HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-1984 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSCITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. %?, — Dept. Hd
DATE: July 23, 1984 (August 1, 1984) C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. '
- ------ -- ----- -- ------------ --- - - - - -- . --------------------------- "�- - - - - --
SUBjE,'m Final map approval TRACT 7578, GAINES Property
Oak Street (6 Condominiums)
Issue SumTaiy
1. The Tract 7578 is ready for final approval
2. All Bonds, fees and agreements have been submitted to the city.
3. Requirement of City Department and other agencies have been met.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution 1540 -2 attached, approving the final map of tract 7578 and
authorized execution of contract of improvement agreement.
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. 1540 -2
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
Council Action
RESOLUTION NO. 1540 -2
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP OF
TRACT 7578
WHEREAS, a final subdivision map of TRACT 7578
Floyd Gaines having heretofore been filed with this City
Council for approval, and it appearing that all streets, public ways and
easements shown thereon have not been satisfactorily improved nor completed,
and it further appearing that otherwise said map conforms with the require-
ments of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of
California, and with all local ordinances applicaYle.at the time of
approval of the tentative map and all rulings made thereunder, save
and except as follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1) The aforesaid final amp is hereby conditionally approved. Said
approval shall automatically be and become unconditional and final
upon compliance by subdivider with such requirements, if any, as set forth
immediately above as not yet having been complied with, and upon compliance
with Section (3) hereof.
(2) All street dedications, and all other dedications offered on said
final map (except such easements as are declared to be accepted by
the terms of the City Clerks certificate on said map), are hereby rejected
pursuant and subject to Section #66477.1 of the Government Code of the
State of California.
(3) As a condition precedent to and in consideration of the future accept-
ance of any streets and easements not by this resolution now accepted,
and as a condition precedent to the City Clerk certifying the approval and
releasing said map for recordation, the owner and subdivider shall enter
into a written agreement with the City of Saratoga, secured by good and
sufficient surety bond or bonds, money or negotiable bonds, in amount of the
-1-
estimated cost of improvements, agreeing to improve said streets, public
ways and easements in accord with the standards of Ordinance No. NS -60
as amended and with the improvement plans and specifications presently
on file, and to maintain the same for one year after completion. The form
and additional terms of said written agreement and surety bond shall be
as heretofore adopted by the City Council and as approved by the City
Attorney. The mayor of the City of Saratoga is hereby authorized to exe-
cute the aforesaid improvement agreement on behalf of said city.
(4) Upon compliance by subdivider and /or owner with any remaining require-
ments as set forth in the preamble of this resolution (if any) and
with the provisions of Section (3) hereof, the City Clerk is authorized
and directed to execute the City Clerk's certificate as shown on said map
and to transmit said map as certified to the Clerk of the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced
and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on the day
of , 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
W24 6T"n an �� E N E
". 1. 370GMA-r
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
** *Revised: 9/14/83
* *Revised: 9/8/83
Ci�y of �arato a % *Revised: 8/3/83
APPROVED BY: l / DATE: 7/22/83
DAl "--- 6/11 - - -. - p--� Commission Meeting: 7/27/83
INITIALS:
SUBJECT V -616, SD -1540 and A -879 - Floyd Gaines
Northeast corner of Oak and Fourth Streets
REQUEST: Variance, Tentative Building Site and Design Review Approval to allow the
construction of six (6) multi - family residential units with access from Fourth Street.
OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Building and Grading Permits
PLANNING DATA:
PARCEL SIZE: 18,300 sq. ft. (including perpetual easement on Parking District
No. 4
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi- Family Residential
ZONING: R -M -3000 :-
CTTF nATL
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Parking to northwest, single - family residential to the
northeast, elementary school to the southeast and multi- family residential to the
southwest.
SITE SLOPE: 26.7%
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: 26% - 27%
NATURAL FEATURES AND VEGETATION:
trees on hillside slope.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
Native grasses, shrubs, and significant oak
HISTORY: The site contains four (4) rental units. The westerly lot
obtained building site approval in 1978 in order to place one single family unit
on the site, which has expired (SDR- 1390). In 1981, the City condemned a portion
of the property for construction of Parking Assessment District No. 4 and a stipu-
lated settlement resulted (attached) granting the applicant the right to place
six (6) condominiums on the site.
Report to Planning Commis 8/3/83
V -616, SD -1540 & A -879 - Ga m es, Oak & Fourth Streets Page 2
Although the existing rental units are not on the City's Heritage Resources In-
ventory, the units might have some historic interest. The Heritage Preserva-
tion Commission included this site in an informal slide inventory of the Village
.area. Preservation of these units would require substantial rehabilitation work.
GRADING REQUIRED:
CUT: 905 Yds. FILL: 470 Yds. MAX. CUT HEIGHT: 6 Ft. MAX. FILL HEIGHT: 9 Ft.
An 11 ft. retaining wall will be needed for the fill area, which is 5 Ft. higher than
*
*allowed by ordinance. Tite -Fi-we -C�ri f -ice - rec�ttes�ti�rg -tfra t .-tits -yoa}} +L -i-ght -n-at -exceed -& -f t.
SETBACKS: Front: 19 Ft. to cantilever (25 Ft. required)
Sides: 15 Ft. (15 Ft. required)
Rear: 20 Ft. (25 Ft. required)
HEIGHT: Mid -point of roof: 25.5 Ft. Peak of Roof: 30.5'
SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Per Unit: 2,449.76
TOTAL: 14,698.56 sq.
FLOOR AREA: 1st Level: 796.67 sq. ft.
2nd Level: 796.67 sq. ft.
3rd Level: 856.42 sq. ft.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE:
sq. ft.(includes garage)
ft.
Building: 33% (45% excluding Parking Dist. easement).
TOTAL: 81% (74% excluding Parking Dist. easement)
COLORS & MATERIALS:. Shiplap siding (8 ") - Soft Gray- Brown; cedar shingles; wood wrapped
windows - Dark Ivory.
SOLOR: Poor orientation for utilization of solar energy.
REFUSE: Nothing shown on� plans
*LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING: Per discussions at your study session, the applicant has stated he
will revise his landscaping plan. The plans show a 6 ft. landscaping strip which contains
rosemary, oleanders.and redwood and oak trees in deep root boxes to soften the appearance
of the proposed retaining wall and condominiums. This meets the recommendations of the hor-
ticultural consultant retained by the City, comments attached. Condition.VIII -D requires the
revision prior to Final Approval. The applicant is to provide samples and costs of three
proposed materials for the retaining wall at your meeting. -
No lighting program has been submitted. Adverse lighting is not anticipated.
RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES: Structure will appear as a two -story structure
along Oak Street and is compatible with the existing condominiums in the area. How-
ever, the rear elevation will loom over the much lower elevation of Parking District
No. 4. The 11' high retaining wall will contribute most to this effect. It does not
appear that either the wall or the 3 -story structure facing the Village will be ade-
quately screened. A natural material may soften its appearance.
The proposed access from Fourth Street will require that a substantial portion of the
existing stairway be removed. This section would be replaced by a pedestrian cross-
walk over the private road and new platforms compatible with this crosswalk.
Report to Planning Commission -- 8/3/83
V -616, SD -1540 & A -879 - Gaines, Oak & Fourth St. Page 3
PRIVACY IMPACTS: The second and third story windows of the structure could impact the
privacy of the adjacent Zambetti property to the east.
DRIVEWAY AND CIRCULATION: The proposed access from Fourth Street is the reason for the
11' high retaining wall (7' above the highest parking district retaining wall) and a
considerable proportion of the required grading. This also requires removal of all
existing vegetation which faces the Village.
Applicant has agreed to maintain a maximum driveway slope.of 17.5% per City and Fire
District standards. Curbs and railings will be needed near the edge of the retaining
wall to prevent vehicles and people from falling into Parking District No. 4. This
will add to the apparent height of the retaining wall.
If the project took access from Oak Street, the problems mentioned above would be avoided.
This would require garages to face Oak Street, but the visual impact of these garage doors
would be easier to mitigate than the proposed retaining wall. This option would create
about 14 -18 additional trips per day on Oak Street which is not considered a significant
number.
GEOLOGY: The City Geologist has reviewed the proposed project and recommends approval
of the Tentative Map subject to the conditions listed in his letter dated July 20, 1983.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff's primary concern with the proposed structure and access is the
adverse visual impact the project would have on the Village. The project would also
have a significant affect on the site itself by effectively denuding the lower half
of the site.
These impacts are related primarily to the intensity of the proposal rather than the
density. If the project took its access from Oak Street, much of the site's existing
vegetation would be preserved and the impact of the 11' high retaining wall would be
eliminated. Preserving this vegetation would also soften the visual impact of the
new structure. Its impact could be further reduced by decreasing its size, particularly
if one of the proposed three levels were deleted.
It is Staff's view that the impacts likely to be generated by the project will not be in
compliance with the following goals and policies of the General Plan:
"OS.1.0 Preserve the low density and natural character of Saratoga by the inclusion
of permanent open space and landscaping within the City.
OS.1.1 Further development in Saratoga shall, through site plan
requirements, preserve open space as much as possible.
OS.1.2 Site planning for development in Saratoga shall protect the
natural environment."
Only 19% of the 18,300 sq. ft. site area is devoted to open space, the rest being covered
by impervious surfaces. The proposed grading for Fourth Street access significantly
modifies the existing topography of the site and destroys significant amounts of vege-
tation. Greater open space and more vegetation would be preserved by an access
from Oak Street.
"CO.2.0 Conserve natural vegetation and significant topographic features'-which exist
in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence.
-Report to Planning Commiss 8/3/83
V -616, SD -1540 & A -879 - Gaines, Oak & Fourth St. Page'4
"CO.2.5 In the process of all new development, particular care shall be
taken to preserve native oaks, measuring at least ten inches in
diameter at twenty -four inches above the ground, and other signi-
ficant trees by careful siting of all improvements."
Seven (7) oaks over 12" in diameter would be removed if this project is constructed
as proposed. By using an Oak Street access and decreasing the size of the proposed
structure, perhaps two of these oaks could be preserved. Also, the existing shrubs
and grasses covering the hillside would be preserved.
"CI.3.0 Protect the aesthetic, historic and remaining rural qualities of Saratoga
through street design and landscaping."
The Fourth Street stairway was been a part of the Village since about 1976 and would be
significantly modified by the proposed access: Also, the existing cottages on the site
that would be removed could have some historic significance, although it is recognized
that the units are in a run down condition.
It should also be noted that four (4) lower cost rental units will be replaced by six
(6) more expensive ownership units. This project adversely affects the supply of low
to moderate income housing available to Saratoga, although two more units would be
provided.
Further, the Planning Commission is responsible for the following General Plan goals:
"LU.5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction
and major additions thereto are compatible with the-site and the adjacent
surroundings.
"C0.3.0 Preserve the quality of the natural environment and the character of the City
through appropriate regulation of site development.
"CO.6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering
the visual impact of new developments."
The proposed retaining wall is not compatible with the site or the Village because of
its severe visual impact and substantial modification to existing topography. Options
exist for the applicant which would significantly reduce these impacts and should be
carefully considered.
The project also does not comply with the following purposes of the Grading Ordinance:
"a. Enhance the community by preserving the scenic character of major portions
of the City by preserving the natural physical features, and prohibiting insofar
as feasible padding and terracing of building site.
b. Minimize problems of drainage, erosion, earth movement and similar hazards
normally incurred in adjustment of the terrain to meet on -site and off -site development
needs as well as visually unpleasant relationships.
d. Ensure planning, design and construction will occur with maximum safety and
with as little disruption to the natural terrain as possible by minimizing cut and fill
operations.
e. Preserve the natural scenic qualities of the City while allowing development,
minimizing the hazard, and retaining natural vegetation to protect against erosion, earth
movement and similar hazards."
Report to Planning Commiss un' 8/3/83
V -616, SD -1540 & A -879 - Gaines, Oak & Fourth St. Page 5
VARIANCE FINDINGS:
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the variance to allow a 19' front yard,
20' rear yard, and 11' high retaining wall, the following findings should be made:
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship:
The actual building site for the proposed project has a 90' depth where 115' is
required by ordinance, although the depth of the site including the parking
district easement, is 138'. Considering these factors, the proposed 7' front
yard encroachment is not unreasonable especially since locating the structure
nearer Oak Street (the flatter portion of the lot) tends to reduce grading.
However, the rear yard setback.could be easily increased to 22' if the proposed
upper level rear deck were reduced to 6' in length. The main rear wall of the
structure is 28' away from the rear property line. Literal interpretation and
enforcement of this provision of the Zoning Ordinance would result in a practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Exceptional Circumstances:
As mentioned above, the actual building depth of the lot is only 90'. This
combined with the topography of the lot, make its situation exceptional. Most
other R -M -3000 lots do not have the constraints associated with this site.
* ** Similar walls have been allowed on adjacent properties.
3. Common Privilege:
Other properties to the
(from 8' to 11') so the
hood environment. Cons
applicant of privileges
* ** district and in roughly
properties.
4. Special Privile e:
east of the site maintain less than 25' front yards
variance would not significantly change the neighbor -
idering this, the denial of this variance could deprive the
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zoning
the same situation. Similar walls have been allowed on adjacent
The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
since there are exceptional circumstances associated with the site and its lo-
cation and surroundings which warrant a variance.
5. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare:
Granting this variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare
or be materially injurious to properties in the immediate vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed project does not, in Staff's opinion, comply with the General Plan of
the City of Saratoga as indicated in the Staff Analysis section of this report. Section
66473.5 of the Government Code requires that a tentative map must be consistent with the
General Plan before it can be approved. Consistency with the General Plan means that:
..the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in such a plan." Therefore, staff recommends
that the proposed variance, tentative map and design review applications be denied.
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve these applications, it must make the var-
iance findings listed above and the finding that the project is consistent with the
Report
to the
Planning
Com ssi on
3 8 83 .
V -616,
SD -1540
& A -879
- Gaines, Oak & Fourth St.
Page 6
General Plan. If so, then the following description of Project Status and Conditions
should be approved:
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and
City of Saratoga. all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against
the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental
resources.
A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara
Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved
under this application. Said determination date: July 21, 1983.
* **
** The Planning Commission approves the tentative map for SDR -1540 (Exhibit "B -4"
filed Sept. 8, 1983), Design Review Application, A -879 and Variance application, V -618
(Exhibits "B- E -1)."
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60,
including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or parcel
map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established
by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered
improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health
Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and require-
ments of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for
further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's
Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of-the City. In
addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions
which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance
No. 60. _
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval.
B. Submit "Final Map" to City for checking and recordation (pay required
checking and recordation fees).
C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide for a 30 ft. half -
street on Oak Street.
D. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to provide easement as required.
E. Improve Oak Street to City Standards, including the following:
1. Designed structural section 20 ft. between centerline and flowline.
2. P.C. Concrete curb and gutter (V -24).
3. Pedestrian Walkway (4 ft. P.C.C.)
4. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities.
F. Construct Storm Drainage System as shown on the "Master Drainage Plan"
Report to the Planning Com rission 7/22/83
V -616, SD -1540 & A -879 - Gaines, Oak & Fourth St. Page 7
and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff
to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse, including the following:
1. Storm Sewer Trunks with necessary manholes.
2. Storm Sewer Laterals with necessary manholes.
3. Storm Drain Inlets, Outlets, Channels, etc.
G. If approved, access from Fourth St. shall meet minimum access road standards
as to width,.-slope and surface.. Construct access road 18 ft. wide plus
1 ft. shoulders, adhering to.the following:
1. Access roads having slopes between 15% and 172% shall be surfaced
using 4 in. of P.C. Concrete rough surfaced using 4 in. Aggregate Base.
Slopes in excess of 15% shall not exceed 50 ft. in length.
2. Access roads having slope in excess of 172% are not permitted.
Note: oThe minimum inside curve radius shall be 42 ft.
oThe minimum vertical clearance above road surface shall be 15 ft.
°Bridges and other roadway structures shall be designed to sustain
35,000 lbs dynamic loading.
°Storm runoff shall be controlled through the use of culverts and road-
side ditches.
H. Construct standard driveway approach.
I. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as required
and access road intersections.
J. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard
or prevent flow.
K. Protective planting required on roadside cuts and fills.
L. Engineered improvement plans required for:
1. Street Improvements
2. Storm Drain Construction
M. Pay plan check and inspection fees as determined from Improvement Plans.
N. Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improvements to be completed
within one (1) year of receiving Final Approval.
0. Post bond to guarantee completion of the required improvements.
P. Reconstruction of Fourth Street stair shall require Design Review.
(Details as shown, are not approved by approval of tentative map,).
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional.
1. Soils
2. Foundation
i
'Report to the Planning Com"ssion 8/3/83
V -616, SD -1540 & A -879 - Gaines, Oak & Fourth St. Page 8
r
B. Plans to be reviewed by geotechnical consultant prior to building permit
being issued.
C. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
I. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross - sections, existing
and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities).
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location, etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls
3 feet or higher.
4.. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record
data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc.
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DIST. NO. 4
A. Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance with re-
quirements of County Sanitation Dist. No. 4.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Construct driveway 14 feet minimum width, plus one foot shoulders using
double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 inch aggregate base from
public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope of driveway shall
i not exceed 122% without adhering to the following:
1. Driveways having slopes between 122% to 15% shall be surfaced using
22" of A.C. on 6" aggregate base.
2. Driveways having slopes between 15% to 172% shall be surfaced using
4 " of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4" aggregate base and shall
not exceed 50 feet in length.
3. Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted.
*B. Re-t,rrrri nT -vrcrF - -tv Cdr arm 7 Tu-t7 - r -exc-Ld'crfi , ` i ri -rd, i g- -r.
*C. Garages to be sprinkled as required by Fire Chief.
*D. Early warning fire system to be placed throughout project.
E. Driveway shall have a minimum inside curve radius of 42 ft.
F. Provide 15 ft. clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building
site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected
by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation
Dist. No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted
with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
Report to Planning Commissi 8/3/83
U =61b, SD -1540 & A -879 - Ga_.:s, Oak & Fourth St. Page 9
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the
location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review
and certification..
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. Any
modifications to approved elevations or changes to exterior colors or materials
listed in this report shall require staff review and approval.
B. Any modifications to the Site Development Plan shall be subject to Planning
Commission Approval. Landscaping strip between two retaining walls is to be
a minimum of 2 ft. Landscaping strip adjacent to driveway is to be 6 ft.
Driveway width is to be a minimum of 24 ft. Front setback is a minimum of 22 ft.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures shall be reviewed
by the Permit Review Division to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility.
The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
* *D. Detailed landscaping, irrigation and lighting plans shall be submitted for
staff review and approval prior to Final Map Approval. Landscaping shall
be installed prior to final inspection /occupancy: Hardy landscaping ma-
terial should be used to screen proposed retaining walls and condominium,.
per the recommendation of Barrie D. Coate, attached, and the approved plan.
* ** (6 ft. minimum landscape, ttrip width) . Design for the landscap'n and he wall
to be.shown.to.be.compati�le in terms o the future strength o wall as
landscaping grows.
E. Fencing designs shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to
erection of any fences.
F. All refuse collection areas, gas meters, and other mechanical appurtenances
shall be screened from public view. Placement and screening of these items
shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits.
*G. Any railing or vehicular guard to be placed on top of or near the retaining
wall shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to 4seaanee- ef- ba}}d4ng
perm4s. Final Map Approval.
H. The reconstructed stairway platform on Fourth Street and the proposed
pedestrian crossing shall use the same materials as the existing stairway.
* *I. Any modification to exterior treatment of the retaining walls facing Parking
Dist. No. 4 shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Both walls (in-
*** cl �di edxi t�i��14/ PID #4� t& be .covereA with tu�o stone,.Rer lsample
su mi e a anni g ommission ee ings, agstone i co or.
*J. The applicant shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City
for those landscaped areas within the site. The applicant or subsequent
property owner shall maintain these areas.
Approved: JJ�4
MF /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 7127183
Mike lores
Planner
-o--c-A-. Ti o_ N-- -M- A P - --
- -- - - - k A -c -- -- - -5 7 --
OMA
�JJ
3
CT.
- - - -- - -
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. `r Dept. Hd.
DATE: NV-' '25, 1984 ._ _
—_ - C. Atty. .
DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr.
SUBJEC.'T: HP -3, ORDINANCE DESIGNATING CENTRAL PARK AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE
Issue Sunnary
1. The General Plan calls for the designation of Central Park as a
Heritage Resource under the Open Space Element policy OS.1.4.
2. Central Park contains one of the last remaining orchards in the
City of Saratoga.
3. The Heritage Preservation Commission has determined that Central
Park meets the criteria for Heritage Resources.
4. The designation will require the review of any modification to
Central Park by the Commission.
Recommendation
1. The Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the City Council
approve an. ordinance designating Central Park as a heritage resource.
2. The council needs to make the required finding(s) if it wishes to
adopt this ordinance after the first reading of the ordinance.
3. The second reading of the ordinance would occur at the next council
meeting and would go into effect 30 days after adoption.
Fiscal Impacts
The designation could limit City use of the property in an economic
sense and would make any sale of the property unlikely.
Exhibits /Attachmnts
Exhibit A - Staff Report dated June 11, 1984
Exhibit B - Application and Commission findings.
Exhibit C - Ordinance No. HP -3
Exhibit D - Heritage Resource criteria
Council Action
8/3: Read by title only, waiving further reading, and introduced 5 -0.
8/15: Aaopted Ordinance HP -3, 5 -0.
WWI �g
,.Fg"44
M
$�3
f>4
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CI'T'Y COUNCIL
f,-*a,�iwA
DATE: 6/11/84
COUNCIL MEETING: 6/20/84
SUBJECT: HP -3, Centra•1 Park, Southwest Corner of Saratoga Avenue
and Fruitvale Avenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
At its meeting of May 23, 1984 the Heritage.. Preservation Commission
reviewed, on its own initiative, the designation of Central Park as
a Heritage Resource in accordance with the Heritage Preservation
Ordinance. This was done in compliance with the General Plan which
calls for this.designation under Open Space Element Policy OS.1.4
which reads as follows:
OS.1.4 The City owned orchard land (Central Park), bounded by
Wildcat Creek and Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues, shall
be designated as 'an historic resource under the heritage
preservation ordinance.
OS.1.4 (Imp) Refer to the Heritage Preservation Commission
The Commission gathered information on Central Park which it has
used to fill out the attached application. After review of this
information the Commission made specific findings indicating that
Central Park conforms with the criteria of the.ordinance and.is
recommending that the Council approve this designation.
One of the reasons for this recommendation is that the orchard in
Central Park is one of the last remaining orchards in Saratoga that
is actively maintained and used. It is an important legacy of S.aratoga's
and Santa Clara Valley's agricultural history.
The City Council must now decide to approve, modify or deny the request.
To approve the request the Council must adopt an ordinance designating
Central Park as a Heritage Resource. The ordinance will go into
effect 30 days after adoption. Prior to adopting the ordinance the
Council must make the findings shown on Exhibit "B" of that ordinance.
Once the designating ordinance goes into effect, Central Park will be
subject to the regulations of Ordinance No. 66 which will restrict
changes permitted to the site and require review by the Commission
prior to any changes to the site.
Report to the Mayor & City Council
HP -3, Central Park
6/11/84
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: The Heritage Preservation Commission has made findings
indicating Central Park complies with the criteria of the ordinance
and is important to the history, especially agricultural history, of
Saratoga. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the City Council
designate Central Park as a Heritage Resource.
APPROVED
Michael Flor s
Assistant Planner
MF /bjc
C.C. Agenda 6/20/84
Date Received
Designation No Vp- 3
Meeting Date
Fee
(No fee for designation only)
CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE RESOURCE
DESIGNATION /PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
I. Identification of Heritage Resource
A. Name
1) Common Name Central Park
2) Historic Name
B. Location /Address Corner Saratoga Ave. & Fruitvale Ave.
C. Assessor's Parcel Number 397-30-53
D. Use of sits Open space and orchard
1) Original Orchard
.E. Present Owner City of Saratoga
(Please attach.-documentation of ownership)
1) Address 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga
2) Phone Number 867 -343$
3) Public or Private-Ownership- Public
4) Has Owner. been Notifies: of Application? N/A
II. Purpose of Application
A. Application for Designation or Permit? 'Designation
1. If application for permit briefly describe proposal and
alterations required.
B. Application for Heritage Landmark, Lane or District?
1. If application for heritage lane or district please
attach required petitions (Section 6(a) Ord. No. 66).
Heritage Landmark
III. Description
A. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the
site (including major vegetation features) or structure
and describe-any existing major alterations from its original
_ _. _.
condition: - - - - -
The area'--is--currently-being held in open space and orchard
until the potential for development occurs. The City of
Saratoga is currently speeding funds to improve the orchard
so that it will be a productive crop- bearing orchard. he
orchard is currently under crop agreement on a yearly basis
and within ve years will e comp e e y se -s
B. 'Architectural Style possibly revenue producing.
C. Year of Constriction
D. Name -of Architect.-Or.-Builder
E. Approximate property ..s-ize- in__. feet-- .(please__at-tach_ legal
description;if available)
- - _...
-Frbntage
2.) Dep t.h..:.: - . - 800-feet-
3 Approximate Acreage acres
F. Condition of Structure and /or Site (circle_one):
1) Excellent 2) Fair 3) Deteriorated
G. Is structure altered or unaltered?
H. Secondary structures on site. Describe..
N"o
I. Is this the original site or has the structure been moved?
- - - -N /A
E
J. Photo (Date Taken: l
IV. Significance
Location Ma
N
u
(Label site and surrounding streets
roads and prominent landmarks)
A. Briefly describe. historical and /or architectural�-impof tance
of.the resource .(include dates; events and persons associated
with- the 'site)
This'orchare is one of the last remaining rune and apricot
orchards in Saratoga. Because these crops are so significant
in Saratoga's agricultural history preserving t em as a
valuable resource is very important. (See Attached sheet)
(Attach sheet if more space required)
B. List sources used to determine historical value (i.e. books,
documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates):
Saratoga Parks booklet
Property deeds
Mr. Dan Tr i n ad ad ,
C. Does this site /structure have a county, state 'or'- federal
historical landmark designation? No
V. Form submitted by:
1) Name
2) Address
3) Phone Number
4) or Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission
3
XXX
IV. (continued)
This site was originally part of the Quito Rancho and was owned
by the following people: The Marion Family (1880's), F. -C. Cox
(no relation to the old Cox Family) (1920's), and W. Seagrave
(1950's).
I M P O R T A N T
Prior to submitting an application for heritage resource designation
or permit application to alter such a resource, the following should
be read carefully.
I, the applicant, understand that by applying for a permit
to alter such a resource that the site of this resource will
be subject to the limitations and provisions of Ordinance No.
66. I also agree that these limitations and provisions will
be complied with as well as any conditions upon which the
application is granted. In witness whereof, I here unto set
my hand this _ (j-rg- day of
Signature
Print NameZA'ZO(f��(L%Zf ISV� %[UN�viGl�►�ilSSlpic/
Address 15 7 Butt �,°d,F�,- AY &..�A Qis"o7o
Phone: Residence
Business 06-1- 34`38
VI. Recommendation of Commission to (circle one):
City Council /Planning Commission /Community Development Department
A. The Heritage Preservation. Commission is fo /against the
6r-o—po-s-e-c-Tl)designation/permit application.
B. Comrents: We.fee.l- that - Central Park should be retained
as orchard property since it exemplifies an era that was
extremely important.in Saratoga's.history. We feel that ..
it is vital that.this orchard be portected as a heritage
resource since it is one of the last remaining orchards
in the City.
4
(4)
M7ZZ
41-
0
34
-35
397 -30 -47
111• )v•44
wild
CENTRAL PARK
0
of
IL
1
10.
C. Findings:
1. Central Park has special historical, cultural and
aesthetic interest and value as part of the heritage
and `history of the City and County.
2. Central Park satisfies criteria a, e, and g of
Sections 5 of Ordinance No. 66 in that its orchard
exemplifies the agricultural use of land which once
dominated the Santa Clara Valley, it is an established
visual feature of the neighborhood, and contributes
to the unique natural setting of Wild Cat Creek which
is of special aesthetic interest and value
Signed
,e o_a�/ (
Chairman of H eritag
Preservation Commission
5
ORDINANCE NO. HP -3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING
THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS CENTRAL PARK (APN 397- 30 -53)
AS A HERITAGE RESOURCE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: After careful review and consideration of the report of
the Heritage Preservation Commission, the application and supporting
materials the City Council has determined that the findings per
Exhibit "B" can be made and hereby designates the property-known as
Central Park as a Heritage Resource of the City of Saratoga.
SECTION 2: This designation shall become operative and take effect
thirty (30) days from its date of passage.
This ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time
required by law was thereafter passed and adopted this day of
, 19 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
._e"
EXHIBIT "B"
REPORT OF FINDINGS
1. Central Park has special historical, cultural, and aesthetic
value as part of the heritage of Saratoga and Santa, Clara County.
2. Central Park satisfies criteria a, e, and g of Section 5 of
Ordinance No. 66 in that its orchard exemplifies the agricultural
use of land which once dominated the Santa Clara Valley, it is an
established visual feature of the neighborhood, and contributes
to the unique natural setting of Wildcat Creek which is of special
aesthetic interest and value.
9
G �s-rie.tzIA
•'� -. 1. wyH.flAYl.I.Y.G4ii v: -tiii •n �.. .. n.,...
heritage resource. Such voluntary advice and guidance shall
not impose any regulation or control over any property.
(i) Participate in, promote and conduct public informa-
tion and educational programs pertaining to heritage resources.
(j) Perform such other functions as may be delegated to
it by resolution or motion of the City Council.
Section 5. Criteria for Designation as a Heritage Resource.
The Heritage Commission may recommend to the City
Council designation of a proposal as a heritage resource if it
satisfies any one or more of the following criteria:
(a) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the
r
cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering
or architectural history of the City, the county, the state
or the nation; or
(b) It is identified with persons or events significant
in local, county, state or national history; or
(c) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style,
type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable
example of the use of indigenous materials or craftmanship;
or
(d) It is representative of the notable design or craft
of a builder, designer, or architect; or
(e) It embodies or contributes to unique physical
characteristics representing an established and familiar
visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City;
or
(f) It represents a significant concentration or
continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified
by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or
natural development; or
(g) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural
-7-
_.. -- ;:.:;• -•:
setting or environment constituting a distinct area or
district within the City having special character or special
historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 6. Procedure for Designation of a Heritage Resource.
The procedure for designation as a heritage resource
shall be as follows:
(a) Applications for Desianation. Applications for
designation as a heritage resource may be submitted to the
heritage Commission by any of the following:
01-
(1) The owner or owners of a building, improve-
L, �� '
ment, structure, natural feature, site or area of land,
s
requesting designation of their property as a historic
landmark.
(2) The owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of
all recorded lots abutting a street, road, avenue,
boulevard, pathway or trail, or portion thereof,
requesting designation as a heritage lane.
r/D0�v O�� i
(3) The owners of at least sixty percent (602) of
all recorded lots within a specific geographic section .
of the city, requesting designation of the entire
section as a historic district.
Applications for designation as a heritage lane or historic
district shall be accompanied by a filing fee to cover the
„ „ _, r ,;,�,_�;,:� „•�, ;,:�.:. ;_;
administrative cost of handling the designation proceedings.
,1 ptto�'�Sh
The City Council or the Planning Commission may also, by
7f•SC�,vA7io�! 0 rt< ota!!
resolution or motion, refer a proposed designation to the
Heritage Commission for its recommendation and the Heritage
Commission may consider a proposed designation upon its own
initiative.
(b) Study of Pr000sal. The Heritage Commission shall
conduct a study of the proposed designation, based upon
CITY OF SARATOGA
Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO 7 Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 26, 1984 C. At
DEPARTMENT: City Manager C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: UPDATE OF CONFLICT OF IN'T'EREST CODE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
Recent changes in State law require that conflict of interest codes include as
"designated employees" all Employees who are involved, in other than a clerical
or ministerial fashion, in the negotiation or.award of competitively bid contracts
or contracts for the purpose of goods and services. Consultation with the City
Attorney and department heads indicates that all department heads should be included
as designated employees.
In addition, the Planning Director position listed in our code no longer exists
by that name. Lastly, the 'City Council and City Manager do not need to
be listed in our code any longer because they are required by State law to file
Statements of Economic Interest.
The attached resolution would delete the ' City Council and City Manager
from our Conflict of Interest Code. It adds department heads and, at his request,
the City Attorney.
Recommendation
Adopt attached resolution.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Exhibits /AttachmQ.nts
Resolution Amending Resolution 779
Resolution 779
Council Action -7-7 q, f �� �
V�, Q�
RESOLUTION NO. 779.1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 779
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has undergone a number of organizational changes
affecting personnel and their duties since its Conflict of Interest Code
was adopted by Resolution No. 779 in 1976, and
WHEREAS, the Conflict of Interest Code includes the City Council and the
City Manager as public officials required to disclose economic interests,
although the Political Reform Act itself now includes the City Council and
City Manager as officials required to disclose such interests, and
WHEREAS, the City-Council therefore deans it advisable to add to its Conflict
of Interest Code various positions which entail the making or participation
in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on
any financial interest and to delete those positions already included in the
Political Reform Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Resolution -779
are hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 2: APPLICATION OF CODE.. This Conflict ofiterest Code shall
be applicable to the Community Develognent Director; Community Services
Director, Finance Director, Maintenance Director, and City Attorney.
SECTION 3: DISCLOSURE. All persons described in Section 2 shall be
required to disclose investments, interests in real property and income.
No other or no additional disclosure requirements are imposed by this
Conflict of Interest Code.
.SECTION 4: -CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING DISQUALIFICATION. Any person
described in Section 2 must disqualify himself or herself from making
or.participating in the making of any decisions which will foreseeably
have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on
the public generally, on any economic interest, as defined in Government
Code Section 87103. No such person shall be prevented from making
or participating in the making of any decision to the extent his or .
her participation is legally required for the decision to be made.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Saratoga City Council held on the day of 1984, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
i
„-
RESOLUTION NO. 779
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
APPLICABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
THE CITY MANAGER, AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: ADOPTION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE. In compliance
with Section 87300 of the Government Code, the City Council hereby adopts
this Conflict of Interest Code.
SECTION 2: APPLICATION OF CODE. This Conflict of Interest Code
shall be applicable to members of the City Council, whether acting as a Council
member or as governing board member or commissioner of any city agency, and the
City Manager and Planning Director.
SECTION 3: DISCLOSURE. Members of the City Council are required,
pursuant to Government Code Section 87200, to disclose investments, interests
in real property and income. No other or no additional disclosure requirements
are imposed by this Conflict of Interest Code.
SECTION 4: CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING DISQUALIFICATION. Any member of
the City Council, whether acting as a Council member or as governing board
member or commissioner of any city agency, must disqualify himself or herself
from making or participating in the making of any decisions which will fore -
seeably have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect
on the public generally, on any economic interest, as defined in.Government
Code Section 87103. No member shall be prevented from making or participating
in the making of any decision to the extent his or her participation is
legally required for the decision to be made.
SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS. Except as otherwise indicated, the definitions
contained in the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 81000)
and Regulations adopted pursuant thereto are incorporated into this Conflict
of Interest Code.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy
of this resolution to the Fair Political Practices Commission on or before
October 10, 1976, and the Code herein adopted shall not become effective until
the same has been approved by said Fair Political Practices Commission.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced, .
and a public hearing was.held thereon by the City Council of the City of Saratoga
on the 4th day of August , 1976, and after published notice thereof
in a newspaper of general circulation published in said City the same was passed
and adopted by said City Council on the 4th day of August , 1976, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Bridges, Kraus, Brigham, Corr, and Matteoni
NOES: None
�I
ABSENT:' None
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY OF SARATOGA
/ Initial:
AGOMA BILL NO Dept. Hd.
DATE:'July 23, 1984 (8/1/84) C. Atty.
DEPARTME�1r: Compaunity Development C. Mgr..')
�.
--------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------
V-641 and A -967, California Real Estate Investment (Saratog-a National Bank)
SUBJECT: 12000 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Appeal of Conditions #3 and #4.of V -641 and
and_5_of_A_ 976--- -
-------------------------------------------
Issue S
The Planning Commission granted Design Review and Variance Approval for
brass signs on the north and west side of the bank building which exceed
the 40 sq. ft. allowable aggregate signage. The applicant is appealing
condition #3 of V -641 and A -976 which would prohibit any illumination and
condition #4 of V -641 and condition #5 of A -976 which limited the aggregate
signage to 54 sq. ft.
Limiting the signage to 54 sq. ft. and prohibiting illumination was part of
Variance findings. #2, #6, and #7 made by -the co mission'should the appeal
be upheld new findings would be required.
Recommendation
1) Consider the merits of the appeal and delete or amend the appropriate
conditions, making the necessary findings.
2) Staff recommended denial of Variance, V -641
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
1) Appeal letter
2) Staff Reports for V -641 and A -976
3) Resolution No. A -976 -1
4) Minutes Dated 6/27/84
5) Exhibit; B
6) Correspondence Received on Project
Council Action
/3
nn N r r
J U L 0 5 19a,.4
ITY DEVELOP�,lr-,,-
Date Received:
Hearing Date:
fu
Fee : Alz
CITY USE ONLY
APPEAL APPLICATION
Name of Appellant:
Address:
V4 IF
Telephone:
Name of Applicant:
Project File No.:
Project Address Z) Ci /-9
Project Description:
Decision Being Appealed: - S7 0
/4L/ A.,
Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached) 7o
el T.
Appellant's Signature
C,
I
*Please do not sign this application until it is presented at the
City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this
appeal please list them on a separate sheet.
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF
THE DATE OF THE DECISION.
i
INCORPORATED
SERVING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXCLUSIVELY
LOS ANGELES SAUSALITO HONOLULU
...3z,Ctj V'iL
July 6, 1984
City Council, Planning Ccnudssion
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Saratoga National Bank
12000 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, CA
"Signing Package"
Dear Council Member:
JUL 0 () 1381.
CMIAP "IITY DEVELONfic,v
The Bank has chosen to appeal the Planning Commission's decision of
June 27, 1984, and as the Bank's Architect, support their thoughts.
Basically, we are contesting two items.
1. Reduction of square footage for the approved signs on the north
and west sides to accomodate signage on the proposed entrance
canopy- awning.
2. No lighting on the approved signs.
The building in question is unique, and in my opinion, quite tastefully
designed. Although most of our challenge in converting a crystal /gift
store into a bank was confined to the interior, we did investigage and
consider various treatments to the outside. One of the deficiencies
evident to us on our first visit was the lack of identity. Randall's
small signs, coupled with minimal windows on the street side provided a
definite problem of identifying who or what was in the building.
As you know, the building is isolated.from other shops in the center,
with it's back against Saratoga - Sunnyvale road, and it's front door
oriented to the interior parking lot.
1. Entrance Sign on Awning -Canopy
The orientation mentioned above is a key reason that we believe the
sign requested for the entrance canopy should not be considered as
part of the approved allowable signage area. One of the Planning
Commission members said it best - "you could drive by the building
on either Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road or Prospect, for 100 years and
never see this sign." This sign is shielded frcam street side view
160 HARBOR DRIVE, SAUSALITO, CA 94965-1497
(415) 332 -5951
City Council, City of Saratoga Planning Commission 7/6/84 Page 2
by the trees and the building orientation. It is only viewable as
you walk up to the building and from a small section of the parking
lot. See enclosed print with suggested layout. The awning will be
the same shape and size as the previous awning that Randall's had.
The sign will have gold letters and logo on a blue canvas awning.
2. Sign Illumination
The signs typically installed in the shopping center are the traditional
metal cans with plexiglass faces & letters internally illuminated with
fluorescent lamps.
Our proposed signs are individual letters made of polished brass.
There is no surrounding can or enclosure. The letters and logo are
held out from the face of the shingled building wall with hidden
supports. This type of sign is the highest quality and was con-
ceived as a face lit sign initially, with lighting coming from ground
flood lights [1 pair of lamps per sign] which are to be concealed in
the landscaping.
As experts in designing banks and savings & loans [over 500], we have
found it imperative for proper identification for these financial
institutions to survive. We are asking that the signs on the north
and west walls be illuminated as mentioned above, until 10:00 P. M.
in the evening. It is light during the summer months until 8:30 or
9:00 P. M., which would require the signs be illuminated for 1 or 2
hours.
During the winter months, with some banks staying open until 6 or 7
P. M. and it getting dark at about 5 P. M., illuminated identification
is important. This building, with it's dark walls, provides a very
dark corner at night. If for no other reason, security would be
enhanced at this major intersection with the light on our proposed
signs. I believe that an alive & viable building with lights and
identification would be an asset to the entrance to your community,
rather than a liability.
Approved Signs
We concur that the sign on the west side can be reduced in it's overall
length fron 14' -6 to 11' -0" per the Planning Cotmission's suggestion.
Sincerely,
BANKJP VMING ASSQQIATES, INC.
l
Robert J. Huntsberry, A. I A.
Vice President
RJH /mm
encl.
cc: Dick Mount, President
Saratoga National Bank
INCORPORATEO
ROBERT J. HUNTSBERRY, AIA
VICE PRESIOENT (41S) 332 -5951
180 H4RBOR ORIVE I SAUSALITO, C4 949SS
1 .'e /I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
*Revised: 6/27/84
DATE: 6/19/84
Commission Meeting: 6/27/84
SUBJECT: V. -641, A -976, A -709 - Modification
California Real Estate Investment (Saratoga National Bank)
12000 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
ACTION REQUIRED: Variance Approval to exceed the allowable aggregate sign area, Design
Review Approval for a sign exceeding 8 sq. ft. and approval for a modification from
conditions #3 and #4 of A -709.
PLANNING CLASSIFICATION:
ZONING: C -V (Visitor Commercial)
GENERAL PLAN:
STTF BATA-
PARCEL SIZE:
Retail Commercial
.91 acres
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS:
BACKGROUND: Previous Design Review Approval (A -709) for the building had conditions
which restricted signs on the west and north elevations, and which required that signage
should be compatible with the sign program approved for other buildings in the Park
Saratoga Center. The sign program for the center specifies internally illuminated ivory
lettering in the korinna extra bold style with a maximum height.of 12 ".
PROPOSED SIGNAGE: The applicant is proposing three (3) new signs for the building;
two brass signs on the north and west elevations and one on the new awning over the
entrance to the bank. All the signs have an oak tree logo and none would be illuminated
by spotlights. Signage would be as follows:
Location
North Elevation:
West Elevation:
East Elevation (Awning)
Materials
Pegged Polished Brass
Pegged Polished Brass
Navy Blue Awning /Gold
Letter Style
Letters Script & "Helvica"
Letters Script & "Helvica"
Letters Unknown
Size
20 sq.
44 sq.
Unknown
ft.
ft.
Report to Planning Commis
V -641, A -976, A -709 - Cali'�."Real Est. 1 6/19/84
Page 2
V -641, VARIANCE
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The sign ordinance, Section 10.5, allows a maximum of 40 sq. ft.
total signage to identify any one business in a commercial district. The applicant is pro-
posing a total of 64 sq. ft., not including signage on the awning which is likely to be
an additional 10 sq. ft. or more.
FINDINGS:
1. Compliance with Ordinance Objectives /Strict Interpretation
The purpose of the restriction on aggregate signage is to allow for sufficient signage
to identify a business while prohibiting signage which is excessive advertising that is
distracting and detracts from surrounding businesses. Enforcement of this regulation
does not restrict the applicant from effectively identifying the business. Staff
cannot make this finding.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
Because the building is set so close to the roadway (18') and signage would be very
visible, there is no reason to have more sign area to identify the business. Since there
are no exceptional circumstances, Staff cannot make this finding.
3. Common Privilege
Enforcement of the 40 sq. ft. limit does not deprive the applicant of the common
privilege to identify their business. Staff.cannot make this finding.
4. Special Privilege
Because there are no exceptional circumstances or denial of common privilege, granting
the Variance would constitute a granting of special privilege. Staff cannot make thit
finding.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposed signage would not be detrimental
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR SIGN VARIANCE
6. Preservation of the Natural Beauty of the City
to the public health, safety and welfare.
The sign proposed for the west elevation would be 14'6" x 3' in size which is an ex-
tremely large sign located at one of the important entrances to the City. The size
of this sign, combined with signage on the north elevation, will distract from land-
scaping on the site and call attention to the closeness of the building to the roadway.
Staff cannot make this finding.
7. Inharmonious Elements in the Zoning District
The size of the sign on the west elevation is much larger than most signs in the
commercial district. Staff cannot make this finding.
8. Hazard to Public Safety
The signage proposed will not create a hazard to public safety.
Report to Planning Commis `,
V -641, A -976, A -709 - Calif. Real Est.
6/19/84
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION FOR V -641: Staff recommends denial having been unable to make findings
#1, 27-34, 6 and 7. If the Commission wishes to approve the Variance, the necessary
findings are required and Staff would recommend the following conditions:
* 1 • T �Te1'e ��ral -1• -b-e, im -Ttgaage -M -the - a-vmi- rg - over -the - entrarrce.-
2. All temporary signs on the site shall be removed immediately.
3. There shall be no illumination of signs.
*4. Total signage on the site is not to exceed 54 sq. ft.
Report to Planning Commiss(
V -641, A -976, A -709 - Calif. Real Estate
DESIGN REVIEW - A -976
d
Modification of A -709
A -709 MODIFICATION
6/19/84
Page 4
The internally illuminated ivory lettering required by the sign program for Park Saratoga
is not appropriate for this building. Because of the shingle siding and more rustic style
of the building and landscaping, the brass lettering proposed is more compatible with the
site.
Prohibition of signage on the north and west wlevation also creates difficulty in properly
identifying the business for both the owner and patrons. If signage is approved for these
elevations, it should be very discreet.
Staff is recommending that the Commission approve these modifications to the original
Design Review. Approval for A -976 will constitute approval for the modifications.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
The sign materials and style is very attractive, subtle and compliments the architectural
style'of the building. However, the amount of signage proposed, and particularly the size
of the sign on the west elevation, is not appropriate on this site.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A -976: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated 6/19/84,
Exhibits Band C and subject to the following conditions:
* 1 • Pte- - xg�te- - s-iTr -oft -tf1,- -s-rb-- -sira+F pmt -cee L-d -4-{} -sq .- -ft.- -zrn -t -n-o- - srrrgl-e -si-TT - shal-1
e -x-c-eet 2{} -sq-.- -ft-.-
2. All temporary signs on the site shall be removed immediately.
3. There shall be no illumination of signs.
4. Signs on the north and west elevations shall blend with the site and be constructed
of natural materials.
*5. Total signage th site is not to exceed 54 sq. ft.
Approved: *uz L n da L
Planner
LL /dsc
P.C. Agenda: 6/27/84
VARIANCE FILE NO.: V -641
s
RESOLUTION NO. V -641 -1
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COM.N11ISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
the application of CALIF, REAL ESTATE INVEST. for a Sign area
which exceeds th.e maximum allowable at 12000 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.
and
WHEREAS, the applicant (has) (hXvSc4 x) met the burden of proof
required to support his said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter,
the application for.the Variance
be, and the same is hereby,
(granted) N L-04 subject to the following conditions:
Per the amended Staff Report.dated June.19, 1984
and Exhibits B and C,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that (the Report of Findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted) (X�p?Q?b?EiX�?Xi?C?X�X
XRX?�?X�dX�II�x ��XXilfl�i? ) , and the Secretary be, and is
s •.
hereby directed to notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission,
State of California, this 27th day of
by the following roll call vote:
June
, 19 84 ,
AYES: Commissioners Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer-and Siegfried
NOES: Commissioner Crowther
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
c� g.6h,-,A-
ec eta anning ommission
6.
V -641 - VARIANCE FINDINGS
1. Compliance with Ordinance Objectives /Strict Interpretation
The ordinance restricting signage to 40 sq. ft. is meant primarily to limit signage
on small buildings with a single use. The subject building is 7,000 sq. ft. which
is much larger than usual, therefore, the restriction does impose a hardship which
is inconsistent with ordinance objectives.
2. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
The subject building is a very large plain building which requires more than 40 sq.
ft. split into two signs for adequate identity and visibility. The type of signage
proposed is exceptional in that it would be open lettering with no backing and will
not be illuminated.
3. Common Privilege
Two signs of approximately 20 and 30 -35 sq. ft. are necessary to adequately identify
the bank, which is a common privilege for businesses in the Community.
4. Special Privilege
There are exceptional circumstances because the building is so large and there would
be a denial of common privilege, therefore, there would be no granting of special
privilege.
5. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
The proposed signage would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare
.6. Preservation of the Natural Beauty of the City
The proposed sign blends very well with the concept of the gateway to the City and
with the landscaping on the site because of the open lettering style and because
there will be no illumination.
7. Inharmonious Elements in the Zoninq District
The total signage on the site has been limited to 54 sq. ft. and, therefore, the
signs will not be inharmonious.
8. Hazard to Public Safety
The signage proposed will not create a hazard to public safety.
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 6/27/84 l l
CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC AFARING (cont.)
Discussion followed on V- 42. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern rela-
tive to the cantilevered p rtion of the building. She suggested that a dis-
claimer be added. After discussion it was determined that a condition should
be added that a clearance s gn be posted at the cantilevered part of the
building.
Commissioner Crowther stated hat he feels this is packing things in too tight
on this site, and he will vot against it.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved approve V -642, Saratoga Real (Oudewaal), with
the condition that a clearance ign be poste Commissioner eterson seconded
the motion, which was carried 4- with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer
dissenting.
Commissioner Crowther indicated t at he would abstain from the voting on A -979.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to Approve A -979, Sinsley Construction. Com-
missioner Schaefer seconded the mo ion, which was carried S -0, wit Commissione,
Crowther abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. V -641 - California Real Estate Investment (Saratoga National Bank),
10b. A -976 - Request for Variance Approval for sign area which exceeds the
10c. A -709 - maximum allowable and Design Review Approval for signs on the
Mod. north and west side of the building, and Approval for Modifica-
tion of conditions of Design Review Approval A -709, at 12000
Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Staff explained the applications, recommending denial of the variance. They
noted correspondence from Mr. Sudlo in opposition to the variance.
The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m.
Dick Mount, President of Saratoga National Bank, gave a presentation on the
project, describing the building and site. Staff explained the calculation
of signage if there were multiple tenants and discussed the ordinance as it
relates to one use. The sign program for Park Saratoga was discussed. Com-
missioner Schaefer expressed concern with the size of all of the signage. Mr.
Mount stated that since there is a lot of landscaping and it is a very long
building, they feel the additional size is needed to make any impact whatsoever
Bob Huntsberry, the architect, discussed the building and the sign program.
He commented that he feels it is very important to have illumination, especial-
ly in the winter months when it gets dark earlier. He explained the design
and materials of the sign.
Staff gave the background of the building, commenting that this is the entrance
to the gateway to the City. They stated that the Commission should keep in
mind that it was the intent to have a low - profile use on the site, and not a
lot of signage. Commissioner Crowther asked if the square footage could be
determined by integrating over just the letters, since there is no background.
Staff explained the calculation of the sign area. Discussion followed on the
size of the emblem and the possibility of eliminating it to reduce the overall
square footage of the sign by approximately 9 -10 sq. ft.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick commented that it changes things considerably if just
the surface of the letters themselves are considered. Staff indicated that
they would be hesitant for the Commission to set that kind of standard.
Commissioner Crowther commented that there has been a lot of concern about
this buildin by the public; it is located on a site that was designated in
the Generalt,.�as a park,--at least the northern part of the site, and the
setbacks are much too tight. Fie added that lie thinks the Commission considered
that in denying Randalls their request for a sign on the west side.
Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she sees the issue as two separate ones.
She explained that she thinks the setbacks with Randalls were totally wrong
for the building; there was a lot of anger about the building, and therefore
everybody took it out on the sign. She stated that she thinks this kind of
sign is so much more attactive than many of the others that have been approved.
-3- A�_
C. —e
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes- 'Meeting 6/27/84 C
V -6,41, A -976 and A -709 Mod. (cont.)
She indicated that she would not vote for it for the proposed size if it were
a whole sign put up there because she feels it would be too massive; however,
she could consider this one.
Commissioner Siegfried asked what kind of precedent would be set, since the
Commission has been very careful about square footage on signs. Staff reminded
the Commission that, regarding the Randalls sign, in the final analysis they
did place a board behind their script writing so that it could be more readily
seen.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks a 14 or 15 ft. sign is too large.
He indicated that he feels maybe an 8 ft. sign on the west elevation might
not be too bad if the emblem were dropped off of it.
Commissioner Peterson commented that he thinks the logo over the years is as
important as the script. He stated that the Commission should make it very
clear before a use is approved exactly what the signage is. He commented that
he feels very strongly that one of the problems with Randalls is that it did
not have the right kind of identity and visibility and no one knew what it
was. He stated that he is not suggesting that there be a lot of sign pollution
in Saratoga, but he feels that the Commission ought to think very clearly and
strongly about allowing people to have reasonable identity and visibility if
they are going to open a business. He added that he agrees that the 14 ft. is
a little long; however, it is an awfully long plain building; the west eleva-
tion has no relief, and there are fairly mature trees. He recommended 11 -12
ft., making everything a little smaller.
Commissioner Harris commented that she has never been happy with that building
because of the way it is situated. She disagreed that people don't know what
it is and feels that it is very visible because it is so far out next to the
road. She indicated that she feels the Commission needs to modify the original
approval and feels that some sort of sign needs to be on that building. She
added that it does not fit our City, which is supposed to be supporting its
merchants and businesses, to not have anything.
Further discussion followed on the measurement of the sign. Commissioner
Peterson moved to approve V -641, A - -976 and 'Modification of A -709, per the con-
ditions of the Staff Report and adding a condition that the sign on the west
elevation be reduced to no more than 11 ft. long. He made the following find-
ings: #1 The ordinance, as it relates to 40 sq. ft., is primarily to limit
the smaller shops, the single uses. What is here is a 7,000 sq. ft. building,
and based on that the exception could be made. #2 -We are faced with a very
large plain building that requires more than 40 sq. ft. split into two signs
for adequate identity and visibility. 93 - They need two signs of approxi-
mately 20-and 30 -35 sq. ft. to adequately identify the bank.
Commissioner Crowther asked if Commissioner Peterson would propose to make
similar exceptions for every other building in the City that might fall under
similar circumstances. Commissioner Peterson answered that he would not be.-
He would be prepared to make that finding in a situation where there is a
7,000 sq. ft. kind of barn looking plain building and the Commission voted to
allow a use in there, then he would go along with them coming in for an excep-
tion to the 40 sq. ft. He went on to make Finding #4 - He feels that there are
exceptional circumstances because the building is so large and there Would be
a denial of common privilege. Chairman Siegfried added to those findings the
nature of this sign, the fact that it is open lettering, no backing, the land-
scaping that exists, and the location, because it is the entrance to the City,
and the Commission prefers this kind of open letter sign to what is in the
rest of the shopping center. It was also noted that there is a condition in
the Staff Report that there be no illumination of signs, and that condition
might help make the findings in the sense that the Commission is allowing
25 -30a coverage.
Commissioner Peterson made the balance of the findings: #6 - The nature of the
sign blends in very nicely with the concept of the gateway to the City. #7 -
The Commission has reduced the size of the sign on the west elevation. Coin -
missioner Schaefer seconded the motion.
Discussion followed on the condition regarding the awning. There was a con-
sensus that the approval would be for 54 sq. ft. maximum of signage, and if
the applicant wants signage on the awning, then they will have to reduce the
other two signs.
- 4 -
ti r
Planning Commission
Minutes - Meeting 6/27/84
1L641, A -976 and A -709 Mod. (cont.)
Page 5
Commissioner Crowther stated that, although lie is willing to go along with
some signage on the west and north elevations, he feels this is excessive.
He thinks it is setting a dangerous precedent; he does not feel it looks good,
and therefore he is strongly opposed to it.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that because of no illumination,
it makes a great deal of difference as far as the precedent is concerned,
and because of the kind of sign that it is, i.e., it is not any big block
plastic type,nor is it freestanding.
The vote was taken on,the motion. The motion was carried S -1, with Commissioner
Crowther dissenting.
11. A -892 - Bin Lee Tsai, Modification to Design Review Approval for floor
are which exceeds the standard for the zone at 18691 Vessing
Roa in the V -1- 40,000 zoning district
Staff described th modification. They indicated that they are unable to
make the findings nd recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land
Use Committee repo t, describing the site and indicating she was in agreement
with the Staff Repo t. She noted that there is a large oak tree on site and
measures would have to be taken to protect that tree if the application is
approved.
The public hearing u s opened at 8:4S p.m.
Jim Chang, represent ng the applicant, explained the modification. lie
indicated that the o,k tree is not on the property line, and that the fence
is also about 20 ft. way from the property line. Discussion followed on the
size of the home, and Mr. Chang indicated that lie could cut the size of the
house back douan to th original size.
Don McKenzie, the sub 'vider of the property, also clarified that the tree is
not on the property.
Richard IMerwin stated hat he has a home under construction to the west of
this property. He dis ssed the application relative to his property, indicat-
ing that he would prefe that the house be moved up the slope, as suggested
in the modification.
Commissioner Peterson mo ed to close the public hearing. Commissioner
McGoldrick seconded the otion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Harris sugge ted that a condition be added to read: "Landscaping
shall be installed before final occupancy (which was not a condition in the
original approval), with pproval by Staff, and with particular attention to
screening on the western oundary."
Commissioner McGoldrick mo ed to approve Modification to A -892, per Exhibit
"B" and the conditions of he Staff Report, reducing the square footage of
the original proposal by S4 sq. ft., deleting Conditions 1 and 2, and adding
the condition about the lan scaping. She stated that Finding #3 can be made
because of the reduced size Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimous y 6 -0.
Break 9:OS - 9:20 p.m.
12. V -639 - Mr. and Mrs. D. Keen, Request for Variance Approval to construct
a one -story add'tion with a 26 ft. rear yard setback where 3S ft.
is required, at 12326 Goleta Court in the R -1- 10,000 zoning
district
Staff explained the proposal, ccommending denial. They commented that if the
variance is denied the Commission should make the findings for the existing
arbor or have that portion whit encroaches into the setback removed. Commis-
sioner McGoldrick gave a land U_e Committee report, describing the site. She
indicated that she sees no Way t build out into the side yards without some
real problem. She noted that th re are mature trees in the rear yard adjacent
to the fence and the existing ar or has not caused any major n_roblem. She
commented that, regarding common rivilege, she feels she can make the findings.
The public hearing was opened at 9\:24 p.m.
- S -
C_�G
Planning Commission / Page 6
Minutes - Meeting 6/27/84 l
V -639 (cont.)
The applicant submitted pictures of the site and described the proposal. Ile
referenced the letter he had submitted relative to the proiect. Ile noted
similar variances that have been granted with the same problem in their tract.
Mr. Keen indicated that he has contacted the neighbors and they have no objec-
tion to the plans.
Bob Dumaral, designer, gave a presentation on the addition. Commissioner
Schaefer inquired about an overhang, suggesting that she feels it would be wise
to put an overhang on for protection from the sun, so there would be no problem
later on.
Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner `tcGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V -639, per the conditions of the Staff
Report dated June 21, 1984, making findings H3 and 94, based on the fact that
this is an uniquely shaped lot; it has 3,780 sq. ft. excess area over and above
that required by the zoning district; there is unique vegetation on the site
and other conditions that would make it difficult to go into the side yard;
it is being limited to a single story addition, and it is within the 25 ft.
rear yard setback for a single story structure. Commissioner Crowther added
that a condition be put in the report, stating that an up to 3 ft. overhang is
allowed. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Chairman Siegfried
added that this is not a proposal to add rooms to the house; it is an expansion
of a.kitchen, dining room and family room. The vote was taken, and the motion
was carried unanimously 6 -0.
13. V -644 - Edwin and Kathleen Epes, Request for Variance Approval to allow
construction of a one -story addition with a 31 ft. rear yard
setback where 3S ft. is required at 20394 Manoa Court, in the
R- 1- 12.500 PD zoning district
Staff explained the proposal, noting that this is quite similar to the previous
application. They indicated that they are unable to make Findings �3 and �4
and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report,
stating that the dining room is very small and there is no question that that
is where they need to extend their home and there is no other direction to go.
She added that the variance only involves one small corner of the dining room.
The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m.
Shirley McCartney, the neighbor most affected by the proposal, spoke in support.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously -.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V -644, per the conditions of the Staff
Report dated June 20, 1984, making Findings #3 and ✓i4, based on the fact that
the variance is for just one small corner of the dining_ room, approximately
4 ft.; they have an excess side yard area, and the lot is large and very
uniquely shaped. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously.
14a. V-643 Ken Daniel, Request for Variance Approval to allow a freestand-
14b. A--977 - ing sign where none is permitted (S' setback where 1 -' required)
by ordinance and allow a total of 66 sq. ft. of signage where
a maximum of 41.25 sq. ft. is permitted at 12335 Saratoga- -
Sunnyvale Road, in the C-V District
Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval of the variance with the
square footage being reduced to S4 sq. ft., and that it be accomplished by
reducing the existing signage by 12 sq. ft. It was noted that a letter had
been received, in opposition to the variance.
The public hearing was opened at 9:38 p.m.
Ken Daniel, the applicant, spoke relative to the recommendation to reduce the
Sirloin F, Brew si;n. He stated that they have a permit for the sign at its
present size and have a lease. Ile commented that he doubts very much if lie
can force Sirloin F, Brew to reduce the size of the sign until the lease expires.
Mr. Daniel discussed the signage in the area.
Edwin O'Parriel, architect, gave a presentation on the proposed signage. Dis-
cussion followed on the setbacks and the design of the sidewalk .in relation to
6 -
Y - '.
CITE' OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408)867 -3438
SUDLOW WILLIAM J AND BARBARA S 38656021
20758 MAUREEN WY
SARATOGA CA 95070
4t
NOTICE OF HEARING
RECEI\
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMF
CITY OF SARATOGA'S PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following
public hearing.on WEDNESDAY the 27TH day of JUNE 1984
at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA., a copy of which application is on file in the
Permit Review Division at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.'
I 0A
V -641, A -976, A -709 - MODIFICATION, CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT, ( SARATOGA NATIOAL BANE), 12000 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD
"VARIANACE APPROVAL FOR SIGN AREA WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR SIGNS ON THE NO I AND WEST
SIDE 0 iE BUILDING AT 12000 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD,.SARATOGA,
CA., IN THE CV ZONING DISTRICT AS PER ORDINANCE NS -3.54 AND
ORDINANCE NS -3, ARTICLES 10 AND 16"
ROBERT S. SHOOK
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C 44, �-" i Jsri�N
i1a Nti° J„ NY�I %� /J r'Gfi✓ s� 'M'E C? 1/ i
id /v k! 7a ell f ✓C !I j �^ y C G. V CL? i N ev '�f
-�^ / / y f, �./5 „JJ .C�x ��. cJr..rs � r".XxfYr v..• /�
v1W1?V-ci 6Ir 1 ( Cf!(�'� �.1 a pr 41A S.+LN
AGENDA BILL NO: L-7-7
DATE: July 26, 1984
DEPARTMENT: Maintenance
Initial:
Dept. Head:
City Atty:
City Mgr:
ii
SUBJECT: 1984 -85 MEDIAN REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Issue Summary
In response to Council's desire to see a marked improvement in
the appearance of the existing landscaped median, we prepared the
attached budget suppliment to the heretofore approved Fiscal Year
1984 -85 Budget. The recommended improvements in both the
Maintenance Operation and Median Rehabilitation conforms to the
"Median Master Plan" as recently submitted except for the
proposed rehabilitation of the lawns on Saratoga Ave.
As can be seen, this suppliment indicates that $18,825 should be
added to the operating budget for Landscaped Median Maintenance
(Program 720). This amount is needed to fund the addition of a
half -time Parks Maintenance Worker I, and to provide monthly
sweeping of the curbs adjacent to the medians.
The Capital Improvement (rehabilitation) needs are approximately
$61,000. Of this amount about $30,000 is designated for Prospect
Road, $15,000 for Saratoga Avenue, $10,000 for Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road, and the balance on Fruitvale and Allendale Avenues.
Recommendation
Appropriate the additional $18,825 to fully fund Program 720.
Authorize changing the existing temporary half -time Parks
Maintenance Worker I to a full time permanent position. Adopt
the rehabilitation program as delineated and appropriate funds as
required.
Fiscal Impact
1. The $18,825 for improved maintenance is to be funded
from the General Fund.
2. The $61,108 for rehabilitation is to be funded from
Federal Revenue Sharing.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resol ti n 2152.2
Report �o Mayor and City Council
Charts I, II, III
Exhibits A, B, C
�3
1
RESOLUTION N0, 2151.2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA INCREASING
APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING THE 1984 -85 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the following adjustment be made
increasing the present budget appropriations:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the budget of the City of
Saratoga adopted by Resolution 2151. and 2151.1 be amended as
follows:
Transfer: $18,825.00 from general ledger account 21 -2909 general
fund reserve for appropriations increases, to general ledger
account 21 -2940 general fund appropriations, and $61,108.00 from
general ledger account 30 -2900 revenue sharing fund balance
available, to general ledger account 30 -2940 revenue sharing
appropriations.
Subsidiarv:
Fund 21 - General Fund Program 720 - Median Maintenance
Fund 30 - Revenue Sharing Program 801 - Median Rehabilitation
Program
Purpose:
To increase appropriations to upgrade the median maintenance
program and perform median plant replacement work on Saratoga
Avenue, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Prospect Road, Fruitvale Avenue
and Allendale Avenue.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the
day of _,by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Mayor
Pi X
f�s§i
Z,,E s O
Jy � a
Qq3
yY<,;
1,fjt�EF
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
COUNCIL MEETING:
SUBJECT 1984 -85 MEDIAN REHABILITATION PROGRAM
We have carefully reviewed the maintenance and rehabilitation
needs of the City's landscaped medians and submit the information
as a suppliment to the 1984 -85 Fiscal Year Budget.
Our normal budget request submitted this past April included an
addition to our Landscaped Median Maintenance Program (Program
720), which increased the budget $15,770. The, addition was mainly
to cover 50% of the salary of a new half -time temporary Park
Maintenance Worker I. While we feel the addition will greatly
increase our maintenance capabilities, it still falls far short
of providing what could be considered first class maintenance.
Further, the addition does not include funds to bring the long
neglected landscaping up to it's original condition.
This supplimental budget will, if approved, provide all the
necessary funds to not only properly maintain the existing
median landscaping, but also to replant, repair, re -do and
rejuvinate all the existing medians. The suppliment is broken
into two segments. The first, which will stand without the
second, provides for upgrading the level of maintenance to
approximately the same level it was prior to 1978. The second
describes what is needed to rehabilitate the landscaping to it's
original or better condition.
Maintenance
To fully understand the maintenance cost we have described the
various maintenance activities and the frequency that each is
performed.
Chart I shows the activities that take place on each median on a
weekly, monthly or annual basis. The hours per year per activity
are shown for the "Last Year (1983 -84) ", for "This Year (1984 -85)
as Previously Adopted ", and for "This Year as Being Proposed ".
1
Since some of the activities are seasonal, straight conversion to
weekly cannot be made. The intent is to increase the frequency
of all the high visual activities such as mowing, weed control
and debris pick up. Although there are reductions in some of
the activities due to improved equipment, we have determined that
the proposed level of maintenance requires the addition of a
half -time Park Maintenance Worker I.
Chart 2 summarizes the data developed in Chart I.
Chart 3 converts the activity data into employee cost and
delineates the entire median maintenance budget for "Last Year
(1983 -84) ", "This Year (1984 -85) , the proposed "Addition 1984 -85"
and the "Total Budget this Year (1984 -85) ". This chart also
shows $6,720 being added in "Outside Service" to provide monthly
sweeping of the curbs and gutter along the medians. Chart 3 also
distributes the rehabilitation costs which are described in the
second segment.
Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation segment is broken into three documents. The
first is a narrative description of the median by median needs
(Exhibit A). The second is an item by item cost breakdown of the
of the needs (Exhibit B). The third summarizes the cost on a per
street basis (Exhibit C).
As can be seen, it is proposed that the dead and missing plants
on the Saratoga Avenue Medians be replanted for approximately
$15,000. We are proposing no mass change of plant type.
We are recommending that the Prospect Road Median be completely
re -done at an estimated cost of approximately $31,000. The
existing shrubs ( Baccharis) have proven to be extremely
susceptible to insect infestation that has killed a large
percentage of the plants. The suggested planting will greatly
improve the overall appearancce. The use of Rapiolapis and
Agapanthus will add color to the wide expanse of asphalt.
On the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Median we are recommending both some
change in plant type and some general replanting and re -doing at
an estimated cost of $10,500. As with Prospect Road, the insect
infested Bacccharis is being replaced.
On both the Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue Medians, our
proposal contains some replanting and some plant type changing
at a combined cost of less than $5000.
2
CHART I
Sheet 1
LANDSCAPED MEDIAN MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
SARATOGA AVENUE
SARATOGA — SUNNYVALE ROAD
LAST
YEAR
THIS
YEAR
APPROVED
THIS
YEAR
REQUESTED
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
ACTIVITY
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
MOW
10
18
32
567
7
18
46
828
5
12
63
756
EDGE
20
6
16
94
14
6
23
138
10
4
36
126
IRRIGATE
28
4
11
44
15
4
20
80
15
2
20
40
FERTILIZE
365
12
1
12
183
12
2
24
122
12
3
36
RENOVATE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
365
80
1
80
WEED CONTROL
14
2
26
52
7
2
52
104
7
4
52
208
PRUNE / TRIM
365
48
1
48
182
48
2
96
182
48
2
96
PICK UP DEBRIS
7
1
52
52
7
1
52
52
7
4
52
208
MAINT.IRR.SYS.
7
3
52
156
7
4
52
208
7
4
52
208
REPLANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
24
13
312
TOTAL
816
94
191
1025
422
95
249
1530
748
194
294
2070
SARATOGA — SUNNYVALE ROAD
LAST
YEAR
THIS
YEAR
APPROVED
THIS
YEAR
REQUESTED
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
ACTIVITY
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
IRRIGATE
30
4
10
40
30
4
10
40
30
4
10
40
FERTILIZE
182
4
2
8
182
4
2
8
182
4
2
8
WEED CONTROL
7
2
52
104
7
4
52
208
7
6
52
312
PRUNE / TRIM
365
80
1
80
182
48
2
96
182
48
2
96
PICK UP DEBRIS
7
1
52
52
7
2
52
104
7
3
52
156
MAINT.IRR.SYS.
14
2
26
52
14
2
26
52
14
1
26
26
REPLANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
4
13
52
TOTAL
605
93
143
336
422
64
144
508
450
70
157
690
CHART I
Sheet 2
LANDSCAPED MEDIAN MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
PROSPECT ROAD
FRUITVALE AVENUE
LAST
YEAR
THIS
YEAR
APPROVED
THIS
YEAR REQUESTED
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
ACTIVITY
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
IRRIGATE
30
4
10
40
30
4
10
40
30
2
10
20
FERTILIZE
182
4
2
8
182
4
2
8
122
4
3
12-
WEED CONTROL
28
2
13
26
14
2
26
52
7
2
52
104
PRUNE / TRIM
365
24
1
24
365
48
1
48
365
24
1
24
PICK UP DEBRIS
28
2
13
26
14
2
26
52
7
2
52
104
MAINT.IRR.SYS.
14
2
26
52
14
2
26
52
14
2
26
52
REPLANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
2
13
26
TOTAL
647
38
65
176
619
62
91
252
573
38
157
342
FRUITVALE AVENUE
LAST
YEAR
THIS
YEAR
APPROVED
THIS YEAR REQUESTED
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
ACTIVITY
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
IRRIGATE
30
4
10
40
30
4
10
40
30
4
10
40
FERTILIZE
182
2
2
4
182
2
2
4
182
2
2
4
WEED CONTROL
28
2
13
26
14
2
26
52
14
3
26
78
PRUNE / TRIM
365
12
1
12
365
24
1
24
365
24
1
24
PICK UP DEBRIS
28
1
13
13
14
1
26
26
7
1
52
52
MAINT.IRR.SYS.
28
2
13
26
28
2
13
26
28
2
13
26
REPLANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
2
13
26
TOTAL
661
23
52
121
633
35
78
172
654
38
117
250
ALLENDALE
AVENUE
LAST YEAR
THIS
YEAR
APPROVED
THIS YEAR REQUESTED
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
HRS/
ACT/
HRS/
ACTIVITY
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
FREQ
ACT.
YEAR
YEAR
IRRIGATE
30
2
10
20
30
2
10
20
30
2
10
20,
FERTILIZE
182
2
2
4
182
2
2
4
182
2
2
4
WEED CONTROL
0
0
0
0
28
1
13
13
28
1
13
13
PRUNE / TRIM
365
16
1
16
365
16
1
16
365
16
1
16
PICK UP DEBRIS
0
0
0
0
28
1
13
13
14
1
26
26
MAINT.IRR.SYS.
28
1
13
13
28
1
13
13
28
1
13
13
REPLANT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
1
13
13
TOTAL
605
21
26
53
661
23
52
79
675
24
78
105
LANDSCAPED
MEDIAN
V11l 11\ 1 11
MAINTENANCE
SUMMARY
OF
HOURS
LAST
YEAR
(1983
- 1984)
MAINT
WEED
PRUNE/
PK UP
IRR.
LOCATION
MOW
EDGE
IRR. FERT
RENO
CONT
TRIM
DEBRIS
SYS.
REPL
TOTAL
SARATOGA AVE.
567
94
44
12
0
52
48
52
156
0
1020
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD.
0
0
40
8
0
104
80
52
52
0
340
PROSPECT RD.
0
0
40
8
0
26
24
26
52
0
170
FRUITVALE AVE.
0
0
40
4
0
26
12
13
26
0
119
ALLENDALE AVE.
0
0
20
4
0
0
16
0
13
0
51
TOTAL
567
94
184
36
0
208
180
143
299
0
1700
SUMMARY
OF
HOURS
THIS
YEAR
(1984
- 1985)
SARATOGA AVE.
828
138
80
24
0
104
96
52
208
0
1532
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD.
0
0
40
8
0
208
96
104
52
0
511
PROSPECT RD.
0
0
40
8
0
52
48
52
52
0
255
FRUITVALE AVE.
0
0
40
4
0
52
24
26
26
0
179
ALLENDALE AVE.
0
0
20
4
0
13
16
13
13
0
77
TOTAL
828
138
220
48
0
429
280
247
351
0
2554
SUMMARY
OF
ADDITIONAL
HOURS
REQUESTED
SARATOGA AVE.
-72
-12
-40
12
80
104
0
156
0
312
544
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD.
0
0
0
0
0
104
0
52
26
52
181
PROSPECT RD.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
0
26
91
FRUITVALE AVE.
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
26
0
26
63
ALLENDALE AVE.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
13
27
TOTAL
-72
-12
-40
12
80
234
0
299
26
429
906
SUMMARY
OF
HOURS
THIS
YEAR
(1984
- 1985)
AS
REQUESTED
SARATOGA AVE.
756
126
40
36
80
208
96
208
208
312
2076
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD.
0
0
40
8
0
312
96
156
26
52
692
PROSPECT RD.
0
0
20
12
0
104
24
104
52
26
346
FRUITVALE AVE.
0
0
40
4
0
78
24
52
26
26
242
ALLENDALE AVE.
0
0
20
4
0
13
16
26
13
13
104
TOTAL
756
126
160
64
80
715
256,
546
325
429
3460
CHART
III
LANDSCAPED MEDIAN
MAINTENANCE
BUDGET LAST
YEAR
(1983 -84)
LOCATION
EMPLOYEE COST OUTSIDE
SERVICE
UTILITIES
SUPPLIES
CAP.EXP.
TOTAL
HOURS
SARATOGA AVE.
19382
451
2585
1797
24215
1020
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD. 6461
284
705
599
8048
340
PROSPECT RD.
3230
126
846
300
4502
170
FRUITVALE AVE.
2261
94
282
210
2847
119
ALLENDALE AVE.
969
94
282
90
1435
51
TOTAL
32303
1050
4700
2995
0
41048
1700
BUDGET THIS
YEAR
(1984 -85)
SARATOGA AVE.
24667
752
3663
1917
4101
35101
1532
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD. 8222
473
999
639
10333
511
PROSPECT RD.
4111
210
1199
320
5839
255
FRUITVALE AVE.
2878
157
400
224
3659
179
ALLENDALE AVE.
1233
157
400
96
1886
77
TOTAL
41112
1750
6660
3195
4101
56818
2553
BUDGET ADDITIONS
(1984 -85)
SARATOGA AVE.
7080
2890
0
183
10153
544
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD. 2360
1814
0
61
4235
181
PROSPECT RD.
1180
806
0
31
2017
91
FRUITVALE AVE.
826
605
0
21
1452
63
ALLENDALE AVE.
354
605
0
9
968
27
TOTAL
11800
6720
0
305
0
18825
907
TOTAL BUDGET
THIS YEAR
(1984 -85)
SARATOGA AVE.
.31747
3642
3663
2100
4101
45253
2076
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE
RD. 10582
2287
999
700
14568
692
PROSPECT RD.
5291
1016
1199
350
7856
346
FRUITVALE AVE.
3704
762
400
245
5111
242
ALLENDALE AVE.
1587
762
400
105
2854
104
TOTAL
52912
8470
6660
3500
4101
75643
3460
"Exhibit A"
1984 -85 MEDIAN REHABILITATION PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
SARATOGA AVE.(Starting at Kosich Ave.)
Kosich to Westview
Ends concreted approximately 4 ft. from tip with header board.
15 Coprosma Kirki (5 Kosich and 10 Westview ends).
Sprinkler system checked.
Westview to Bucknell
Ends concreted approximately 4 ft. from tips with header
board.
15 Coprosma Kirki (5 Westview, 10 Bucknell).
Sprinkler system checked.
Bucknell to Saratoga Glen
Ends concreted approximately 4 ft from tip ( Bucknell).
Three large 15 gal. twisted juniper.
Renew D.G.
Emitter system for plums and twisted juniper.
Saratoga Glen to Cox
50 Coprosma Kirki (50 Cox Ave. end).
Sprinkling system.
Cox to McFarlane
10 Juniper Tams (McFarland end).
10 Coprosma Kirki (.Cox end).
Sprinkling system.
McFarlane to Masson Truck Entrance
2 Quercus Ilex 24" box.
25 Coprosma Kirki (at truck entry).
Masson Truck Entry to Villas Entry
1 Quercus Ilex 24' box
40 Coprosma Kirki (Villas entry end).
Villa Entry to Paul Masson Entry
40 Coprosma Kirki - both ends.
Header board 501.
Paul Masson Entry to Railroad Tracks
OK
Railroad Tracks to Dagmar
1 Quercus Ilex 24" box.
Sprinkler box approach with stepping stones.
50 Coprosma Kirki (Dagmar end).
Sprinkling system bad.
Dagmar to Ranfree
4 24" box Quercus Ilex.
20 Coprosma Kirki ( Ranfree end).
Sprinkling system.
1
Ranfree to Via Monte
15 Coprosma Kirki (Via Monte end).
Sprinkler by approach with stepping stones.
Via -Monte to Scotland
40 Coprosma Kirki (20 each end).
Scotland to Fruitvale
30 Coprosma Kirki (Scotland end).
Sprinkling system bad.
Fruitvale to Church Entry
100 Coprosma Kirki (50 on end, remove juniper).
Triangle on Fruitvale
10 Coprosma Kirki.
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD MEDIANS
Header board installed around Arctothecia to original area
and in relationship to sprinkler coverage.
Remove all Baccharis and replace with Coprosma Verde Vista.
Leave all Casurina and plums and Ealgnus.
Valve controlling irrigation at Blaver on Arctothecia, have
flow prevention device installed.
Strip heads installed where Coprosma will be and spaced at
proper intervals, extra risers removed and capped or install
drip.
Rake, remove debris and rejuvenate D.G. in all areas.
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Side Section
Install header board in back of curb line 4' all a 1 ong area
from wall to Reed.
Install Coprosma Kirki in bare area.
Remove and clean up area between walk and fence.
Cut back Coprosma to header board next to walk.
Install new 1 1/4 manual valve and split system, repair and
install enough heads for adequate coverage.
PROSPECT ROAD MEDIANS AND SIDE SECTIONS
First Island Titus to Johnson 450'
Remove Baccharis.
Repair and revamp sprinkler system where necessary.
Leave Quercus Ilex and plant 8 24" boxes on Titus end.
Plant center with groupings,of Agapanthus and Raphiolapis.
Plant ends with Coprosma Kirki back 30 feet from both ends.
Put decomposed granite on both sides of planting area.
Second Island Johnson to Brook len 700'
Remove Baccharis.
Repair and revamp sprinkler system where necessary.
Leave Querius Ilex and plant 2 24" boxes on Johnson end.
2
Plant center with grouping of Agapanthus and Raphiolepis.
Plant end with Coprosma Verdi Vista 30' from both ends.
Put decomposed granite on both sides of planting area.
Third Island from Brook glen to Bridge
Remove Baccharis.
Repair and revamp sprinkler system where necessary.
Leave Quercus Ilex.
Plant center with groupings of Agapanthus and Raphiolepis.
Plant ends with Coprosma Verdi Vista 30' from both ends.
Put decomposed granite on both sides of planting area.
North Side of Prospect from Bridge, Past Oak Between Walk & Curb
4 2' header boxes with Rock Rose.
Bubbler installed from existing system.
South Side of Prospect Road from Bridge to Bus Stop Bench in Parking Strip
6 2' header boxes with Rock Rose.
Bubbler installed from existing system.
FRUITVALE MEDIAN
Both ends - decomposed granite on ends contained by header
board.
Remove Baccharis in 10
Kirki approximately 500.
Repair sprinkler system
Photyinia Fonszeri - 4,
Trim Arctostophollys.
ALLENDALE MEDIAN
areas and replace with Coprosma
and replace valves.
5 gallon.
Replace Melalucca on 1st island 24" box.
Replace Coprosma Kirki on 2nd island (10).
Replace Coprosma Kirki on 3rd island (10).
Replace Coprosma Kirki on 4th island (30).
Repair sprinkling system.
3
"Exhibit B"
1984 -85 MEDIAN REHABILITATION PROGRAM
COST ESTIMATES FOR REFURBISHING LANDSCAPING
SARATOGA AVE.
Material costs
Coprosma Kirki 250 1 gal. @ 2.00 ea.
Juniper Torulosa 3 15 gal. @ 4 5.0 0 ea.
Juniper Tams 20 1 gal. @ 2.00 ea.
Queros Ilex 9 24" box @ 125.00 ea.
Sprinkler system repair parts
700' 2 X 4 redwood header board w /stakes
Decomposed granite
Renovation and reseeding
Tax
20% contingency
Approximate material costs
Labor
SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE ROAD
Material costs
Coprosma Verdi Vista 100 @ 2.50
400' header board w /stakes
Install check valve and change bubblers to
strip heads
For decomposed refurbish
Material costs (side section)
700' header board
Coprosma Kirki 250 @ 2.00
Split sprinklers system w /two valves, repair
and refurbish system
Approximate material costs
Labor
PROSPECT ROAD
Material costs (Medians)
Coprosma Verde Vista
Agapanthus -blue & white
Raphiolepis Pink Lady
Querous Ilex
Planting mulch
Tax
20% contingency
400 1 gal. @ 2.00
250 1 gal. @ 2.00
200 5 gal. @ 10.00
10 24 "box @125.00
01
500.00
135.00
40.00
1,125.00
1,200.00
200.00
200.00
2,100.00
5,500.00
358.00
1,100.00
6,958.00
8,000.00
14,958.00
250.00
175.00
:11 11
200.00
500.00
1,200.00
3,625.00
235.00
3,870.00
725.00
4,595.00
6,000.00
10,595.00
800.00
500.00
2,000.00
1,250.00
250.00
Header board 3500' 1,000.00
Sprinkling system repair and valves 1,500.00
Decomposed granite approximately 20,000 sq. ft. 4,000.00
Material costs (side section)
Header board 100' 45.00
Rock Rose 10 5 gal. @ 10.00 100.00
Sprinkler system change and repair 250.00
11,695.00
Tax 760.00
12,455.00
20% contingency 2,400.00
Approximate material costs 14,855.00
Removal of Baccharis 2,000.00
Labor 14,000.00
30,855.00
FRUITVALE AVENUE
Material costs
Coprosma Kirki 400 1 gal. @ 2.00 800.00
Header board 30' w /stakes 50.00
Photinia Ernseri 4 5 gal. @ 10.00 40.00
Sprinkler system repair parts & valve 250.00
1,140.00
Tax 75.00
1,215.00
20o contingency 230.00
Labor 2,000.00
3,445.00
T T T M-KlT T T TI
Material costs
Melaleuca Armillaris 1 24" box 135.00
Coprosma Kirki 50 @ 2.00 100.00
Sprinkler repair parts 200.00
435.00
Tax 30.00
465.00
20% contingency 90.00
Approximate material costs 555.00
Labor 700.00
1,255.00
E
"Exhibit C"
1984 -85 MEDIAN REHABILITATION PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF COSTS (MEDIAN STRIPS)
Saratoga Avenue
Material
6,958.00
Labor
8,000.00
14,958.00
Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Material
4,595.00
Labor
6,000.00
10,595.00
Prospect
Material 14,855.00
Labor 16,000.00
30,855.00
Fruitvale
Material 1,445.00
Labor 2,000.00
3,445.00
Allendale
Material 555.00
Labor 700.00
1,255.00
Estimated total
Material 28,408.00
Labor 32,700.00
61,108.00
1
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. 7 6
DATE: July 24, 1984
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE
------------------- 7 --------
SUBJECT: CITY GIFT CATALOG
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
In May 1984 Council authorized us to publish a gift catalog (which included requests
from a variety of Saratoga based non- profit entities as well as the City). The
attached report details the donations received to date.
Recommendation
None - information only.
Fiscal Impacts
Collection of over $2,620.00 in donated money, goods and services to date.
The cost of publishing the "Wish List" was $2,147.18.
Exhibits /Attachments
Staff Report.
Council Action
U
O
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 07 -26 -84
COUNCIL MEETING: 08 -01 -84
SUBJECT: CITY GIFT C.ATAIOG
In May, 1984, Council authorized us to publish a gift catalog,
referred to as our "Wish List ". This catalog, published June 1,
included requests for donations to the City as well as to other
local non — profit entities such as schools, the library, the
Senior Center, etc.
To date we have collected $2,620,00 in cash and another 3 non —
cash gifts of goods or services. These donations are itemized
on the attached schedule, "Wish List Responses ", prepared by
Clem Ford, volunteer. As to recipients, the breakdown is as
follows: Schools, $1820.00; City, $555.00; Senior Cente.r,$120.00;
Hakone, $75.00; Library, $50.00.
We have sent letters acknowledging receipt of these gifts to each
of the donors. We are now in the process of notifying the
recipient entities or departments of the gifts. Upon receipt of
disbursement instructions (from external entities) or notice
that the items have been acquired (from City Departments),
we will bring each item before Council for formal acceptance
of the donation (or authorization to disburse to the external
entity) and authorization to issue a Certificate of Appreciation
to the donor.
The City has incurred the following costs to prepare and mail
the "Wish List ": Graphic Design, $220.00; printing, collating,
etc., $1486.74; mailing, $440.44. Total, $2147.18.
Sinc ely,
Steve Peterson
Director of Finance
Attachment 1, "Wish List Responses ".
PAGE NO. 00001
07/25/84
WISH LIST RESPONSES
DONOR
DATE
DONATION
APPLICATION
HOWARD LONG
840606
0.00
PAINTINGS
CURTIS & JEAN LEONARD
840611
40.00
SR. CTR. BLOOD PRESS TESTER
CAROL MELLBERG
840611
0.00
DESIGN GATEWAY LOGO
WALTER & MAMIE JOE
840613
20.00
SR CTR BLOOD PRESSURE KIT
WILLIAM & DONNA THRUSH
840613
30.00
GRADE & FILL, K. MORAN PARK
SANDRA HOLMES
840613
15.00
$5.each FINANCE,EMRG SVC,FIRE
J.R. VANNEMAN
840613
25.00
UNDESIGNATED
RICHARD BELGARD
840615
25.00
COMPUTERS, ARGONAUT SCHOOL
HENRY & JEAN RICHARDS
840627
35.00
UNDESIGNATED
MARY F. FLORSHEIM
840621
200.00
REPAIR SLIDE LADDER,WILDWOOD
IRENE M. BAILEY
840623
50.00
PLANT MATERIALS, HAKONE
T.M. NORTON
840703
25.00
AS NEEDED FOR HAKONE
TESTCO, INC.
840705
1760.00
3 M COPIER, SARATOGA SCHOOL
JOAN HERSHKOWITZ
840619
0.00
POTTED PLANTS
PACIFIC VALLEY BANK
840601
250.00
UNDESIGNATED
HARVEY & JEAN ORNDORF
840808
85.00
35, REDWOOD 50. BLD PRESS KIT
KRIS LEONARD
840611
10.00
SR CTR BLOOD PRESSURE KIT
DOROTHY LEE HILBERT
840716
50.00
ADD °L BOOKS, SAR LIBRARY
** TOTAL **
2620.00
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. (ol
DATE: 07 -27 -84
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: GENERAL LIABILITY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Summary
The City maintains a comprehensive insurance policy providing
general liability protection and property coverage. We use
Saratoga Insurance Service, Inc. to handle placement of policies
and assure competitive rates. Policies are renewed annually at
July 1. Over the last few years the combined liability coverage
limits have been maintained at $10 million.
This year $60,000.00 was budgeted for policy renewal. The
Saratoga Insurance Service has obtained a proposal from the
current carrier for $56,595.00 ($46,095.00 for basic coverage and
$10,500.00 for $10 million excess liability coverage).
The proposal from Saratoga Insurance Service (see attached) also
includes cost data for $5 million as well as $10 million excess
liability coverage. Although the $5-million would cost $2,500.00
less, after discussing this with the City Attorney, we concluded
that it would be better to continue the $10 million coverage
level than reduce it to $5 million.
Recommendation
.Approve the award of insurance coverage for the 1984/85 fiscal
year for the City's liability and casualty coverage with United
Pacific at- a total premium of $56,595.00. Authorize the Finance
Director to execute the insurance contract on behalf of the City.
Fiscal Impacts
Cost of $56,595.00 ($60,000.00 budgeted).
Exhibits /Attachments
Letter of July 10,1984, from Saratoga Insurance Service, Inc.
Council Action
8/3: Approved bid and asked for further coverage with leftover funds, 5 -0.
.
SARATOGA INSURANCE SERVICE
INCORPORATED
14363 SARATOGA AVENUE, SUITE 204
POST OFFICE BOX 926
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
TELEPHONE (406) 867 -3532
July 10, 1984
City of Saratoga.
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga,,CA. 95070
Attention: Steve Peterson
Dear Steve:
Enclosed are the bills for the City of Saratoga's annual policies. We were able
to continue both policies with the United Pacific, which handled our insurance
last year.
After increasing the building coverage 5%, here is how the coverages break down:
Liability
Property:
Building
Contents
Office Contents
Contractor's Equipment
Two-Way Radios
Mini- Computer
Crime
United Pacific Annual Premium
Last Year
Increase (5i)
$46,095.00
43,947.00
$ 2,148.00
Ten Million Dollar Excess Liability
Annual Premium $10,500.
Last Year 6,750.
Increase (55%) $_3,750.
$10,000,000.
2,639,385.
194, 600.
150, 000.
20,800.
19,500.
17,105.
250. (money)
The umbrella markets have tightened up substantially and this has led -,to the
increase over last year. We checked to see what 5 million would be and found
the annual premium to be $8,000.00. To get another 5 million for the additional
amount of $2,500.00 seems like a good deal.
SARATOGA INSURANCE SERVICE
INCORPORATED
14363 SARATOGA AVENUE, SUITE 204
POST OFFICE BOX 928
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
TELEPHONE (408) 867 -3532
It has been our pleasure to insure the City since it was formed and are
always available for any questions you may have.
Best Regards,
Dan Abbey
Saratoga Insurance Service,Inc.
DA/dc
CITY Or StMR1Y=
AczNDA BILL M. �p �� Initial:
Dept. Hd.
DATE: July 27, 1984 C. Att,
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT:
City Manager
C. Mgr.
Classification Study
Issue Summary
The periodic job classification review and salary survey has been completed.
The major parts of the report and recommendations.are attached. The City
Council has reviewed these recommendations and noted certain exceptions-
These changes authorized by the City Council have been presented to employees
for comment.
Because of tie scope and complexity of the issue, further detailed information
is provided in the accompanying report and attachments.
Recommendation
Adopt the attached resolution approving certain changes in job classifications
and authorized salary ranges for general positions of the City.
Fiscal Impacts
The combined full cost impact of the changes as recommended would increase
personnel cost of the City by 3 %. Sufficient funds have been set aside in
anticipation of this purpose in the current budget.
E:ch ibi is /Attacim�n is
1. Resolution recommended
2. Report of City Manager, 7/27/84
3. Report from Saratoga Employees Association, 7/27/84
4. Memo to Saratoga Employees Association, 7/18/84
Council Action
8/1: Adopted Resolution 2168 5 -0.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA ACCEPTING PORTIONS OF THE 1984
CLASSIFICATION STUDY AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CHANGES
AND ADJUSTMENTS TO JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND SALARY RANGES
WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga has caused a general job
classification review and survey to be conducted by the Employee
Relations Service of Santa Clara County and in anticipation of
changes in cost to the City as a result, an allocation has been
been provided in the 1984 -85 fiscal budget; and
WHEREAS, the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
Review and Survey, as described in Parts I, II and III of the
survey, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A, have been
received and considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has informed the City Council that
requirements of State law have been met concerning advising and
consulting City employees;
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved:
1. That, with the following specific exceptions, the
recommendations for changes in job titles and salary
ranges as described in "Part I - Allocations List" of
attached Exhibit "A" are hereby approved.
The exceptions to the recommendations and alternative
changes are hereby approved as follows:
a) The Clerk Typist III position in the City Manager's
Office shall be retitled to Secretary at the salary
range $1,413 - $1,804 per month established for that
classification. Further adjustments in the
classification as recommended in Exhibit "A" shall
be considered annually.
b) The salary range for the Recreation Supervisor
classification in the Community Services Department
shall be adjusted to $1,640 - $2,095 per month.
Further adjustments in the salary range of the
classification to the level recommended in Exhibit
"A' shall be considered on an annual basis.
c) The recommended change in classification for the
Maintenance Clerk position in the Maintenance
Department is approved; however, the implementation
of the downward adjustment of salary rate paid to
the incumbent of the position shall be delayed. The
salary of the incumbent shall be "Y- rated ", i.e.,
fixed at the current level, until such time as the
authorized salary range may be further adjusted so
that the current incumbent's salary falls within the
range or the position becomes vacant, whichever
first occurs.
2. That the City Manager hereby is directed to implement
the changes approved and authorized herein in accordance
with existing and generally accepted standards of the
practices of personnel administration and in accordance
with legal requirements.
3. The City Manager is further directed to prepare and
present an appropriations resolution for the City
Council's approval.
The above
regular
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
meeting of the Saratoga City Council held o
day of by the following
City Clerk
-2-
Mayor
at a
n the
vote:
I 4
o� SARA
REPORT
TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: July 27, 1984
COUNCIL MEETING: August 1, 1984
SUBJECT: Classification Study
BACKGROUND
The City maintains a job classification system for its employment
force, which is based on common job requirements and
characteristics. The job classification system is essential for
describing the duties and requirements of each position; for
maintaining appropriate and competitive pay scales; and to ensure
fair and equitable comparisons among jobs.
Periodic review and adjustment of job classification descriptions
and pay ranges is an on -going function of any competent
organization.
One of the budget objectives established for 1983 -84 was to
undertake a City -wide review of the job classification system for
general employees and survey of appropriate jurisdictions. The
Employee Relations Service (ERS) of Santa Clara County, a non-
profit joint agency of cities and public jurisdictions of the San
Francisco Bay Region, was selected from a number of responding
firms to conduct the review and survey.
ERS conducted the survey during this past spring and now has
three of the four major components of the study completed. These
components include:
Part I An Allocation List, or summary of recommended
changes or adjustments in job titles and /or pay
ranges.
Part II Findings and Recommendations, in narrative form
for the recommended changes and adjustments.
Part III A Salary Survey of the job analyzed and
comparison of salary range paid by 13 other
public jurisdictions in Santa Clara County for
job of identical or closely- related characteristics.
Report to Mayor and City Council Page 2
Subject: Classification Study
Part IV of the survey provides recommended changes in each of the
job descriptions of the City. This part is in final stage of
completion and is anticipated momentarily. However, completion
of Part IV is not essential to the consideration of the
recommendations. It is important to the implementation of the
recommendations, as approved.
These recommendations have been reviewed in detail by the City
Council in Study Session. Certain exceptions to the
recommendations have been discussed and noted. The
recommendations, along with the exceptions noted, have been
presented to the Saratoga Employee Association and opportunity
provided for response according to State legal requirements. A
few individual responses have been received and are being
reviewed by City management and the ERS. If any recommended
changes result from the review, these will be forwarded to the
City Council on an individual basis. It is important, however,
to continue moving forward in the consideration of the overall
study.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution approving the recommended changes
in job classification titles and salary ranges, with the certain
exceptions as noted.
ANAT.YS T S
The recommended changes in job title and /or salary adjustment
affect 23 of the 41 positions surveyed. Most of the changes are
relatively minor adjustments and several affect title only. Part
I, the Allocation List, summarizes these changes.
Overall, the net impact of the changes amounts to an increase of
3% of the current total compensation cost to the City for all the
positions reviewed. This impact is relatively minor and, in
part, reflects the fact that the City does a fair job in its
continuing responsibility in maintaining the job classification
system.
Provision has been made in the current 1984 -85 fiscal year budget
to, accommodate the cost of the changes as proposed. An
appropriations resolution will be prepared and submitted to the
City Council at a subsequent meeting following the determination
of the City Council.
— WeZL-�-�
J. Wayne Dernetz
City Man ger
County of Santa Ceara
-- California
July 10, 1984
County Executive - Office of Employee Relations
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street, 8th Floor
San Jose California 95110
299-3617 XJ§AkXXArea Code 408
TO: Members, City Council, City of Saratoga
City Manager.
FROM: John C..Obenhuber., Director. ik ell,
Employee Relations Service
SUBJECT: Classification-.Study - P is I and III
Attached are the final allocation list (Part I) and the salary survey
(Part III) of the classification report regarding the Saratoga
Employees Association.
The -jsummary - explaining all- significant findings will be completed in
the next few days, with class specifications to follow by July 24.
Thank. you -.
JCO:csm- _
Attachments
® ki Equai Opportunity Employer
Employ %ee n=- rations Service
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EI4PLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART I: ALLOCATION LIST - PAGE 1
CURRENT
DEPARTMENT TITLE SALARY /MONTH
CITY MANAGER: Clerk Typist III 1292 -1650
Administrative Assistant
Deputy City Clerk
COMHUNITY SERVICES: Recreation Supervisor
Housing and Community
Development Coordinator
Facilities Reservation Clerk
(Part -Time)
Clerk Typist III
Community Service Officer
FINANCE: Account Clerk
Account Clerk (Vacant)b)
Switchboard Operator
(Part -Time)
1739 -2221
1739 -2221
1484 -1896
1828 -2333
1109 -1416
1292 -1650
1608 -2051
1292 -1650
1292 -1650
1135 -1447
July 1Q, 1984
PROPOSED
TITLE SALARY /MONTH
Secretary to the City
Manager
No change.
No change.
No change.
No change.
Clerk Typist I
No change.
No change.
No change.
Accounting Technician
Switchboard Operator/
Receptionist
$1705 -2172 (31.6 %)
1771 -2263 (1.9 %)
1771 -2263 (1.9 %)
1771 -2263 (19.4 %)
1864 -2376 (1.8 %)
No change.
1321 -1686 (2.2 %)
1655 -2109 (2.8 %)
1321 -1686 (2.2 %)
1640 -2095 (27 %)
1216 -1552 (7.25$)
(a) Percentages in parentheses represent the approximate, recommended increase or decrease compared to current, top -step
salary levels.
(b) Former incumbents in all positions shown as "Vacant" were interviewed prior to separation.
Employee Relations Service
CO1- Z1UNITY DEVELOPMENT:
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART I: ALLOCATION LIST - PAGE 2
CURRENT
TITLE
Administrative Secretary
Secretary I
Clerk Typist II
Building Inspector II
Building Inspector I
Planner I
Planning Assistant
Assistant Civil Engineer
Civil Engineering Tech. II
MAINTENANCE: Clerk Typist III (Vacant)
Maintenance Clerk
Street Supervisor
Maintenance II (Afanador)
SALARY /1•10NTH
1655 -2109
1413 -1804
1216 -1552
2210 -2821
2129-2713
1849 -2358
2082 -2658
2275 -2904
2210 -2821
1292 -1650
1426 -1820
2061 -2631
1640 -2095
Maintenance II 1640 -2095
Maintenance II 1640 -2095
July 10,1984
PROPOSED
TITLE SALARY /1.10 TI'H
No change.
Secretary
Clerk Typist III
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Assistant Planner
Associate Planr►er
No change.
No change..
$1321 -1686 (8.6 %)
No change.
2210 -2821 (4 %)
1962 -2503 (6.1 %)
2210 -2021 (6.1 %)
No change. No change.
Senior Engineering Technician No change.
Secretary
Clerk Typist III
Street Maint. Supervisor
Street Maintenance
Leadworker
Street Maint. Worker II
Street Maint. Worker II
1413 -1804 (9.3 %)
1321 -1686 ( -7.9%)
No change.
1771 -2263 (8 %)
No change.
No change.
Employee Relations Service
MAIN`T'ENANCE (Continued) :
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA E1PLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART I: ALLOCATION LIST - PAGE 3
CURRENT
TITLE
Maintenance I
Maintenance I
Maintenance I (Vacant)
maintenance I (McQueen)
Parks & Building Supervisor
Japanese Garden Specialist
Japanese Garden Caretaker
(Part -Time)
Parks & Landscape Maint. II
(Kirk)
Parks & Landscape Maint. II
Parks & Landscape Maint. I
(Vacant)
Parks & Landscape Maint. I
Parks & Landscape Maint. I
Parks & Landscape Maint. I
SALARY /MONTH
July 10, 1984
PROPOSED
TITLE SALARY /MONTH
$1413 -1804
Street Maint. Worker I
No change.
1413 -1804
Street Maint. Worker I
No change.
1413 -1804
Street Maint. Worker I
No change.
1413 -1804
Street Plaint. Worker II
$1640 -2095
(16.1 %)
2061 -2631
Parks &•Building Maint.
2123 -2710
(3 %)
Supervisor
1812 -2310
No change.
No change.
764 -973
No change.
1037-1321-(35.8%)
1640 -2095
Parks & Landscape Plaint.
1722-2200
(5 %)
Worker III
1640 -2095
Parks & Landscape Haint.
No change.
Worker II
1413 -1804
Parks & Landscape Plaint.
No change.
Worker I
1413 -1804
Parks & Landscape Maint.
No change.
Worker I
1413 -1804 Parks & Landscape Maint. No change.
Worker I
1413 -1804 Parks & Landscape Maint. No change.
Worker I
Effployee Relations Service
DEPARTMENT TITLE
MAINTENANCE (Continued): Custodian
Custodian
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART I: ALLOCATION LIST - PAGE 4
CURRENT - - -
SALARY /MONTH
$1292 -1650
t
1292 - 1650,
July 10, 198'4
PROPOSED
TITLE SALARY/MONTH
Building maintenance $1321 -1686 (2.2 %)
Custodian
Building Maintenance 1321 -1686 (2.2 %)
Custodian
' EXHIBIT "A"
Employee Relations Service
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III• SALARY.SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
July 10, 1984
This part of the report contains the results of the salary survey covering twenty -one of
the twenty -eight City classifications covered by the study. The thirteen survey juris-
dictions listed below were selected with the input and prior approval of the City Mana-
ger.. These agencies include the eleven contained in the study proposal and two addi-
tional cities subsequently requested by the City.
Campbell Morgan Hill
Cupertino Mountain View
Gilroy Palo Alto
Los Altos San Jose
Los Gatos Santa Clara
Milpitas Sunnyvale
County of Santa Clara
A salary array was developed for each of the survey classifications. The only exception
was the class of Japanese Garden Specialist, for which insufficient cor'lxarability
existed among a specially selected group of agencies known to have similar operations.
All salary data reported prevailed as of June 1, 1984. Agency payments of employee PERS
contributions were excluded from the arrays.
1628f/l
t
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1934
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -A: SECRETARY TO THE CITY MANAGER
All classes in this array represent single - position classes providing secretarial sup-
port to the agency's chief administrative officer. The only exception to this criterion
is the inclusion of the Saratoga class of Clerk Typist III where one position is pre-
sently performing at the level of City Manager's secretary.
AGENCY
CLASS TITLE
SALARY /MONTH
San Jose
Secretary to
City Manager
$2133
- 2593
Santa Clara County
Secretary to
the County Executive
..1717 --
2536
a)
Sunnyvale
Secretary to
the City Manager
1999
- 2430
Santa Clara
City Manager's
Secretary
2424
(Flat)
Los Gatos
Secretary to
the Town Manager
1764
- 2251
Milpitas
Secretary to
the City Manager
1718
- 2235
Palo Alto
Administrative Secretary /City Manager's.
2222
(Control
Office
Point)
Campbell
Secretary to
City I4anager
1721
- 2094
Mountain View
Secretary to
the City Manager
1707
- 2074
Cupertino
Secretary to
City Manager
-1689
- 2063,*
I4organ Hill
Secretary to
the City Manager
1600
- 2000
SARATOGA
CLERK TYPIST
III
1292
-.1650
Survey Average ( Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga): $2266
Differential: 37.33%
a) Represents the maximum of a 48% range having no intermediate steps. The actual
salary of the incumbent is within 30 of the range maximum.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Los Altos The class of Secretary to the City Manager /City Clerk
functions regularly as Deputy City Clerk, and is presently
acting as City Clerk on an interim basis. Salary:
$1975 -2399.
Gilroy The class of Administrative Secretary also functions as
Deputy City Clerk. Salary: $1407 -1709.
1628f/2
1
l
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -B: ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
All classes in this array represent the highest level secretarial class which provides
secretarial support to department and agency heads. Since the City of Saratoga's
current and proposed classification structure has two secretarial classes, only those
jurisdictions which have similar structures are included here.
AGENCY
Sunnyvale.
San Jose
Santa Clara County
SARATOGA
Santa Clara
Los Gatos
Mountain View
Palo Alto
CLASS TITLE
Adninistrative Secretary
Executive Secretary
Secretary III
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
Stenographer -Clerk III
Administrative Secretary
Administrative Secretary
Executive Secretary
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
SALARY /MONTH
$1859
- 2260
1798
- 2185
1751
- 2128
1655
- 2109
1681
- 2050
1598
- 2040
1565
- 1902
1506
- 1882
$2064
+2.18%
Campbell, The city has only orie secretarial class other than
Cupertino, secretary to the city manager.
Gilroy and
Morgan Hill.
Milpitas The only secretarial class utilized -by the City is the
Secretary to the City Manager.
Los Altos The City does not have a classification at this level.
1628f/3
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -C: SECRETARY
All classes in this array provide secretarial support to major division heads, program
managers or heads of small departments. As with the Administrative Secretary array,
agencies which do not have at least two secretarial classifications are excluded from
this array.
AGENCY CLASS TITLE SALARY /MONTH
Sunnyvale
Los Gatos
San Jose
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara
SARATOGA
Palo-Alta
Mountain.View
Senior Secretary
Secretary III
Secretary
Secretary II
Stenographer -Clerk II
--- - -- -- -- -a)
Statt:,Secretary
Secretary
Survey Average (Top -Std Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
$1728
- 2100
1521 -
1941
1569 -
1907
1541 -
1860
1525 -
1856
1413 -
1804
1404 -
1755
1437 -
1746
a) Current title. Has been proposed for reclassification to Secretary.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
$1881
-4.26%
Campbell, The city has only one secretarial class other than
Cupertino, secretary to the city manager.
Gilroy and
Morgan Hill.
Milpitas The only secretarial class utilized by the City is the
Secretary to the City manager.
Los Altos The City does not have a classification at this level.
1628f/4
0
1
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
Revised 7/25/84
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -D: CLERK TYPIST II
All classes in this array represent intermediate level typist classifications which
normally require one year of prior experience.
AGENCY
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Campbell
Palo Alto
Cupertino
SARATOGA
Mountain View
Gilroy
Santa Clara County
Milpitas
CLASS TITLE
Typist -Clerk II
Office Assistant
Typist Clerk II
Clerk- Typist
Office Assistant
Clerk- Typist
CLERK TYPIST II
Typist -Clerk
Clerk Typist II
Clerk- Typist
Typist -Clerk II
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
71
SALARY /MONTH
$1452
- 1764
1384 -
1683
1316
- 1600
1310
- 1595
1253
- 1566
1277 -
1560
1216
- 1552
1263 -
1535
1238
- 1500
1206 -
1450
1188 -
1444
$1570
-1.15%
Los Gatos The recent implementation of a comparable worth study
resulted in the elimination of all "clerk typist"
classifications. The new class of Secretary I replaced both
the former classes of Clerk Typist and Senior Clerk Typist.
Los Altos The City is presently using only one typist classification
on a full -time basis, i.e., Clerk Typist III.
Morgan Hill The City does not currently use a class at this level.
1628f/5
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATCGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATCGA E1,1PLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -E: ACCOUNT CLERK
All classes in this array are intermediate level classes normally requiring one year of
prior related experience.
AGENCY
CLASS 'TITLE
SALARY
/M011TH
Santa Clara
Account Clerk I
$1525
- 1856
Mountain View
Senior Account.Clerk
1437
- 1746
Cupertino
Account Clerk
1370
- 1672
SARATCGA
ACCOUNT CLERK
1292
- 1650
Santa Clara County
Account Clerk II
1341
- 1616
San Jose
Account Clerk II
1316
- 1600
Milpitas
Account Clerk
1249
- 1518
Gilroy.. -.
Account Clerk...
1.233
- 1500
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
F3
$1644
+.36b
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Sunnyvale The City does riot utilize a specialized classification for
clerical accounting work.
Morgan Fiill Cashiering duties of the class of Cashier /Account Clerk
account for up to 35% of the position's function.
Palo Alto Duties of the intermediate level class of Control /Accounting
Assistant emphasize cashiering.
Campbell and The city's intermediate level account clerk class is
Los Altos. presently inactive.
Los Gatos The Town does not have any clerical accounting
classification.
1628f/6
mployee Relations Service July 10, 1984
• CITY OF SARATCGA CLASSIFICATIO14 STUDY
SARATCGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -F: ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
All classes in this array are at a paraprofessional level and do not have any ongoing
lead responsibilities except for some positions in the City of San Jose classification
and for the Milpitas class.
AGENCY
SALARY /MOtT2H
Milpitas
Accounting Technician
$2048
- 2557
San Jose
Accounting Technician
1869
- 2271
Campbell
Accounting Technician
1856
- 2257
Sunnyvale
Accounting Technician
1834
- 2229
Mountain View
Accounting Technician
1720 -
2089
Santa Clara County
Accountant Assistant
1457.-
1758
SARATCGA
ACCOUNT CLERKa)
1292 -
1650
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga): $2194
Differential: - 32.96%
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Accounting 'i'echnician.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Los Gatos The class of Accounting Technician is the Town's only fiscal
classification and has substantially greater
responsibilities than those of the survey group.
Cupertino, Gilroy, The city does not utilize a paraprofessional accounting
Santa Clara, class.
Morgan Hill,
Palo Alto and
Los Altos.
1628f/7
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -G: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
All classes in this array represent administrative classifications requiring, in
general, the equivalent of a four -year degree and up to one year's experience. Emphasis
and duties varies by assignment which customarily can be to an operating department
and/or to the office of the chief administrator.
AGENCY
Milpitas
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Santa Clara County
Campbell
Palo Alto
rr rcc mrmr o
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Aide
Staff Analyst I
Associate Management Analyst "B"
Administrative Aide
Management Assistant
SARATOGA ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
SALARY /MONTH
$2256
- 2817
2023
- 2459
1992
- 2421
1939
- 2357
1933
- 2352
2256 (Control
point)
Santa Clara, The agency does not utilize a generalist administrative
Cupertino, class at this level. The majority of these jurisdictions
Gilroy, Morgan Hill, do not have "administrative assistant "classifications
Los Altos, at any level.
Mountain View and
Los Gatos.
1628f/8
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARA`IMA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA Er ,2LOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -H: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
All classes in this array have the primary responsibility for administering HCD programs
in non - entitlement agencies, which, like Saratoga, receive such funds through the
County. In all cases, supervisory responsibilities of these positions are minimal and
do not include any professional staff.
AGENCY
CLASS TITLE
SALARY/MOITIE
Campbell
Housing and Corununity
Development
$2361
- 2870
Grant.Coordinatora
b)
Morgan Hill
Housing and Community
Development
2000
- 2600 (2150)
Coordinator
Gilroy
Housing and Community
Development
2059
- 2500
Grant Coordinator
SARATOGA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPIENT
1828
- 2333
COORDINATOR
Survey Average (Top
-Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
$2657
(2507),b)
Differential:
- 13.88%
(- 7.45 %) b)
a) Additional functions include rental mediation.
b) $2150 represents the actual rate of this position which is on a broad management
range without intermediate steps. Because of the substantial difference between
the range maximum and the actual rate paid, the survey average and differential for
this class have been computed using both the maximum and the actual salary.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Los Altos The City does not have an HCD program.
Mountain View The City's program is acbAnistered by a contract employee.
The City is also an entitlement agency.
Cupertino The functions of the survey class are divided between a
planner.and a 1:art -time housing rehabilitation specialist.
1628f/9
a • 1
Part III -H: Housing and Community Development 7/10/84
.Coordinator, Page 2
Reasons for exclusion from the array: (Continued)
Milpitas The class of Community Assistance Coordinator has
significant additional functions.
Los Gatos The class of Community Services Director has additional
significant functions.
Santa Clara County, Are entitlement agencies which normally have this function
Santa Clara, assigned to a higher -level manager with additional, signi-
Sunnyvale, figant functions.
Palo Alto and
San Jose.
1628f/10
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984.
• CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -I: RECREATION SUPERVISOR
All classes in this array are experienced -level recreation supervisors responsible for
one or more major programs of the department.
AGENCY CLASS TITLE
Sunnyvale Recreation Supervisor
Mountain View
Recreation
Supervisor
Palo Alto
Supervisor,
General Recreation
Milpitas
Recreation
Supervisor
Cupertino
Recreation
Supervisor
Campbell
Recreation
Supervisor
Morgan Hill
Recreation
Supervisor
Gilroy
Recreation
Supervisor I
SARATOGA
RECREATION
SUPEFZdISOR
Survey Average (Top
-Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
SALARY/MONTH
$2757 (Control
Point)
$2414 (2366) a)
- 27.32% (- 24.78 %) a)
a) $1815 represents the actual rate of this position which is on a broad marcayement
range without intermediate steps. Because of the substantial difference between
the range maximum and the actual rate paid, the survey averaye and differential for
this class have been computed using both the maximum and the actual salary.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Santa Clara County
and Los Gatos.
San Jose
Los Altos
Santa Clara
1628f/11
No function.
The City's professional recreation classes are undergoing
classification review.
The one - position class of Senior Recreation Supervisor has
administrative duties and also is responsible for all
recreation programs.
The City does not utilize a class at this level.
2596 (Mid- Point)
1982
- 2478
1949
- 2432
1962
- 2396
2343
1800
- 2200 (1815) a)
1734 -
2108
1484 -
1896
$2414 (2366) a)
- 27.32% (- 24.78 %) a)
a) $1815 represents the actual rate of this position which is on a broad marcayement
range without intermediate steps. Because of the substantial difference between
the range maximum and the actual rate paid, the survey averaye and differential for
this class have been computed using both the maximum and the actual salary.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Santa Clara County
and Los Gatos.
San Jose
Los Altos
Santa Clara
1628f/11
No function.
The City's professional recreation classes are undergoing
classification review.
The one - position class of Senior Recreation Supervisor has
administrative duties and also is responsible for all
recreation programs.
The City does not utilize a class at this level.
Employee Relations Service
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III�J: ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER
July 10, 1984
All classes in this array are experienced - level, degreed civil engineers having design
and contract administration responsibilities for improvement projects. Excluded are
classes requiring state registration as a civil engineer and /or having supervisory
responsibilities. Unless otherwise noted, all survey classes report to an intermediate -
level civil engineer whereas the Saratoga position reports directly to the Community
Development Director /City Engineer.
AGENCY
Campbell
Sunnyvale
SARATOGA
Morgan Hill
Cupertino
San Jose
Los Gatos
Mountain--View - --
Milpitas
Santa Clara County
CLASS TITLE
Assistant Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER
Contract Administratora)
Assistant Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer II
Assistant Civil Engineer
-Assistant Civil Engineer
Assistant Civil Engineer
Assistant Civil Engineer
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
SALARY /MONTH
$2531
2494
2275
2000
2361
2340
2202
2291
2160
- 3078
- 3032
- 2904
- 2900 a)
- 2882
- 2843
- 2810
2794 (Mid- Point)
- 2785
- 2625
$2861
+1.5%
a) The actual rate is within $25 of the maximum. Primary functions are in contract
administration and plans review. This position reports to the City Engineer, a
division head in the Conununity Development Department. -
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Santa Clara The class of Civil Engineer II has regular supervisory
responsibilities in connection with assigned engineering
projects.
1628f/12
Part III-J: Assistant Civil Engineer
Page
7/10/84
Reasons for exclusion from the array: (Continued)
Palo Alto The class of Assistant Engineer is the entry -level class
where enyineers iaay be hired with or without prior
experience. The next higher level is Principal Engineer
which requires registration.
Gilroy The only engineering class used below the Director of Public
Works is the entry -level classification of Junior Civil
Engineer.
Los Altos The class of Construction Engineer does function as a
project engineer but also perform significant amounts of
construction inspection.
1628f/13
Efnployee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATCGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -K: CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II
All classes in this array represent the highest sub - professional level engineer used by
the survey group to perform office engineering, survey work arid/or construction inspec-
tion. None of the classifications presented here have regular supervisory responsibili-
ties; only the City of Cupertino's class performs construction inspections.
AGENCY CLASS TITLE
Campbell Engineering Technician II a)
SARATOGA CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II b)
Cupertino Senior Engineering Technician
Santa Clara Senior Engineering Aide
Palo Alto Engineering Technician IIIa)
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excludinq Saratoga):'
Differential:
a) Do not perform field survey work.
SALARY /MONTH
$2470
- 3004
2210
- 2821
2169
- 2647
2150
- 2611
1855
- 2319
$2645
+6.65%
b) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Senior Engineering Technician.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Los Altos The class of Engineering Aide is the only paraprofessional
class used and is primarily assigned to survey work and
drafting.
Sunnyvale
The highest sub - professional engineering class used is
Senior Engineering Aide which is primarily assigned to
survey work and technical drafting.
Los Gatos
The highest non - supervisory class used is Engineering
Technician II which is primarily assigned to construction
inspection and some survey work.
14ilpitas and
The City sloes riot use a sub - professional engineering
Morgan Hill.
classification.
Mountain View
The highest sub - professional class used is Engineering
Assistant II which is primarily assigned to drafting work.
San Jose and
The agency uses separate classification series for office
Santa Clara County.
engineering, field survey work and construction inspection.
Gilroy
The only sub - professional class used is Engineering Aide
which is primarily assigned to drafting work.
1628f/14
Pnployee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -L: BUILDING INSPECTOR I /II
All classes in this array represent journey -level building inspectors. This array
consolidates both existing City of Saratoga classifications in that none of the survey
agencies have two experienced or working level inspector classes except where the higher
is either a specialist or a leadworker.
AGENCY
San Jose
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Campbell
SARAT03A
Sunnyvale
Los Gatos
Cupertino
Milpitas
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
(IT ncc mrmr V
Building Construction Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
BUILDING INSPECTOR IIa)
BUILDING INSPECTOR Ia)
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector II
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Survey Average ( Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
SALARY /MONTH
$2580
- 3135
2548
- 3102
2994 (Flat)
2444
- 2973
2210
- 2821
2129
- 2713
2232
- 2713
2096
- 2675
2190
- 2674
2180
- 2650
2137
- 2598
2061 - 2575
2059 - 2500
1706 - 2074
$2722
Differential: (Building Inspector II). +3.63%
(Building Inspector I) - -.33%
a) Current class titles. Proposed for reclassification to Building Inspector.
Reasons for exclusion from the arrav:
Los Altos The City's Building Inspection Division consists of only one
full -time inspector who reports to the Planning Director.
1628f/15
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EtIPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -M' PLANNER I
All classes in this array represent working -level planners requiring from one to two
years of prior experience and normally being assigned to short -term plarning tasks.
AGENCY CLASS TITLE ,
Santa Clara
Assistant Planner
Campbell
Planner II
Mountain View
Urban Planner
Palo Alto -
Associate Planner
Milpitas
Assistant Planner
Cupertino
Planner II
Los Gatos
Planner
SARATOGA
PLAINER Ia)
Morgan Hill
Associate. - Planner.
Survey Average (Top
-Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
bifferential:
SALARY /MON'''fi -i
$2314
- 2808
2234-
2716
2558 (Mid- Point)
2056
- 2570
2074
- 2521
2043
- 2494
1946
- 2483
1849
- 2358
1536.
-- 1868..
$2507
-6- .:3.10
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Assistant Planner.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Sunnyvale The City's lowest -level class of Associate Planner requires
a Masters Degree and two years of experience.
Santa Clara County The class of Planner II is currently inactive.
San Jose The City's planning series is presently undergoing
classification review.
Gilroy The class of Assistant Planner requires no prior experience;
the next hiyher level of Associate Planner has supervisory
responsibilities and serves as department head in that
manager's absence.
Los Altos The class of Assistant Planner is the only professional
level used by the City and functions as department head in
the City Planner's absence.
1628f/16
,Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -N: PLANNING ASSISTANT
All classes in this array are fully experienced planners normally assigned to long -range
planning functions. None of the classifications presented here has regular supervisory
responsibilities.
AGENCY
CLASS TITLE
SALARY /MOPgTH
Santa Clara
Associate Planner
$2611
- 3178
Milpitas
Associate Planner
2384
- 2898
Palo Alto
Planner
2198
- 2747
Cupertino
Associate Planner
2190
- 2674
SARATOGA
PLANNING ASSISTANTa)
2082
- 2658
Survey Average (Top
-Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
$2874
Differential:
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Associate Planner.
-8.12%
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Mountain View The class of Senior Urban Planner has supervisory
responsibilities.
Los Gatos The class of Senior Planner is responsible for long -range
planning and has supervisory responsibilities.
Morgan Hill The class of Associate Planner is the only non - supervisory
class used and has duties which are primarily concerned with
short -term planning.
Sunnyvale The class of Associate Planner is the only non - supervisory
class used. Its scope of duties combines significant
functions of the Saratoga classes of Planner I and Planning
Assistant.
1628f/17 '
Part III -N:
Planning Assistant 7/10/84
Page 2
Reasons for
exclusion from the array: (Continued)
Santa Clara
County The class of Planner III is the only non - supervisory
planning class used presently. Its scope of duties combines
significant functions of the Saratoga classes of Planner I
and Planning Assistant.
San Jose
The City's planning series is presently undergoing
classification review.
Gilroy
The class of Associate Planner has supervisory
responsibilities.
Campbell
The class of Principal Planner has supervisory
responsibilities.
Los Altos
The class of Assistant Planner is the only professional
level used by the City and functions as department head in
the City Planner's absence.
1628f/18
n
l'mployee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARAT03A CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A Ei,1PLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -0: STREET SUPERVISOR
All classes in this array are full, first -line supervisors responsible for the street
maintenance function. These are either single- position classifications specializing in
this function; or are in multi - position classes, such as public works supervisor, where
one position is assigned to street maintenance and the others to functions not performed
by the Saratoga classification. Unless otherwise noted, all classes report to a
superintendent -level position, not to a department head.
AGENCY
CLASS TITLE
SALARY /YIONTH
COMMENTS
Sunnyvale
Public Works Supervisor
$2949
A 3- position class with
(Control Point)
1 position assigned to
street maintenance.
Average number of em-
ployees supervised: 15
to 20.
Campbell
Field Maintenance Supervisor
2291 - 2785
Number of employees
supervised: 8.
Cupertino
Public Works Supervisor
2169 - 2647
Functions include equip-
ment maintenance. Num-
ber of employees super -
vised: 10.
Los Gatos
Public Works P-Iaint. Supv.
2637
A 3- position class with
(Maximum)
1 position assigned to
street maintenance.
Number of employees
supervisised by the
streets position: 10.
SARATCGA
STREET SUPERVISORa)
2561 - 2631
Nurser of employees
supervised: 8.
Palo Alto
Supervisor, Public Works
2627
A 3- position class with
(Control Point)
2 positions assigned to
street maintenance.
Number of employees:
10 each.
Milpitas
Public Works Supervisor
1875 - 2340
Number of employees su-
pervised: 7.
Gilroy
Streets & Sewers Supervisor
1914 - 2328
Functions include sewer
maintenance. Reports to
the Director of Public
Works. Number of em-
ployees supervised: 8.
1628f/19
Part III-O: Street Supervisor
'Page . _ 2•
AGENCY CLASS TITLE SALARY/1-1014TH
Mountain View Maint. Supervisor - Streets $1909 - 2320
7/10/84
COr -U- E N`I'S
Number of employees su-
pervised: 14.
Survey Average: $2579
(Top- Step Salaries.Excluding Saratoga)
Differential +2.01% ..
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Street Maintenance Supervisor.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Santa Clara The class of Street Foreman/Forewoman has three positions
and is assigned to street maintenance only.
Morgan, Hill No class is used,-between- working- supervisor and
Superintendent of Public Works, a depar.tment,7head .-.
Santa. Clara County No:class:is used between.working supervisor..and Road
Superintendent. .
San Jose A City -wide class of IvIainteiance Supervisor,'-with 26
positions,.is used for a variety of maintenance functions.
Los Altos No class is used between leadworker and the superintendent .
level.
1628f/20
i
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -P: STREET MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER
All classes in this array are primarily responsible for leading street maintenance crews
and in performing the more skilled maintenance tasks, including equipment operation. In
order to be included in this array, leadworker functions must be performed on a regular
basis.
AGENCY
CLASS TITLE
SALARY /MOI,Pi'Fi
Sunnyvale
Public Works Leadworker
$2022
- 2457
Campbell
Maintenance Leadworker
1847
- 2248
Los Gatos
Maintenance Worker III
1673
- 2116
Gilroy
Public Works Senior Maintenance
1734
- 2108
SARATOGA
MAINTENANCE II (1 Pos)a)
1640
- 2095
Survey Average (Top
-Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):,
$2232
Differential:
-6.53%
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Street Maintenance Leadworker.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Morgan Hill, No leadworker classification is used.
Cupertino and
Santa Clara.
Palo Alto The City does not utilize a generalist maintenance worker
class above the entry -level of Street Maintenance Assis-
tant. Higher level work is performed by specialized.classes
such as Concrete Worker and Truck Driver, with leadworker
assignments carrying a designated pay differential over the
highest -paid personnel supervised.
Los Altos The City uses two leadworker classifications.
Santa Clara County The classes of Road Maintenance Worker III and Road
Maintenance Worker IV are used as leadworkers or as heavy
equipment operators.
San Jose The City utilizes two leadworker classifications.
Milpitas and The city's Maintenance Worker II classification combines
Mountain View. significant functions of the Saratoga classes of Maintenance
II and t•Iaintenance Leadworker.
1628/22
•,Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -Q: MAINTENANCE II
All classes in this array are used to perform semi- skilled and skilled public works
maintenance duties. In some cases, assignments will include sewer, water utility and
parks maintenance. These classifications also have periodic leadworker responsibili-
ties, but do not normally assume this responsibility on an ongoing.basis.
AGENCY
CLASS TITLE
Santa Clara
Street Maintenance Worker
SARATOGA
MAINTENANCE II a)
Campbell
Maintenance Worker
II
Los Gatos
Maintenance Worker
II
Cupertino
Maintenance Worker
II
Morgan Hill
Maintenance Worker
II
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
.SALARY /MONTH
$1806 - 2198
1640- 2095
1681 - 2045
1522 - 1927
1571 - 1910
1406 - 1710
$1958
Differential: +6.99%
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Street Maintenance Worker II.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Milpitas and
Mountain View.
The second level in the series has regular leadworker respon-
sibilities.
Palo Alto The City does riot utilize a generalist maintenance worker
class above the entry -level of Street Maintenance Assistant.
Higher level work is performed by specialized classes such
as Concrete Worker and Truck Driver, with leadworker assign-
ments carrying a designated pay differential over the
highest -paid personnel supervised. .
Los Altos, The agency uses two classifications which contain significant
Sunnyvale and elements of the Saratoga class.
Santa Clara County.
Gilroy The second level in the maintenance series includes substan-
tial building maintenance duties and equipr-ent operation.
San Jose The class of Maintenance Worker II has ongoing leadworker
responsibilities.
1628f/21
Q
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
R
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -R: MAINTENANCE I
All classes in this array represent experienced, entry -level classifications used to
perform a variety of unskilled and semi- skilled work in street maintenance.
AGENCY
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Campbell
Mountain View
Cupertino
SARATOGA
Milpitas
Santa.Clara County
Los Gatos _._..
Gilroy.
Los Altos
Palo Alto
Morgan Hill
CLASS TITLE
Utility Worker
Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Worker I
Maintenance Worker I
Maintenance Worker I, Streets
and Utilities
Maintenance Worker I
MAINTENANCE Ia)
Maintenance Worker I
Road Maintenance Worker II
Maintenance Worker I
Public Works Maintenance I
Maintenance Man I
Street Maintenance Assistant
Maintenance Worker I
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga):
Differential:
SALARY /MONTH
$1637 - 1997
1574 - 1914
1561 - 1898
1524 - 1851
1500 - 1824
1496 - 1819
1413 - 1804
1479 - 1798
1464 - 1766
1391 - 1756
1429 - 1734
1426 - 1733
1366 - 1707
1338 - 1627
$1802
+.11%
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Street Maintenance Worker I.
1628f/23
a
Employee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATCGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A E1,1PLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -S: PARKS AND BUILDINGS SUPERVISOR
All classes in this array are full, first -line supervisors responsible for park mainte-
nance. Unless otherwise noted, no class is responsible for city -wide building mainte-
nance, and all classes report to a position at the superintendent level, not a depart -
ment head. All classes reported are single- position classifications.
AGENCY CLASS TITLE SALARY /MONTH
Los Gatos Park Maintenance Supervisor $2637
(1•sax imam )
SARATOGA. PARKS & BUILDINGS. 2061 - 2631
SUPERVISOR
Cupertino Grounds maint. Supervisor 2115 - 2582
Gilroy. Park Superintendent 2528
-- ___—
(Flat)
Los Altos maintenance Foreman 2071 - 2523
Palo Alto Supervisor, Parks Maintenance 2499
(Control Point)
Campbell Park Maintenance Supervisor 2025 - 2460
Milpitas Park Supervisor 1875 - 2340
COMMITS
Number -of"employees
supervised: 13.
Functions include build-
ing maintenance. Number
of employees supervised:
10.
Number of employees
supervised: 12.
Functions include city -
wide-bu-ilding - mainten-
ance. - Reports to the _
Director of Parks and
Recreation, a depart -
ment.head. Number of
employees supervised:
14.
Number of employees
supervised: 10.
Reports to the Director
of Parks and Open Space
Management, a division
head. Number of employ-
ees supervised: 12.
Number of employees
supervised: 6.
Number of employees
supervised: 12.
Survey Average: $2510
(Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga)
Differential: +4.82b
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Parks and Building Maintenance
Supervisor.
1628f/24
a
Part III -S: Parks and Buildings Supervisor 7/10/84
Page 2
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
San Jose, Agency uses a multi- position classification for this function.
Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale,
Mountain View
and Santa Clara
County.
Morgan Hill There is no full supervisory level used between working
supervisor and the Superintendent of Public Works.
1628f/25
iEmployee Relations Service July 10, 1984
CITY OF SARATCGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARAT03A EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART III -T: CUSTODIAN
All classes in this array perform an incidental amount of minor building maintenance
work in addition to customary janitorial duties. Classes which are not assigned any
building maintenance duties are excluded from this array.
AGENCY CLASS TITLE SALARY /MONTH
Los Gatos
Building Mlaint. worker I
$1391
- 1756
SARATOGA
CUSTODIAN a)
1292
- 1650
Gilroy
Custodian
1330 -
1613
Survey Average (Top -Step Salaries Excluding Saratoga): $1685
Differential: -2.12%
a) Current title. Proposed for reclassification to Building Maintenance Custodian.
Reasons for exclusion from the array:
Los Altos The City uses generalist maintenance workers for this
function.
San Jose, The agency's custodial classifications.perform little or no
Santa Clara, building maintenance work.
Palo Alto and
Santa Clara County. -
Milpitas, Custodial maintenance is-contracted out.
Cupertino,
Campbell,
mountain View,
Sunnyvale and
Morgan Hill.
1628f/26
County of.Santa Clara
California
July 18, 1984
Mr. J. Wayne Dernetz
City Manager
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Wayne:
County Executive - Office of Employee Relations
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street, 8th Floor
San Jose, California 95110
299 -3223 Area Code 408
Enclosed is Part II of the classification study concerning the
Saratoga Employees Association. As we discussed, this Part contains
an explanation of every proposed change contained in the Allocation
List except for minor modifications to class titles.
New class specifications will be submitted to you next week. These
will represent the fourth and last part of the report.
Please let me know if any of this material requires clarification.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
JO C. Obenhuber�
Director
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SERVICE
JCO:csm
Enclosure
61 An Equal Opportunity Employer
.0
EXHIBIT "A"
Employee Relations Service
CITY OF SARATOGA CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SARATOGA E14PLOYEES ASSOCIATION
PART II: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
July 10, 1984
Background: This study encompassed forty -one (41) filled positions in
twenty -eight active job classifications represented by the City of
Saratoga Employees Association.
The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based
upon a review of the duty. statements completed by each of the incum-
bents and on -site interviews with all employees concerned. The infor-
mation obtained through the duty statements and interviews was supple-
mented through discussions with the appropriate supervisor or depart-
ment head.
In addition, thirteen public jurisdictions within the County of Santa
Clara were surveyed for the purposes of determining applicable, pre-
vailing salary and classification practices. The results of the
salary survey, together with the methodology used, are set forth in
Part III of this report.
Recommendations: It is recommended.that:
1. The positions studied be allocated to the classifications and to
the salary ranges pursuant to the Allocation List contained in
Part I of this report:
2. The duties and responsibilities of the subject job classifications
be as set forth in the proposed class specifications to be submit-
ted as Part IV of this report.
Discussion: The majority of the twenty City classifications surveyed
were below the survey average for their particular classification.
Moreover, since the salary data utilized prevailed �r�ior to any July
adjustments of the survey agencies, the relative position of most of
the City classes has dropped to a greater degree if such adjustments
were considered.
In developing salary recommendations, we did not attempt to compensate
for or balance these external 'factors. The determination of the
City's ultimate salary standing „in relationship to the survey group is
a policy decision which can only be made by the City Manager and City
Council and implemented through the "meet and confer” process.
Therefore, specific salary recommendations were made only if one of
the following criteria were met:
City of Saratoga Classification Study 7/10/84
Part II:. Findings & Recommendations
Page 2
1. A new classification was being proposed.
2. A new or current City classification was more than loo below or
above the appropriate survey average.
3. The relative duties and responsibilities of one City classifica-
tion clearly dictated an increase or decrease in the present sal-
ary differential between it and another City classification.
In applying these criteria.,. the greatest emphasis was placed upon at-
taining a proposed classification structure that would represent the
most proper internal salary relationship among related City classes.
The specific rationale for each recommendation is summarized below.
1. Clerk Typist III (City. Manager's Office). It has been recommended
that this position be allocated to a new classification of Secre-
tary to the City Manager, and that the salary range for this new
class be set at approximately 3% above that of Administrative Sec-
retary.
The establishment of a specialized classification at this level is
warranted based upon the confidential nature of the work performed
and the level of work assigned. Both are clearly above the incum-
bent's present classification and slightly above those of even a
strong department head secretary classification. Moreover, all
thirteen survey agencies maintain such a class. These classes, on
the average, carry a salary approximately 10% greater than the
rate for the highest -level department head secretary class used by
the survey group.
The salary proposed for this classification is approximately 4%
below the survey average.
2. Administrative Assistant. This existing classification has been
recommended for an adjustment of approximately 2 %.
This is largely the result of the City classification being 10%
below the survey average.
This recommendation also serves to impact on the related classifi-
cations of Deputy City Clerk and Housing and Community Development
Coordinator. Both classifications have been recommended to re-
ceive the same adjustment as Administrative Assistant. This is to
maintain the present pay parity relationship between Administra-
tive Assistant and Deputy City Clerk, and to maintain the existing
5% differential between the Coordinator class and the other two.
City of Saratoga Classification Study
Part II: Findings & Recommendations
Page 3
7/10/84
3. Recreation Supervisor. It has been proposed that this classifica-
tion receive an adjustment of almost 20%, which would also result
in salary parity with this class, Administrative Assistant and
Deputy City Clerk.
This recommendation is predicated upon the current salary for Rec-
reation Supervisor being 25% below the survey average for general-
ly comparable classifications. The proposed new salary level
would bring the City classification to within 80 of the survey
average.
4. Facilities Reservation Clerk. A title change to Clerk Typist I
has been proposed with no adjustment in salary.
The purpose of this recommendation is to replace a specialized
class with a generalist one inasmuch as there is no specialized
skill or background required of this position.
5. Clerk Typist III (City - wide). This classification has been recom-
mended to receive an adjustment of approximately 20.
This is proposed to maintain the salary for this class at the same
level as Custodian, for which a similar salary adjustment has been
proposed based upon level of responsibility.
The class of Account Clerk has been recommended to receive the
same adjustment as Clerk Typist III, again for the purpose of
maintaining internal salary relationships.
6. Community Service Officer. This existing City classification has
been proposed,-to receive an adjustment of approximately 3 %, bring-
ing it to salary parity with Administrative Secretary.
The Community Service Officer Program is still in the developmen-
tal stage as is the scope of work of the personnel assigned to
it. At this point, the overall level of responsibility of this
class is sufficiently similar to that of Administrative Secretary
to warrant assignment of both classes to the same salary range.
7. Account Clerk (Vacant). The vacant position in this classifica-
tion has been recommended for reallocation to a new class of
Accounting Technician at a salary 27% above Account Clerk.
The former incumbent was interviewed prior to her separation from
the City. At that time, the level of work performed was clearly
above that normally assigned clerical accounting classes and was
more of a paraprofessional nature.
City of Saratoga Classification Study
Part II:. Findings & Recommendations
Page
7/10/84
Since it was the Department's intention to maintain this level of
responsibility, our recommendation was made accordingly. However,
this was not intended in any way to dictate reclassification
should the City have been unsuccessful in recruiting a replacement
with the background necessary to perform at a Technician level.
8. Switchboard Operator. A title change and a salary increase of
approximately 7% has been recommended for this classification.
The proposed increase would raise this class to salary parity with
Clerk Typist II.
The two part -time incumbents function as both switchboard opera-
tors and receptionists. Because of the location of the City
switchboard, the Operators are normally the first contact person
with visitors to City Hall. Moreover, they are required to not
just automatically forward telephone calls, but to screen them in
some instances. This is particularly true in the afternoon due to
the operating requirements of the Community Development Department.
The knowledges and abilities required to effectively perform this
combination of duties is, at a minimum, at the level of an experi-
enced clerical classification such as Clerk Typist II.
9. Secretary I. Two recommendations have been made which affect this
classification. The first involves a title change of the one
position of Secretary I in the Community Development Department to
Secretary with no change in salary. The second concerns realloca-
tion of one position of Clerk Typist III to the class of Secretary
with an approximate salary adjustment of 9 %.
The first recommendation serves to eliminate the existing classi-
fications of 'Secretary I and II, and replace them with a single
secretary classification. _ Presently, there is no position allo-
cated to the II level. Therefore, there is no justification for
maintaining a "phantom" class, especially where the salary differ-
ential between the two existing levels is only 5 %.
The concept of the proposed Secretary
tions performing high -level clerical
tail for managers at the department
It is distinguished from the class
primarily by the greater complexity
supervision exercised by the latter.
class is to encompass posi-
work and administrative de-
aead or division head level.
of Administrative Secretary
of work performed and the
The second recommendation is based upon the substantial amount of
administrative detail performed by the former incumbent in provid-
ing secretarial support to the Maintenance Director.
City of Saratoga Classification Study
Part II: Findings &Recommendations
Page 5 -
7/10/84
10. Clerk Typist II (Community Development). It has been recommended
that this position be reallocated to the class of Clerk Typist III
at an approximate increase of 9 %.
This action is proposed due to the amount of technical tasks per-
formed by the incumbent which require a good working knowledge of
departmental procedures concerning the issuance of building per-
mits and related transactions. At the time the incumbent was in-
terviewed and for several months prior, as much as 50% of her time
was devoted to counter work involving the issuance of building
permits. The City has since hired an additional Building Inspec-
tor to assume a major portion of the counter work previously per-
formed by this position and the Secretary I in the Permit Review
Division. This has diminished the employee's responsibilities in
this area to that of a back -up person entailing only about three
hours per week.
However, this does riot alter the fact that the overall duties and
responsibilities of this position dictate a thorough working
knowledge of departmental procedures, especially those of the
Building Inspection Division. These knowledges are applied on a
daily basis in providing direct services to the public and other
City operating units. In our estimation, this level of work is
beyond that of an intermediate clerical classification such as
Clerk Typist II.
11. Building Inspector I /II. These two classifications have been
recommended to be consolidated and retitled to Building Inspector
with the salary range for this class being at the current level
for Building Inspector II. This would carry a salary increase of
approximately 4% for the,Building Inspector I.
This consolidation is proposed inasmuch as there is very little
difference between the work performed by the two incumbents. Al-
though the employee presently at the II level is the "senior" in-
spector, he does not direct the work of the other incumbent nor
are his assignments any more complex. Even if there were a signi-
ficant difference between the assignments of the two incumbents,
this would be offset by the additional function performed by the
Inspector I in conducting inspections of privately- funded public
works projects, i.e., sub - divisions.
12. Planner I. This class has been recommended for retitling to
Assistant Planner and to receive a salary adjustment of approxi-
mately 6 %.
The proposed new title of Assistant Planner better conveys the
level of work performed, i.e., experienced, entry - level. -The cur-
rent title of Planner I is commonly used for entry -level positions
which do not require prior experience and have lesser responsibil-
ities.
City of Saratoga Classification Study
Part II:' Findings & Recommendations
Page 6
7/10/84
The recommended salary adjustment is to maintain the current sala-
ry relationship between this class and Planning Assistant (Associ-
ate Planner), and is triggered by the increase for the latter
class which is discussed below.
13. Planning Assistant. It has been proposed that this classification
be retitled to Associate Planner at a salary range approximately
6% above the current level.
As with the Planner I recommendation, the proposed title of Asso-
ciate Planner is more representative of the level of work being
performed by the incumbent, i.e., full, working level with empha-
sis on long -range planning.
The salary increase is recommended to bring this class to salary
parity with the existing range for Building Inspector II. This is
predicated upon comparable levels of responsibility and further
supported by the survey data which indicates that planners at this
level are paid approximately 5% more than journey -level building
inspectors. Presently, the salary range for Planning Assistant is
6% below Building Inspector II and 2% below Building Inspector I.
14. Civil Engineering Technician II. A title change to Senior Engi-
neering Technician has been proposed for this classification with
no change in salary.
The current class title is essentially non - descriptive of the work
performed by the incumbent. This work is a combination of office
engineering, surveying and construction inspection. It is defi-
nitely a high -level sub - professional engineering position which
warrants a "senior" designation.
Currently there is only a 3% salary differential between this
classification and the higher level class of Assistant Civil Engi-
neer. Among the agencies surveyed, however, this differential is
8 %. Widening of the differential between the two classifications
has not been recommended due to the aforementioned level of work
performed by the Technician and the substantial similarity in
duties of the two classes.
15. Maintenance Clerk. It has been recommended that the one position
in this class be reallocated to Clerk Typist III with an approxi-
mate salary reduction of 8%.-
Our recommendation for reclassification is based upon the fact
that the primary duties of this position constitute high -level
clerical work. However, it is not so specialized that it demands
a specific background other than general clerical in order to per-
form the duties satisfactorily. This includes the dispatching
element of the job which, according to the incumbent, can be
learned in a matter of days and which does not reciuire prior radio
City of Saratoga Classification Study
Part II: Findings & Recommendations
Page 7 - -
7/10/84
operator experience. The job knowledges required of this position
in maintaining a variety of maintenance records are no greater
than required of Clerk Typist III's assigned to other City depart-
ments. In short; this is a responsible, advanced clerical posi-
tion, but one that does not warrant either a specialized class or
a salary comparable to that of the City classification of Secre-
tary I.
16. Maintenance II (One Position) . One position in this classifica-
tion has been recommended for reallocation to a new class of
Street Maintenance Leadworker at a salary range approximately 8%
higher than the current level for Maintenance II.
The establishment of a separate leadworker classification is re-
commended due to the fact that the one Maintenance II position
concerned has virtually daily responsibilities for leading the
street crew. The regular nature of this assignment justifies the
creation of the higher -level classification.
It should be noted that it is common for positions in journey -
level classes such as Maintenance II to occasionally or periodi-
cally assume lead duties. This is usually done on a relief basis
and cannot be given the same weight as regular responsibilities in
terms of allocation to this or any other leadworker classification.
The proposed salary for the new class is approximately 8% higher
than that for the next lower class of Maintenance II. This is
considered the minimum differential that should exist between
these two levels.
17. Maintenance I (One Position). One position of Maintenance I has
been proposed for reallocation to the class of Street Maintenance
Worker II (Maintenance II). This would result in a salary in-
crease of approximately 16%, which is the current differential
between the classes of Maintenance I and II.
The position in question is by far the most senior of all incum-
bents in the Maintenance I classification. This position will
occasionally have lead responsibilities for a street crew and
regularly works independently in patrolling and maintaining
assigned areas as the senior member of a two- person crew. While
this person does not presently have as high a level of responsi-
bility as the existing Maintenance II positions, it is still work-
ing at a full journey -level and therefore is appropriate for re-
classification.
City of Saratoga Classification Study 7/10/84
Part II: Findings & Recommendations
Page 8
18. Parks and Buildings Supervisor. This class has been recommended
for a salary adjustment of approximately 30.
This recommendation is based upon the unusually broad scope of
functions assigned to this position. In addition to the customary
parks and landscaping functions assigned to most parks supervi-
sors, this position is also responsible for city -wide building
maintenance and for a 17 -acre Japanese Garden. This recommenda-
tion serves to raise the salary for this classification above that
for Street Supervisor. The Street position is definitely not weak
in terms of responsibilities. However, the functions assigned to
it are average in scope given the fact that a number of tradition-
al street maintenance functions are either contracted out or not
performed to any significant extent, i.e., concrete finishing,
street sweeping and center -line painting.
It should be noted that a number of organizational changes have
occurred in the past few years which have affected the salary re-
lationship between the two classes. The most recent, which oc-
curred since these classes have been at salary parity, concerned
the addition of building maintenance to the functions performed by
the Parks and Buildings Supervisor. At that time, the Supervi-
sor's salary was not adjusted and remained at parity with Street
Supervisor. Our recommendation is intended to account for these
additional responsibilities.
19. Japanese Garden Caretaker. This part -time classification has been
recommended for a salary increase of approximately 35 %. (The pro-
posed salary has been expressed in a monthly equivalent in the
Allocation List contained in Part I of this report.)
This recommendation is based upon our assessment of the relative
levels of responsibility between this class and the related class
of Custodian. While the latter is more physically demanding and
includes some structural building maintenance tasks, these factors
do not justify continuation of the current 70% salary differential
between the two classifications. The proposed salary for the
Caretaker serves to narrow this differential to approximately 280
and ties its top step to the first step of the salary range pro-
posed for the Custodian class.
20. Parks and Landscape Maintenance II (One Position). One position
in this classification has been recommended for reallocation to a
new classification of Parks and Landscape 1.1aintenance worker III
at a salary range approximately 5% higher than the current salary
for the II level.
This recommendation is based on the amount and type of semi-
skilled and skilled building maintenance work performed by the in-
cumbent as well as the regular performance of equipment mainte-
nance on both parks and streets vehicles. The structural building
City of Saratoga Classification Study
Part II: Findings & Recommendations
Page 9
7/10/84
maintenance tasks include electrical work, welding, lock repair,
plumbing and some painting and rough carpentry work. In the per-
formance of these tasks and in field assignments, the incumbent
provides periodic technical or lead direction to other personnel.
The concept of this new classification is that of a skilled main-
tenance worker who also has regular parks maintenance duties and
who also will have leadworker responsibilities on an as- needed
basis.
21. Custodian. The two positions in this classificatio have been pro-
posed for reallocation to the class of Building Maintenance Custo-
dian at a salary range approximately 200- higher than the present
level for Custodian.
The title change is recommended to more accurately reflect the
minor structural building maintenance tasks performed by both in-
cumbents. These tasks are varied in nature and include replace-
ment of light switches, repairs to faucets and elbows and replace-
ment of air conditioning filters and belts. Estimates of the time
spent on these duties vary among the incumbents themselves and
their supervisor, but appear to be in the neighborhood of 10% to
15%.
The performance of the above building maintenance tasks were taken
into account in conducting the salary survey for this classifica-
tion. As a result, only two generally comparable classes were
found, with the current Saratoga range being approximately 20 be-
low the survey average. The recommended salary adjustment would
raise it to that average and reduce the differential between it
and Maintenance I from 9% to 7%. The new differential is virtual-
ly the same as the difference between the survey averages for
Maintenance I and Custodian.
During the course of the study, it was contended that the proper
classification for these two positions was "building maintenance
worker" and that these employees should be placed on the same sal-
ary range as Maintenance I. Vie did not concur for the following
reasons:
a. The structural building maintenance duties performed are minor
in nature and do not constitute more than 20% of the work of
either position. A bonafide "building maintenance worker"
class will perform these duties almost exclusively, perform a
greater variety of them and perform at a higher skill level
more comparable to the work being done by the parks mainte-
nance position discussed above.
b. The work assigned to the I -level positions in either streets
or parks entails greater skill in terms of the equipment oper-
ated, the tools used and the maintenance techniques applied.
Also, employees in these field positions are exposed to
substantially greater hazards from traffic and machinery, and
work under more adverse conditions such as inclement weather.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Mayor and City Council
FROM: SEA President
DATE: July 27, 1984
SUBJECT: SEA Concerns Relative to Classification Study
Concerning the recently completed Classification Study, the SEA Board has several con-
cerns which have been previously expressed to you, yet remain unresolved. We would like
the City Council to be aware of these concerns as they take action on the Study at their
August 1st meeting.
We are concerned as follows:
1. That the Dispatcher (Clerk /Typist III) position is recommended for a salary /range
decrease. We believe that upon closer internal scrutiny of the functions actually
performed by the incumbent in this position, that the recommended range decrease will
prove unwarranted.
2. That both the positions of Administrative Assistant and Housing and Community
Development Coordinator are the only positions studied that continue to remain at
the bottom salary range of all cities included in the survey. Within our City
organization, these positions are the only miscellaneous positions studied which
are not within a comparable range, i.e., not at the top or bottom of ranges sur-
veyed in this Study. We feel that organization -wide internal consistency of posi-
tions and salary ranges is more appropriate than isolating the Administrative
Assistant, Deputy City Clerk and HCD Coordinator positions.
3. We are concerned at the timing of the Classification Study and its proposed adoption.
Although the Study and the Meet and Confer Process are independent issues, it is our
perception that as they are presented for City Council consideration at effectively
the same time, it is inevitable that the Classification Study will impact upon the
final outcome of the Meet and Confer Process.
We wish you and the City Council to be aware of our concerns as they consider adoption
of the proposed Study. Such issues, we feel, bear directly upon the City's ability to
"attract and retain" competent employees.
Consideration of our expressed concerns in
respectfully requested.
A Z z4s�_
Edwin E. Stirtz
President, Saratoga /Mployees Association
this matter by you and the City Council is
P
July 18, 1984
1:3777 FRUIIVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 867 -:3438
Memorandum to Saratoga Employees Association
From: City Manager
Subject: Classification Study
COUNCIL. MEMBERS:
Linda Callon
Martha Clevenger
Virginia Fanelli
John Mallory
David Moyles
As you know, the City of Saratoga has hired the Employee
Relations Service of Santa Clara County to conduct a city -wide
classification survey during this past fiscal year. The survey
was conducted during recent months and involved interviewing most
of the City's employees. Each position with the City, except for
management positions, was surveyed as to appropriate title,
salary range and job content. All employees have been extremely
helpful and cooperative during the course of this survey.
The City has not received all of the information resulting from
the survey as yet. However, we have had an opportunity to
examine Parts I and III of the results of the study. A copy of
these parts is attached. The balance of this memorandum
describes the information contained in the results of this survey
to date, and provides preliminary notification to you on the
City's proposed action with regard to the recommendations.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY RESULTS
Part I - Allocation List
Part I consists of four pages entitled, "Allocation List." It
shows current position titles and salaries by department and
recommended changes in titles and /or salaries. Of the 41
positions surveyed, 23 are recommended for an adjustment in
salary or salary and title. A few positions have been
recommended for changes in title only. The Employee Relations
Service has considered three major factors in arriving at the
recommendations for adjustments to salary, title or both. In
order of importance, these factors are job content, internal
relationship among positions within the City organization, and
comparison of responsibilities and salary levels to a survey of
13 other agencies.
Memorandum to Saratoga Employees Association Page 2
Subject: Classification Study
Part III - Salary Survey
Part III provides detailed information on the results of the
survey of other agencies made to establish recommendations
regarding salary adjustments in Part I. A list of the agencies
included in the survey is provided in the introduction. As
noted, the survey covered 21 of the 28 classifications covered
in the study. (Some of the 28 classifications surveyed are
multi - position classes. The number of positions affected is
43.) For the most part, variations of the current salaries
from the survey averages are relatively minor. The adjustments
proposed for current salary rates are based on maintaining
equity among internal relationships primarily.
Parts II and IV
Parts II and IV of the survey have not been completed by the
Employee Relations Service. Part II provides the narrative
description of the changes proposed and which are summarized in
Part I. Part IV provides job descriptions to accompany
proposed changes in class titles. These parts are not crucial
to the consideration of the recommendations contained in Part
I. As soon as we receive copies, they will be forwarded to
you.
CITY PROPOSED CHANGES TO CLASSIFICATIONS AND /OR SALARIES
The City of Saratoga intends to, implement the recommendations
contained in the report with three exceptions. The exceptions
are noted below. Pursuant to the "Meyers - Milias -Brown Act," your
organization is herewith notified of our intent to make
adjustments in salaries and /or job titles as described herein.
We welcome your comments and responses to this intended action
through your designated representatives. In addition, those
employees who may have questions or concerns may raise these
matters with the appropriate department heads.
It is my intention to present these recommendations, along with
appropriate documentation, for action by the City Council at
their regular meeting of August 1, 1984. I will recommend the
changes be effective commencing with the August 24 pay period.
This is the earliest schedule for action by the City Council and
effective date that allows opportunity for complying with State
law requirements to meet and consult with employee
representatives.
Memorandum to Saratoga Employees Association Page 3
Subject: Classification Study
Your employee representatives have been apprised generally of the
results of the survey and of the City's intention at a meeting on
July 16. Further meetings have been scheduled at which responses
and comments may be received.
Exceptions to Recommended Changes
As noted above, there are three exceptions to the changes as
proposed.
1. The City does not intend to reduce the salary rate f or the
position of Maintenance Clerk, although it is the City's
intent to change the class title from Maintenance Clerk to
Clerk Typist III. The salary of the current incumbent will
be "Y" rated until such time as the effective salary range
for the Clerk Typist III class reaches the salary level of
the present incumbent. The effect of this "Y" rating is to
.fre'eze.the current salary level until the proposed salary
range catches up with the current salary.
2. The position of Clerk Typist III in the City Manager's
office is recommended to be retitled to Secretary at a
salary range of $1413 - $1804 per month. Further
adjustments will be made annually until the recommended
title and salary range is achieved consistent with
maintaining relative internal relationships.
3. The Recreation Supervisor position in the Community Services
Department will be adjusted to a salary range of $1640 -
$2095 per month. Further adjustments on an annual basis
will be made until the position reaches the proposed salary
range consistent with maintaining relative internal
relationships.
CONCLUSION
The Employee Relations Service has conducted a fair and impartial
analysis and review of job content and salary rates for all of
the regular positions maintained by the City. With the
exceptions as noted, we believe the recommendations and changes
are appropriate and fair. It is the intention of the City to
implement the recommendations at the earliest opportunity. The
Memorandum to Saratoga Employees Association Page 4
Subject: Classification Study
City Council and management staff wish to convey our appreciation
to all employees for their cooperation and participation during
the course of the study and for their patience in waiting for the
results. Any employee who wishes to discuss the results-or raise
questions or concerns about them is encouraged to first contact
their appropriate department head.
�7 A-N �, TI ..
Jm
Enclosures
cc: Employee Relations Service
City Hall Bulletin Boards