commission. Said that these steps would remove any ambiguity and provide a win -win for the community. Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: Explained that he also emailed the Council with his comments. Said that Saratoga is facing the issue of resources and that the City's Planning staff is working on difficult issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 2 Stated that a Wireless Master Plan is a very important tool to provide guidance. Agreed that the City should go out and take a look at plans such as Cupertino's and tailor them for Saratoga. Said that there is no reason to wait to do the whole thing from scratch, as there are good examples out there. Pointed out that the City of Saratoga does not have the technical advice that other cities have. The issues are complex and involve advanced technology. This Master Plan would provide a framework for judgment to make good decisions. Commended two installations saying that Crown Castle did a good job along Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and the flagpole in front of the Saratoga Library. Stated that a lot can be done if the City is proactive and provides guidance to providers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Commissioner Hunter said that this is primarily an issue for Council. Director John Livingstone: Said that this issue is of interest both to Council and the Planning Commission. However, it has not worked its way up the priority list. Added that cities often try to borrow Ordinance drafts from other cities as a resource. Cautioned that the City is currently dealing with State mandated Ordinances right now. Chair Nagpal asked if the issue of a Wireless Master Plan is on the priority list right now. Director John Livingstone: Replied that there is a large list of desired Ordinances and this is on that list. Stated that Council had to pick five to six to tackle this year and this was not one of those selected. Explained that right now the City must react to laws that require supporting Ordinances on issues such as Density Bonuses. Chair Nagpal clarified that Council sets the priorities. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Nagpal suggested that this issue could be raised at the next Planning Commission Study Session. Commissioner Kundtz said that he has consistently asked for a strategic plan from cellular providers whenever an application comes forward and asked if there was something the Commission could do to ensure that this issue gets reviewed. Director John Livingstone replied talk to Council. Chair Nagpal introduced Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 3 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that it was good to be here. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 1, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06 -216 (517 -09 -043, 517 -09 -018, 517 -09 -044) SUBWAY SANDWICH SHOP (tenant) /ATOGA LLC (property owner), 14410 Biq Basin Way: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to establish a sandwich shop in an existing approximately 960 square foot vacant tenant space in the newly remodeled Corinthian Corners commercial complex. The sandwich shop will face Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. and will be situated in a tenant space between Starbucks Coffee and a proposed retail bicycle shop. Continued from February 22, 2006 meeting. (Lata Vasudevan) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: Stated that the applicant is proposing a Subway Sandwich Restaurant at Big Basin Way. Reminded that the Planning Commission continued consideration of this application at its meeting of February 22, 2006, to this meeting. Explained that this proposed Subway would be one tenant at the Corinthian Corner building. Said that the tenant space faces Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and consists of approximately 960 square feet. It is located between Starbucks and a proposed bicycle shop. Reported the proposed operational hours as being between 9 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. daily. The peak operational hours are between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. There is little evening activity. Stated that deliveries would occur one time a week at 10 a.m. when there is no conflict with parking demand. Added that deliveries for Starbucks occur between 2 and 3 a.m. Said that there would be two Subway signs, one for each facade of this corner space. The signs would consist of individual metal letters with exterior illumination. The lamps are proposed to match those used by Starbucks. The lettering is yellow and white and the applicant will provide sign material samples tonight. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 4 Reported that two additional emails in opposition to this request were received. One is from Mr. and Mrs. Formico and the other is from Laurel Perusa. Said that the proposed Subway is classified as a restaurant, which requires the granting of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. This process allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions. The Use Permit is based upon findings. Recommended that the Planning Commission make the required findings and adopt the attached Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for Subway. Said that she was available for any questions. Commissioner Rodgers reported that she was at Starbucks today at about 10:15 a.m. and that there was a delivery truck on the street. She asked if this was a violation. Director John Livingstone replied yes, this is a technical violation if the Conditions set specific times for deliveries. The Commission can propose and condition specific delivery times if it wishes to do so. Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked staff if the Commissioners have seen these emails. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that they were originally sent to the Planning Commissioners. Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked if they were part of the staff report. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that they were sent separately, after the report had already gone out. Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested that these emails be read into the record. Commissioner Kundtz read the email from Marie and Linda Formico, 14456 Sobey Road, into the record: Just read the article in the Saratoga News about Subway Sandwiches in Downtown Saratoga. I don't think that is the direction for Downtown Saratoga. 1 think the Starbucks is great but we do not need another sandwich shop. Chair Nagpal read the second email from Laurel Perusa, 15085 Oriole Road, into the record: How fortunate we are to live in Saratoga. How many California residents are able to refer to their downtown as a Village? Not many. The Village already has a multitude of businesses that sell sandwiches in our Village. An additional sandwich shop will not enhance our Village. A sandwich franchise at the Village entrance or any other location is not appropriate, detracting from the Village. Our Village is unique. A sandwich franchise does not lend itself to the existing charm of the Village. Please give the Subway Sandwich application careful consideration. Commissioner Rodgers asked between Use Permits, CH -1 and Land Use Impacts, which Ordinance takes priority? Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 5 Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that they all fold in together and that no one is more or less important. Commissioner Hunter: Reminded that she had asked staff about the number of shops that serve sandwiches in the Village and Planner Lata Vasudevan has said 15. Read a list into the record: Mediterranean Deli, the gas station, International Coffee Shop, Coffee Ground, Vienna Woods, Starbucks, Village Rendezvous, Buy Save, Blue Rock Cafe, Pat Smith's, French Tailor, Tapioca Express and the Napkin Ring. Commissioner Rodgers disagreed that all those mentioned by Commissioner Hunter actually sell sandwiches. She said that Starbucks does not have sandwiches and she asked to be sure. She added that the sandwiches sold at the gas station couldn't be equated to a shop that sells sandwiches. Commissioner Hunter said that she is listing businesses that have items available for lunch and not just sandwiches. She added that this list is actually shortchanged. Chair Nagpal asked if staff is suggesting that the number of shops selling sandwiches is actually 15. Director John Livingstone said that the Saratoga Village Development Council originally provided the list. He added that staff did a drive by attempt at a list and it appeared to be approximately 15 places. Chair Nagpal reiterated that the approximately number is 15 shops. Director John Livingstone reported that staff had received two calls this evening at about 5:30 p.m. in opposition to this Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the alleyway is narrow and questioned what the plan is regarding impacts during deliveries. Director John Livingstone: Advised that there are several ways to deliver including use of the back alley and the front parking lot. The least intrusive option would be used. Assured that the City would intervene in the event that problems occur with deliveries. Pointed out that there are not too many complaints received by staff regarding deliveries in commercial districts. Commissioner Hunter asked if a back exit to this tenant space is required since baking occurs on the premises. Director John Livingstone replied no. This site complies with Code requirements for this use. Chair Nagpal asked what types of uses would be permitted in this location without a requirement for a Use Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 6 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that retail uses are permitted by right. She added that each zoning district has a list of allowed uses. Chair Nagpal clarified that this request is before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit because it is not listed as a permitted use. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Chair Nagpal asked if a traffic evaluation was done on the potential impacts of this use. Director John Livingstone said generally speaking such traffic evaluations are done when the site is developed as was done with this building renovation. This is a safe corner as designed. There is no hazard and the circulation pattern does work. Chair Nagpal pointed out that this evaluation did not include this type of business. Director John Livingstone advised that a traffic evaluation was done for Starbucks. Commissioner Hunter said that the traffic evaluation for the building was done in 2002. Director John Livingstone advised that the City's Traffic Engineer looked at that report again for the Starbucks application. He added that a 900 square foot tenant space does not trigger a nexus for a traffic study. There is not much more of a draw anticipated for this use than any active retail. Commissioner Hunter asked for the total number of retail spaces contained in this Corinthian Corners building. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied six tenant spaces Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the bike shop is using two spaces. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that the bike shop uses 1.5 spaces and the telecommunications space uses .5 tenant spaces. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Miya Glasauer, Applicant, 19991 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: Stated that she is honored to have this opportunity to address the Planning Commission for this Conditional Use Permit to allow her to establish a Subway Sandwich at this location. Explained that this franchise was founded 40 years ago and now has 25,000 stores worldwide. Said that Subway enforces its operational guidelines and violations result in revocation of the franchise license. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 7 Reported that Subway has a monitoring system by which a field consultant makes unannounced monthly visits to each restaurant to verify compliance with standards. Said that Subway has strong purchasing power that equals reasonable prices for its customers. Added that Subway locations are remodeled every five years. They are well maintained all year round. Advised that she is the owner of two Subway restaurants, one in Santa Clara and the other in Downtown Los Gatos. She has been a franchisee with Subway for four years. She also owns two Baskin Robbins restaurants and has been a franchisee for nine years. Stated that she has received numerous awards from both Baskin Robbins and Subway. Reported that she moved to Saratoga in February 1991 and is raising her 11 and 14- year old sons here. They are active in Little League and soccer. She and her husband are active in the community and volunteer. Said that she is happy to be involved in community fundraising through her business, as she is aware of the importance of community. Pointed out that there are a lot of empty tenant spaces in the Downtown. Added that a brand name business does not have a negative impact but rather would help revitalize the activities in Downtown Saratoga. Reminded that Subway offers a quality product and services for the residents. Assured that there is plenty of pie for everyone to share. Expressed her admiration for the dedication and sacrifice of the Planning Commissioners and thanked them for their time this evening. Commissioner Rodgers asked to see the sign materials samples. Ms. Miya Glasauer said she has them available and would like to present them later after the Use Permit has been discussed. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Miya Glasauer if her Subway location in Los Gatos is in the historic part of the town. Ms. Miya Glasauer said yes. She added that a big deal was made at the time of that application. Commissioner Hunter asked if the tenant space is not located down by the DMV. Ms. Miya Glasauer replied yes but this is also considered a part of the historic downtown. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Miya Glasauer if she is certain she can function with just one delivery per week. Ms. Miya Glasauer replied yes. She said that Subways has high quality refrigeration as well as well packaged produce. She added that this is not anticipated to be a high volume store. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 8 Director John Livingstone suggested that Ms. Miya Glasauer provide the sign materials now. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that she surveyed the signs in Saratoga, which has its own identity. Chair Nagpal asked Ms. Miya Glasauer what she is proposing for signage. Ms. Miya Glasauer replied that she was flexible between uses of metal or wood letters. Chair Nagpal asked if there are no changes proposed to page 5 of the staff report pertaining to signs. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that she cannot change the registered logo but can change the materials used to create that logo. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Miya Glasauer to clarify that most business for a Subway location occurs during lunch. Ms. Miya Glasauer replied that two thirds of the business has occurred by 3 p.m. Commissioner Cappello asked how many transactions that might reflect. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that it is hard to tell. She said that this is not considered an A- level location but more a B -level or C -level location. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Miya Glasauer why she does not select a big and popular site for her Subway franchise location. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that her Santa Clara location has a huge shopping center nearby. There is not a lot of traffic here in the Village. Commissioner Cappello said that Ms. Miya Glasauer seems to be saying that her Subway shop won't attract new business but rather would leverage the existing traffic already there. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that her restaurant would offer convenience. She pointed out that the average lunch break is actually 30 minutes. Patrons usually pick up their sandwich and go back to the office to eat. She said that half of her business would be neighbors who would walk to her restaurant. Commissioner Cappello said that one objective is the revitalization of the Village. He asked how a Subway fits with that objective. Ms. Miya Glasauer: Reminded that she has been a Saratoga resident since 1991. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 9 Reported that she had lost interest in the Village, as there has not been much to make her come there. Assured that she does not want to wipe out existing businesses but that she does support the right of choices. Pointed out that Westgate was a dying center that now has been redeveloped. There are many choices there now. Added that there are no negatives with having a Subway in the Village. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Ms. Miya Glasauer had estimated about 60 people during the lunch hour as mentioned during the Commission's site visit. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that she believes that approximately 50 is more accurate but that it is hard to estimate. Chair Nagpal asked Ms. Miya Glasauer if she does not have a business model. Ms. Miya Glasauer said that she is not comfortable speaking about her specific plans during a public meeting but would speak with Commissioners individually. Commissioner Kundtz said that it is imperative that Ms. Miya Glasauer forecast the traffic impacts of this business if that number exists, as this detail is part of the decision making process for the Commission. Ms. Diana Kazarian, Subway Representative, 2001 Gateway Place, Unit 270, San Jose: Explained that she has been with Subway for 21 years. Said that the anticipated traffic in this neighborhood is between 30 and 40 during peak lunch, approximately 15 between 3 and 5 p.m. and approximately 20 between 5 and 7 P. m. Stated that Subway customers are in and out. It does not draw huge crowds. Commissioner Hunter asked about the ovens needed to prepare the fresh bread. Are they located at the rear of the restaurant? Ms. Miya Glasauer said that the ovens are located at the front of the restaurant where customers can see them. Commissioner Rodgers asked for a description of the interior materials. Commissioner Hunter said that they are included in the staff report but are not required as part of the Commission's review. Ms. Miya Glasauer provided material samples for the signs and said that they do not reflect the proposed size or color of her sign but just the proposed material of which the letters would be constructed. Commissioner Kundtz asked if green background is used. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 10 Ms. Miya Glasauer replied no. The sign is comprised of individual channel letters. Ms. Marilyn Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles, Saratoga: Identified herself as a resident in the Village. Said that Saratoga's Village is different. It is quaint, unique and charming. Stated that franchises would cause the Village to lose some of that charm. Suggested that the Village needs different niche types of shops that draw customers to the Village. Said that she is not sure that a Subway is the type of draw wanted for the Village. Pointed out that the potential patrons for this Subway are already in the Village and frequent existing shops already. Stated her concern about the appearance at the Gateway, saying that a Subway is not unique. Allowing a Subway here sets precedence and she would like to see some controls such as additions to the design guidelines that would prevent such uses in the Downtown. Reiterated that it is not a historic and charming Downtown with chain stores. Ms. Jennifer Young Taylor, 14672 Oak Street, Saratoga: Said that she has been a resident since 1952 when she was eight years old. Stated that she feels strongly against this proposal and that a sandwich counter is not needed here. Pointed out that there are already many fine dining choices available. Stated that an in- and -out place is no draw for foot traffic and shopping on the street. Added that parking is a problem. Advised that the Village is doing fine and is not dying. It is a beautiful place! Opined that Subway is ordinary. Said that having a franchise sign in an historic area is unfortunate and would belie the beautiful and historic ambiance of the Village. Ms. Laurel Perusa, 15085 Oriole Road, Saratoga: Said that she feels fortunate to live in unique Saratoga, a city that is distinguished from other communities in California. Added that this is a beautiful area that is quaint and charming. There is much to be proud of and appreciated. Stated that Subway does not lend itself to the character of the Village but is rather Anytown /Anywhere USA. Reiterated that there is no need for another sandwich shop in Downtown Saratoga. Asked the Commission to give this careful consideration. Ms. Virginia Fiorentino, 12029 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: Explained that this building owner, Nasser, spent two years completing this project and is proud of it. Said that Nasser is hoping that the Planning Commission is pleased with the result. Assured that this revitalized building will bring more visitors to the Village and that Subway would be a viable and strong tenant for this building. Said that this building filled would bring in tax revenue to the City. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 11 Pointed out that this franchisee, Ms. Miya Glasauer, cares a lot about Saratoga and its Village. Said that this is an opportunity for more tax dollars. Asked the Commission to approve the Use Permit for this Subway, which offers another option and variety. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this proposal represents the fifth tenant and asked Ms. Virginia Fiorentino how many tenant spaces there are in the Corinthian Corners building. Ms. Virginia Fiorentino replied that there is a double space available. Nasser wants a single tenant in that space that consists of approximately 5,000 square feet to serve as an anchor tenant. Commissioner Cappello asked Ms. Virginia Fiorentino what an anchor tenant means. Ms. Virginia Fiorentino replied that an anchor tenant brings in business. She said that since there are so many schools in the area, Subway would also draw new business to the Village with its fresh and good food. Commissioner Cappello asked if it would be drawing people who would not otherwise be going there. Ms. Virginia Fiorentino said that Subway would increase business in the Village. She added that eating there is more cost effective for young people. Chair Nagpal asked if Subway's patrons would not simply drive in and leave. Ms. Virginia Fiorentino said that there would be a mixture. Some would leave and others would stay and eat. The majority would arrive by car and she believes that the local businesses would still patronize their original sandwich shops. Ms. Juliette Bloxham, 14419 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: Identified herself as a nearby business owner and landlord across the street. Stated that the Village needs foot traffic in that location to help support other business in the Village. Said that Starbucks has helped and has been a good addition to her shop. Said that a new antique store is coming. Stated that Subway does not provide interesting charm to the Village. Pointed out that the renovated Corinthian building is beautiful and great. Said that the bicycle shop would be a good addition. Asked that franchises not be brought into the Village. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Juliette Bloxham to distinguish between the benefits of Starbucks versus the lack of benefit for a Subway shop. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 12 Ms. Juliette Bloxham said that Subway is not charming and the difference is the kind of people it attracts. Ms. Lillian Benson, Benson Antiques, 20603 -5 Third Street, Saratoga: Advised that she has operated an antique shop in Saratoga for 27 years. Said she is the unofficial "Queen of Saratoga." Said that she is disappointed. Pointed out that there are few Victorian Villages left. Expressed concern for other merchants in Saratoga. Said that she has sad news to report in that the Rendezvous is out of business due to a rent increase. Said that she knows of 15 people interested in establishing business in Saratoga but they can't afford the rents in the Village. Suggested that Corinthian consider reduced rental rates for the first year to allow new and unique businesses to establish themselves in Saratoga. Stated that Subway does not belong here. Another sandwich shop is not needed. Commissioner Hunter advised that Ms. Lillian Benson would be leading the Easter Promenade this year. Ms. Lillian Benson: Said that coordinating the Easter Promenade is no problem as she has done it before. Added that she is now 84 years old. Suggested that businesses in the Village need to keep later evening hours as she sees lots of business from the restaurants' dinner patrons. Ms. Diana Kazarian, Subway: Said that they appreciate the uniqueness and charm of the Village. Disagreed that customers of Starbucks and Subway are different. Recounted that her own Subway franchise is located next to a Starbucks. Both businesses share customers. Said that Subway provides nutritional information. Assured that Subway restaurants do draw and would be a wonderful addition to the Village. Pointed out that Subway has a $600 million annual advertising budget. Reminded that no exterior changes are proposed. Said that this is a small shop of only 900 square feet and includes nice interior decor. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Diana Kazarian about the demographics of Subway customers. Ms. Diana Kazarian replied that their main demographic is between 18 and 36 years old. That is their targeted advertising market. Commissioner Kundtz asked if there is flexibility in signage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 13 Ms. Diana Kazarian replied that the sign color and logo are identifiable corporate trademarks but that sign materials are flexible. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the signage used at the Santana Row Subway location. Ms. Diana Kazarian replied that they are individual plastic channel letters. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Diana Kazarian if Subway would work with Saratoga on the signs. Ms. Diana Kazarian replied absolutely. Ms. Caryl Pozos, The Butter Paddle: Said that The Butter Paddle has been in business for 39 years and includes 70 people. Asked that the Commission protect the unique businesses in Saratoga. Said that she is concerned about the possibility of opening the door to too many franchise chain stores. Stated that she is in support of revitalization of the Village. Mr. Joseph Masek, Owner, La Mere Michelle, Saratoga: Pointed out that 21 restaurants in the Village employ 250 people. Said greedy landlords raise rents that put small business out. Said that Subway would not draw to the Village. Ms. Miya Glasauer: Said that she hears the concerns and resistance. Said that she would be open seven days a week for the same number of hours. Assured that she would create activity in the Village as well as provide healthy food. Reminded that she is an individual owner of a Subway. Commissioner Cappello said that while Virginia Fiorentino has said that Subway is a strong tenant that would not leave in one year, if business were not good it could close up in a year. Ms. Miya Glasauer: Explained that she is a sub lessee. Advised that Subway's Headquarters is the lessee with 20 year's of options. Subway's Real Estate Corporate Department manages the company's leases. Pointed out that many landlords would love to have Subway as a tenant. Agreed that any business that does not do well could close. Reminded that this is her fourth year with Subway and her sales have doubled. Informed that customers are very health conscious. Said that she has a hard time understanding why Subway is not perceived as unique and charming. It is a beautiful and upscale store. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 14 Chair Nagpal thanked Ms. Miya Glasauer for her time and presentation. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Nagpal asked the Commissioners to base its discussion on the findings required for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter: Stated that she disagrees totally with the staff recommendation. Said that there are lots of restaurants and shops that sell sandwiches in the Village. Added that something other than restaurants is needed. Pointed out that new salons have been prohibited after nine were established in the Village. Said that this use would affect other shops that sell sandwiches. Stated that Health Safety concerns are not answered. Said that there is a parking shortage. Informed that other merchants have told her that they have seen no improvement as a result of Starbucks. Said that she has lived near the Village for 25 years and is there nearly every day. It is one of the most special places. Added that she moved here because of the Village. Said that vacancy is not high and shops are doing very well. This is a vibrant Downtown with many things happening. Said that a Subway does not fit with the CH -1 Zoning District and is totally wrong for the Village. Commissioner Kundtz: Echoed Commissioner Hunter's comments. Advised that he too disagrees with staff's recommendation, as a Subway does not add to the mix in the Village. Reminded that he also voted against the Starbucks. Reported that he has an acute sensitivity about safety. Said that the traffic pattern for this use would not enhance the Village. Concluded that he could not support this request. Commissioner Schallop: Agreed with Commissioners Hunter and Kundtz. Said that the location is in the entry or gateway to the Village. Said that due to traffic and image reasons, the findings are too difficult to make in the affirmative. Said that since there are impacts, he cannot vote in favor of this use. Added that it is more of a political issue for Council. Commissioner Rodgers: Expressed concern over the accuracy of the list of existing shops that serve sandwiches in the Village, separating full restaurants from shops that sell sandwiches. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 15 Pointed out several shops on the list that she knows for certain do not sell sandwiches, including Starbucks and the Napkin Ring. Commissioner Hunter said that Starbucks is coming up with a full line of sandwiches in the future. Commissioner Rodgers said that a gas station does not qualify as a shop that sells sandwiches. She pointed out that another business listed, Village Rendezvous, has just been announced as going out of business. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that that restaurant was in business for 20 years. Commissioner Rodgers: Said that many on the list are closed at lunch. Said that there are good shops that sell sandwiches. Explained that she visited a number of shops in the Village today and bought lots of sandwiches. Said that she does not want to base decisions on this list. Added that a mix of uses is needed. Advised that this slot won't impact the Village that much as it is a small isolated space. Said that it would not be a negative and would draw in the younger crowd. Pointed out that the CH -1 Zoning talks about providing enhancement and diversity. Said that she cannot make negative findings against this proposal. Reminded that rents are high. Stated that issues of signage matter more. Pointed out that the Trotteria is also a franchise and said that Starbucks has been a good addition to that corner, bringing people to the area. Commissioner Cappello: Assured that he came tonight without a preconceived decision. Added that he is still undecided to a large degree. Said that he is surprised to hear that Subway is not expected to bring in new foot traffic to the area as he expected it to. Said that there is an inconsistency between Subway and the character of the Village with its mom and pop unique shops. Said he would have no problem saying no to McDonalds or Burger King for the Village or saying yes to a new franchise mom or pop type of shop serving a unique product that was consistent with the unique character and charm of the Village but that Subway falls somewhere in between and it is hard to determine if it falls above or below the line. Said a unique feature of Subway is that it bakes its own bread on the premises. They offer a fresh product. There is a certain market segment and age group for this product and Subway compliments Starbucks since they have different peak hours with Starbucks in the morning and Subway at lunch. Pointed out that Subway offers a strong tenant with a strong brand name. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 16 Reminded that the interior of the shop will be very fashionable and most people would view it as a high quality shop. Said that he can make the findings but it is on the cusp. He is on the fence but would likely vote to approve. Commissioner Rodgers stated that she is kind of on the cusp too. Commissioner Uhl: Said that he feels very strongly and does not agree with the staff recommendation at all. Stated that there are Health Safety concerns with this corner. It is not safe. This is a major intersection for a stop and go shop. Added that on a bigger scale, he has a big concern about this type of use in the Village. Suggested that the Code needs to be re- looked at. Pointed out that people live in Saratoga as an escape from the Valley. Stated that in his opinion the Commission should not even be having this conversation. Chair Nagpal: Thanked the applicant and other speakers. Agreed that the Village is very unique. Said that she too came to this hearing with an open mind but she is unable to make the findings to support this use. Stated that the use does not conform to the CH -1 requirements. It doesn't provide a mix of specialty uses. It is detrimental to Health Safety as there are traffic impacts. Reiterated that the required findings cannot be made in the affirmative. Commissioner Rodgers asked the purpose of the CH -1. Chair Nagpal replied enhancing the pedestrian character. Commissioner Rodgers asked how a retail shop would service to enhance the pedestrian character. Chair Nagpal reminded that retail uses are permitted and would not even come before the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that since it is clear that the majority supports the denial of this Use Permit, the draft Resolution must be modified. The findings need to be crafted for denial and the conditions of approval removed. Commissioner Kundtz asked why not make a motion to approve and defeat it. Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer drafted three findings for denial that include the fact the applicant has not met the burden of showing that the proposed use would preserve or enhance the pedestrian character of the Village, that the use would not encourage a mix of Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 2006 Page 17 uses and that the use would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Each finding for denial received a five to two (5 -2) vote. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution DENYING a Conditional Use Permit (Application #06 -216) to establish a Subway sandwich shop in an existing approximately 960 square foot vacant tenant space in the newly remodeled Corinthian Corners commercial building on property located at 14410 Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Schallop and Uhl NOES: Cappello and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #06 -075 (397 -28 -052) SAGARCHI, 20433 Walnut Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to remodel an existing one -story single family residence and add a new 906 square foot second floor. The existing detached garage would be removed. The total floor area of the proposed residence including a new attached two -car garage will be 2,850 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 25 feet. The net lot size is 7,600 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 10,000. (Lata Vasudevan) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the remodel of an existing single -story residence with the addition of a second story, the removal of an existing detached garage and the addition of an attached two -car garage. Said that the total square footage would be 2,850. The maximum height would be 24 feet, 5 inches. Described the lot as 7,600 square feet. Explained that the area includes smaller lots. Several homes in the area have recently been built or remodeled. Pointed out that the second story is smaller than the first story with an increased setback that provides adequate articulation and that the proposed siding is compatible. Stated that the Arborist Report adds no requirements as there are no root zones impacted. Commissioner Rodgers asked for clarification of the west setback. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied six feet. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Applicant, 20433 Walnut Avenue, Saratoga: Said that he is the owner. CITY COUNCIL REPORT Attachment 4 Lata Vasudevan From: Cathleen Boyer Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:58 PM To: Leta Vasudevan Subject: FW: Subway From: Nick Streit [mailto:NStreit @cpa- online.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:56 AM To: Cathleen Boyer; Dave Anderson; John Livingstone Subject: FW: Subway Page 1 of 1 From: Betsycoo @aol.com [mailto:Betsycoo @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:53 AM To: kline @caspr.com; akao @saratoga.ca.us; awaltonsmith @saratoga.ca.us; kk2king @saratoga.ca.us; Nick Streit Subject: Subway Dear Council Members, We are strongly opposed to having a Subway sandwich shop in the Village. Westgate Mall has a Subway. We want our Village to contain the kind of unique shops and businesses in keeping with its charm. We do not need another mall. Thank you for your consideration in this important decision. Bob and Betsy Coo 19480 Valle Vista Drive Saratoga Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations, as well as many states, require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. 3/29/2006 Jill Hunter SVDC Chair; Saratoga Planning Commission Brian Berg SVDC Secretary; Berg Software Design Lillian Benson M.E. Benson's Antiques Marc Benson M.E. Benson's Antiques David Blanchard Gallery Saratoga Bill Cooper Bella Saratoga Flora Gendelman FloBell Women's Fashion Boutique Mel Gilman Pat Smith's Extravaganza Catering Deli Donna Guldiman Saratoga Swings David Horne Breakaway Bike Shop Abby Krimotat Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Marilyn Marchetti AFM Promotions John Marian Big Basin Chiropractic Yvonne Mendy Saratoga Historical Foundation Lee Murray Saratoga Arts Commission; Saratoga 50` Anniversary Committee Vance Nelson Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Laurel Perusa Village Gardeners Lata Vasudevan From: Cathleen Boyer Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:00 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: FW: SVDC Discussions on the Subway Application From: Norman Kline [mailto:kline©caspr.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:54 PM To: Dave Anderson Cc: Cathleen Boyer; John Livingstone Subject: Fwd: SVDC Discussions on the Subway Application Begin forwarded message: From: "Brian Berg" <bab@.b...ergsoftwarecom> Date: March 29, 2006 1:46:14 PM PST To "Norman Kline" <kline @casprcom "Aileen Kao" <akao@saratoga.caus "Kathleen King" <kk2king @comcastnet "Ann Waltonsmith" <awaltons meth @saratogaca.us "Nick Streit" <nstret @cpa online.com> Subject: SVDC Discussions on the Subway Application Reply -To: "Brian Berg" <bab. @bergsoftware.com> Dear Honorable City Council Members, Page 1 of 2 The Saratoga Village Development Council (SVDC) met on Tue., March 28. Included in our discussions was the Subway Application issue. This email is to inform you of the result of those discussions. The 21 meeting attendees were as follows: 3/29/2006 Pros if Application Approved Cons if Application Approved Since it's on the Village periphery, this known business attracts passers by Health and safety issues associated with this location Parking issue can be beneficial to expose the Village to those trying to find a parking spot There are enough places to get a sandwich in the Village already Pat Smith This business creates a threat to existing Villlage businesses Overturning the Planning Commission's resounding rejection sets a bad precedent Saratoga -owned businesses tend to take better care of their storefronts This shop would destroy much of the Village's historic ambiance This would be a poor representation of the Village at its Entryway Numerous traffic and parking issues with this kind of stop and run business The city receives no taxes on takeout food, the majority of Subway's sales Subway's signage is not aesthetic Approval of this second chain business sets a strong precedent for future chains in the Village Adam Rockwood Rockwood Design Associates Susie Schechter The Butter Paddle MaryAnn Serpa Skin Prophecy Boutique Pat Smith Pat Smith's Extravaganza Catering Deli The results of discussions were as follows: Subway Sandwich Shop Issue The original application was denied by the Planning Commission by a 5 -2 vote. This decision was appealed o It will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Wed., April 5. o The meeting starts at 7pm. The issue was discussed by the attendees. It was felt that it would be good to create a list of pros and cons about this issue. A list of pros and cons was agreed to by the attendees It was agreed that the list would be sent to the City Council for its consideration regarding Subway's application. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Brian A. Berg bbe_g@bswd.com Berg Software Design 14500 Big Basin Way, Suite F Saratoga, CA 95070 USA 3/29/2006 Voice: 408.741.5010 FAX: 408.741.5234 Cell: 408.568.2505 Page 2 of 2 Subway fy Lata Vasudevan From: Cathleen Boyer Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:58 PM To: Lata Vasudevan Subject: FW: Subway From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:42 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; John Livingstone Subject: FW: Subway Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: Lynda Fox [mailto:lyndaf @earthlink.net] Sent: Tue 3/28/2006 1:18 PM To: Norm Kline; Aileen Kao; Kathleen King; Nick Streit; Ann Waltonsmith Subject: Subway Dear Council Members: I am very much opposed to allowing a Subway in Saratoga especially in that location. This morning, I turned onto Big Basin Way from Hwy. 9. I was immediately brought to a halt by someone waiting to turn into the parking lot of Starbucks, and then had to stop again for a woman running across the street (not in the crosswalk) with a cup of coffee. Traffic behind me backed up into the intersection, blocking traffic. This is a daily occurrence, with people jockeying for a parking spot at Starbucks or on the street. I would hate to see that situation exacerbated by adding another fast food outlet there. I can already visualize that intersection flooded with high school students at lunch time, and the chaos it will cause. People may even choose to not come into Saratoga in order to avoid the hassle. Additionally, I really don't think this is the image we want to see in Saratoga. Subway stores belong in shopping centers, strip malls, or along main roads not in a village like Saratoga. I doubt very much that Los Gatos would allow a Subway in its downtown. I am not a restaurant owner, but I also know that there are a large number of places in Saratoga where people can get sandwiches and salads. I'd hate to see them lose business. Saratoga could gain one lunch place and lose many more. Is it worth it? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lynda Fox 19630 Juna Lane Saratoga 3/29/2006 March 26, 2006 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Council Members: Respectfully, Stuioea Donald L. Steinbach 14600 Bougainvillea Court Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -3912 I hope you accept the recommendation of your Planning Commission to not add a Subway sandwich shop to the Corinthian Corners complex at the entrance to downtown Saratoga. When I walked through downtown this afternoon, I counted a total of nine sandwich /deli establishments, none of which was overloaded with customers. Adding more stores to the mix would only dilute the customer base of the existing businesses. I've heard the argument that competition is good, and that the business (Subway) should be judged by the quality of the product it provides. To that I would suggest that a spot at the Argonaut shopping center would be ideal. There is at least one vacancy at Argonaut as well as a comparable sandwich shop. I've also heard that the proposed Subway would bring more foot traffic to downtown. That clearly wouldn't happen in the proposed location at Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Big Basin Way, but if it was located farther up Big Basin toward Sixth Street it would potentially cause folks to drive or walk through town. There are at least two vacancies in the downtown area. Cathleen Boyer From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 10:29 PM To: Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Subway Sandwich in our village Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: laurelperusa ©comcast. net mailto :Iaurelperusa ©comcast.net] Sent: Tue 3/21/2006 9:20 PM To: Ann Waltonsmith Subject: Subway Sandwich in our village Dear Ann, I am writing you in regard to the Subway Sandwich franchise proposed for our village. I am very fortunate to live in Saratoga. I appreciate and enjoy the unique character of our village. I feel a Subway Sandwich franchise in the village would not lend itself to the charm and quaint ambiance that defines the village I believe a Subway Sandwich franchise would detract from the character of the village. The village already has a number of businesses that sell sandwiches. Is another sandwich shop necessary? Would another sandwich shop be an advantage to the village? I realize this issue is complex, many factors are to be considered. My perspective is part of the picture, I am sure there are differing perspectives that have merit as well. I would so appreciate your imput on the overall picture of this issue, so I will have a broader understanding of the application and the impact a Subway Sandwich franchise would have on our village. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Laurel Perusa 15085 Oriole Rd 354 -7153 3/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Subway Page 2 of 2 3/29/2006 CITY COUNCIL REPORT Attachment 5 Appellant Name: Address: 1 q q q 1 oyG C G''y (A Qr 1 Telephone d.) 0 3 Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant): Project file number and address: £.2 -2 ✓/U l %1 �u Y: ?`ma f cc; r Decision being appealed: !/C1:'1 F C i/ P .4/ Plh/2t1 4'r j s j Cv? J Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached): Applicant: Signature: Request for a Continuance: First Request 2 °a Request Date Received: Hearing Datc: CITY OF SARATOGA. CITY COUNCIL APPEAL APPLICATIO U No Charge $250.00 N MAR 1 4 ZOO C Y eA Date: f Municipal Code Section 2- 05.030 (a) appeals: L) E C E 11 FE No Hearing $100.00 With Hearing $200.00 "LIP 1 4 2006 CITY OF SA RA TOG "MUNITY DEVELOPAP— Municipal Code Section 15- 90.020 appeals (Zoning related); Appeals from the Planning Commission to the City Council $250.00 CITY COUNCIL REPORT Attachment 6 .damommEnimmimul mumeinimunciosmarataimmismasmilmilon m i, wiewswielumPIP-wir mt....,Initormswariperp wirompipP-- ASITIMIIIIII Illraim silt 1 111 1 ,1 'NMI itIlII Ail 11111) '4 T 4 J' I r L I TEr-V VIP RETAIL g.01 SPAE BUILDING: PORTION 01, 1,410 .1. 1 000*07- CONC. SLAB 4 I-TENANT I RETAIL SPAtE3 (E., ell.00 TO OE I i Renoves RATER FLUNIENNO MEAN ERN FOR Mt. ri. TO OE SUED PER Oran! PLACE 00ER R.AIS LATENSON ERROR TO FOUR I KE 0Er Pori I AREA 3 02.1.1 el. I-TENANT RETAIL SPACE rio012 FLOOR OVER CONC. SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD 111E1 MIN PV s.• RAW! OP_ 1N,L I t BLDG. ■1 Mkt MINIM V4 OR OM ERROOR taw [tgled. IMO PORTION A I-TENANT OPEN RETAIL SPACE 00 00000*00 00OPPY, 11.14•EINATED EN0 1.1.7 NOV OR AREA I 2159 *.f. RAISED FLOOR FOR MSC.. MOOD $11.0 FRAN(. 500 DETAIL 0IA0.1 INSTALS. FIWOLOCKNII. PER C. NO. AT MR ERNS. AND OR EttISTIRS FRAIR. ERNS ORLOSLO ROTC. FRESNO! FRTAREE FIRE ENONNESNERS FOR eAr..• OCCUPANCY PISR cot• InIE M. 0701770t1 I CHARTER 111.1470 2•dcrec EVERT IS FEET OF TRAWL ENTRE OCCUPANCY A. ott [ACM FLOOR LEVEL 00 3(1*1*0 se OREM& I TO AGO,. ROOT tt• ot ure or on •av AREA 2 2p•• OS An+. 050. 51.00 R••■•• (4055101* PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN BUILDING PORTION B AREA 2 IB46.1 cf. I—TENANT RETAIL SPACE Y40017 FLOOR °V0* LONG. SLAB 4 t cf AREA 0 BE REMO 9e43.1.1. NW 0(010 TO eAAce mewl= Ita-VINNATED E.NIT LIONT bv OR. iNTERoR PER Cec SECTION Oen, 0 0 NE 0. OPERN6 TV 2. ST. M14i. Er r C. FPIEN 7.1,71o• EE• TN, x dr,. SO EIRE TAPED EATERIoR INNISN VS' S.COAT MECO FLASTER OVER N,RE OVIER LATE. 6RADE SLEW PARR OVLR 0,0000 OrRAIRNE. C.74 A A J/- RETROFIT IV PRITErt GOO. 70 MT 00 COM. ENTR7 LANDO. MATER NU LANLN. TO Mt 50ERALK. V.■ PROVIDE NJ C.C. FLANI• SR SLOP: PER ADA RECUIREINCRT5 3004000 sox a OP-OICARO PORCR FOR OISPLAT Mgr:, ONCE TENANT STOREFRONT SPACE PRovOC ORAFT SR,/ AT Nip TRIJ. FOR A.m.RE AMC. SPACE APR, Rs. 1,, 6000 PG.. MIRE 12.171 OF MOS PROM !ITN CORO TO EON OF ROOF inCATN110 FOR DRAFT STOP SEE 1/A 0 FOR ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN RSLOCAIL 15.17,1...i. NERVI. 70 NJ 500V140 TRTER LOCATORS 0.7111.161 a+ CONE RAW. TV CONOISETE ALONS UNE tr. REFER TO STRIKIIPTAL ORATORIOS DETAJL PIM ,..t, IRRI.str TINOS t.., ;STLLER. WE SW ARO J FOR 1.0l..ATION t ANEL ANO AVTOMATIC Timex,. 5. SST ARO FOR 1.0E•010. TENANT s CANER Aavef.17 TO NEEP CAME &NSW "EAR TO PREVENT PROIBLENNS ASSERIATED AIN FLOM.* ONE 70 DEERTS 0 I sN....1 tmenee 40.4■11.10.11 .14■10.146 i/ 3 R•stoloTE• II.= I 2 •11.011.011. S1T-0•-••• 21,22 oNET7/4 AEy SAT. 1/11/07, Al WOW. NO. •TOOR <1( X 1 I 7 I SARATOGA -LOS OR A!. T PMK. A An .Y A. �re AT PAAr TOG.. x 1 r AADA SITE j'7, FIELD GAT OS ROAD BU ALL W0 O BLEND OD PAT. CC, IU VOErvn K AZ .00 TO PC. I `r': 1- KE fx e L 'i Ati! 1 I Wil if 6ag I�r '�'I I CIF i r' ,t71•11 VILLAGE DIRECTORY 4 3 o n BUILDING PORTION B AREA 2 1596.1 al. I- TENANT RETAIL SPACE IN000 FLOOR OVER GANG. XAC i r�- II AREA 3 1021.'1 a.f. 1-TENANT RETAIL SPACE WOOD FLOOR OV OVER CONG. LAC M +FL I!,, •...4411./ Y l d e 1 •k T ,r• r II �IIII NM IIM !il I I 1 roA Px [D SARATO5 /aE D1RECronr BEE 3/n0• Aon vr< us NAce CONCRETE TYE ED COr.REre /o\ O A.A. ACCESS ME AR INnvA. ,r.„., WADERS. (]I TROL 1(d MART, rP. BROOM S. 5,,,re °E "BLL tN) [u Lv Na 'c' PAS rcrzR LOCATION PER PEI! .wB<NrA Rea BUILDING AREA 1 953.3 al. 1 RETAIL I TENANT RETAIL SPACE roOD FLOOR Ae wP. r,..,. ;;:e;`.'2. II MELD P o an o o *1 I i) z 7 a o I SA SLOPE 4 9 1 y N� PORTION C., L. cant, SLP3 I- TENANT I RETAIL BRAG�i ti 151-1. TO SE 11.I.13 11.I.13 ..0 I I 1 ER CONG. SLAB SLOPe a w n. ,.BV. CURB w w.. Aa L rw La c xoPB AT ON rE ruro 'rM to 6� PROV «ose r C] CD .i' l AE u I I j ,P. 41,444. /EOM,/ aRw.r N9 v.,y V iAC Ynka r' rv. 2. R.. r..,R. LR I( 1- CaTS19GNI]YBFA a w IVRN I j) �'.^saR awR, I w avy a Sf na p" r ..._R W 6 CSU aR a. wn n. r ��jA P c.c Q new w« M T IL U (13 cwre xOEE. rrr I P UP —�E nra SLOPE. ev..N reLO PR —1 �I' -r`.". a R r.B. O ED R t oy a FM E E anr¢, E,EL[�TR�AL ELECTRIC. E TO 04/ LOCATIONS I" ,w LAD .,],wAP N D B a. 'SLOG. o��. [D PORTION A PLOOR ro rnrlo FLOOR DROPINr X 11 I irr, �4 7• GE 'j AREA 3 REMO w SBB :�aNr -NE LOCATORS r ,E O NOTE, PROV N DBE.P A I- TENANT OPEN :e�E RETAIL SPACE CONL. 5L AB 1 o f=1 E B III V j h 2.15.1.5 .f l RAISED FLOOR iiiiii <w RAB L� Ar No. a Y E TO KEEP µE^5PR0>.GS.sµS �0 eL000 ac TO orLOOR LOCATION T O re Or POR. N ORPORAT[s o T AB L E/ i r R C STAN TN A P.nx 5. ONE DC CORnr vC NnNS iaa Or^r+5 CN 5EP2rBE 00+ 50 TO PROVIDE RO v¢ O m r.RE PER E✓,RAtOSA PCCEA6 B -E PARKINS SPACE (VAN ACCESSIBLE/ vlLLnaE 6Vi0¢urES TO BE TO ALL ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCES xLrcrcD er orw p RE E> tD .REAGENT LNN.T P ,R[ d� I' I RPORY 9315 el. I w B B ADJUSTABLE WELL STAR•. \1 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 ,,.•,e 11 uul At 1 /3 RENI•IONO NV eiN ELN NLN A.I 69 -0a -0111 1111-0B-044 enaEau bum.. Tu AE BATE AB NOTED A0.4 "Tema nf zn ye ?NJ? q�osgf. L: Ifs J111•111 1611 r�•r..;r_a.— 1.7c nt�:• 1r.� rears•- •■■•7..74 NOM- OR MOW ILL WIO? fl DRAMA REVISION 11 2 'ONG MIYA GLASAUER MI al 14410 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA, CA. DIANA KAZARIAN 74' a 1• r aM 38755 17/7/05 12/29/05 NAM M p PATRICK ROSE 'LL> I oM A AIL a iwa —�j NOTE: 'THESE PLANS ARE FOR RENEW ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS FINAL APPROVAL' GIOMRAL NO CLAM IOMIR V OW =TOM JLJIIC M 10 t LOWED M CALM MOM OJIO f1M� -N// WOE I 1r1O0 W Ie00 ie. tlAI„ Il 1MO *T 4 WARD W COE t*P MM It W01. O of /{ICBM T [MP O lost® M 1111 WOE LENTAIKEE10Mo. MOIIGOY wt. now NRALL111M 0P001 m Odom* POW IOOAII� 1 VI U* 1? Mt ANAL 110 ]0 M MOM to f11PMI T11� N1 100 11 MOWED OIw •O} AT (*7* 1 W 6Q Ia W W COOL sAIIM AT 1IMA ttA 110 OA LOCAL 0:17L •na AaW 111100 Isf AY LC. s2 l AmL non t M[ tiE OOIOIf. 4T7N; /ailq thvy 9 dev. -7o/ /Clm (AciLi t 7 Achy. au Company LId:a7alltEG431 1$114 E rrybab.t Tel :I4 en1174l(a Bin- mCa 116177 Fpc4(46F107{743 109 Eft g istaBwAr 5 =8" i t kividuar Non Imitated Metal Se* L Sign Si= 154/2"(11)xSell) Sign Cason MiteColor for msur and Mow color for "Ni0(' 1 r reel sa, Ac 819n company 1966 E Taylor Blreet San Jaa, Ca 9!177 Tel Fax :(416p07-074.1 sailor 144112 Bfg Easti Wry SardocKpa Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: April 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 3 City of Saratoga City Clerk's office Attached are additional correspondences regarding agenda item 3- Subway Appeal. Cathleen Boyer From: Nick Streit [NStreit @cpa- online.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:00 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; John Livingstone; Dave Anderson Subject: FW: Subway Sandwich Original Message From: jill hunter [mailto:jhunter95070@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 10:26 AM To: Nick Streit Subject: Subway Sandwich Dear Nick, As Chairman of the Saratoga Village Development Council and the Village Gardeners I wanted to express my concern about the Subway Sandwich appeal. Not only do I think that the Planning Commission findings were very strong and it was a 5 -2 vote, but also I have deep concerns for the future of the Village if Subway is allowed in. Already Starbucks has affected the shops serving food and drinks up to 10% they estimate but if Subway comes in they are truly afraid they will go out of business. With just a three block downtown and approximately 25 businesses serving food that leaves too little retail and too many food places. I have heard it on a good source that a retail shop will consider that space if Subway is not approved. That would be a much better choice. Secondly, parking and traffic will be just terrible. The Subway owner estimates that between 40 -60 people will come to Subway for lunch. Where will they park while they are getting their sandwiches? Highschoolers will be rushing in during their lunch break, some will drive around the block while other ones will go in to get the sandwich. Azule or Quito Village would be a much better location. Thirdly, the Village is a very special place. By putting a Subway with a Starbucks and a gas station at the entrance we are signaling nothing unique in the shops up the street. Our historic downtown will look very common indeed. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Jill Hunter Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations, as well as many states, require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and /or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any document(s) attached to this message is(are) being provided at the client's request and for its convenience. Any such document is a legal document and should not be altered without our knowledge and approval. 1 Cathleen Boyer From: Nick Streit [NStreit @cpa- online.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 3:57 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; Dave Anderson; John Livingstone Subject: FW: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop From: Michelle Blake [mailto:michelleblake @mac.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:04 PM To: kline @caspr.com; akao @saratoga.ca.us; awaltonsmith @saratoga.ca.us; Nick Streit; kk2king @saratoga.ca.us Cc: MARTE FORMICO; Robert Blake; Michelle Blake; Greta Jackson; debbie cantelmo Subject: Re: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:40 AM, MARTE FORMICO wrote: Dear Council, I would like to voice our strong opposition to a Subway Sandwich Shop in downtown Saratoga, what's next, McDonalds? The neon green and yellow subway logo is not what I'd like to look at as I walk through our beautiful downtown. I'm surprised it's even up for discussion. Michelle and Robert Blake 14394 Old Wood Road Saratoga Page 1 of 2 Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations, as well as many states, require us to advise you that, unless otherwise specifically noted, any tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore,this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. This message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may 4/5/2006 a Cathleen Boyer From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 12:02 PM To: Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: MARTE FORMICO [mailto:martefor @yahoo.com] Sent: Mon 4/3/2006 11:40 AM To: Norm Kline; Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Kathleen King; Nick Streit Subject: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop Marte and Linda Formico 14456 Sobey Rd 4/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 Dear Council, I would like to voice our opposition of opening a subway sandwhich shop in downtown Saratoga. As mention in the Saratoga news, there are over 15 places currently to get some kind of sandwhich in downtown. More importantly is that the image for our downtown? I believe there are better solutions for downtown...Please oppose subway. Cathleen Boyer From: Ann Waltonsmith Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 1:03 PM To: Dave Anderson; Dave Anderson; Cathleen Boyer Subject: FW: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop Ann Waltonsmith Councilmember, City of Saratoga From: Ted Macauley [mailto: tmacauley @accountingpartners.com] Sent: Mon 4/3/2006 1:02 PM To: Norm Kline; Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Kathleen King; Nick Streit Subject: RE: Downtown Subway sandwhich shop I had read that there had been a petition for a Subway Sandwich shop to move into downtown Saratoga. I wanted to write the Council to voice my opposition. While I do believe that changes need to be made to revitalize downtown Saratoga, I do not think that opening a Subway Shop is what we need. There appears to be too many places to get a sandwich as it is now and I don't see how adding a Subway will help the downtown area and the citizens of Saratoga. Ted Ted Macauley AP Executive Search 408.986.8310 Office 408.986.1411 Fax tmacauley Aaccountingpartners.com 4/5/2006 Page 1 of 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: (0 ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Joan Pisani DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: 50 Anniversary Budget Allocation Transfer of Funds RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the transfer of $20,000 from the General Fund Balance Designated Fund Balance to the Recreation Department's material and supplies budget, so staff can use, if needed, the money for expenses related to the city's 50 anniversary of incorporation celebration. REPORT SUMMARY: When the City Council approved a budget of $20,000 for Saratoga's 50 anniversary celebration, the money was placed in a designated fund. With this type of fund every expense, however big or small, needs to be approved by the City Council. Currently I would like to purchase a color printer cartridge and a ream of paper, but I can't until the City Council approves it. I am requesting this fund transfer to help streamline the process of purchasing supplies and services, and if approved, staff will follow the guidelines outlined in the city's Purchasing Policy. It is the 50` anniversary committee's goal to raise money from businesses and individuals and not use any city funds. If the committee is successful, the $20,000 might only be needed to pay expenses upfront until donations are received and the city reimbursed. FISCAL IMPACTS: If approved, transfer $20,000 from the General Fund Designated Fund Balance to the Recreation Department's material and supplies budget. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Each expense for supplies and services relating to the city's 50` anniversary celebration will be placed on the City Council agenda for Council's review and approval. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None FOLLOW UP ACTION: Transfer funds. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TRANSFERRING FUNDS FOR THE CITY'S 50 ANNIVERSARY OF INCORPORATION CELEBRATION WHEREAS; this year the City of Saratoga is celebrating their 50 anniversary of incorporation; WHEREAS; a 50 Anniversary Committee was established to plan celebration events; WHEREAS: the committee has planned and organized several community events during the month of September; WHEREAS; the City Council allocated $20,000 for the committee to use to help with the celebration; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Approve the transfer of $20,000 from the General Fund Designated Fund Balance for the City's 50 anniversary celebration to the Recreation Department's material and supplies budget, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That if approved, staff will make purchases in accordance to the city's Purchasing Policy. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 6th day of April, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk 3 of 3 Norman Kline, Mayor