HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket.pdf
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
CLOSED SESSION – 5:00 P.M. – ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c):
(3 potential cases)
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6):
Agency designated representatives: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager, and Monica
LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager.
Employee organization: SEA
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6):
Agency designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager
Employee organization: SMO
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov't Code 54957.6):
Agency designated representative: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager and Monica
LaBossiere, Human Resources Manager
Employee organization: Millmen & Industrial Carpenters Local 262
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
July 12, 2007)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. 1
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
None
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1. Certificate of Appreciation for Jack Mallory
Recommended action:
Present certificate of appreciation.
2. Commendation Honoring Outgoing Heritage Preservation Commissioner
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
3. Proclamation Declaring the Week of July 22-28, 2007 as “Architecture Week”
Recommended action:
Present proclamation.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
4. City Council Minutes
Recommended action:
Approve minutes as submitted for the May 16, 2007 City Council meeting.
5. Review of Accounts Payable and Payroll Check Registers
Recommended action:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for:
Accounts Payable - June 13, 20 and 27, 2007
Payroll - June 21, July 5, 2007
2
6. Treasurers Report for the Month ended May, 2007
Recommended action:
That the City Council accept the monthly Treasurer's Report
7. Establish Annual Property Tax Levy for Library GO Bond Debt Service
Recommended action:
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution which sets the FY 2007/08
property tax levy rate for the Library General Obligation Bonds at $.01130 per $100
of Assessed Valuation.
8. Congress Springs Park Safety Fence Improvements - Appropriation of Funds
Recommended action:
Approve Budget Resolution appropriating funds for Congress Springs Park Safety
Fence Improvements.
9. Budget Resolution Approving the Carryover and Expenditure of FY 2006/07 Council
Contingency Funds in the Amount of $2,500 to Co-Sponsor Neighborhood Block
Parties
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution appropriating $2,500 from the FY 2006/07 Council contingency to
co-sponsor neighborhood block parties sponsored by the Saratoga Clergy
Association.
10. Agreement with Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
Recommended action:
Accept report and adopt the resolution approving the Agreement with the Saratoga
Chamber of Commerce.
11. Budget Resolution Approving the Carryover and Expenditure of FY 2006/07 Council
Contingency Funds to Purchase Radar Feedback Signs
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution to carryover and appropriate $47,000 from the FY 2006/07 Council
contingency to purchase radar feedback signs.
12. Policy for Written Records of Meetings, Decisions and Actions Relating to Contracts
of $2 Million or More.
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution setting City policy requiring written records of meetings, decisions
and actions relating to contracts for goods, services, and property for $2 million or
more.
13. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolutions
Recommended action:
1. Move to adopt the new Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing a “No Parking or
Stopping” zone on Marilyn Lane between Marshall Lane and Ravenswood Drive.
2. Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No Stopping on
Lexington”.
3. Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing one “Stop” sign on
Tamworth.
4. No Parking on Blauer Drive
3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for
opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three
minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes
maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to
Council’s approval at the Council meeting
14. Confirmation of Report and Assessment of 2007 Weed Abatement Program &
Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Public Nuisance By Removal of Hazardous
Brush
Recommended action:
Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolutions.
15. Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Application No. 07-028: 14639 Big Basin
Way, which was approved by the Planning Commission allowing construction of a
mixed-use development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building
at the rear of the site and a separate two-story commercial building at the front of the
site.
Recommended action:
Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Use Permit and Design
Review Approval issued on May 23, 2007.
16. Petition from Owners of Private Road at 20865 Wardell Road, Requesting
Application of the California Vehicle Code to the Private Road
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution applying the California Vehicle Code to the private road at 20865
Wardell Road.
17. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 Annexation 2007-1 (Carnelian
Glen) Public Hearing, Approval of Engineer’s Report, and Confirmation of
Assessments for FY 07-08
Recommended action:
Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the
Diagram and Assessments for FY 07-08.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
18. Upper Old Oak Way Relinquishment
Recommended action:
1. Accept report and provide direction to staff.
19. Parker Ranch Bicycle Trail Abatement Options
Recommended action:
1. Accept report and provide direction to staff.
2. Move to adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution.
4
20. Consideration of a Use Policy and Fee Schedule for Reserved Use of Blaney Plaza
Recommended action:
Consider establishing a use policy and fee schedule for reserved use of Blaney Plaza
and direct staff accordingly.
21. Update of the Blaney Plaza Banner Policy and Consideration of Expanding the
Banner Policy to Include North Campus
Recommended action:
Update the existing Blaney Plaza Banner Policy and consider expanding the banner
policy to include North Campus.
22. Master Fee Schedule Update for the North Campus Administration Building
Recommended action:
Update the fee schedule for the North Campus Administration Building Main Room
rental to $100 per hour and the Conference Room rental to $40 per hour.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Aileen Kao
Association of Bay Area Government
Hakone Foundation
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association
City School AdHoc
County HCD Policy Committee
Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Hakone Foundation
Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board
KSAR
SASCC
Sister City Liaison
Prospect Road AdHoc
Councilmember Chuck Page
Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee
(JEDPC)
West Valley Sanitation District
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association
Village AdHoc
Chamber of Commerce AdHoc
Councilmember Kathleen King
County Cities Association Legislative Task Force
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities
Santa Clara County Cities Association
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
City School AdHoc
Prospect Road AdHoc
5
Councilmember Jill Hunter
Historic Foundation
Library Joint Powers Association
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission
Village AdHoc
Chamber of Commerce AdHoc
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
OTHER
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II)
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on July 12, 2007,
of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for
public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at
www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 12th day of July 2007at Saratoga, California.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
6
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City
Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2007
8/1 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Chamber of Commerce
8/15 Summer Recess – Meeting Cancelled
9/5 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees
9/19 Regular Meeting
10/3 Regular Meeting
10/17 Regular Meeting
11/7 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation
11/21 Regular Meeting
12/5 Regular Meeting – Reorganization
12/19 Regular Meeting
7
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Certificate of Appreciation for Jack Mallory
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a certificate of appreciation for Jack Mallory for keeping the 4th of July spirit alive in
the City of Saratoga.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Copy of certificate
8
Th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
Pr
o
u
d
l
y
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
i
s
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
A
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
To
Ja
c
k
M
a
l
l
o
r
y
Fo
r
K
e
e
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
S
p
i
r
i
t
o
f
“
Fo
u
r
t
h
o
f
J
u
l
y
”
A
l
i
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
b
y
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
a
C
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
L
i
b
e
r
t
y
B
e
l
l
Ri
n
g
i
n
g
E
v
e
r
y
Y
e
a
r
S
i
n
c
e
1
9
9
7
On
t
h
i
s
1
8
t
h
D
a
y
o
f
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
Ai
l
e
e
n
K
a
o
,
M
a
y
o
r
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
9
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer , City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Commendation Honoring Outgoing Heritage Preservation Commissioner
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a commendation honoring outgoing Heritage Preservation Commissioner Beth
Wyman.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Copy of commendation
10
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
HONORING
BETH WYMAN
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Beth Wyman has served the City of Saratoga as a Heritage
Preservation Commissioner from May 1995 through June 2002, and from April 2004
through June 2007; and
WHEREAS, Beth provided her professional and educational expertise
regarding historic properties for numerous development applications considered by
the Commission, provided training regarding historically significant properties, and
provided valuable insight regarding the McWilliams House rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, Beth’s extensive knowledge of historic properties, important
contributions to the community, and leadership made her an effective Commissioner
and an asset to Saratoga for many years; and
WHEREAS, Beth’s skills were supplemented by her perseverance in securing
the Warner Hutton House and Book-Go-Round’s placements on the National Register
of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, Beth is committed and kind, and her significant contributions are
greatly appreciated by the City Council, Heritage Preservation Commission, and staff;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saratoga City Council
does hereby commend Beth Wyman for her many years of hard work and dedication
on the Heritage Preservation Commission and extends to her its appreciation and best
wishes for the future.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
18th day of July 2007.
_________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
City of Saratoga
11
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Week of July 22-28, 2007 as “Architecture Week”
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present proclamation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The attached proclamation declares the week of July 22-28, 2007 as “Architecture Week” in the
City of Saratoga.
A representative from the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
will be present to accept the proclamation.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Copy of Proclamation
12
CITY OF SARATOGA
PROCLAMATION DECLARING
THE WEEK OF JULY 22-28 2007
ARCHITECTURE WEEK
WHEREAS, through their work, American architects have expressed the
richness of our nation’s heritage and the vitality of its spirit. They have combined
advances in building technology with design innovation to enliven our cities and
communities and improve our citizens’ quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the architecture profession in Saratoga, California, with the
support of the American Institute of Architects, has been especially vigilant in its
stewardship of many of our great architectural and historic treasures and its efforts on
behalf of building healthy, safe, livable, and sustainable communities that enrich our
lives of people in every walk of life; and
WHEREAS, this year, 2007, marks the 150th Anniversary of the American
Institute of Architects; and
WHEREAS, with a spirit of appreciation, the people of Saratoga, California
honor and congratulate the Institute, its 77,000 members, and the 281,000 Americans
who work in architecture firms for their many contributions to our nation, to
California, and to Saratoga; and
Therefore, I, Aileen Kao, Mayor of the City of Saratoga, do hereby proclaim the week
of July 22-28, 2007 as
ARCHITECTURE WEEK
I call upon the people of the City of Saratoga and all government agencies to observe
the week with appropriate ceremonies and activities paying tribute to the Architects of
America and the American Institute of Architects in this, its 150th year of existence.
WITNESS OUR HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on
this 18th day of July 2007.
Aileen Kao, Mayor
City of Saratoga
13
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ____
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting – May 16, 2007
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Minutes May 16, 2007
14
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MAY 16, 2007
The City Council conducted interviews at 5:00 p.m. for vacancies on the Youth
Commission in the Administrative Conference Room.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session in the Administrative
Conference Room at 6:40 p.m.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a)
of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Christiano v. City of Saratoga. Santa Clara County Superior Court
106CV-072297.
MAYOR’S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Kao stated that there was no reportable information.
Mayor Kao called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Chuck Page,
Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor Aileen Kao
ABSENT: None
ALSO
PRESENT:
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MAY 16, 2007
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2,
the agenda for the meeting of May 16, 2007, was properly posted on May 11, 2007.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The following person requested to speak at tonight’s meeting:
Yura Shiel announced that the SASCC Board was holding a special meeting to elect new
board members and consider proposed by-law changes.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Vandi Thirumale stated that she was the Chair of the Saratoga Library Commission.
Chair Thirumale noted that on May 2nd the Library Commission held a special meeting to
15
2
discuss proposed goals for FY 07-08 and approved five items to be funded from the
Library Capital Improvement Fund:
• Lighting in the children’s area
• Repair outstanding lighting and electrical issues
• Installation of safety ladder
• Repair plywood siding
• Installation of a separate PG&E meter
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith announced that there would be a ribbon cutting ceremony at the
North Campus on May 24th at 3:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that KSAR has a new program called “Saratoga
Spotlight” which is airs at 7:30 p.m. every Monday and Friday and at 11:00 a.m. every
Tuesday and Thursday.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith announced that there would be a “Creek Clean Up” event on
May 19th from 9:00 a.m.-12 noon at Westmont High School.
Councilmember Hunter announced that the Village Pet Parade will be held on May 19th
from 10 a.m.-12 noon.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1A. COMMENDATION HONORING OUTGOING YOUTH
COMMISSIONERS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present commendations.
Mayor Kao read the commendations and presented them to Amit Arunkumar,
Michael Byrne, Tami Maltiel, Pratik Pramanik, and Steven Shepherd.
1B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 20-26, 2007 AS
“PUBLIC WORKS WEEK”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present proclamation.
Mayor Kao read the proclamation and presented it to John Cherbone, Public
Works Director.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
16
3
3A. CHECK REGISTER FOR MAY 1, 2007
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept check register.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTER FOR
MAY 1, 2007. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
3B. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED MARCH 2007
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO TREASURER’S REPORT FOR
MONTH ENDED MARCH 2007. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
3C. APPOINTMENT OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEMBER AND
OATH OF OFFICE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution of appointment and administer Oath of Office.
RESOLUTION: 07-043
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING
PEGGY GUICHARD TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
3D. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3
APPLICATION FOR THE SARATOGA AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution supporting the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Grant Application.
RESOLUTION: 07-027
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE GRANT APPLICATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
3E. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolutions.
RESOLUTION: MV- 257, 258, 259, 260, 261
Councilmember King requested that this item be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
17
4
Councilmember King asked Director Cherbone if he had talked to the principal at
the high school was notified.
In response to Councilmember King’s question, Director Cherbone stated that he
did not know but would follow up with his staff in the morning.
KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT MOTOR VEHICLES AUTHORIZING:
“NO PARKING” ZONE ON MARILYN LANE BETWEEN MARSHALL
LANE AND RAVENSWOOD DRIVE.; TWO NEW RED CURBS ON
SARATOGA AVENUE; TWO “YIELD” SIGNS ON WINTER LANE
WHERE IT INTERSECTS CHATEAU DRIVE; A RED CURB OR “NO
STOPPING ANYTIME” ON PROSPECT ROAD; RED CURB AT THE
ENTRANCE TO OAK STREET. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
3F. CITY OF SARATOGA USE AGREEMENT WITH SARATOGA AREA
SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and authorize City Manager to execute agreement.
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director, requested that this item be pulled
from the Consent Calendar until after agenda item #6.
Consensus of the City Council to postponed item 3f until after item #6.
KING/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO DISCUSS NEW BUSINESS ITEM # 6
BEFORE OLD BUSINESS. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
NEW BUSINESS
6. COMMUNITY GRANT ONE-TIME ALLOCATION AND FY 2007/08
FUNDING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and provide direction to staff regarding allocation of $75,000 one-
time undesignated grant funds and FY 2007/08 ongoing grant allocations.
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report.
The following people requested one-time funds and/or grant allocations:
Tom Stoiber, KSAR
George Bunyard, SASCC
Naomi Nakano Matsumoto, Cupertino Community Services
Mary Ellen Comport, Saratoga Foothill Club
Kristin Huff, 2-1-1 Santa Clara County
Marilyn Marchetti, Relay for Life
18
5
Leona Butter, Healthy Kids
Chris Oakes, Chamber of Commerce
J.R. Ellis, Chamber of Commerce
Chuck Schoppe, Saratoga Historic Foundation
Anita Parsons, Walden West Foundation
Trudi Burney, Wildlife Center
KING/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF $75,000
ONE-TIME UNDESIGNATED GRANT FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
(SEE ATTACHED SPEED SHEET).
PAGE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE FY 2007/08 ONGOING GRANT
ALLOCATIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. (SEE ATTACHED SPEED SHEET).
PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE A BUDGET CARRYOVER FROM
THE FY 2006-07 COUNCIL CONTINGENCY TO ALLOCATE $5,000
TOWARDS THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IT INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS AND MEMBERSHIP ENROLLMENT FEES. MOTION
PASSED 5-0.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3F. CITY OF SARATOGA USE AGREEMENT WITH SARATOGA AREA
SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and authorize City Manager to execute agreement.
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director, presented staff report.
Consensus of the City Council to postpone this item to a later date and direct staff
to continue discussions with the SASCC Board.
OLD BUSINESS
4. DIRECTION ON CITY COMMISSIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review options and provide direction concerning reinstating City Commissions.
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report.
The following person requested to speak on this item:
Marty Goldberg urged the Council to reactivate all suspended commissions.
19
6
Consensus of the City Council to:
1. Reinstated the Parks and Recreation Commission
• 5 members
• Meetings 6 times per year
• Direction to seek input on the Parks Initiative and return to Council
with main issues
• Allow two outstanding commissioners to remain on PRC until term
expires
2. Library Commission
• 5 members
• Meetings 6 times per year
3. Finance Commission
• 3 members
• Meet on an as needed basis
• Wait to recruit until Management Analyst is hired
4. Management Analyst initial focus will be the PRC and the production of
the Saratogan
5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT’S ADVANCED
PLANNING ACTIVITIES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
John Livingstone, Community Development Director, presented staff report.
John Livingstone noted that Council received a petition from the Glosgow Drive
neighbors who are requesting that Council move forward with the Blight
Ordinance.
City Attorney Taylor stated that the Council also received a letter from Meg &
Alan Giberson requesting that the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams be adopted as an ordinance in an effort to make it mandatory.
The following person requested to speak on this item:
Linda Rodgers, Planning Commission Chair, stated that in January the Planning
Commission presented Council a list of their preferred ordinance priorities as
follows: fence, story poles, and noticing.
After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to continue this
item to a future meeting.
20
7
NEW BUSINESS
7. REQUEST FROM SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB FOR FEE WAIVER
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO WAIVE BANNER FEE OF $300 FOR
THE SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB MEMORIAL DAY CELEBRATION
AND DIRECTED STAFF TO INCLUDE THIS FEE WAIVER IN NEXT
YEAR’S BUDGET. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
8. WEST VALLEY COLLECTION & RECYCLING (WVC&R)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to June 6, 2007.
9. SARATOGA’S TREE AND BENCH DEDICATION POLICY REVIEW
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
2. Authorize an increase in the cost of the dedication plaque.
Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to June 6, 2007.
10. COUNCIL MEMBER SPONSORED COMMUNITY EVENTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Consensus of the City Council to continue this item to June 6, 2007.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
None
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
None
OTHER
None
21
8
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
WALTONSMITH /PAGE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE METING AT 1:00 A.M.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
There being no further business Mayor Kao noted that the Council would be returning to
the Administrative Conference to continue the discussions regarding the appointments to
the Youth Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
22
CI
T
Y
O
F
S
A
R
A
T
O
G
A
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
G
R
A
N
T
F
U
N
D
I
N
G
AC
T
U
A
L
S
CO
N
S
E
N
S
U
S
An
n
Ka
t
h
l
e
e
n
Ji
l
l
ChuckAileen
FY
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
FY
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
FY
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
FY
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
FY
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
FY
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
FY
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
FY 2007/08FY 2007/08
An
n
u
a
l
On
e
-
T
i
m
e
An
n
u
a
l
On
e
-
T
i
m
e
On
e
-
T
i
m
e
On
e
-
T
i
m
e
On
e
-
T
i
m
e
One-TimeOne-Time
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Re
q
u
e
s
t
s
Re
q
u
e
s
t
s
Re
q
u
e
s
t
s
Re
q
u
e
s
t
s
RequestsRequests
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
32
0
-
32
0
320
320 320
Ca
n
c
e
r
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
-
R
e
l
a
y
f
o
r
L
i
f
e
20
0
1,
0
0
0
Ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
'
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
:
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
K
i
d
s
3,
3
2
6
4,
0
0
0
5,
4
4
8
2,
5
0
0
3,680 1,000
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
2,
4
0
0
-
3,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0
5,000 2,000
KS
A
R
1
5
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
25
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
20
,
7
0
0
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
25
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
15
,
5
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
20,000 18,000
V
i
d
e
o
t
o
D
V
D
C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
19
,
4
0
0
V
i
d
e
o
T
a
p
i
n
g
5
0
t
h
A
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
5,
0
0
0
Mu
s
t
a
r
d
W
a
l
k
2,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0
SA
S
C
C
A
n
n
u
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
18
,
0
0
0
21
,
0
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
12
,
5
0
0
21
,
0
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
21
,
0
0
0
18,000 18,000
A
d
u
l
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
30
,
7
0
0
S
r
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
L
a
b
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
5,
4
0
0
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
10
,
5
0
3
11
,
0
0
0
B
a
n
n
e
r
H
a
n
g
i
n
g
F
e
e
60
0
60
0
C
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
e
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
T
e
e
n
S
c
e
n
e
7,
5
2
7
10
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
10,000 10,000
C
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
e
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
F
u
n
Z
o
n
e
4,
9
0
0
4,
9
0
0
C
e
l
e
b
r
a
t
e
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
B
a
r
r
i
c
a
d
e
s
5,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
C
i
t
y
M
a
p
s
4,
5
0
0
I
T
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
3,
0
0
0
-
-
-
- -
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
1,
0
0
0
-
-
-
- -
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
-
-
-
5,000 -
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
2,
0
0
0
-
-
-
- -
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
C
l
u
b
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
F
d
n
8,
6
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
12
,
0
0
0
6,
0
0
0
5,000 10,000
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
4,
2
8
8
6,
6
4
0
5,
0
0
0
8,
2
0
0
5,
0
0
0
5,000 10,000
Un
i
t
e
d
W
a
y
2,
0
0
0
Wa
l
d
e
n
W
e
s
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
2,
1
0
0
-
3,
0
0
0
1,
5
0
0
3,000 3,000
We
s
t
V
a
l
l
e
y
L
i
g
h
t
O
p
e
r
a
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
o
f
S
i
l
i
c
o
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
4,
0
0
0
4,
5
0
0
4,
2
1
2
1,
5
3
6
-
3,
0
0
0
1,
6
8
0
- 3,000
To
t
a
l
o
f
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
:
59
,
5
0
3
12
5
,
0
2
7
80
,
0
0
0
$
79
,
8
2
2
$
75
,
0
0
0
$
75
,
4
6
8
$
75
,
0
0
0
$
75,000$ 75,320$
23
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accounts Payable: June 13, 20, and 27, 2007
Payroll: June 21 and July 5, 2007
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Check Registers for:
Date
Ending Check
No.
Accounts Payable 6/13/07 105230 105273 42 $167,080.30 6/7/07 6/7/07 105229
Accounts Payable 6/20/07 105274 105335 63 $448,212.10 6/22/07 6/13/07 105273
Accounts Payable 6/27/07 105336 105408 73 $151,401.24 6/29/07 6/20/07 105335
Payroll (Pay Period 13-07)6/21/07 32390 32412 23 $130,883.03 6/21/07 6/7/07 32389
Payroll (Pay Period 14-07)7/5/07 32413 32453 41 $137,939.58 7/5/07 6/21/07 32412
###########
AP Date Check # Issued to Dept.Purpose Amount
6/13/07 105240 AS IT Service/Consulting $16,189.00
6/13/07 105244 PW $94,185.68
6/13/07 105263 Various Water Service $14,992.05
6/13/07 105270 AS ASP H T E Mtc.$10,780.00
6/20/07 105287 CM Law Enforcement Svc.$283,296.46
6/20/07 105290 El Camino Paving, Inc.PW Pavement Mgt.$92,502.67
6/20/07 105293 Fehr & Peers Assoc.PW Sara.NTMP/Speed Srvy $15,281.61
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable and Payroll Check Registers.
Amount
Karen Caselli
Ending
Check No.
Total
Checks
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING
DEPT:
PREPARED BY:
July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
Prior Check Register
Dave Anderson
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for:
CITY MANAGER:
FINANCE & ADMIN.
SERVICES
DIRECTOR
Type of Checks
Mary Furey
Checks
Released
Finance & Admin. Services
TOTAL
City of Palo Alto
Furlo & Furlo
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000.00 and a brief description of the
expenditure:
Fund
Congress Springs-
Toilet/Water Lines
Gen-MIS
CIP
Date
Starting
Check No.
County of Santa Clara
San Jose Water Co.
Gen - Street Mtc.
Various
Various
Sunguard H T E Inc.Internal Service-IT
Gen-Police/Public Safety
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report24
6/27/07 105382 Various Gas/Electric Service $13,826.19
6/27/07 105393 Shute, Mihaly & Wein.Various Attorney/Legal Services $18,438.22
6/27/07 105408 Wittwer & Parkin, LLP CD Legal Services $16,033.69
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued:
AP Date Check # Issued to Amount
6/13/07 105128 ($1,800.00)
6/11/07 105231 $1,800.00
5/30/07 105185 Knapp Consulting ($575.00)
6/7/07 105230 $575.00
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
Fund #AP 6/13 AP 6/20 AP 6/27 PR 6/21 PR 7/5 Total
001 General 45,174.92 426,929.15 66,581.39 29,137.13 31,804.80 599,627.39
150 Streets & Roads 603.10 1,958.12 2,132.34 16,690.40 17,283.42 38,667.38
201 Manor Drive Landscape -
202 Ferdericksburg Landscape 35.84 35.84
203 Greenbriar Landscape 118.99 465.00 583.99
204 Quito Lighting 1,209.83 1,209.83
205 Azule Lighting 1,219.99 264.24 1,484.23
206 Sarahills Lighting 288.50 288.50
207 Village Lighting 2,296.69 2,296.69
209 McCartysville Landscape 276.41 15.96 292.37
210 Tricia Woods Landscape 39.32 7.98 47.30
211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 42.91 42.91
212 Leutar Court Landscape 47.10 47.10
215 Bonnet Way Landscape 119.01 328.04 447.05
216 Beauchamps Landscape 42.79 42.79
217 Sunland Park Landscape -
222 Prides Crossing Landscape 236.11 36.45 272.56
224 Village Commercial Landscape 605.86 605.86
225 Saratoga Legends Landscape -
226 Bellgrove Landscape 2,534.10 2,534.10
227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 135.45 135.45
228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape -
229 Tollgate LLD 22.45 135.14 157.59
231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 320.00 7.99 327.99
232 Gateway Landscape 207.29 207.29
250 Development Services 579.01 5,333.48 37,322.87 56,916.33 56,878.40 157,030.09
260 Environmental Program SRF 6,398.91 1,853.07 5,346.99 5,346.97 18,945.94
270 CDBG - Federal Grants -
290 Recreation 2,658.08 4,100.13 11,969.23 17,433.51 21,144.32 57,305.27
291 Teen Services 46.90 1,125.00 4,332.50 5,481.67 10,986.07
310 Park Dev Cap Proj Fund 24,038.91 24.44 1,910.79 25,974.14
Spec.Rev. & Deposit
Reason
Void -Incorrect Payee; Reissue Ck #105231CA Dept-Fish & Game
Fund Description
Clerk Recorder's Office Manual Check
Void-Incorrect address; Reissue Ck #105230
Various
Knapp Consulting Manual Check
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000.00 and a brief description of the expenditure
(continued):
Pacific Gas & Electric Various
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report25
320 -
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund (continued):
Fund #AP 6/13 AP 6/20 AP 6/27 PR 6/21 PR 7/5 Total
352 Infrastructure -
400 Library Bond Debt Service 795.00 795.00
420 Leonard Road -
501 Equipment Replacement ISF -
502 Information Technology 10,780.00 10,780.00
503 Facility Improvement -
604 Planning Deposit Pre 2006 234.38 234.38
605 Planning Deposit FY 2006 627.75 9,659.97 10,287.72
701 Traffic Safety 433.00 433.00
702 Highway 9 Safety -
703 Hakone ADA Improvements -
706 Sidewalk Annual Project 792.50 792.50
707 Aloha Street Safety Improvement -
716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain 1,026.17 1,026.17
727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement -
728 Book Go Round Drainage -
731 Storm Drain Upgrades 55,468.11 55,468.11
732 Median Landscape/Irrigation 7,474.00 7,474.00
734 Civic Center Landscape -
735 Village Lights (Zone 7A)-
736 Village Trees Lighting 302.62 302.62
738 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing -
741 Blaney Plaza Improvements -
743 Blaney Plaza Improvements/Cnstrc -
744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter -
746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway 960.00 834.58 1,794.58
748 El Ca Grante/Monta Vista 14,678.66 14,678.66
755 Warner Hutton House Improvement 2,269.42 2,269.42
758 Civic Center - CDD Offices -
762 North Campus/19848 Prospect 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00
790 UPRR/De Anza Trail 146.67 1,989.67 2,136.34
791 Kevin Moran 3,200.69 844.84 4,045.53
792 Alternative Soccer Field -
793 Parks/Trails Repair 402.50 402.50
167,080.30 448,212.10 151,401.24 130,883.03 137,939.58 1,035,516.25 - - - - - -
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
TOTAL
Fund Description
Park Dev Capital Project
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report26
Check Register in the Expenditure Approval List format.
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report27
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DATE:
ORIGINATIN
G DEPT:
Dave AndersonFINANCE
PREPARED
BY:
SUBJECT:
Payroll - 5/10, 5/24
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accounts Payable- 5/9/2007, 5/16/07, 5/23/07/ 5/30/07
Payroll - 5/10, 5/24
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Check Registers for:
Check
Date
Checks
Released Date
Ending
Check No.
5/9/07 5/10/07 5/1/07 104904
5/16/07
5/23/07
5/30/07
Payroll 5/10/07 5/10/07 4/26/07 32298
Payroll 5/24/07 5/24/07
Type of Checks Date
Starting
Check #
Ending
Check #
Total
Checks Amount
Accounts Payable 5/9/07 104905 104970 65 $188,173.92
Accounts Payable 5/16/07
Accounts Payable 5/23/07
Accounts Payable 5/30/07
Payroll (pay period 10-07)5/10/07 32299 32339 41 $140,403.98
Payroll (Pay period 11-07)5/24/07
TOTAL $328,577.90
The following is a list of checks issued for more than $10,000.00 and a brief description of the expenditure:
AP Date Check # Issued to Dept.
5/9 104956 Various
5/9 104967 PW-Eng.
5/16
5/23
Accounts Payable
Purpose
Gas/Electric
Clean Water Program
Pacific Gas & Electric
West Valley Sanitation Dst.
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
June 6, 2007
Administrative Services
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for:
Check Registers for: Accounts Payable- 5/9/2007, 5/16/07, 5/23/07/ 5/30/07
Mary FureyKaren Caselli
Accounts Payable
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
FINANCE & ADMIN.
SERVICES DIRECTOR
Prior Check Register
Fund
Various
Environmental Svc.
28
5/30
The following is a list of checks that were voided/manually issued:.
AP Date Check # Issued to Amount
5/9 104655 (11,614.53)
5/9 104905 3,773.88
5/9 104837 (8,475.83)
5/9 104872 (12,284.18)
5/9 104849 (250.00)
5/9 104970 250.00
5/16
5/23
5/30
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
Fund #Fund Description A/P 5/9 AP 5/23 AP 5/30 PR 5/10 PR 5/24
001 General 31,675.21 39,642.67
150 Streets & Roads 1,891.70 17,508.24
201 Manor Drive Landscape
202 Ferdericksburg Landscape
203 Greenbriar Landscape
204 Quito Lighting 1,216.99
205 Azule Lighting 265.92
206 Sarahills Lighting 290.00
207 Village Lighting 2,401.98
209 McCartysville Landscape 15.96
210 Tricia Woods Landscape 1.80
211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 96.55
212 Leutar Court Landscape
215 Bonnet Way Landscape 329.00
216 Beauchamps Landscape 48.50
217 Sunland Park Landscape
222 Prides Crossing Landscape 40.17
224 Village Commercial Landscape
225 Saratoga Legends Landscape
226 Bellgrove Landscape 88.12
227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 6.18
228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape
229 Tollgate LLD 180.35
231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 8.51
232 Gateway Landscape
250 Development Services 9,561.86 56,356.15
260 Environmental Program SRF 109,480.25 5,431.83
270 CDBG - Federal Grants 5,500.00
Fund #Fund Description A/P 5/9 AP 5/23 AP 5/30 PR 5/10 PR 5/24
Gachina Landscape
Pacific Gas & Electric
Casey, Kathleen
Peck, Willys
Pacific Gas & Electric
D & M Traffic Svc.
Purpose
Void -See reissue 104956
Manual
Void - See reissue 104931
Void-See reissues 104954-56
Void - See reissue 104970
Manual
29
290 Recreation 8,047.88 16,324.66
291 Teen Services 1,054.65 4,114.26
310 Park Dev Cap Proj Fund 480.00
320 Park Dev Capital Project
352 Infrastructure
400 Library Bond Debt Service
420 Leonard Road
501 Equipment Replacement ISF
502 Information Technology
503 Facility Improvement
604 Planning Deposit Pre 2006 2,582.30
605 Planning Deposit FY 2006 2,086.54
701 Traffic Safety 669.65
702 Highway 9 Safety
703 Hakone ADA Improvements
706 Sidewalk Annual Project
707 Aloha Street Safety Improvement
716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain 1,026.17
727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 729.01
728 Book Go Round Drainage
731 Storm Drain Upgrades
732 Median Landscape/Irrigation
734 Civic Center Landscape 720.10
735 Village Lights (Zone 7A)
736 Village Trees Lighting
738 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing
741 Blaney Plaza Improvements
743 Blaney Plaza Improvements/Construc.
744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter
746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway 203.66
755 Warner Hutton House Improvement
758 Civic Center - CDD Offices
762 North Campus/19848 Prospect
790 UPRR/De Anza Trail 8,147.44
791 Kevin Moran
792 Alternative Soccer Field
793 Parks/Trails Repair 353.64
188,173.92 0.00 0.00 140,403.98 0.00
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Register in the Expenditure Approval List format.
TOTAL
30
Amount
11,614.53$
109,480.25$
31
Total
71,317.88
19,399.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,216.99
265.92
290.00
2,401.98
15.96
1.80
96.55
0.00
329.00
48.50
0.00
40.17
0.00
0.00
88.12
6.18
0.00
180.35
8.51
0.00
65,918.01
114,912.08
5,500.00
Total 32
24,372.54
5,168.91
480.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,582.30
2,086.54
669.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,026.17
729.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
720.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
203.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,147.44
0.00
0.00
353.64
328,577.90
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ____
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Svcs CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: _________________ DEPT HEAD:
B.J. Sadeghian Mary Furey, Finance &
Interim Accounting Supervisor Administrative Services Dir.
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended May 2007
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council accept the monthly Treasurer’s Report.
REPORT SUMMARY
California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the
City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer)
submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts,
disbursements, and fund balances.
41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk a
written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall file a
copy with the legislative body.
Additionally with the passage of Chapter 687, Statutes of 2000 (AB 943 Dutra), effective January 1, 2001
cities are now required to forward copies of their second and fourth quarter calendar year investment
portfolio reports to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) within 60 days.
The CDIAC will use the report as an additional opportunity to examine public investment practices in a
more consistent basis than before.
Cities, such as the City of Saratoga, that are 100 percent invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF) are exempt from the new investment portfolio reporting requirements and are only required to
send a letter to CDIAC indicating the total and composition of their investments. This Treasurer’s Report
will satisfy our reporting requirement to the CDIAC.
The following pages in the attachment provide various financial data and analysis for the City of
Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an
attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to
present.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
59
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City will not be in compliance with Government Code Section 53891 and Section 40804.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
A - Cash and Investments by Fund
B - Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund
C - Cash and Investments by CIP Project
D- Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project
E - Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates
60
ATTACHMENT A
CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCE BY FUND
As of May 31, 2007, the City had $1,106,263 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, $14,951,914 on deposit
with LAIF, and $922 in cash with fiscal agents for the Public Financing Authority bonds. The bank
reconciliations are completed through the month of March 2007. The fund balances for Recreation
Services and Teen Services normally experience deficits during this time of year, when activity levels are
lower. It is expected that the funds will balance with summer time activities. Operating Transfers for
Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 and Quarter 3 have been made. Quarter 4 Operating Transfers to Recreation
services ($11,475), to Teen services ($13,725), and to the Internal Services Funds are scheduled to be
completed with the June 30, 2007 monthly close. The Council Policy on operating reserve funds adopted
on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid the necessity of dry period financing,
pooled cash from all funds should not be reduced below $2,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of
May 31, 2007 is $16,059,100 and exceeds the limit required.
Unrestricted Cash
Comerica Bank 1,106,263
Deposit with LAIF 14,951,914
16,058,178
Restricted Cash
Fiscal Agents 922
922
Total 16,059,100$
61
ATTACHMENT A - Continued
The following table summarizes the City’s total cash and investment balances by Fund.
Fund Types Fund Description
Cash & Investment Balance
at May 2007
General General Fund 2,220,039$
Designated Reserves:
Petty Cash 1,300$
Tree, Bench, & Plaque Dedication Program 1,678$
Library Exterior Walls Maintenance 15,000$
Theater Ticket Surcharge 22,533$
Retiree Medical 62,500$
CIP 74,387$
Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000$
Operations 2,554,150$
Special Revenue Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund 100,000$
Highway Users Gas Tax 316,195$
Landscape and Lighting 257,360$
Development Services 2,038,357$
Designated Reserves:
Tree Preservation Ordinance 226 122,609$
General Plan Update 15,337$
Document Storage 32,391$
Enviromental Programs 800,839$
Development Fees 116,224$
Community Development Block Grant (3,840)$
SHARP loan 71,656$
Recreation Services (12,157)$
Teen Services (40,710)$
CDD Deposits - Planning Deposit Pre FY2006 108,994$
CDD Deposits - Planning Deposit FY2006 209,144$
Capital Project Park Development 235,707$
Library Expansion ( $378,366 in LAIF included)677,301$
Public Safety 153,761$
Infrastructure 1,751,378$
Facility 418,863$
Park and Trails 1,421,429$
Debt Service Library Bond 347,945$
Internal Service Equipment Replacement (3,927)$
Information Technology 376,012$
Facility Improvement 39,551$
Trust/Agency Leonard Road (7,019)$
Public Financing Authority 922$
KSAR - Community Access TV 63,193$
Total City 16,059,100$
62
ATTACHMENT B
CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE
The following table presents the ending Fund Balances for the City’s major fund types at May 31, 2007.
This table excludes Trust and Agency funds where the City acts merely as a third party custodian of an
outside party’s funds.
Fund Description
06/30/06
Fund Balance
Incr/(Decr)
Jul- April Revenues Expenditures Transfers
05/31/07
Fund Balance
General
General Fund 2,825,799 (1,851,732) 1,563,059 (819,592) 1,717,533
Designated Reserves:- - -
Petty Cash 1,300 - - - 1,300
Tree, Bench, & Plaque Dedication 28 1,650 - - 1,678
Library Exterior Wall Maintenance15,000 - - - 15,000
Theater Ticket Surcharge 17,286 (1,507) - - 15,779
Retiree Medical - 62,500 - - 62,500
CIP 614,997 (540,610) - - 74,387
Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000
Operations 2,554,150 - - - 2,554,150
Special Revenue
SLESF - 100,000 - - 100,000
Highway Users Gas Tax 604,509 (301,144) 93,473 (320,764) 76,074
Landscape/Lighting Fd 250,321 24,424 1,253 (18,805) 257,193
Development Services 1,339,563 (85,633) 366,728 (154,412) 1,466,245
Designated Reserves:
Tree Preservation Ordinance 226186,644 (17,886) - (21,293) 147,465
General Plan Update 7,065 8,290 1,585 (16,978) (38)
Document Storage - 27,841 574 - 28,415
Environmental Programs 909,760 11,369 - (126,911) 794,218
CDBG (11,137) (6,301) 24,597 (11,000) (3,841)
SHARP Loan 75,287 (3,632) - - 71,655
Recreation Services (31,783) (16,107) 84,236 (70,685) (34,339)
Teen Services (38,728) 7,309 697 (10,388) (41,110)
Capital Project
Park Development 91,246 57,947 110,528 (24,014) 235,707
Library Expansion 704,004 (26,703) - - 677,301
Public Safety 554,077 (299,047) - (101,269) 153,761
Infrastructure 1,942,934 (406,151) 40,000 (47,394) 1,529,389
Facility 96,280 418,453 - (107,668) 407,065
Park and Trails 196,887 1,331,126 - (106,584) 1,421,428
Debt Service
Library Bond 865,379 (524,372) 6,938 - 347,945
Internal Service Fund
Equipment Replacement 247,148 (251,076) - - (3,928)
Technology Replacement 403,520 (20,866) - (6,642) 376,012
Facility Improvement 53,546 23,200 - (37,195) 39,551
Total City 15,975,082 (2,278,659) 2,293,667 (2,001,593) - 13,988,497
63
ATTACHMENT C
CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
The following table details the cash balances for each project in the Public Safety, Infrastructure, Facility,
and Park and Trails Capital Improvement Project Funds.
CIP Funds/Projects
Cash &
Investment Balance
at May 2007
Public Safety
Traffic Safety 41,788
Highway 9 Safety project 58,960
Hakone ADA Improvement (88,454)
Sidewalk-Yearly Project 90,707
Aloha Street Safety Improvement (46,732)
Bridges @ 4th Street 100,000
Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign (129,701)
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 127,192
Total Public Safety 153,761$
Infrastructure
Two Solar Power Radar Feedbacks 15,000
El Quito Area Curb Replacement 410,620
Book Go Round Drainage 22,721
Sobey Road Culvert Repair 150,000
Storm Drain Upgrades 66,782
Median Repairs(Landscape/Irrig.)11,495
Civic Center Landscape 63,704
Village Lights (Zone 7A)49,222
Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 6,923
Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade 25,124
Blaney Plaza Improvement (225)
City Entrance Sign/Monument 13,467
Blaney Plaza Improvement-Constructions 948
Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter 733,664
Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway 81,933
Storm Drain @ El Camino/Mt Vista 100,000
Total Infrastructure 1,751,378$
Facility
Warner Hutton House Improv 36,499
Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Book Go Round 25,000
North Campus - 19848 Prospect Road 350,820
Historical Park Fire Alarm System 6,543
Total Facility 418,863$
Parks & Trails
Hakone Garden D/W 164,283
Union Pacific Railroad (Deanza) Trail (58,115)
Kevin Moran Park 1,137,803
Alternative Soccer Field 157,453
Park/Trail Repairs 20,005
Total Parks & Trails 1,421,429$
Total CIP Funds 3,745,431$
64
ATTACHMENT D
FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
The following table details the fund balances for each project in the Public Safety, Infrastructure, Facility,
and Park and Trails Capital Improvement Project Funds.
CIP Funds/Projects
06/30/06
Fund Balance
Incr/(Decr)
Jul- April Revenues Expenditures Transfers
05/31/07
Fund Balance
Public Safety
Traffic Safety 67,568 (20,628) - (5,152) 41,788
Highway 9 Safety Project 100,000 (40,978) - (63) 58,960
Hakone ADA Improvement - (88,454) - - (88,454)
Sidewalks Yearly Project 185,001 (94,294) - - 90,707
Aloha Street Safety Improvement (57,529) 46,807 - (36,010) (46,732)
Bridges @ 4th Street 100,000 - - - 100,000
Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign 31,845 (101,501) - (60,044) (129,700)
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 127,192 - - - 127,192
Total Public Safety 554,077 (299,047) - (101,269) - 153,761
Infrastructure
Two Solar Power Radar Feedbacks - 15,000 - - 15,000
El Quito Area Curb Replacement 460,264 (6,453) - (43,192) 410,620
Book Go Round Drainage - 22,721 - 22,721
Sobey Road Culvert Repair - 150,000 - - 150,000
Storm Drain Upgrades 167,864 (101,082) - - 66,782
Median Repairs(Landscape/Irrig.)20,000 (8,505) - - 11,495
Civic Center Landscape 104,325 (40,621) - - 63,704
Village Lights (Zone 7A)- 49,222 - 49,222
Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 7,000 (77) - - 6,923
Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade - (196,397) - - (196,397)
Signage @ City Entrance 13,467 - - - 13,467
Blaney Plaza Improvement - Contruction 99,787 (138,839) 40,000 - 948
Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs)738,624 (4,960) - - 733,664
Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway 231,603 (146,160) - (4,202) 81,240
Storm Drain @ El Camino / Mt Vista 100,000 - - - 100,000
Total Infrastructure 1,942,934 (406,151) 40,000 (47,394) - 1,529,389
Facility
WHH Improvements 74,737 (36,738) - (3,672) 34,327
Civic Center - CDD Offices 15,000 (15,000) - - -
Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Book Go Round- 25,000 - - 25,000
North Campus - 19848 Prospect Road - 445,191 - (103,996) 341,196
Historical Park Fire Alarm System 6,543 - - - 6,543
Total Facility 96,280 418,453 - (107,668) - 407,065
Parks & Trails
Hakone Garden D/W 164,283 - - - 164,283
Union Pacific Railroad (Deanza) Trail (49,066) 6,147 - (15,197) (58,115)
Kevin Moran Improvements 46,468 1,091,334 - - 1,137,802
Alternative Soccer Field - 247,839 - (90,386) 157,453
Park/Trail Repairs 35,202 (14,196) - (1,002) 20,005
Total Parks & Trails 196,887 1,331,126 - (106,584) - 1,421,428
Total CIP Funds 2,790,178 1,044,380 40,000 (362,915) - 3,511,643
65
ATTACHMENT E
66
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DEPT HEAD: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Annual Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Library General Obligation
Bonds
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution which sets the FY 2007/08 property tax levy rate for the
Library General Obligation Bonds at $.01130 per $100 of Assessed Valuation to provide for the Library Bond’s
debt service requirements over the next year.
REPORT SUMMARY
Background
In March 2000, the citizens of Saratoga approved the issuance of City of Saratoga General Obligation Bonds to
pay for improvements to the City’s library building. The General Obligation Bonds were issued in May of 2001,
and the debt service payments began in February 2002.
With this bond approval, property owners are to be assessed an additional property tax levy over the next thirty
years to fund the debt service resulting from the bond issuance. The annual tax levy is calculated each year to
determine the assessment rate to charge property owners to fund the debt service payments, as the tax levy rate
adjusts each year due to ongoing increases in property values.
The County of Santa Clara requires that the local jurisdictions approve a tax levy rate to meet the debt service
payments and notify the County no later than August 1st of each year, prior to the County preparing and mailing
the property tax bills.
Discussion
Debt service requirements for FY 2007/08 total $1,015,906 which is the amount the tax rate must yield. At the
time this agenda item was prepared, the County of Santa Clara had not yet provided the City of Saratoga’s
secured assessed valuation for the upcoming fiscal year, therefore an estimate is used in the tax rate calculation.
The property tax levy is a percentage of the estimated property tax valuation which funds the debt service. The
FY 2007/08 estimated assessed property valuation was calculated by increasing the FY 2006/07 assessed
valuation by 4%:
FY 2006/07 assessed property valuation: $ 8,660,695,237
FY 2007/08 estimated valuation with 4% increase: $ 9,007,123,046
The property tax levy is then subsequently determined by dividing the annual debt service per $100 of estimated
67
assessed valuation:
Debt Service – Principal $ 295,000
Debt Service – Interest 720,906
Total FY 2007/08 Debt Service $1,015,906
Property Tax Levy Calculation:
FY 2007/08 Debt Service $ 1,015,906
Divided per $100 estimated valuation $ 90,071,230
Property Tax Levy Rate: .01128 Æ rounded to 4 decimal points = .01130
Therefore, it is estimated that a property tax levy rate of .01130 per $100 of assessed valuation will fully fund the
$1,015,906 of debt service payments in FY 2007/08. The Library Bond Fund’s fund balance reserves will
provide for the estimated $5,200 of annual administrative costs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The tax levy funds the annual debt service requirements of the voter approved General Obligation Bond, and tax
revenues are included in the City’s operating budget, within the Library Bond Debt Service Fund. A reserve
balance is maintained in the Library Bond Fund to provide sufficient funding for the debt service prior to the
property tax levy remittance to the City. With the adoption of this property tax levy, the debt service payment is
funded with the supplemental tax assessment, and would not impact city operations.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the property tax levy is not approved, supplemental funds would not be collected by the Santa Clara County
Tax Assessor for the debt service related to the Library General Obligation Bond, and the debt service payments
would be funded from City reserves.
FOLLOW UP ACTION
Direct the City Clerk to send a certified copy of the resolution setting the property tax levy for the Library
General Obligation Bond no later than August 1, 2007 to:
Mu-Hua Cheng
County of Santa Clara
Controller-Treasurer Department
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 2nd Floor
San Jose, CA 95110-1705
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution authorizing the Tax Rate Levy for the General Obligation Bonds and report the levy rate to the
Santa Clara County Tax Collector.
68
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY
FOR THE DEBT SERVICE OF THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
FOR 2008 AT $.01130 PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUATION
WHEREAS, in March 2000, the citizens of Saratoga approved an increase in their property tax rate to
pay for the debt service and other expenses of the general obligation bonds for construction of the Library, and
WHEREAS, the general obligation bonds were sold on April 24, 2001, and
WHERAS, it is necessary for the City Council of the City of Saratoga to establish an annual property tax
levy to provide funds for the debt service and related expenditures due in FY 2007/08.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2007/08 Property Tax Levy for debt service on the
Library General Obligation Bonds be established at $.01130 per $100 of assessed valuation.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council
held on the 18th day of July 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
City of Saratoga
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
City of Saratoga
69
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ______
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Congress Springs Park Safety Fence Improvements - Appropriation of Funds
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve budget resolution appropriating funds for Congress Springs Park Safety Fence
Improvements.
REPORT SUMMARY:
This past December AYSO donated $15,000 towards improvements at Congress Springs Park. The
improvement identified for these funds is the construction of a low (3 foot high) black vinyl coated
chain link safety fence. The location of the proposed safety fence is along Glen Brae between the
park maintenance yard and the third base fence of the Pony field. The fence will improve safety by
preventing errant soccer balls rolling onto Glen Brae Drive. Additionally, the same area will receive
modifications to the landscaping.
In order to move forward with these improvements it is necessary for City Council to adopt a budget
resolution appropriating the donated funds into the Park and Landscape Maintenance Program’s
expenditure budget.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
With Council’s approval of the proposed budget adjustment, sufficient funds would be available
for the construction of the fence and landscape modifications.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The budget resolution will not be approved and other improvements will need to be identified for
expenditure of the donated funds.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
70
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The budget resolution will be implemented and the funds will be used for Congress Springs Park.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Resolution.
2 of 2
71
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING
FOR SAFETY FENCE IMPROVEMENTS AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to construct safety fencing at Congress Springs
Park; and
WHEREAS, AYSO donated $15,000 to the City to fund the work; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to appropriate the funding into the Fiscal Year 2007/08
budget as follows:
Account Description Account# Amount
Park Development – Transfer Out 310-3030-597-1001 + $15,000
Park Maintenance & Repairs 001-3030-532-5442 + $15,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby approves the above adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2007/08 budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 18th day of July 2007 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
72
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Budget Resolution Approving the Carryover and Expenditure of FY 2006/07
Council Contingency Funds in the Amount of $2,500 to Co-Sponsor
Neighborhood Block Parties
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution appropriating $2,500 from the FY 2006/07 Council contingency to co-sponsor
neighborhood block parties sponsored by the Saratoga Clergy Association.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At the June 20, 2007 City Council meeting Pastor Arvin Engelson, representing the Saratoga
Clergy Association, addressed the Council in regards to neighborhood block parties. Pastor
Engelson explained that due to the success of the block parties that were held during the City’s
50th Anniversary celebration, the Association has decided to sponsor annual block party events
throughout the City of Saratoga sometime between Memorial Day to Labor Day.
The Association did not request a monetary contribution form the City only that the City support
their efforts and allow them to promote the event.
After Council discussion, staff was directed to bring back a resolution appropriating a monetary
contribution of $2,500 from remaining FY 2006/07 Council Contingency funds to the
Association to use at their discretion.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If Council approves the contribution, funding would be carried over from FY 2006/07 to provide
funding for the appropriation.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council could choose not to adopt the budget allocation.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
73
ADVERTISING, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution
Attachment B – Staff report from June 20, 2007
74
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE CARRYOVER AND EXPENDITURE OF FY 2006/07
COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500
TO CO-SPONSOR NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTIES
WHEREAS, it is the Council’s desire to make a monetary contribution of $2,500
towards the event from the Council’s Contingency account to help support the efforts of the
Saratoga Clergy Association’s efforts to promote and encourage neighborhood block parties; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to carryover and expend FY 2006/07 Council contingency
funds for the monetary contribution to the event:
Account Description Account# Amount
Council Contingency 001-1005-511-5135 $2,500
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby authorizes the appropriation of $2,500 to be used by the Saratoga Clergy
Association for neighborhood block parities.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 18th day of July 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Attachment B
75
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Request to the City of Saratoga to Support the request from the Saratoga
Clergy Association to Annually Sponsor Neighborhood Block Parties
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Last year the City of Saratoga celebrated its 50th Anniversary. A group of citizens formed the
50th Anniversary Committee and each member or group took responsibility of an event.
One such event was the Neighborhood Block Party weekend. The Saratoga Ministerial
Association (now called the Saratoga Clergy Association) volunteered to chair this event and it
was a huge success.
The City Council received the attached letter (Attachment 1) from Pastor Arvin Engelson from
the Saratoga Federated Church. Pastor Engelson stated that the Saratoga Clergy Association is
willing to sponsor annual block party events sometime between Memorial Day to Labor Day.
The Saratoga Clergy Association is not requesting any monetary contribution form the City only
that the City support their efforts and allow them to promote the event.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Letter from Arvin Engelson, Saratoga Federated Church
76
To: Aileen Kao, Mayor
Anne Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor
Members of the Council
Cc: David Anderson, City Manager
During our Celebrate Saratoga experience the neighborhood parties were a significant
success. Appreciation was widely expressed. This project actually changed some
behaviors, improved relationships and promoted community.
I asked my colleagues in the Saratoga Clergy Association if they would be willing to
sustain the effort annually. They readily agreed. I was asked to continue as the point
person on the project. I now ask for your formal partnership as a co-sponsor of this
undertaking.
We are not asking for funding. We are asking for the freedom to promote this concept
as a joint-project of the City and the City’s faith communities. I am proposing a broad
summer season: Memorial Day to Labor Day. Again, Saratoga Federated Church will
coordinate efforts and contribute support materials for party hosts. We will, of course,
encourage all appropriate permit processes and safety guidelines for parties in public
places.
As was the case last time, I will seek the participation of those Buddhist, Muslim and
Hindu faith communities outside Saratoga but most used by City residents. During
Celebrate Saratoga we had parties hosted by households from all five faith traditions
and dozens of households with no particular faith tradition.
We are hopeful that you will find this a worthy annual emphasis. Public encouragement
is all that is needed for some neighbors to acquire the initiative to become hospitable.
We will hold off on promotion until I hear from you.
Sincerely,
Arvin Engelson
Pastor of Care Ministries
Saratoga Federated Church
(408) 867-1000
77
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: CMO CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
Assistant City Manager
__________
SUBJECT: Agreement with Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
__________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept report and adopt the resolution approving the Agreement with the Saratoga Chamber of
Commerce.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On February 5, 2003, the City entered into a 4-year Agreement with the Saratoga Chamber of
Commerce to provide tourism and information services. The Agreement expired June 30, 2007, and
continues on a month-to-month basis under the same terms and conditions.
At its May 16, 2007 meeting, the City Council approved an allocation to the Chamber for fiscal year
2007/08 of $11,000.
Council members Hunter and Page and City staff met with representatives of the Chamber to discuss
the terms and conditions for a new agreement with the Chamber. Based upon those meetings, staff has
prepared a proposed revised agreement for Council consideration (attached). The main proposed
revisions to the agreement are as follows:
Section Previous Agreement Proposed Agreement
3. Term February 5, 2003 to June 30, 2007 July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012
14.
Insurance
Required automobile insurance
coverage
Eliminated requirement since the Chamber
does not own vehicles – employees use their
own personal vehicles for Chamber business
14.
Insurance
No requirement included for
subcontractors’ Workers’ Compensation
insurance
Added requirement for Chamber to ensure
that subcontractors have Workers’
Compensation insurance
18.
Termination
Termination only with cause and written
notice by either party
Termination with or without cause by
providing thirty (30) days notice (standard
language currently used by the City in its
agreements)
78
Section Previous Agreement Proposed Agreement
Exhibit B Annual Fee = $10,000 Annual Fee = $11,000
Exhibit B Cost of living adjustment based upon
the Consumer Price Index
Set cost of living increase at 3% per year
Exhibit B No payment schedule included Included a quarterly payment schedule with
specific amounts to be invoiced per quarter
and per fiscal year
Exhibit B No membership fee included Included annual membership fee paid to
Chamber in addition to annual fee
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The effect of the Agreement would be to increase the annual fee paid by the City to the Chamber from
$10,000 annually (existing agreement) to $11,000 annually.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The City could terminate its agreement with the Chamber, or continue its agreement on a month-to-
month basis under the terms of the previous agreement.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Adopt the resolution and authorize the City Manager to enter into the Agreement with the Saratoga
Chamber of Commerce.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution approving the Agreement
• Agreement with the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
79
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND
THE SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2003 the City of Saratoga (City) entered into a 4-
year Agreement with the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) for tourism and
information services;
WHEREAS, the Chamber and the City desire to renew the Agreement for an
additional 5-year term;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the City Manager to enter into
the Agreement between the City and Chamber.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18th day of
July, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
80
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AND THE SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
This Agreement is entered into this 18th day of July 2007, and is effective
as of the 1st day of July 2007, by and between the City of Saratoga, a municipal
corporation (“City”) and the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”),
engaged in providing City information services.
RECITALS
A. The City desires to provide on-going tourism and information services.
B. The Chamber represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to
perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
1. Scope of Services. The Chamber shall provide the services and
deliverables as listed in the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit A).
2. Fee for Services. The Chamber shall be paid for the Scope of Services
as delineated in the attached Fee for Services (Exhibit B).
3. Term. The term of this agreement shall extend from the date written
above through June 30, 2012.
4. Compliance with Laws. The Chamber shall comply with all applicable
laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state, and
local laws. Chamber represents and warrants to City that it has all
qualifications required for Chamber to perform the services required.
Chamber represents and warrants to City that Chamber shall, at its sole
cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of
this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally
required for Chamber to perform the services required. Chamber shall
maintain a City of Saratoga business license.
5. Sole Responsibility. Chamber shall be solely responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this
Agreement. Chamber shall not have any claim under this Agreement or
otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick
leave, personal time off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital
care, insurance benefits, social security, disability, unemployment,
workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind. Chamber shall
be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes,
1
81
including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes, and in
connection therewith Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless
from any and all liability that City may incur because of Contractor's failure
to pay such taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or
withhold any taxes on behalf of Chamber.
6. Facilities and Equipment. Chamber shall, at its sole cost and expense,
furnish all facilities and equipment, which may be required for completing
the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement.
7. Compensation and Payment Terms. Compensation for Chamber’s
professional services shall not exceed the amount specified in Exhibit B.
Payment to the Chamber shall be due 30 days after receipt by the City of
a properly executed invoice. The Chamber’s invoice shall be mailed to:
City of Saratoga
Attn: City Manager
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
8. Availability of Records. Chamber shall maintain the records supporting this
billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work
under this Agreement. Chamber shall make these records available to
authorized personnel of the City at the Chamber’s offices during business
hours upon written request of the City.
9. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Chamber for the work
under this Agreement shall be the City Manager, City of Saratoga.
10. Notices. A notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and
properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To City: City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Copy: City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
To Chamber: Executive Director
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
14485 Big Basin Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
2
82
11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Chamber, in the
performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as
and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the
City. As an independent contractor, the Chamber or persons within the
Chamber shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits
which accrue to City employees. The Chamber may perform some
obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate
ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under
this Agreement.
Chamber agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of
the work to be performed under this Agreement. Chamber shall be
compensated for its actual costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling
to, and testifying in such matters, unless such litigation is brought by
Chamber or is based on allegations of Chamber’s negligent performance
or wrongdoing.
12. Conflicts of Interest. Chamber represents and warrants that, to the best
of its knowledge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances
which could give rise to a conflict of interest on the part of Chamber, or
that the Chamber has already disclosed all such relevant information.
Chamber agrees that if an actual or potential conflict of interest on the part
of Chamber is discovered after award, the Chamber will make a full
disclosure in writing to the City. This disclosure shall include a description
of actions which the Chamber has taken or proposes to take, after
consultation with the City to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or
potential conflict. Within 45 days, the Chamber shall have taken all
necessary steps to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest to
the satisfaction of the City.
13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Chamber warrants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations
governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Chamber nor its
subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons
employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex,
color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental
disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon
a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair
Employment & Housing Act.
14. Insurance.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance.
i. The Chamber agrees to have and maintain, for the duration
of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring
the Chamber to an amount not less than: one million dollars
3
83
($1,000,000) per occurrence/two million dollars ($2,000,000)
aggregate limits for bodily injury, and property damage.
ii. Chamber agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, a Workers Compensation insurance policy
including minimum one million dollars ($1,000,000)
Employer's Liability coverage, and shall provide evidence of
such policy to the City before beginning services under this
Agreement. The Employer's Liability policy shall be
endorsed to waive any right of subrogation as respects the
City, its employees or agents. Chamber makes the following
certification, required by section 1861 of the California Labor
Code:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the
Labor Code, which require every employer to be
insured against liability for workers' compensation or
to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the
work of this contract.
Further, Chamber shall ensure that all subcontractors
employed by Chamber provide the required Workers’
Compensation insurance for their respective employees.
iii. Chamber shall provide to the City all certificates of
insurance, with original endorsements effecting coverage.
Chamber agrees that all certificates and endorsements are
to be received and approved by the City before work
commences.
b. General Liability.
i. City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to
be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Chamber;
products and completed operations of the Chamber,
premises owned or used by the Chamber.
ii. Chamber’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by
the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall
be excess of the Chamber’s insurance and shall not
contribute with it.
iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
4
84
iv. Chamber’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
c. All Coverages. Each insurance policy required in this item shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days’ prior to written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such
insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this
agreement with the City Clerk.
15. Indemnification. Chamber shall save, keep and hold harmless, indemnify
and defend the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from
all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity that
may at any time arise because of damages to property or personal injury
received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which may be
occasioned by the willful misconduct or negligent act or omissions of the
Chamber, or any of the Chamber’s officers, employees, or agents or any
subcontractor.
16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or
remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy
that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default
under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent
breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue
for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior or
Municipal Court of the County of Santa Clara.
18. Termination of the Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement
with or without cause by providing thirty (30) days notice in writing to the
other party.(“Notice of Termination”), Notice of Termination shall become
effective no less than thirty (30) calendar days after a Party receives such
notice. Where termination is for cause, such notice of termination shall
include a statement by the terminating party setting forth grounds for
determination of default under the Agreement. After either Party
terminates the Agreement, Chamber shall discontinue further services as
of the effective date of termination, and City shall nonetheless pay
Chamber the total fee for the quarter in which termination occurs.
5
85
19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment
of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the
City and the Chamber.
20. Disputes. In the event of any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement,
the parties will meet and confer to identify methods of resolving said
dispute. In the event of litigation concerning this agreement each party
will be responsible to pay for its own fees.
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and
exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and the Chamber.
No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify
or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the
party to be bound, shall be binding on either party.
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an allocation of funds for fiscal year
2007-2008 to Chamber;
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SARATOGA
_____________________ ________________________
Richard Taylor Dave Anderson
City Attorney City Manager
APPROVED AS TO BUDGET AUTHORITY AND INSURANCE:
__________________________ Date: __________________
Mary Furey,
Administrative Services Director
ATTEST: SARATOGA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
______________________ ________________________
Cathleen Boyer Chris Oakes
City Clerk Chamber President
6
86
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
Chamber will provide the City with the following services for walk-in, telephone,
email, or fax requests:
1. Tourism & Information Materials:
The Chamber shall provide information from its office. This office shall be
located in Saratoga and shall be open to the public a minimum of 35 hours
per week during normal business hours.
General information for tourists shall include such topics as:
Services available;
Who to contact for services;
Community events;
Recreational opportunities;
Retail shopping and dining opportunities;
Lodging and conference facilities;
Local schools;
Directions to and within Saratoga; and
Other general information requests.
The City acknowledges that the Chamber is a membership organization
and therefore customarily only provides information about its members.
Under this agreement, the Chamber will include information about non-
members but with preference to its members.
Tourist information that the Chamber will provide includes:
Wineries
Restaurants
Lodging
Attractions
Special Events
Entertainment
2. City Information and Materials:
As much as possible, the Chamber will direct information requests to the
City offices.
7
87
Chamber will make available at its office location information provided by
the City, which may include, but is not limited to:
Quarterly Newsletters
City Contact Numbers
Recreation Department Class Schedules
City will deliver these materials to the Chamber for distribution. Chamber
will not be required to store large quantities of these materials (i.e., no
more than one standard size file storage box). Chamber will notify City
when only 10 copies of any publication remain. Chamber is not required
to distribute these materials in any manner other than hand-delivery to
walk-in customers.
3. Quarterly Report of Services Rendered:
Once each quarter the Chamber shall file with the City a summary report
of services rendered pursuant to this agreement during the prior quarter.
4. Additional Services:
Additional services requested by the City are not subject to this agreement
and will be estimated by the Chamber and billed separately after obtaining
written approval by the City.
8
88
Exhibit B
Fee for Services
1. The City will pay the Chamber an Annual Fee on a fiscal year basis (July
1 through June 30) for performing the Scope of Services (Exhibit A).
2. The Annual Fee shall be paid in four quarterly installments. Each
installment shall be paid within 30 days of City’s receipt of the Chamber’s
invoice.
3. The Annual Fee for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 shall be $11,000, with four
quarterly installments of $2,750.
4. The Annual Fee for subsequent fiscal years shall include a three percent
(3%) increase over the prior year, resulting in annual fees and quarterly
payments as follows:
Fiscal Year
Annual Fee
July 1 through
September 30
October 1
through
December 31
January 1
through March
31
April 1
through June
30
2008/2009
$11,332
$2,833 $2,833 $2,833 $2,833
2009/2010
$11,672
$2,918 $2,918 $2,918 $2,918
2010/2011
$12,024
$3,006 $3,006 $3,006 $3,006
2011/2012
$12,384
$3,096 $3,096 $3,096 $3,096
5. The City will also pay the Chamber an annual membership fee at the rate
established for employers with 51 to 100 employees.
6. This Agreement may be amended by mutual consent to establish an
alternative Annual Fee based upon information obtained from the
Chamber’s Quarterly Reports of Services Rendered.
9
89
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Budget Resolution Approving the Carryover and Expenditure of FY 2006/07
Council Contingency Funds to Purchase Radar Feedback Signs
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution to carryover and appropriate $47,000 from the FY 2006/07 Council
contingency to purchase radar feedback signs.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At the June 20th City Council Meeting, Council directed staff to appropriate funds from the FY
06/07 Council Contingency Funds for purchase of radar feed back signs. The purchase of
additional radar feed back signs was discussed at a recent joint meeting with the City Council
and the Traffic Safety Commission. The purchase of additional radar feed back signs will
greatly assist in providing additional tools for traffic calming. The amount available for purchase
of the signs is $47,000. This amount will fund one trailer mounted portable feedback sign at
approximately $12,000 and five permanent mounted feedback signs at approximately $7,000 per
unit.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If Council approves the purchase, funding would be carried over from FY 2006/07 to provide
funding for the appropriation.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council could choose not to adopt the budget allocation.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
90
ADVERTISING, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution
91
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE CARRYOVER AND EXPENDITURE OF FY 2006/07
COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,000
TO PURCHASE RADAR FEEDBACK SIGNS
WHEREAS, additional radar feed back signs will greatly assist in providing additional
tools for traffic calming; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to carryover the remaining FY 2006/07 Council contingency
funds to provide funding for the appropriation:
Account Description Account# Amount
Council Contingency 001-1005-511-5135 $47,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby authorizes the carryover and appropriation of $47,000 to be used to purchase
radar feedback signs.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 18th day of July 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
92
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ___________________
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Attorney CITY MANAGER: _________________
Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor DEPT.HEAD: Richard Taylor
SUBJECT: Policy for Written Records of Meetings, Decisions and Actions Relating to
Contracts of $2 Million or More
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution setting City policy requiring written
records of meetings, decisions and actions relating to contracts for goods, services, and
property for $2 million or more.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At its meeting of June 20, 2007 the City Council authorized a response to the report of the
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury regarding its investigation of events surrounding the
proposed sale of the North Campus. The Grand Jury recommended that the City adopt and
enforce a policy that all City staff maintain a written record of meetings, decisions, and
actions that implement policy. In response, the City Council directed staff to prepare a policy
that would implement this recommendation as to meetings, decisions and actions relating to
contracts for goods, services, and property for $2 million or more. The attached resolution
would adopt such a policy.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Additional staff time will be required to maintain the necessary written records. The burden
is not expected to be undue, however, because most City contracts are for less than $2
million.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Distribute policy to all Department Heads for implementation.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice for this meeting.
93
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING A CITY
POLICY REGARDING WRITTEN RECORDS OF
MEETINGS, DECISIONS, AND ACTIONS RELATED
TO CONTRACTS OF $2 MILLION OR MORE
WHEREAS, State law and various provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code
governing local government contracts provide a variety of safeguards to protect the public
interest in connection with contracts entered by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to supplement these protections for major
contracts by requiring that City staff maintain written records of meetings, decisions, and
actions related to any contract for goods, services, or property that staff has reason to
believe will be for $2 million or more.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby adopts the following policy:
City staff shall maintain a written record of meetings, decisions, and actions
related to contracts for goods, services, or property (or some combination thereof)
that the staff has reason to believe will be for $2 million or more. The City
Manager or his designee may adopt supplemental policies from time to time as
s/he sees necessary in order to implement this policy.
The above Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 18th day of July 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
94
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ______
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
Public Works Analyst Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolutions
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Move to adopt the new Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing a “No Parking or Stopping”
zone on Marilyn Lane between Marshall Lane and Ravenswood Drive.
2. Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No Stopping on Lexington”.
3. Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing one “Stop” sign on Tamworth.
4. No Parking on Blauer Drive
REPORT SUMMARY:
1. “No Stopping” on Marilyn
The City Council approved a resolution authorizing “No Parking” on Marilyn between Marshall
Lane and Ravenwood Drive at the May 16, 2007 meeting. This section of Marilyn adjacent to
the new pathway also requires a “No Stopping” designation to prevent cars from using this area
as a school drop off area for Marshall Lane School. In order to enforce the “No Stopping” area, it
is necessary that the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council.
2. “No Stopping” on Lexington Court
Several residents from the Lexington Court neighborhood came before the Traffic Safety
Commission (TSC) on June 7, 2007 regarding school traffic in their neighborhood and on Herriman
Avenue. The TSC recommended that “No Stopping” be added to the existing “No Parking” signs to
discourage residents from using Lexington Court as a drop off for the High School, and to
encourage use of the school parking lot. In order to enforce the “No Stopping” area, it is necessary
that the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council.
3. Stop Sign on Tamworth Avenue
Safety concerns on Tamworth Avenue were brought before the TSC at the June 7, 2007 meeting.
Tamworth Avenue is one of the main roads leading to Foothill Elementary and Foothill Park. The
Traffic Engineer and the TSC reviewed the request and recommended the placement of a Stop sign
at the intersection of Tamworth and Seaton Avenue to help increase the safety of children walking
95
to Foothill Elementary. To enforce the new Stop sign, the City Council needs to adopt the attached
Motor Vehicle Resolution.
4. “No Parking” on Blauer Drive
The City has recently received complaints about safety while trying to exit the Argonaut Shopping
Center onto Blauer Drive. Cars parked along Blauer Drive to the west of the southern driveway exit
of the shopping center blocks the safe site distance needed to safely turn out of the shopping center.
At the June 7, 2007 TSC meeting the Commission recommended that a “No Parking” restriction be
added to this section of Blauer Drive. In order to enforce the “No Parking” area, it is necessary that
the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
For each location, approximately $250 in labor and materials is required for the City to install signs
or paint the curbs red. These improvements are paid through the CIP which has a fund devoted to
Traffic Safety.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The MV Resolutions would not be adopted and traffic conditions would continue as is.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The signs will be installed, red curbs will be painted, and the Sheriff’s Department will be notified
of the new restrictions.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing No Parking or Stopping on Marilyn
2. Motor Vehicle Resolution No Stopping on Lexington Court
3. Map
4. Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing Stop sign on Tamworth Avenue
5. Map
6. Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing No Parking on Blauer
7. Map
2 of 2
96
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON MARILYN LANE
WHEREAS, all aspects of Resolution MV-257 are revoked and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby resolve as follows:
Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following parking restrictions
shall be designated on Marilyn Lane:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION
Marilyn Lane Along the entire eastern edge of Marilyn No Parking or
Lane beginning at Ravenswood Drive Stopping Anytime
and ending to the south where it meets
Marshall Lane
This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
97
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON LEXINGTON COURT
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following parking restrictions
shall be designated on Lexington Court:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION
Lexington Court Along the entire eastern and western edge No Parking or
of Lexington Court starting at Stopping between
Herriman Avenue and ending 8 am & 4 pm while
to the north where it meets Chalet Lane School is in session
This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
98
99
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A STOP SIGN ON TAMWORTH AVENUE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following stop sign shall be
placed on Tamworth Avenue:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION
Tamworth Avenue A stop sign to be place on Tamworth Ave Complete stop for
on the west side of the south bound lane vehicular traffic at
where it intersects with Seaton Avenue intersection
This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
100
101
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON BLAUER DRIVE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following parking restrictions
shall be designated on Blauer Drive:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION
Blauer Drive Beginning at the westerly corner of the No Parking Anytime
South driveway exit of Argonaut Shopping
Center and continuing east for 70 feet
This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
102
103
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2005 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DEPT HEAD: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of 2007 Weed Abatement Program &
Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Public Nuisance By Removal of
Hazardous Brush
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolutions.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Confirmation of Report and Assessment of 2007
Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal hazardous vegetation
on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this hazardous
vegetation abatement program is administered by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner.
In many cases, property owners find it convenient to have the government take care of the weed
removal and to pay through a property tax lien.
This past year, the County performed abatement on parcels on the attached list in
Saratoga.(Attachment A). Tax liens and assessments on the owners of these parcels totaled
$3,687.50. In order to recover this cost, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution
(Attachment B) confirming the assessments and directing the County Auditor to enter and collect
the assessments on the property tax bill.
2007 Brush Abatement
The second resolution (Attachment C) represents the second step in Saratoga’s Brush Abatement
program administered by Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. The County has sent owners
of the parcels requiring brush abatement notices informing them that the brush must be abated,
either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present
objections at tonight’s public hearing.
Moe Kumre, Weed Abatement Program Coordinator from the County of Santa Clara Office of
the Agricultural Commissioner Agriculture and Environmental Management, will be attending
the meeting to answer any questions Councilmembers may have on this topic.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Assessment of 2007
None to the City if resolution is adopted. The City may be liable for work performed by
contractor for any assessments not levied.
2007 Brush Abatement
104
None to the City. The County recovers its costs from administrative portion of a fee charged to
property owner.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
See Fiscal Impacts.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Send a certified copy of the adopted resolutions to Moe Kumre, Weed Abatement Program
Coordinator, County of Santa Clara Office of the Agricultural Commissioner Agriculture and
Environmental Management, 1553 Berger Drive Bldg #1, San Jose Ca 95112.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Saratoga News as required by law. The Office
of the Agricultural Commissioner mailed notices to all of the affected property owners.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – 2007 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report
Attachment B – Resolution Confirming Assessments
Attachment C – Letter from Weed Abatement Program Coordinator, Moe Kumre
Attachment D – 2007 Brush Abatement Program Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public
Nuisance by Removal of Hazardous Brush
Attachment B
105
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION
ABATEMENT CHARGES
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on July 18 2007, the Office of the Agricultural
Commissioner submitted a report to this City Council consisting of all unpaid bills for weed
abatement expenses and a proposed assessment list, and the parcels against which said expenses,
including applicable administrative and collection costs are to be assessed, all pursuant to Article
15, Chapter 7 of the Saratoga City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard said report and all objections; thereto, and
the Council, finding that no modifications need to be made to any of said assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the 2007 Weed Abatement Program, Assessment
Report, City of Saratoga, prepared by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner, which report
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, be and hereby is confirmed.
Each of said parcels as shown on the attached Exhibit A is declared to have a lien against it in
the amount set opposite said parcel number in the last column thereof; and the Santa Clara
County Auditor is hereby directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective
parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as
general municipal property taxes are collected.
A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County
Auditor.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 18th day of July 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Attachment D
106
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF
HAZARDOUS BRUSH
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council has declared hazardous brush growing on certain
properties to be a public nuisance by Resolution No. 07-032 adopted June 6, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner did give notice to all property
owners of land on which hazardous brush has been declared a public nuisance are growing; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said notice was held on July 18, 2007; and
WHEREAS, final action on any protests or objections to the proposed removal of weeds
has been made by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Office of the Agricultural
Commissioner shall cause the abatement of hazardous brush as designated by resolution dated
June 6, 2007, by having said vegetation destroyed or removed, and any property owner shall
have the right to destroy or remove such hazardous brush himself or herself, or have the same
destroyed or removed at his or her own expense, provided that such vegetation shall have been
removed prior to the arrival of the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner or his authorized
representative to remove them.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 18th day of July 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
107
10
8
109
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: ______
PREPARED BY: _______________________ DEPT HEAD: ______
Dave Anderson
Heather Bradley, Contract Planner John Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Application No. 07-028: 14639 Big Basin
Way, which was approved by the Planning Commission allowing construction of a mixed-use
development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at the rear of the site
and a separate two-story commercial building at the front of the site.
APPELLANTS:
1. C. Holly Davies, owner of 14625 Big Basin Way
2. Mary Beach Boscoe owner of 14611-D Big Basin Way
APPLICANT:
Zambetti Family Trust
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Deny the appeal, thus affirming the Planning Commission Use Permit and Design Review Approval
issued on May 23, 2007.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The applicant received Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct a mixed-use
development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at the rear of the site and a
separate two–story commercial building at the front of the site. Each apartment is a 1,250 square
foot two-bedroom unit; the commercial building is 2,348 square feet (with a 974 square foot
basement). The maximum building coverage is 28.8% of the site. The maximum height of the
buildings is 26 feet. The gross lot gross size is 17,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH-2.
Staff met with both Mrs. Davies & Ms. Boscoe, Mrs. Davies tenant, Mr. Martin Fenster, the
applicants; Mr. & Mrs. Zambetti, and their architect Mr. Tom Sloan on July 9, 2007 to discuss the
concerns of both appellants.
The appellants are requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission Use Permit
and Design Review Approval granted on May 23, 2007, on the following grounds as summarized by
staff:
110
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
2
From C. Holly Davies’ appeal letter dated June 4th, 2007
1. The approved site plan situates the buildings too close to the development on the
appellant’s adjacent property to the east, providing only a ten-foot separation between
buildings (five feet of setback from the property line on either side). The appellant contends
that the Planning Commission should have given more consideration to the sitting of the
structures and should have required that the site plan be flipped so that the buildings were
located closer to the property to the west while maintaining the driveway in the current
location on the east side, thereby providing a greater separation between the appellant’s
building at 14625 Big Basin Way. The appellant is further concerned about the loss of light
due to the proximity of the approved buildings and the invasion of privacy. The appellant
contends that the proximity of the proposed basement to the existing basement located on the
appellant’s property could threaten both structures in the event of an earthquake.
2. The existing driveway location should be maintained. The appellant contends that the
Planning Commission should have required the applicant to maintain the driveway in its
current location because that is where it has always been. If a wider driveway is necessary
the appellant contends that the existing oak tree could be moved or replaced and the existing
crosswalk over Big Basin Way could be relocated to a safer location, so as not to intersect
with the widened driveway.
In addition, the appellant’s tenant, Mr. Martin Fenster stated concerns with the limited number
of parking spaces provided by the project and the intensive use of the property at the meeting
held with staff on July 9, 2007.
The Planning Commissioners did discuss these issues, as reflected in the attached minutes, and
determined that the building and driveway location were appropriately sited given that the
neighboring property to the west is residential. They determined that widening the existing
driveway would require the unnecessary removal of an oak tree valued at $12,500 and relocation
of the exiting crosswalk.
The Commission further found that the proposal at 28.8 % coverage was well below the
allowable building site coverage of 60% for the property. The Commission determined that the
architectural style was compatible with the Village and that the Design Review findings could be
made, including findings of appropriate mass and bulk. This project was reviewed by the City
Geologist and was granted a Geotechnical Clearance. Appropriate construction methods will be
used to ensure that the basement does not pose a threat to neighboring properties in the event of
an earthquake.
From Mary Beach Boscoe’s appeal letter dated June 4th, 2007
1. The project is out of scale with neighboring properties. The appellant contends that the
approved project is out of scale and character with other buildings in the neighborhood.
2. The project is too intensive for the site. The appellant contends that the project is too large
111
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
3
for the site and that the amount of building coverage is too high.
3. The project does not have enough parking. The appellant contends that there was not
enough consideration given to the amount of parking that would be needed for the project.
4. The design review process is flawed. The appellant contends that not enough time was
given to neighbors to review the plans and that the project was so large in scope that it
should not have been approved in one Planning Commission meeting.
5. The project is too tall and will reduce the view from the appellant’s property. The appellant
contends that the project will dwarf neighboring buildings to the east and will block or
eliminate views from neighboring properties.
The Planning Commission did take these concerns into consideration when discussing the project.
The Commission determined, that the buildings were compatible with the Village and were of an
appropriate bulk and mass compared with neighboring properties. The Commission further
determined that the proposal was not too intensive for the site as the site coverage ratio is 28.8%
where 60% is allowed. With the adoption last year of the zoning text amendment which relaxed the
parking requirements in the Village this project does not have to provide parking. However, the
project will provide three spaces including one van-accessible handicapped space. These spaces are
intended to serve the dual purpose of providing space to retail customers during the day and
residents of the apartments in the evenings.
In response to the appellant’s concern with the Design Review process, this project was noticed in
conformance with City of Saratoga regulations prior to the May 23rd 2007 meeting. A notice was
published in the Saratoga News on May 9th, 2007, mailings were sent to every property owner within
500 feet of the property on May 4th, 2007 and the notice was posted on May 17, 2007.
The project height is 26 feet, compatible with other structures on adjacent lots and within the
Village. The appellant will loose some of the view of the Saratoga hills that is currently enjoyed
from the property.
Relevant background documents, including the Staff Report, Planning Commission minutes, and
letters from the appellants have been attached for further reference.
A resolution denying the appeal has been prepared for Council adoption (see Attachment 1).
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the appeal thereby denying the applicant Use Permit and Design Review Approval.
2. Continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal to
address issues and concerns of the appellants.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Not applicable.
112
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
4
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, posted notice, and advertised the notice in the
Saratoga News.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution affirming Planning Commission approval of application 07-028.
2. Appeal applications and letters from appellants dated June 4th, & 5th 2007.
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 23, 2007.
4. Excerpt of Minutes from the May 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.
5. Exhibit A.
113
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA DENING AN APPEAL; THEREBY AFFIRMING THE
PLANNING COMMISIION’S APPROVAL OF
USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 07-028
ZAMBETTI FAMILY TRUST; 14639 Big Basin Way
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, following a public hearing at which time all interested
parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission approved a Use Permit and Design Review application (No. 07-028) to construct and
operate a mixed-use development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at the
rear of the site and a separate two–story commercial building at the front of the site. The maximum
building coverage is 28.8% of the site. The maximum height of the buildings is 26 feet. The gross
lot gross size is 17,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH-2; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2007, separate appeals of the Planning Commission decision were
filed by C. Holly Davies and Mary Beach Boscoe; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeals
at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga has considered the appeals and all
testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby:
I. Denies each of the appeals and affirms the Planning Commission’s approval of the Use
Permit Design Review application; and
II. Determines that the proposed project including the construction of a mixed use development
is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15303 (c) [New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures] which provides: “A store, motel,
office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous
substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also
applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on
sites zoned for such use, if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances
where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not
environmentally sensitive.”
III. Determines that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for design review approval and makes the following findings as specified in Municipal
Code Section 15-46.040:
114
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
2
Design Review Findings
The proposed project is consistent with all the following Multi-Family and Commercial
Design Review findings stated in Municipal Code Section 15-46.040:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features
and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such features include height, elevations,
roofs, material, color and appurtenances. The mixed-use development is located in the
Village commercial district and is designed to minimize interference with views and privacy
to adjacent properties. To the north of the property the neighbors will be separated by over
150 feet of setback and Saratoga Creek which provides a natural buffer, to the south is Big
Basin Way and the intersection with Sixth Street, to the east is an attorney’s office and to the
west is a two-story townhome development separated by a fence. The setbacks meet the
requirements of the City Code. The Project proposes maintaining existing vegetation to help
screen the project along the rear adjacent property line. The structures are designed in a
similar style and with similar materials as other historic structure in the Village, especially
resembling the Sam Cloud Hay and Feed Warehouse currently under renovation on Third
Street, with horizontal shiplap siding and metal roof.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a
common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in
appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Any future signage will be required
to meet the City sign code requirements and Village Design Guidelines.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be
preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems
to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent feasible it shall be clustered
in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. The
applicant intends to leave most of the vegetation at the rear of the site untouched. At the
front of the site the applicant will leave the existing oak trees and will provide flower boxes
and shrubs along the east and west property line.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be non-
reflective. The proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural landscape and be
non-reflective. Further, the use of colors, materials and detailing add interest and articulation
to the buildings.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials such as
composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be
located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The proposed structures will use
metal roofs similar to those found on structures built at the turn of the century when Saratoga
was a logging town rather than a residential suburb. The roofs will receive a non-reflective
treatment. No mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof.
115
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
3
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with
other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project will be compatible with other
developments in the Village. The area is mostly comprised of two-story structures of
approximately the same height and bulk. While the architectural styles in the area vary, this
proposal will be compatible. It will provide a good transition from the eastern end of the
Village to the more residential uses at this eastern end. An attorney’s office is located in an
old home to the east of the subject property. The property to the west is developed with
townhomes of similar height, bulk and a contemporary craftsman design. Sixth Street makes
a T intersection directly in front of this property. The properties across the street are
developed to the west with a large condominium complex and to the east with an architect’s
office in an historic residence. Accordingly, the proposed project is compatible in height,
bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area.
IV. The proposed project supports the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval subject to
City Code 15-55.070:
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Findings
can be made in the affirmative in that a mixed-use development may be a conditionally
permitted use in the designated zoning district (CH-2). The Zoning Ordinance states that
the purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located include: “Preservation
and enhancement of the small-scale pedestrian character of the Village to make the area
more inviting to potential shoppers and diners”; “Preservation and enhancement of the
architectural and landscape quality of the Village”; and “Encouragement of a town center
mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences.” The
proposed development will preserve and enhance the pedestrian environment by
maintaining the oak trees at the front of the site and adding a seating area around them,
making the area inviting to shoppers. The architectural style of the buildings is also in
keeping with Saratoga’s history and the mix of retail office and residential uses on this
site provides a good transition from the more retail east end of the Village to the more
residential west end.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Findings
can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions have been placed on the use
permit to ensure compliance with all applicable health and safety codes. The proposed
development will not be detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to
meet all applicable building codes.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate conditions
have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with code requirements. Any
116
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
4
intensification of this use will require an amended Conditional Use permit.
(d) The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in
the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or
the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed
development will attract customers from the Village and may bring additional customers
for other businesses in the vicinity. Additionally the residential use at the rear will
provide potential customers to businesses throughout the Village. Although there are
residential uses located to the west and across the street the impact should be minimal as
the applicant is proposing parking spaces on site, which will be used by the residential
tenants during non-retail shopping hours. Further, employee access and deliveries will be
made through the front door, facing Big Basin Way.
V. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits
submitted in connection with this matter, application number 07-028 for Use Permit and Design
Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL – None
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS –
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Conditional Use Permit
and may, at any time, modify, delete, impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the
public health, safety, and welfare.
2. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on “Exhibit A” (incorporated by
reference, date stamped May 8th, 2007) and in compliance with the conditions state in this
Resolution. Any proposed changes-including but not limited to façade design and materials – to
the approved plans shall be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
3. The project shall use materials and colors as illustrated on the Finish Materials Board date
stamped May 14, 2007. The metal roof shall receive a non-reflective treatment.
4. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Reports
(see Arborist item below), as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division.
5. Two final sets of landscape plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Director and the City Arborist incorporating all recommendations from the
Arborist’s reports dated May 8, 2007, August 22, 2006, and May 9, 2006 prior to issuance of a
building permit.
117
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
5
6. The applicant shall obtain access rights to the pedestrian access easement at 14645 Big Basin
Way to the satisfaction of the City Attorney or shall provide a pedestrian access easement on
said property to access the open space easement prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The applicant shall submit a final public open space plan indicating the location of the open
space easement, access thereto, connection to any adjoining Creekside open space easements and
signage to the satisfaction of the City and a landscape and maintenance agreement for said
easements prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Any intensification of this use shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit.
9. The proposed use shall at all times operate in compliance with all regulations of the City and/or
other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the use pertaining to, but not limited to,
health, sanitation, safety, and water quality issues.
10. The applicant/owner shall save and reuse hardware and windows as practical for the new
construction subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.
11. All fireplaces shall be gas-fired with gas jets, direct venting, convection chambers, heat
exchanger, variable heat output, and flame control, and permanently affixed artificial logs.
12. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by
the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per
the approved plans.”
13. A stormwater retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating
how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and
Construction – Best Management Practices.
14. Post construction water quality mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with measures
found in the “Start at the Source – Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection”
prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association.
15. Site drainage shall be directed toward the front of the property, if possible, or be dispersed across
landscape or vegetated area and not allowed to discharge as concentrated flow to Saratoga
Creek.
16. The design of the dissipater and storm water detention pipe as shown on sheet C-1 shall follow
the guidelines found in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s C.3
Stormwater Handbook.
17. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed trash enclosure for review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
118
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
6
18. Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the proposed tenant improvements, the
owner/applicant shall submit to and obtain approval from the Community Development
Department for a business license.
ARBORIST
1. All recommendations of the Arborist Reports dated May 8, 2007, August 22, 2006, and May 9,
2006, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated into the
plans.
2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall obtain a tree bond, or similar funding
mechanism as approved by the Community Development Director, in the amount of $65,130.00.
PUBLIC WORKS
1. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical design aspects
of the detailed site development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading and design
parameters for the proposed construction) to ensure that the geotechnical recommendations
have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review(s) shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical
Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of
building permits.
2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be
limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be
described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval.
3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical
Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance.
4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any
claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or
other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
119
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
7
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire
Department.
CITY ATTORNEY
1. Owner and Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees,
agents, independent contractors and volunteers (collectively “City”) from any and all
costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense in any proceeding
brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the
applicant's project or contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or
approval of the subject application.
VI. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the
date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire.
VII. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must
be met.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga. State of California, the 18th day of
July 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force
120
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
8
or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized
Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully
conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames
approved by the City Planning Commission.
__________________________________ _________________________
Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
121
Application No. 07-028 – Appeal of Use Permit and Design Review Approval 07-055 – 14639 Big Basin Way
9
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Application No. & Location: 07/028; 14639 Big Basin Way,
Type of Application: Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Applicant/Owner: Zambetti Family Trust (owner)
Tom Sloan (Applicant)
Staff Planner: Heather Bradley, Contract Planner
Meeting Date: May 23, 2007
APN: 503-25-013 Department Head:_____________
John F. Livingstone, AICP
14639 Big Basin Way
129
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed: 07/20/06
Application complete: 04/23/07
Notice published: 05/09/07
Mailing completed: 05/04/07
Posting completed: 05/17/07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests Design Review, Use Permit and Variance approval to construct a
mixed-use development consisting of two residential apartment units in one building at
the rear of the site and a separate two–story commercial building at the front of the site.
Each apartment is a 1,250 square foot two-bedroom unit; the commercial building is
2,348 square feet (with a 974 square foot basement). The maximum building coverage is
28.8% of the site. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 26 feet. The gross
lot gross size is 17,187 square feet, and the site is zoned CH-2. The Variance application
is necessary to allow an exception to the required 20% of net lot area dedicated to
pedestrian open space coverage.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS
No permanent conditions of approval are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit applications and deny the
Variance application by adopting the attached Resolutions.
130
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: CH-2 District.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR - Retail Commercial/Village
MEASURE G: Not applicable.
PARCEL SIZE: 17,187 gross square feet, 12,412 net square feet (subtracting all land
within the high water line)
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE: 2,348 square feet (+ 572 square foot
carport)
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL SPACE: 2,499 square feet
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 17.6%.
GRADING REQUIRED: 743 cubic yards of cut
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposal is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (c) New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures: “A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of
significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor
area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial
buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not
involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary
public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not
environmentally sensitive.”
PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS
Colors include off-white walls, window and doors with wood divided lites and beige
window and door trim. Railings and handrails will be painted black. Materials include a
standing seam metal roof with a “galvalum” matte finish, exterior walls will be wood
sided “hardieplank”, windows will be aluminum framed with divided lites, doors will
also be wood framed with divided lites, railings will be 36” high painted black. Brick
planters will decorate the front setback area, and the driveway will be interlocking
pavers. A color and material board will be available at the public hearing.
131
PROJECT DATA
Proposal Code Requirements
Building Site Coverage
Impervious
Floor Area
For all structures
Parking and driveway
areas/porches/patios and
decks
TOTAL
Commercial Building:
First Floor
Second Floor
Basement
Carport
Apartment Unit 1:
First Floor
Second Floor
Apartment Unit 2:
First Floor
Second Floor
TOTAL
Proposed: 28.8%
3,078.98.0 sq. ft.
Proposed:
4891.96 sq. ft.
7,970.94 sq. ft. (64.21%)
2,348.38 sq. ft.
1,160.36 sq. ft.
1,188.02 sq. ft.
(974.22) sq. ft.
572 sq. ft.
1,249.96 sq. ft.
590.70 sq. ft.
659.26 sq. ft.
1,249.96 sq. ft.
590.70 sq. ft.
659.26 sq. ft.
5,420.08 sq. ft.
Maximum Allowable: 60% =
7,447.00 sq. ft. max.
Maximum Allowable: N/A
In commercial zones the site coverage
includes structures only and places no
limitation on impervious coverage.
7,447.20 sq. ft. (the commercial building
could take up to 60% of the total net lot size,
with a mixed use development it can take up
any combination with the residential up to
60%)
N/A
1,250.00 sq. ft. – per mixed use development
standards.
1,250.00 sq. ft. – per mixed use development
standards.
7,447.20 sq. ft.
Setbacks Minimum Proposed Minimum Requirement
For all structures
Front yard
Rear Yard
Right Side
Left Side
15.0 ft.
152.3 ft.
5.0 ft.
5.0 ft.
15 ft.
0 ft.
0 ft.
0 ft.
Height in feet Office/retail building Apartment building Maximum Allowable
I. Lowest elevation pt.
II. Highest elevation pt.
III. Average
IV. At the topmost point of the
structure
V. Maximum height
I. 516.4
II. 517.6
III. 517.0
IV. 543.0
V. 26.0
I. 506.6
II. 515.4
III. 511.0
IV. 537.0
V. 26.0
26 ft.
Pedestrian Open Space Decks:
Porches:
Creek access**:
TOTAL:
700 sq. ft.
408 sq. ft.
1,500 sq. ft.
2,608 sq. ft.
20% = 2,482 sq. ft.
Mixed Use Development Density 1 unit per 6,206 sq. ft. 1 unit per 2,178 sq. ft. (20 units per acre)
Location of units To the rear of the
commercial building
Second floor or rear of parcel
Floor area 1,250 s.f. per two
bedroom unit (50% of
total square footage on
site)
850 s.f. per one bedroom unit or 1,250 s.f.
per two-bedroom unit (50% of total square
footage on site)
** The creek access area will only be developed with a path and two benches, but staff is giving credit for an area of 25 feet from the top of bank
for the entire 60 foot length of the property because this space will be left in its natural state and the views will be enjoyed beyond the limits of the
proposed seating area.
132
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to construct a new commercial building at the front of the lot
facing Big Basin Way and two apartments at the rear of the lot. The commercial building
will consist of 1,160 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 1,188 square feet of
office space on the second floor with a bay window projecting into the roof of the front
porch. The commercial building also has a 974 square foot basement. At the rear of the
commercial building is a three-car carport and behind that is the apartment building. The
apartment building consists of two units, each with a first floor level of 591 square feet
and a second floor level of 659 square feet. The residential units each have rear patios
built over decorative brick walls.
History
The applicant initially filed an application for The Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC) and Arborist review before submitting the Use Permit and Design Review
application. This allowed them to get preliminary feedback and focus their plans before
submitting for full review.
The HPC reviewed the proposed demolition of the existing house and an historic
evaluation prepared by Archives and Architecture at their meeting of February 14, 2006.
The analysis from Archives and Architecture concluded that the structure meets one
criterion of the California Register of Historic Resources as “a rare example of worker
housing from when Saratoga evolved as a lumbering community.” However, it was not
eligible under the second criterion that the occupants had made a recognized contribution
to the history of Saratoga. The Commission did not consider the structure to be
historically significant and voted to approve the demolition. The Commission discussed
the deteriorated condition of the residence and asked the applicant to salvage what they
could of the windows and hardware and incorporate them into the design of the new
structures. The applicant has said that they plan to use some of the windows as part of
partition walls within the commercial structure and staff has added this as a condition of
project approval.
Correspondence and Neighbor Review
Staff has not received any written comments from the public as of the writing of this
report. The applicant did attempt to get letters from the neighbors, but only one was
submitted in time for distribution of this report. If staff receives more before the Public
Hearing they will be copied and distributed.
Parking and Circulation
The City of Saratoga has adopted a zoning text amendment, which relaxes all parking
requirements in the Village. This ordinance was adopted on January 18, 2006, and
became effective February 18, 2006. The new ordinance specifies that no off-street
parking shall be required for applications that are deemed complete between March 1,
2006, and February 28, 2009. However the project does propose a three-car carport with
one space dedicated as van accessible. The applicant intends to utilized these spaces for
residential parking in the evening and early morning hours and as parking for the retail
133
and office uses during normal business hours. They have asked that no restrictions or
required dedications be placed on the proposed parking. The property will not be
subdivided and will remain under one ownership.
Fencing
A six foot staggered board fence is proposed on the right and left property lines. The
fence will end at the rear of the apartments and will not continue down the hill toward the
creek.
Trash Enclosures
A trash enclosure is proposed at the rear of the commercial building and is recessed into
the building with a shed roof covering it. It will be screened from the view of the
proposed apartments by the proposed carport. Staff has included a condition in the
Resolution of Approval that the proposed design of the enclosure will be subject to
review and approval by the Community Development Director.
Geotechnical/Grading
The project has obtained geotechnical clearance with conditions that have been added to
the conditions of approval for this project. The project proposes a total cut of 743 cubic
yards, which includes; 180 cubic yards for the driveway and carport, 433 cubic yards for
the commercial building and 130 cubic yards for the apartments. The total proposed fill is
46 cubic yards, which is solely for the apartment building.
Arborist Review
The City Arborist identified eight ordinance protected trees on the property that could
potentially be impacted by the proposed construction. Of these, six are coast live oak
trees and two are California bay trees. Two coast live oak trees, identified as Trees #3
and #4 are proposed for removal. Tree #3 is a stump valued at $0. There are two oak
trees at the front of the property that will be incorporated into the public seating area and
deck. These are identified as trees #1 and #2. All other trees are located at the rear of the
property. The City Arborist has reviewed all of the plans including the current proposal
and has recommended that replacement trees equal $5,700 be incorporated into a
landscape plan subject to the review and approval of the Community Development
Director and the City Arborist.
Landscaping
Proposed landscaping consists of several brick planters located within the front yard
setback of the commercial building and landscape in planting strips along the left and
right side property lines. Staff has added a condition to the Design Review Resolution
requiring the applicant to submit a full landscape plan subject to the review and approval
of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist.
134
Open Space
Development applications in the CH-2 zoning district are required to provide 20% of the
net lot size in dedicated public open space coverage pursuant to section 15-19.050. The
applicant has provided approximately 1,108 square feet within the front yard setback area
through use of benches, decks and porch areas. They had also attempted to use the
driveway area as part of the required 20%. However staff did not support this approach
and asked that the applicant file a variance request for an exception to the pedestrian open
space requirement. Please refer to the discussion of the variance below.
The applicant has since provided a further updated plan, Exhibit “A” to provide a seating
area within the 100-year flood plain of Saratoga Creek. This is the same type of public
open space area that was provided on the adjacent property to the west at 14645 Big
Basin Way several years ago when that property was developed with two townhomes.
The applicant does not wish to add additional signage on the street or a pedestrian access
pathway, but would like to utilize the existing signage and pathway on the property next
door.
Staff has included a condition in the Resolution of Approval that the applicant must
provide the identical pedestrian open space and access thereto or establish to the
satisfaction of the City that the public does have legal rights to use the existing pedestrian
access pathway at 14645 Big Basin Way.
Staff has checked this latest plan revision including the benches and pathway with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and with the City Arborist. The SCVWD
had no comments or conditions and the Arborists conditions have been incorporated into
the attached Resolution of Approval.
Saratoga Creek
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) reviewed the proposed project.
However, because the development would be located farther than 50 feet from the top of
bank of Saratoga Creek, no permit is required from their agency. The construction
recommendations from SCVWD have been incorporated into the attached Resolution.
Green Building Techniques
The applicant has submitted a list of materials, systems, and design strategies that will be
utilized in the construction of these buildings. They include but are not limited to the
following: insulated concrete (no waste to landfills), engineered wood, recycled decking,
bamboo flooring, recycled glass; tile, counter tops and shower stalls, zero-VOC paint,
and adhesive, salvaged pervious driveway pavers, cellulose insulation, photosensitive and
LED exterior lighting, double-pane low–E windows and doors, cool roof, energy star
appliances. The project design takes advantage of the east-west orientation along its
length, the apartment units are small and will use less, the lower floors of the residences
are set into the hillside and will take advantage of passive insulation, and native and
drought tolerant landscaping will be used.
135
GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS
The approval of the proposed project would be consistent with the following General
Plan Goals and Policies as discussed below:
• Land Use Policy LU 7.1: The City shall consider the economic impacts of all
land use decisions on the City.
The project proposes to locate a new retail and office building at the front of the site with
1,160 square feet of retail on the ground floor and 1,188 square feet of office space on the
upper floor. This will help attract shoppers to this far western end of the Village area,
and with the addition of residential at the rear of the property, will help energize the
Village in the evening and weekend hours with tenants going out for shopping, a meal or
a walk through the Village. The project will further offer an economic benefit by creating
a retail space on a property where currently a there is only a single family house.
• Housing Goal 2: Encourage the construction of housing affordable to lower-and
moderate-income households and increase affordable housing options.
This proposal would provide two apartments of 1,250 square feet each. Due to their
limited size they will most likely be rented to moderate income households, possibly
“empty nesters” or young couples without children.
• Area Plan J - The Village - Guideline # 7: Encourage development of types of
establishments with structures designated to maintain a ‘country’ atmosphere. All
new structures in the Village should be designed to promote an historic area of the
City.
The architectural form of the structures, especially the commercial structure at the front
of the lot is comparable to those built at the turn of the century. The metal roof, wide
front porch with sturdy columns, and curved bay window are details that lend to this
historic feel.
• Area Plan J - The Village - Guideline # 16: Portions of the Village south and
west of Fifth Street on Big Basin Way should be of a density no greater than other
condominium projects in the Village area and should include high quality
condominiums and apartments along with small commercial shops. Existing
commercial developments should be allowed to remain.
This project proposes a small residential component of two apartments, which are
consistent with the City’s Residential Design Review Handbook in terms of bulk, mass
and height and could be considered “high quality” apartments. The retail component of
the project makes the overall proposal consistent with this guideline.
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to the conditional uses allowed in the CH-2 zoning district mixed use
developments may be allowed if they conform to the Mixed Use Development standards
136
of City Code Article 15-58.020. This project conforms to all the applicable standards in
that:
• The proposed density does not exceed 20 dwelling units per net acre.
• The dwelling units are located at the rear of the site.
• The dwelling units do not comprise more than fifty percent of the total floor area
of all buildings on the site.
• The project meets the parking requirements as discussed in further detail below.
• Proposed fencing complies with the maximum height standards.
• Each dwelling units has a private outdoor patio.
• The maximum height of the structures is 26 feet.
• The design of the residential structure is consistent with the policies and
techniques of the Residential Design Handbook.
• The project does not exceed maximum coverage requirements.
• The proposed development does not abut single-family residential land uses.
• The residential component will be rental and will not exceed 1,250 square feet or
three bedrooms.
• The proposed project does not pose substantial privacy impacts.
• The applicant will pay an in lieu fee for park construction.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
The proposed project supports the findings for Conditional Use Permit approval subject
to City Code 15-55.070:
• That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that a mixed-use
development may be a conditionally permitted use in the designated zoning
district (CH-2). The City Code encourages “Preservation and enhancement of the
small-scale pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to
potential shoppers and diners”, “Preservation and enhancement of the
architectural and landscape quality of the Village” and “ Encouragement of a
town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and
residences.” The proposed development will preserve and enhance the pedestrian
environment by maintaining the oak trees at the front of the site and adding a
seating area around them, making the area inviting to shoppers. The architectural
style of the buildings is also in keeping with Saratoga’s history and the mix of
retail office and residential uses on this site provides a good transition from the
more retail east end of the Village to the more residential west end.
• That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that appropriate
conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance with all
applicable health and safety codes. The proposed development will not be
detrimental to the public health, as it has been conditioned to meet all applicable
Building Codes.
137
• That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this chapter. Findings can be made in the affirmative in that
appropriate conditions have been placed on the use permit to ensure compliance
with code requirements. Any intensification of this use will require an amended
Conditional Use permit.
• The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses
in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding
properties or the occupants thereof. Findings can be made in the affirmative in
that the proposed development will attract customers from the Village and may
bring additional customers for other businesses in the vicinity. Additionally the
residential use at the rear will provide potential customers to businesses
throughout the Village. Although there are residential uses located to the west and
across the street the impact should be minimal as the applicant is proposing
parking spaces on site, which will be used by the residential tenants during non-
retail shopping hours. Further, employee access and deliveries will be made
through the front door, facing Big Basin Way.
DESIGN REVIEW
The proposed structures are designed in an architectural style reminiscent of an American
farmhouse with out buildings such as the proposed carport. The commercial structure at the
front of the lot is designed with a porch that wraps around the front of the building and a
portion of the sides, with sturdy columns and a port-cochere overhanging the driveway. The
roofs of all buildings are designed in a simple and uncomplicated manner. The use of a
standing seam metal roof is somewhat novel for the Village. The Sam Cloud Hay and Feed
warehouse, is of a similar architectural style and also had a metal roof. Windows are of a
double-hung style and will have a simple wood trim around them. Siding will be a
composite material designed to look like horizontal ship-lap siding and decorative brick
planters and a wood deck will highlight the front façade.
The residential building at the rear is also designed with a metal roof and horizontal ship-lap
siding, with some fixed windows and others double hung. Planter boxes hang from the
usable windows and front doors face the neighboring properties to the east and west rather
than the front of the property. Porches and balconies enhance the rear elevations and offer
the future residents views of the lush natural vegetation surrounding Saratoga Creek.
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
The proposed project supports the findings for Design Review approval subject to City
Code 15-46.040:
(a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the
architectural features and landscaping thereof shall be harmonious, Such
features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances.
138
The mixed-use development is located in the Village commercial district and is
designed to minimize interference with views and privacy to adjacent properties.
To the north of the property the neighbors will be separated by over 150 feet of
setback and Saratoga Creek which provides a natural buffer, to the south is Big
Basin Way and the intersection with Sixth Street, to the east is an attorney’s office
and to the west is a two-story townhome development separated by a fence. The
setbacks meet the requirement of the City Code. The Project proposes maintaining
existing vegetation to help screen the project along the rear adjacent property line.
The structures are designed in a similar style and with similar materials as other
historic structure in the Village, especially resembling the Sam Cloud Hay and
Feed Warehouse currently under renovation on Third Street, with horizontal
shiplap siding and metal roof. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the
affirmative.
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs
shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be
harmonious in appearance. The proposal does not include any signage. Future
signage will be required to meet the City sign code requirements and Village
Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative.
(c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to
be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and
irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and to the maximum extent
feasible it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being
placed in rows or regularly spaced. The applicant intends to leave most of the
vegetation at the rear of the site untouched. At the front of the site the applicant
will leave the existing oak trees and will provide flower boxes and shrubs along
the east and west property line. Therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the
affirmative.
(d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and
be non-reflective. The proposed colors and materials will blend with the natural
landscape and be non-reflective. Further, the use of colors, materials and detailing
add interest and articulation to the buildings. Therefore, staff is able to make this
finding in the affirmative.
(e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile or other materials
such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical
equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. The
proposed structures will use metal roofs similar to those found on structures built
at the turn of the century when Saratoga was a logging town rather than a
residential suburb. However, the applicant will propose a non-reflective treatment.
No mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof. Therefore, staff is able to make
this finding in the affirmative.
(f) The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and
design with other structures in the immediate area. The proposed project will be
compatible with other developments in the Village. The area is mostly comprised
of two-story structures of approximately the same height and bulk. While the
architectural styles vary this proposal will be compatible. It will provide a good
139
transition from the eastern end of the Village to the more residential uses at this
eastern end. An attorney’s office is located in an old home to the east of the
subject property. The property to the west is developed with townhomes of
similar height, bulk and a contemporary craftsman design. Sixth Street makes a T
intersection directly in front of this property. The properties across the street are
developed to the west with a large condominium complex and to the east with an
architect’s office in an historic residence. Staff has determined that the proposed
project is compatible in height, bulk, and design with other structures in the
immediate area and therefore, staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative.
VARIANCE
The Variance application is necessary to allow an exception to the required 20% of net
lot area to be dedicated to pedestrian open space coverage. The applicant initially
proposed to provide the 20% required open space as a combination of front deck around
the two existing oak trees, a covered porch around the commercial building and the
driveway and paved parking areas. Staff discussed this with the applicant and determined
that the City would support the use of the deck and covered porch area, but not the
driveway. At that time the applicant did not want to provide access to the creek and staff
gave them the option of filing a Variance application to the requirement that 20% of the
net site be dedicated as pedestrian open space. After the notices were published the
applicant presented staff with an alternative that did offer an area adjacent to the creek in
the 100 year flood plain as a public seating area, Plans Exhibit “A”. Staff determined that
the space provided along the creek plus the proposed deck and covered porch would meet
the 20% pedestrian open space requirement. However the applicant wanted to utilize the
existing pathway on the neighboring townhome property directly to the west at 14645
Big Basin Way, where there is already signage directing pedestrians to the public open
space that was required for that development. Staff has discussed this with the City
Attorney who has determined that the applicant would first have to establish to the
satisfaction of the City that the public has the legal right to utilize the path on the 14645
Big Basin Way property to access the Open Space Easement on adjoining property.
Since they have not done that to date, Staff included a condition within the Design
Review Resolution that the applicant must either establish the necessary access rights or
provide a pedestrian access pathway and appropriate signage for the proposed open space
on their property.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The proposed project does not support the findings for Variance approval subject to City
Code 15-70.060:
• That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified
regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. Staff is
unable make this finding in the affirmative. There is nothing specifically unique
about the property that makes the addition of pedestrian open space an undue
140
hardship. Public open space was required for the development to the west of this
property.
• That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the imitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in
the same zoning district. Staff is unable to make this finding in the affirmative.
Granting of this variance request would be a grant of special privilege in that this
is a City Code requirement that is applicable to all developments within the CH-2
zoning district.
• That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. Staff is able to make this finding in the affirmative. The granting of this
variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safely or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
Staff finds that all of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review findings can be
made in the affirmative and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. However,
staff cannot make the findings necessary for granting of the Variance and recommends
that the applicant provide proposed open space area adjacent to Saratoga Creek.
Applicant will also need to provide a pedestrian access easement to said open space or
get a determination from the City Attorney enabling the use of the existing pedestrian
access easement at 14645 Big Basin Way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that this Application is not subject to
CEQA review and approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review,
while denying the request for a Variance by adopting the attached Resolutions.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Planning Commission determines that the findings can be made to support
the Variance and approves the plans, Exhibit “A” as submitted. Staff would then
prepare a Variance Resolution for approval.
141
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution of Approval – Conditional Use Permit/Design Review
2. Resolution of Denial – Variance
3. Arborist Reports dated May 8, 2007, August 22, 2006, and May 9, 2006
4. Minutes from Heritage Preservation Commission meeting of February 14, 2006
5. Correspondence from Santa Clara Valley Water District dated November 16, 2006
and May 14, 2007
6. Neighbor Notification form
7. Tollgate Buildings- Green Building Strategies
8. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels
9. Applicant’s Plans, Exhibit "A"
142
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of May 9, 2007.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by
Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of
the regular meeting of May 9, 2007, were adopted as submitted
(6-0-0-1; Chair Hlava abstained)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
There was no oral communication.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code
54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 17, 2007.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this
Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-
90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #07-028 (503-25-013) Sloan/Zambetti Family Trust, 14639 Big
Basin Way: The applicant requests Design Review, Use Permit and Variance
approval to construct a mixed-use development consisting of two residential
apartment units in one building at the rear of the site and a separate two-story
commercial building at the front of the site. Each apartment is a 1,250 square
foot, two-bedroom unit and the commercial building is 2,348 square feet (with a
974 square foot basement). The maximum building coverage is 28.8 percent of
the site. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 26 feet. The lot gross
size is 17,187 square feet and the site is zoned CH-2. The Variance application
is necessary to allow an exception to the require 20 percent of net lot area
dedicated to pedestrian open space coverage.
Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report as follows:
• Informed that items received late are being distributed to the Commissioners
this evening. There are 18 notification letters, 15 from people on Big Basin
143
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 2
Way. Seventeen are in support of this application and one is opposing. The
person in opposition is the adjacent property owner who expresses concerns
over the size of this project, finding it to be too large in comparison to her
building as well as too close to it.
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review, Use Permit and
Variance approvals for a mixed-use development on a 17,187 square foot
property located on the east end of Big Basin Way in a CH-2 zoning district.
• Described the proposed development as consisting of two residential
apartments of 1,250 square feet each; a commercial building at the front of
the site that is 2,350 square feet with retail and office uses. Additionally,
there is a three-car carport.
• Explained that the lot coverage is 29 percent and the maximum height is 26
feet.
• Added that the project incorporates an American Farmhouse architectural
style that includes a metal roof and wood siding, windows and doors. While a
metal roof is not common in the Village, staff has determined that it will be
compatible in the proposed non-reflective finish.
• Said that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the existing
residence on the site and made the determination that the structure is not
significant. They support the demolition of said structure.
• Said that two trees would be removed from the site. One is just a stump that
has no value. The other will be replaced with a tree of equal value.
• Stated that an open space area would be established adjacent to the creek.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) reviewed this aspect of the
development and found that as this open space area is located further than
50 feet from the creek no additional permits are required from them.
• Reported that this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
• Suggested that the Planning Commission accept the proposed open space
area near the creek that would render the Variance request unnecessary.
• Recommended that the Commission grant the Design Review and Use
Permit approvals.
Commissioner Zhao asked Planner Heather Bradley to reiterate what percentage
of dedicated open space is required.
Planner Heather Bradley replied 20 percent.
Commissioner Nagpal expressed confusion since the Plan Sheet A-2 reflects this
area and still a Variance was advertised.
Planner Heather Bradley explained that staff did not have this plan sheet at the
time that the project was noticed so the Variance was included in the notice.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification from Planner Heather Bradley that
the Variance is not required now.
144
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 3
Commissioner Kundtz asked if the 20 percent of required open space must be
contiguous space.
Planner Heather Bradley replied that the 20 percent of proposed open space for
this project is not contiguous and that Code does not specify that it must be
contiguous space.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer confirmed that this interpretation of Code is
correct.
Director John Livingstone said that the Commission does have the right to look at
this proposed open space to see if it makes sense, to determine the practicality
of that open space.
Commissioner Zhao asked about an access path from Big Basin Way to this
proposed open space area.
Planner Heather Bradley advised that there is an access path that is located on
the property to the west of this property that is a dedicated path to this area.
There is signage on the sidewalk that identifies this as an access point.
Chair Hlava said that there is an access that is a big and well-maintained
stairway. There are benches in the existing open area. The open area will be
made bigger and will include more benches.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if requirements are met here.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal inquired if the metal roof would be a non-reflective, matte-
type finish.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Gene Zambetti, Applicant and Property Owner:
• Said that he and his wife own this property.
• Informed that they originally submitted an application to the City of Saratoga
in January 2006.
• Added that their project was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation
Commission as well as by three different staff planners, Historic Consultant
Leslie Dill, a geologic engineer, a civil engineer and Arborist Barrie Coate.
He said that his architect is Tom Sloan.
• Thanked staff and the City Attorney for their assistance.
145
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 4
• Added that it has been a long time since June 2005, when they first began
developing the ideas for this project.
• Pointed out that these apartments will offer housing opportunities for
professionals such as firefighters and/or teachers working in the community.
Mr. Tom Sloan, Project Architect:
• Said that this is the first true mixed-use project in Saratoga that combines
retail, office and residential uses on one site.
• Added that this could be considered a “pioneering” project that can inspire
other projects in the future.
• Opined that the Village needs an adrenaline shot right now.
• Explained that while 60 percent coverage is allowed in this zoning, they are
proposing only 28 percent coverage.
• Reminded that 20 percent lf the site consists of public open space with
common areas that are open to pedestrians.
• Added that the front yard setback counts as open space.
• Reported that the open space provided exceeds the requirement by 94
square feet.
• Assured that this is high quality and visual open space with an arbor that
welcomes people onto it. There is an interior courtyard. The gateway arbor
provides shade.
• Informed that half of the property at the back will remain undeveloped,
benches notwithstanding.
• Said that artistic paving will be incorporated.
• Advised that even though the side yard setback requirements are zero, they
are providing between five and 18-foot setbacks.
• Said that their proposed location of the driveway allows the existing sidewalk
to terminate gracefully and also preserves an oak tree.
• Stated that they used the housing to the east as inspiration and that this
project represents a village within a village with three uses on one site.
• Explained that they are calling this the “Toll Gate Project” that includes a
galvanized “cool” roof, a wraparound porch, off-white siding that respects the
surrounding buildings. The carport provides covered parking for the residents
in the evening and available customer parking during the day.
Commissioner Rodgers asked the reasoning for the choice of a metal roof.
Mr. Tom Sloan said that it is considered a “green” roof. He added that they
wanted architecture that popped and gave a little personality. He reminded that
they also provided a whole list of green features for this development.
Commissioner Rodgers asked how this is a green roof.
Mr. Tom Sloan replied that it keeps the temperatures in the house cooler during
summer and cuts down on heat gain.
146
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 5
Ms. Holly Davies, Big Basin Way:
• Explained that she owns the building next door to the east.
• Said that this proposed new building would be very different from her building.
It would be massive and located only 10 feet away from her building.
• Compared her building of 1,400 square feet to this new one that is 900
square feet larger.
• Pointed out that the City required her to relocate her driveway when she
developed her building.
• Suggested that it would be best to have this property keep its driveway where
it currently is located.
• Stated that this building would dwarf her building and thus detract from her
building.
• Said that the appearance would be more attractive if the project could be
mirror imaged to open to the east and not to the west.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Holly Davies what she prefers.
Ms. Holly Davies said that she prefers that the building sit on the west property
line and not on the east property line and that the driveway stay where it is right
now.
Chair Hlava asked Ms. Holly Davies if her building is an office.
Ms. Holly Davies replied yes. It was constructed in 1991 as a law office for her
husband.
Mr. Martin Fenster, Big Basin Way:
• Explained that he is a tenant in the law office.
• Echoed the comments of Ms. Holly Davies.
• Said that having a large building right next door would crowd and detract from
the appearance on the street. The corridor between the two properties will be
narrow.
• Added that this proposal includes lots of square footage.
• Said that he does endorse bringing more people to the Village.
• Pointed out that the site would provide only three parking spaces.
• Stated that he feels this project would look better if it were mirror imaged to
the project on the other side.
• Said that the story poles make this look like a big and massive development.
Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Martin Fenster the height of his building.
Mr. Martin Fenster replied 26 feet.
147
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 6
Commissioner Zhao pointed out that 26 feet is the same maximum height as is
proposed with this project.
Mr. Martin Fenster said that his building is smaller and has visual space on both
sides.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if it would help if the carport were more opened.
Mr. Martin Fenster said that the retail/office building at the front is what appears
massive. He added that a basement is going in here too.
Commissioner Rodgers asked for verification from Mr. Martin Fenster that the
carport is not an issue for him.
Mr. Martin Fenster said that it would be better if the large office/retail building
were to be moved to the other side of the lot.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if Mr. Martin Fenster is concerned about impacts
on his communications since there appears to be a satellite on his property.
Mr. Martin Fenster replied no, not at all.
Ms. Andrea McGhee, Big Basin Way:
• Said that she too echoes the points made by Ms. Holly Davies.
• Stated that the front building is massive and “on steroids.”
• Said that the roof should be reconstructed.
• Expressed concern over having apartments on this property.
• Pointed out that the existing public open area near the creek already draws
kids and reported that she recently saw teenagers making love in that area in
sight of her window. Activities there include drugs and more.
• Added that developing impedes on the beauty and gracefulness of the creek.
• Reiterated that this building is too massive.
• Stated her concern over the metal roof as there is no other metal roofing in
the Village and it is not fitting in this area.
Ms. Mary Boscoe, Big Basin Way:
• Stated that she was just recently made aware of this proposed development.
• Said that while there are story poles up there was no mesh netting installed.
• Advised that her property is on the other side of the Davies property.
• Added that this building will cut off mountain views and light from her
property.
• Said that she didn’t believe that this project is supposed to be so bulky.
• Expressed concern over parking, saying that there is not much available.
• Said that she does not understand why she was not made aware of this
project until so late.
148
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 7
Mr. Tom Sloan:
• Said that he has heard the word “massive” used to describe this project
several times this evening.
• Reminded that Code allows up to 65 percent in coverage of the net site while
they are covering only 25 percent of that with buildings.
• Said that the retail/office building drew its inspiration from the adjacent office
building. When completed, it will mirror the office building to the east with the
exception of dormer projections.
• Pointed out that their building has a footprint that is just 2,000 square feet
total.
• Said that they chose not to locate the building further to the west as it would
have created safety hazards in that the driveway would be situated at the
centerline of the crosswalk and would also require the cutting of an 18-inch
diameter oak tree.
• Stated that their office building would be located next door to an office
building with the same setback and building outline. He added that the upper
floor of the office has quite a bit of area with a low plate line at six feet.
• Assured that this is not a massive structure.
• Said that while he loves to work out issues when he sees one, he does not
know what he can possibly do here.
• Advised that they would like to keep the roof over the carport. He said that
exposed parking in lieu of covered parking is not a good idea.
• Reiterated that these are not massive buildings but rather are pretty small and
represent 25 percent coverage where 60 percent is allowed.
Commissioner Kumar said that flexibility on the carport might dissipate the issues
of bulk.
Mr. Gene Zambetti:
• Stressed the importance of providing covered parking for the two apartments.
• Pointed out that there is a metal roof on the Sam Cloud building.
• Agreed that there are sometimes problems occurring down by the creek.
• Reminded that a previous proposal had more square footage with
underground parking.
• Said that on November 10, 2006, a 500-foot notification letter was sent.
• Explained that an interior designer was interested in relocating from another
Village location to this new retail space.
Commissioner Cappello asked about the current driveway.
Mr. Gene Zambetti said that it on the far east side.
Commissioner Cappello asked why a tree would be threatened if the existing
driveway location were retained.
149
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 8
Mr. Gene Zambetti said that the existing driveway is 13-feet wide. It must be 16-
feet wide to meet current standards and thus would require the removal of a tree
valued at $12,000.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the carport lines up with the attorneys’ parking
lot to the back of their building.
Mr. Gene Zambetti replied yes.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the roof on The Basin is metal.
Mr. Gene Zambetti replied no, it is tarpaper made to look like metal.
Commissioner Nagpal asked how much of the 2,300 square foot commercial
building would consist of retail space.
Planner Heather Bradley said that the first floor consists of 1,160 square feet, the
second floor consists of 1,188 square feet and the basement is 974 square feet.
Commissioner Nagpal asked what percent is represented by retail space.
Planner Heather Bradley replied approximately 25 percent. The first floor is retail.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the designer who is interested in retail space in
this building would require a separate Use Permit.
Planner Heather Bradley replied that retail is permitted there without a Use
Permit.
Commissioner Zhao asked if there are windows in this new development facing
the Davies building.
Mr. Tom Sloan said the bottom left corner of the retail/office building, behind that
is the carport and behind that are the apartments.
Commissioner Zhao said that windows looking down when just 10 feet apart are
awfully close.
Mr. Tom Sloan said that the setbacks for both properties are identical at five feet.
The office building to the east is one-story at a 26-foot height. Their proposed
building is a two-story at a maximum height of 26-feet.
Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification from staff that the adjoining building
with office on the ground level would not be allowed today.
150
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 9
Planner Heather Bradley replied that is correct.
Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Tom Sloan to elaborate on the proposed non-
reflective metal roofing material.
Mr. Tom Sloan said that it has a grainy surface rather than baked on paint so that
it cuts down on the reflection.
Commissioner Cappello asked if it is included on the color board.
Mr. Tom Sloan replied yes.
Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Tom Sloan if he has an actual material sample this
evening.
Mr. Tom Sloan replied no.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Rodgers:
• Stated that she likes the concept of three separate structures. They look
more historic and in keeping with that part of the Village.
• Added that she has no problem with the covered carports to serve the
apartments in the back.
• Said that the front building needs more discussion, particularly the rooflines
that are massive and unbroken and will block light, sun and views. She said
that she has a problem with that incredible expanse and is on the fence about
it.
• Recounted that when she lived in Oregon she had two neighbors with meal
roofs. One roof looked nice and the other was awful.
• Said that perhaps a slightly darker color for the metal roof could help.
• Said that she likes the driveway where it is proposed and said that she has no
problem with two properties having back-to-back driveways on either side.
Keeping the driveway in place would create issues with the crosswalk and
result in the loss of an oak tree.
• Said that she loves the way the house has a wraparound porch that helps
create atmosphere.
• Added that she likes the fact that there is no picket fence.
• Stated that her only concern is the metal roof and its proposed light color as
well as the issue of bulk as it appears from the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Kundtz:
• Said that he has views that are consistent with Commissioner Rodgers’.
• Added that he likes the mixed-use concept and has experience with saltbox
designed architecture.
151
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 10
• Said that tampering with the roof is a trade off with the use of the building.
• Agreed that the building has excessive bulk.
Commissioner Kumar:
• Agreed that Commissioner Rodgers summarized the issues well. The single-
most issue is bulk.
• Reminded that the project is being developed at one-third of what Code
allows.
• Added that a mixed-use project is helpful and beneficial to the community.
• Concluded that he is okay with the project.
Chair Hlava:
• Said that she has issues including the driveway and the fact that the Davies
were required to move their building location.
• Said that it makes sense to have the driveway on the side where people are
living.
• Pointed out that the official policy of the Village is to encourage apartments.
• Added that these look like lovely apartments that will draw high-level tenants.
• Agreed that the 20-percent requirement for open space has been resolved.
• Stated that the project is not much bigger than the one next door and is
smaller than the condo project to the left.
• Reiterated that this site could max out at 60 percent coverage and they are
only proposing 28 percent. In fact, they are using so little of the lot.
• Stated that she does not think it will look too big, it will look fine.
• Said that she is unsure about the metal roof but that Tom Sloan has done
many buildings in Saratoga so she trusts his experience.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Advised that he could make the Design Review findings as this project fits in
very well.
• Said that he is fine with the roofing materials as long as they are non-
reflective.
• Opined that the project is not massive in any way and is compatible with
adjacent buildings.
• Stressed the importance in preserving the oak tree.
• Added that keeping the driveway in its present location would conflict with the
crosswalk if it were to remain in use and be enlarged as required.
• Said that he appreciates the comments made and feels for the concerns
raised but said that more issues would be created if the building placements
were relocated.
• Expressed support for this project.
Commissioner Zhao:
• Echoed the comments made by the other Commissioners.
152
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 11
• Pointed out that the setback requirements have been met and the driveway
as proposed is the best option in regards to safety.
• Stated that the proposed architectural style is nice and will enhance the
Village image and the other buildings in the Village.
• Advised that she is not sure about the metal roofing and what makes it more
“green” than another material. She said she would like to learn more about it.
• Said that she will support this project.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the claimed loss of views of mountains.
Commissioner Rodgers said that from the condos, as seen from Mary Boscoe’s
unit, there was a limited view of mountains.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about the suggestion from the Heritage
Preservation Commission regarding the reuse of windows and whether that
provision is included in the conditions of approval.
Planner Heather Bradley replied yes, those windows would be re-used inside of
the building.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to see more retail in the Village.
She added that the more people who live there, the more vibrant the Village
would be. She said she will support the Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review Approval and appreciates the fact that no Variance is now required.
Commissioner Rodgers reminded that the 2002 Housing Element called for
apartments in the Village rather than condominiums.
Director John Livingstone reported that the last update of the Housing Element
takes into consideration the City’s “fair share” of housing. To meet that
requirement, a mixed-use zoning designation was created that restricted the
corresponding housing units to apartments and also set limits to the size of those
apartments. This is housing that the City is required to facilitate in providing.
Commissioner Nagpal said that the roofing material is hard to envision but said
that she is willing to go with the general consensus.
Commissioner Rodgers reiterated that she had two neighbors with metal roofing;
one was a good example and the other a bad example. She said that the color
proposed here matches the materials on the attorney’s building next door.
Chair Hlava said that she wanted to advise those watching from home this
evening that a packet of letters was distributed to the Commission in support of
this project.
153
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 12
Commissioner Nagpal agreed and said that about 10 to 15 letters of support
were provided.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that Conditions 6 and 7 under
Community Development Department should be amended to begin with the
following text, “Prior to obtaining a Building permit, …”
Commissioner Rodgers added that the Chair’s name should be updated on the
resolution.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if just one resolution is required.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied correct.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by
Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted
Design Review and Use Permit Approvals (Application #07-
028) to construct a mixed-use development consisting of two
residential apartment units in one building at the rear of the
site and a separate two-story commercial building at the front
of the site on property located at 14630 Big Basin Way, with
the modification to Conditions 6 and 7, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers
and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #07-231 (APN 397-18-105) Miller/Chien, 19600 Farwell
Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new
two-story, single-family dwelling. The dwelling will consist of approximately 5,573
square feet of floor area. The existing accessory structure will remain on the
parcel. The height of the structure will not exceed the 26-foot height limitation.
The lot size is approximately 43,068 square feet and the site is located in the R-
1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval by the Planning Commission is
required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Shweta
Bhatt)
Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows:
• Explained that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the
demolition of an existing two-story residence and construction of a new two-
154
Excerpt from Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for May 23, 2007 Page 13
story residence. A volleyball court will also be modified to create a sport
court.
• Described the proposed materials as beige stucco, dormer windows, carriage
style garage door and a slate roof.
• Said that several neighbor template letters were received in support. No
additional comments have been received.
• Reported that the arborist inventoried 18 trees. All are to remain and will be
protected with fencing during construction. No landscape plan or additional
planting is being required around the sports court due to existing mature
screening landscaping.
• Said that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA and that required
Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative.
• Recommended the adoption of a resolution approving this project.
155
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: ______
PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor, City Attorney DEPT HEAD: ______
Dave Anderson
John Cherbonne
SUBJECT: Petition from Owners of Private Road at 20865 Wardell Road, Requesting
Application of the California Vehicle Code to the Private Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution applying the California Vehicle Code to the private road at 20865 Wardell Road.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At its meeting of June 20, 2007 the City Council approved issuance of encroachment permit for a
private road at 20865 Wardell Road. Based on a study and recommendation from the City’s traffic
engineer, the Council conditioned the encroachment by requiring that the private road be subject to
the California Vehicle Code in order to ensure that vehicles using the road would be required to stop
at the stop sign required by the encroachment permit. (See Resolution 07-035.) The City Clerk
subsequently received a petition from all the landowners with property served by the road,
requesting that the City make the private road subject to the Vehicle Code. (See Attachment.)
Vehicle Code section 21107.7 allows the City Council to adopt a resolution making the Vehicle
Code enforceable on a privately owned road if a majority of the roads’ owners petition for such a
resolution. Once the City Council adopts such a resolution, the Vehicle Code is enforceable on the
privately owned road, “if appropriate signs are erected at the entrance to the road of the size, shape,
and color as to be readily legible during daylight hours from a distance of 100 feet, to the effect that
the road is subject to the provisions of this code.” (Vehicle Code § 21107.7.) The attached
resolution requires that such a sign be posted. In the event the sign were to be removed in the future,
the Vehicle Code would not apply and, under the terms of the encroachment permit, the
encroachment would no longer be allowed.
The Vehicle Code requires that the City Council make two findings in order to have the code apply
to a private road: First, the City Council must find that the private road is “not generally held open
for use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.” (Vehicle Code § 21107.7.) Second, the City
Council must find that “by reason of [its] proximity to or connection with highways, the interests of
156
2
any residents residing along the road[] and the motoring public will best be served by application of
the provisions of this code to” the road. (Id.) These findings are discussed individually below.
Not Held Open for Public Use: The private road at 20865 Wardell Road is intended for use solely as
a driveway serving its owners’ residential lots, and will not be open to the public. (See Attachment.)
Thus, there is support for the required finding that the private road is “not generally held open for
use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.”
Interests of Residents and Motoring Public: The Vehicle Code defines “highway” as “a way or
place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel.” (Vehicle Code § 360.) Wardell Road is therefore a “highway.” The private road
connects to Wardell Road, and that connection creates a public interest in ensuring that the
connection does not adversely affect public safety. Applying the Vehicle Code to the Private Road
will serve the interests of the Private Road’s residents and the public by making the stop sign
required by the encroachment permit enforceable and thus helping to cure the potentially dangerous
condition. Thus, there is support for the required finding that that “by reason of [the road’s]
proximity to or connection with highways, the interests of any residents residing along the road[]
and the motoring public will best be served by application of” the Vehicle Code to the road.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Deny the petition, thus leaving the private road not subject to the Vehicle Code.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The costs associated with enforcement of the Vehicle Code on the private road will be absorbed
within the existing resources of the Sheriff’s Department.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet, and advertised the notice in the San Jose
Mercury News and the Saratoga News.
ATTACHMENT:
Petition Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21107.7.
157
1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA GRANTING A PETITION; THEREBY APPLYING THE
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE TO THE PRIVATE ROAD AT
20865 WARDELL ROAD
Lim et al.; 20865 Wardell Road
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2007, the City Engineer of the City of Saratoga granted
encroachment permit number 07-079, allowing a private road serving as a common driveway for
four residential lots to connect to the western end of Wardell Road at 20865 Wardell Road; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the encroachment permit was filed and on June 20, 2007 the City
Council, following a public hearing, denied the appeal and approved the encroachment permit
subject to conditions including a requirement that encroachment pursuant to the permit shall not be
valid unless the private road is subject to the California Vehicle Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2007, all of the owners of the planned private road at 20865 Wardell
Road submitted to the City Council a petition requesting the adoption of a resolution applying the
California Vehicle Code to the private road; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the petition at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and
present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the evidence presented in the landowner petition, staff report, and at the
hearing demonstrated that the planned privately owned road at 20865 Wardell Road is not generally
held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel; and
WHEREAS, the evidence presented in the staff report for the above-referenced
encroachment permit appeal, staff report for the public hearing held July 18, 2007, and at the hearing
demonstrated that by reason of the privately owned road’s connection with Wardell Road and the
highway system of the City of Saratoga, the interests of the road’s residents and the motoring public
will best be served by application of the provisions of the California Vehicle Code to the privately
owned road.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby:
I. Finds that the planned privately owned road at 20865 Wardell Road is not generally held
open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel; and
II. Finds that by reason of the privately owned road’s connection with Wardell Road and the
highway system of the City of Saratoga, the interests of the road’s residents and the
158
2
motoring public will best be served by application of the provisions of the California
Vehicle Code to the privately owned road; and
III. Resolves that the provisions of the California Vehicle Code shall henceforth apply to,
and be enforceable upon, the privately owned road at 20865 Wardell Road; and
IV. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 21107.7, this resolution shall be ineffective
unless appropriate signs are erected at the entrance to the privately owned road at 20865
Wardell Road of the size, shape, and color as to be readily legible during daylight hours
from a distance of 100 feet, to the effect that the road is subject to the provisions of the
Vehicle Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Saratoga. State of California, the 18th day of
July 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________ _______
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________ ___________
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
159
16
0
16
1
16
2
16
3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 Annexation 2007-1
(Carnelian Glen) Public Hearing, Approval of Engineer’s Report, and
Confirmation of Assessments for FY 07-08
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and
Assessments for FY 07-08.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the final Resolution, which requires adoption by the Council to annex the Carnelian
Glen into the City’s Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1. Once adopted, the
Resolution approves the Engineer’s Report and confirms the assessments for the upcoming fiscal
year.
In accordance with Proposition 218, passed by the voters in November of 1996, property owners
must approve their being annexed into the Landscape and Lighting District through a balloting
process. Ballots can be returned to the City Clerk until the closing of the Public Hearing tonight.
The Council can consider the Resolution only after the close of the Public Hearing and after the
tabulating of the ballots. The City shall not impose the assessment if there is a majority protest.
A majority protest exists if ballots submitted in opposition exceed the ballots submitted in favor
of the assessment.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
All of the costs associated with the administration and operation of the Landscape & Lighting
Assessment District are recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
164
The Resolution would not be adopted and the assessments would not be confirmed and the
annexation would not move forward. If this occurs, the Council will need to direct staff
accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The assessment roll will be finalized and transmitted to the County Auditor by August 10 for
placement on the upcoming tax roll.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The Resolution of Intention and Notice of Hearing have been published in a locally distributed
newspaper as prescribed by law.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Confirming Assessments.
2. Engineer’s Report.
165
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ORDERING
THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING
THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1
Annexation 2007-1
Carnelian Glen
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 1st day of November, 2006, said Council adopted its Resolution
No. 06-084, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's
Report for Fiscal Year 2007-2008" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District LLA-1, Annexation No. 1 (Carnelian Glen), pursuant to the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Assessment Engineer to prepare and file with the
Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 06-084;
and
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon
said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part
thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said
Act and said Resolution No. 06-084, including (1) plans and specification of the existing
improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the
District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and
manner required by said Act; and
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was
sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent
proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 18th day of July, 2007, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. of said day in the City
Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for
hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 2007-
2008, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; and
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published
and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and
Certificates on file with said Clerk, and that all notices and ballots required by Article XIIID,
Section 4(c) and (d) of the California Constitution, were mailed to all property owners of record
166
2
subject to the assessment at least 45 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed
assessment or increase, as evidenced by the Affidavit and Certificates on file with the City Clerk,
whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice;
and
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to or in favor of, said improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or any
zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs
thereof, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the assessments for said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and
considered by said Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows:
1. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council does
hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or
installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more
particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto.
2. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1
and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or
installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are
situate in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof
on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of
the territory included in said District and any zone thereof and the general location of said
District.
3. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the
proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof
contained in said report, be, and they hereby are, finally adopted and approved.
4. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said
improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith, contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally adopted and approved.
5. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby
order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's
Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said
improvements.
6. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district
referred to and described in said Resolution No. 06-084, and also the boundaries of any zones
therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot
or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies,
each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as
contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally approved and confirmed.
167
3
7. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of said
improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements,
and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto
contained in said report be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 be, and the same hereby
is, finally adopted and approved as a whole.
9. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the
said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as
confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the
date thereof.
10. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and
the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and
specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained
in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to
said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting
thereof held on the 18th day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
City of Saratoga
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
168
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:_________________________
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY
MANAGER:_________________________
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Upper Old Oak Way Relinquishment
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Accept report and provide direction to staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
In 2001 David House approached the City to ask that the upper end of Old Oak Way be relinquished
to him. Because Mr. House owns the properties on both sides of upper Old Oak Way, the request
was considered feasible.
As part of the relinquishment proposal Mr. House agreed to compensate the City for the roadway
improvements. Because this area of the City has many interconnecting public trails the issue was
forwarded to the Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) to
investigate any potential trail issues.
The PEBTAC determine there was an opportunity to acquire trial links which would enhance the
connectivity of the City’s trail system. Mr. House was notified of the proposal and agreed to
investigate the feasibility of trail linkages through his property as compensation for
relinquishment of the road.
Attached is a timeline of the relinquishment and trail dedication issue from its inception to date.
Currently, an Ad Hoc comprised of Council Members King and Waltonsmith are working on the
issue with Mr. House and members of the PEBTAC.
Discussion:
Relinquishment of City roadways are not a common occurrence. Usually they deal with
169
abandoned right-of-ways that were never improved but still encumber a property. The proposal
to relinquish the end of Old Oak Way is unique because it is a fully improved road with
properties both sides of the City’s right-of-way owned by the same party.
Staff considers two main issues when considering a relinquishment request: 1) how will public
and emergency access be impacted, and 2) what are the financial benefits or detriments to the
City.
1) Public and Emergency Access:
Because there are no anticipated plans or developments which would extend Old Oak Way
beyond its current limits, staff determined that for the proposed relinquishment only non-
motorized public access needed further investigation i.e. pedestrian and equestrian access.
For emergency vehicular access the fire department requested a hammer head turn around area
be built at the new terminus of the road, which Mr. House agreed to construct.
2) Financial Considerations:
If upper Old Oak Way was relinquished the City would save future costs associated with the
maintenance of the road. Annualized savings are approximately $2,800.
The capitalized worth of the improvements to be relinquished is estimated at $140,000.
Dependent on City Council direction the relinquishment funds can take the form of trail
improvements or direct compensation.
There are no identifiable financial detriments to the relinquishment.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Depends on City Council direction.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The relinquishment would not move forward at this time.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Staff will follow Council’s direction regarding relinquishment of upper Old Oak Way.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Interested parties were contacted regarding the issue.
170
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Historical Timeline.
2. Letter from PEBTAC
3. Letter from Teri Baron
4. Area Maps.
171
House Trail Easement Dedication Timeline
2001
Mr. House, through his representative, approached the City with a request to vacate
portion of Old Oak Way suggesting to dedicate an easement for trail purposes. Park and
Recreation Commission’s Trail Subcommittee reviewed the proposed trail easement
location. They recommended approval of the Old Oak Way vacation subject to dedication
and improvement of the trail easement. Proposed trail would provide trail connection
between Chiquita Way/Chadwick Court and Parker Ranch Trail System (see attached
Proposed House Trail - 2001). The trail would require construction of two bridges. Three
other property owners (Kahn, Williams, and Parker Ranch HOA) were involved in this
proposed trail connection.
The City prepared dedication documents for all four involved parties. Mr. Kahn signed
offer to dedicate a trail easement in exchange of abandonement of existing trail easement
on his property. Representatives of Parker Ranch HOA signed offer to dedicate a trail
easement connecting existing trail with the boundary of Mr. House’s property. Williams’
and House’s offer remained unsigned. (Williams’ dedication was not critical to the
proposed trail connection.)
2002
Mr. House continued to work on the street vacation. Vacation documents were prepared
by his engineer and reviewed by the City Surveyor.
2003
After several revisions, the street vacation documents were deemed correct by the City
Surveyor. In addition, street dedication documents for required fire truck turnaround at
the proposed end of public portion of Old Oak Way were prepared and approved by the
City staff.
Design reviews for two new homes and quarry restoration on House’s property were
approved.
2004
Mr. House, his contractor, and the City representatives walked the proposed trail as
shown on the attached Proposed House Trail - 2001. Two trail modifications were
suggested by Mr. House to help lower the cost of the trail construction. Both
modifications required neighbor’s participation – trail easement relocation from Kahn
and trail easement dedication from another owner, not yet involved in the project. The
modified trail location would avoid construction of one of the bridges.
In addition, during the same site visit the group also walked existing damaged trail in
Parker Ranch and discussed the repair option. Shortly after the walk, Mr. House’s
contractor Don Hays submitted to the City the cost estimate for the repair of Parker
Ranch washed-out trail section.
Horse stable in the quarry area is approved by the City.
172
2005
Mr. House, Trail Committee members and City staff conducted another site visit. The
Committee members support trail modifications as determined last fall to lower the trail
construction cost. Both neighbors, whose participation was needed, were contacted; none
of them were willing to donate/relocate the easement. Two bridges remained on the
agenda.
2006
Mr. House proposed entirely different location for the trail connection between Garrod
Road and Parker Ranch trail system. This new version of the trail consists of two sections
and is located on properties owned by House and Garrod (see attached Proposed House
Trail - 2007).
2007
Dave House, Jan Garrod, Trail Commissioners and City staff walked the new proposed
trail. General location appeared to be satisfactory to all, details need to be finalized. Dan
Hays provided cost estimate for construction of both trail sections. The cost of
construction of both proposed trail segments and repair of eroded section of Parker Ranch
trail is within the value of the portion of Old Oak Way to be vacated.
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Parker Ranch Bicycle Trail Abatement Options
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Accept report and provide direction to staff.
2. Move to adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Several years ago Parker Ranch residents informed the City that bicycle riders were using and
damaging City trails in Parker Ranch. Sheriff patrols in the area and “No Bikes” signs appreared
to resolve the problem at that time.
Earlier this year Parker Ranch residents concerned that illegal trail use was once again occurring
within the Parker Ranch open space area contacted the City. City staff discovered a separate
bicycle trail upslope of the dedicated City trail that was constructed with numerous switch-backs
and structures (see Attachment 1 - Area Map). The earthwork performed during the bicycle trail
construction exposed and damaged tree roots and likely caused recent pavement cracking on
Picea Court. Bicycles are not allowed on any City trail within Parker Ranch.
The illegal bicycle trail has been constructed in a dedicated open space easement. Per the
approved open space agreement, no structures or other improvements are allowed in this
easement. Existing pedestrian and equestrian trail is constructed in an easement dedicated for
this purpose within the open space easement.
Pedestrian, Equestrian and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) members walked the
illegal bicycle trail and came up with recommendations how to deal with the situation. Attached
is their Memorandum dated June 17, 2007 (Attachment 2). Following are City staff cost
estimates for each suggested action. In addition, attached is a letter from Parker Ranch resident
Mr. Ajit Goel including pictures documenting the current condition of the bicycle trail
(Attachment 3).
180
Cost estimates for options recommended by PEBTAC:
1. Remove all structures: $1,000
2. Destroy strategic switchbacks, e.g. at top, middle and bottom of the trail, and maybe those
close to intersections with the pedestrian trail: $75,000 due to terrain constrains
3. Repair areas where roots are exposed and trees are damaged: $8,000
4. Ask Sheriff to patrol for a finite period of time: between $50 and $83 per hour (three hours
minimum)
5. After time period is over, ask Homeowners Association to take over cost of extra patrols: no
additional cost to the City
6. Repair and develop existing pedestrian trail to encourage more pedestrians to use the trail
and be watchdogs: $15,000 additional to current CIP allocation
7. Block confusing side trails with simple signs “closed for restoration”: in-house
8. The Trails Committee would like to hold a planned hike in this area to further encourage
pedestrian use: no additional cost to the City
9. Review trail signage – more restrictive, more signs: $2,500 for City Attorney review
10. Review on-street parking: in-house
Additional options recommended by City staff:
11. Temporary construction fencing at start, end and intersection areas of illegal bicycle trail:
$760 monthly rental charge
12. City ordinance revision to ban bicycles and motorized vehicles from the public trails: $2,500
for City Attorney
One of the recommended actions listed in PEBTAC Memorandum is to review on-street parking
(item No. 10). Restricting parking on Parker Ranch Road near the intersection of Prospect Road will
discourage bikers who often carry bicycles on their vehicles to the area. In addition, this section of
the road is very narrow and is narrowed further when cars park on either side of the road. Parking in
this area interferes with the site distance and safety of the intersection of Prospect Road, Parker
Ranch Road, and Parker Ranch Court. Attached is a Motor Vehicle Resolution restricting parking
along Parker Ranch Road. In order to enforce the new “No Parking” restriction, it is necessary that
the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council (see Attachments 4 and 5).
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Depends on City Council directions.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
MV Resolution will not be signed and parking restriction will not be imposed on Parker Ranch
Road.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
181
City Council may direct staff to prepare additional options.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Staff will follow Council’s direction regarding the chosen option(s).
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Memorandum prepared by the Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory
Committee
3. Letter from Mr. Ajit Goel.
4. MV Resolution
5. Site Map for the MV Resolution
182
183
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee
Date: June 17, 2007
Re: Illegal Bicycle Trail at Parker Ranch
Committee Report:
It has come to our attention that an illegal bike trail that is quite intricately
constructed has been created in the open space area in Parker Ranch, adjacent
to our existing pedestrian and equestrian trail. There are intense switchbacks,
structures to ride over and drainage pipes put in place. The City does not have a
trail easement in this particular location. Bikes are not permitted. Residents have
complained. The bike trail endangers life and limb, destabilizes the slope and
damages trees. Several trees have had their roots completely exposed by the
digging of the switchbacks. The Trails Committee along with staff has come up
with several suggestions for dealing with this situation in a cost effective manner:
1. Remove all structures
2. Destroy strategic switchbacks, e.g. at top, middle and bottom of the trail, and
maybe those close to intersections with the pedestrian trail
3. Repair areas where roots are exposed and trees are damaged
4. Ask Sheriff to patrol for a finite period of time
5. After time period is over, ask Homeowners Association to take over cost of
extra patrols (landscape and lighting)
6. Repair and develop existing pedestrian trail to encourage more pedestrians to
use the trail and be watchdogs
7. Block confusing side trails with simple signs “closed for restoration”
8. The Trails Committee would like to hold a planned hike in this area to further
encourage pedestrian use
9. Review trail signage – more restrictive, more signs
10. Review on-street parking
In general we think our money is better spent on construction and improvement
of the pedestrian and equestrian trail and spending as little as possible on
destruction. We absolutely need to protect the integrity of the slope and existing
trees. This will take periodic enforcement events.
Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee
184
From: Goel, Ajit
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:05 PM
To: 'Denise Goldberg'
Cc: 'sgardner.saratoga@sbcglobal.net'; 'g.viale@comcast.net'; Rani Goel;
'sunita_gupta@hotmail.com'; 'jcherbone@saratoga.ca.us'
Subject: Parker Ranch bike trail damage, part 1 of 6
Denise:
Thank you for the opportunity on June 19, 2007 to address the members of the Pedestrian,
Equestrian and Bicycle Trails Committee regarding my concerns as a resident of Parker Ranch in
the city of Saratoga. I believe I speak for many homeowners in Parker Ranch that are enduring
the damage being done to our beautiful area in many different ways by the swarm of local
bicyclists.
As you are aware, there is a trail next to my home for pedestrians (hikers) and once a year horse
riders. This trail connects Parker Ranch Rd to Picea Court near the green water tank at the top.
Over the years, the City has unsuccessfully tried to keep the bikers out and they keep coming
back with great enthusiasm and in larger numbers every year. We will call this trail # 1. The
enforcement (posting deputies for a few hours and infrequently at one end or both) has been
feeble without any arrests or fines for the bikers. And the bikers know it and continue to ignore all
posted signs and regulations.
I own the large parcel of open land (at the intersection of Prospect Rd., Parker Ranch Rd., and
Parker Ranch Court Rd.) next to trail #1. Over the last month or two the bikers have carved out a
second trail (illegal) on my private property. The work has been done in the cover of darkness.
This trail # 2 eventually joins trail #1, Many plants, trees and branches have been cut and
removed to make trail #2. A recent sign placed by the City at the entrance to trail #2 informing
bikers not to use the trail was gone within 2-3 days. Most recently, during the week of June 18th,
the bikers have taken to cutting plants and removing brush at the entrance to trail #1 at the
Parker Ranch Court Rd. entrance to make it wider and to avoid the obstacles installed by the city
to discourage bikers from using this trail. There is a “no bike” sign there indicating that bikes are
not allowed. Clearly, it is ignored by the bikers with impunity. This entrance to the trail is right
next to my driveway and the butchering of plants and bushes under the cover of the darkness has
now become a matter of safety and poses serious danger to my home and family. Gloves and
foil containers with wipes that prevent poison oak and ivy have been found in the location. It was
a well thought out and planned operation.
The trail covers a large open territory behind my home and along the backs of several homes on
Star Ridge Court. This is hillside area. The bikers have systematically ravaged the hillside,
removing soil, cutting trees, branches, and removing bushes and plants. Much of this now poses
great fire danger as dry fuel along the trail. This has been done to construct very elaborate
system of multi level tracks (think Luge –like extensive curved tracks) on the trail with
switchbacks, wooden ramps of many sizes and shapes to practice their bike tricks. The scale
and enormity of the tracks is shocking in scope and breadth and quite unbelievable. Trash is
ever present in the form of plastic bottles, wrappers, napkins and tissues etc. I am continuously
picking up this trash on the trail. Serious environmental damage and erosion are the unintended
consequences. During the winter months the erosion is extensive as the dirt flows into the creek
nearby. Several photographs are attached. The photos are being sent in several emails to keep
the file size manageable for recipients of this email.
Much of this area is supposed to be scenic easements that are for the enjoyment of the residents
and hikers. The bikers have taken that away by monopolizing the trail. It is only a matter of time
before someone gets seriously hurt and lawsuits are filed. If left as is, we can be sure that the
word is going to spread in the biking community and more and more bikers are going to be
185
attracted to Parker Ranch bike trail to ride these tracks. We, as residents along the trail, have to
put up with the biker’s screams, foul and obscene language and the noise when we are out on
our decks or in our backyards. Some drastic action is necessary to send the bikers a message. I
would urge the city to strongly consider quickly destroying the entire system of tracks,
switchbacks and the ramps on the trail and restoring the land to its natural state. To seriously
discourage bikers, I would be in favor of installing some fencing at all entrances of the trail so that
only hikers on foot can get in. This would be an unmistakable sign of reversing the physical and
environmental damage.
On my open land, bikers park their cars and trucks and leave trash behind. I am forced to
consider fencing the whole area to keep the intruders out.
Please feel free to share this message with others on your committee and with other members of
the city government. Please discuss this at your next meeting on July 17th and advise what
actions are planned by the City. We need some swift actions please.
Ajit Goel
12467 Parker Ranch Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
408-867-9338 home
408-373-7179 cell
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON PARKER RANCH ROAD
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following parking restrictions
shall be designated on Prospect Road:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION
Parker Ranch Road No Parking along Parker Ranch No Parking Anytime
Road starting at the south west corner
of the intersection at Prospect Road
and continuing east on Parker Ranch
for 250 feet. Same restriction on the
opposite side of Parker Ranch Road
starting at north west corner of the
intersection at Prospect Road and
continuing east on Parker Ranch for
250 feet.
This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of July, 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
193
Parker Ranch Parki ng Restriction
N
P
arker
Parker Ranch
0 50 100 150 20025Feet
Prospect Road
Requested Parking Restriction
Road
R
a
n
c
h
Road
194
195
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor,
Interim Recreation
Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Use Policy and Fee Schedule for Reserved Use of Blaney
Plaza
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Staff recommends that Council consider establishing a use policy and fee schedule for reserved
use of Blaney Plaza and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Blaney Plaza
Blaney Plaza is a 9,000 square foot (approximate total) triangular median at the intersection of
Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Highway 9 (Big Basin Way) entering
Downtown Saratoga. The site of a Memorial Arch, “holiday tree,” and flagpole, the Plaza is used
for many City ceremonies. The Memorial Arch splits the Plaza into two areas; the upper section
being about 1,500 square feet, the lower approximately 2,500 square feet. The rest of the area is
landscaped, dominated by 3 large trees, an oak and two stone pines. The Plaza was renovated in
2006, following the installation of the Memorial Arch, which was moved from the Fire Station
across the street about three years prior. All landscaping and irrigation was replaced, and the
hardscape areas were either replaced or repaired. The upper section has 3 benches, 3 chess tables
(2 chairs each) and a bike rack, and the lower section has 1 bench, 4 chess tables and a drinking
fountain. All of these amenities were newly installed during the 2006 renovation project.
The Plaza is an open public space used for casual recreation, small group gatherings, as a general
meeting place, and for the previously mentioned City functions. When City functions occur, the
side street (outside Starbucks) is closed off to vehicles, allowing for easier access and overflow
of people into the street. This street closure makes it possible to hold larger City functions at the
Plaza.
The City of Saratoga adopted a resolution establishing rules and regulations for hanging banners
in Blaney Plaza in June 1983. The policy was refined in May of 1985. The policy was updated in
196
June 1990 and revised in July 2005. The Recreation Department manages the banner program by
scheduling the plaza, collecting the fee, and hanging banners approximately 32 weeks per year.
Blaney Plaza is currently not available for reserved exclusive use by the public. It has been
suggested that the Plaza be designated as an area that could be made available for reservation
with a rental fee established for exclusive use.
A concern of designating the Plaza as available for group rental is the limited space at the site
and vehicular traffic distractions, making it a difficult place to hold a permitted function by
outside groups without street closures. Depending upon the intended use of the space by a rental
group, additional use permits may be required.
The City has established policies and procedures for the rental of other public facilities. Rooms
at the Community Center, large and small picnic areas, volleyball courts, etc. at the City parks
are available to rent. Perhaps the most comparable facility presently available is the Wildwood
Park stage. A use policy and fee of $45 per day for residents ($55 per day for non-residents) is
currently in place for the stage.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Minimal revenues may potentially be realized through a fee charged for reservation for exclusive
use of Blaney Plaza.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council does not approve a use policy and fee schedule, the use of Blaney Plaza will continue
as a public place without the option of reserved exclusive use.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
If approved, staff will return to Council with a resolution and use policy for accepting
reservations and collect fees for the exclusive use of Blaney Plaza.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
2 of 2
197
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor,
Interim Recreation
Director
SUBJECT: Update of the Blaney Plaza Banner Policy and Consideration of Expanding the
Banner Policy to Include North Campus
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Staffs recommends that Council update the existing Blaney Plaza Banner Policy and consider
expanding the banner policy to include North Campus.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Blaney Plaza
The City of Saratoga adopted a resolution establishing rules and regulations for hanging banners
in Blaney Plaza in June 1983. The policy was refined in May of 1985. The policy was updated in
June 1990 and revised in July 2005. Changes to the rules and regulations must be approved by
the City Council. The City currently offers the site for hanging public announcement, non-profit
event banners for a fee of $300 per week. The Recreation Department manages the banner
program by scheduling the plaza, collecting the fee, and hanging banners approximately 32
weeks per year.
Current policy (Attachment A) requires organizations to deliver and pick up their banners at the
City’s Maintenance Corporation Yard Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 3:30pm. With the “off
Fridays” and the 3:30pm closure, this has not been convenient for community groups. Staff
recommends revising the existing policy to allow banners to be handled by the Recreation
Department at the Community Center. The Community Center is open more hours, is not closed
on Fridays, and is therefore more accessible to the public.
The existing policy also states “Non-Profit Organizations advertising Saratoga-based community
events or organizations advertising Saratoga-based non-profit events may hang banners in
Blaney Plaza.” Currently, organizations from Los Gatos, San Jose, Los Altos, and Palo Alto are
renting banner space. Most of the events being advertised are Saratoga “community” activities
but not necessarily Saratoga-based. Staff is recommending a revision that creates clearer
198
language and establishes a priority for Saratoga-based organizations and events but allows non-
Saratoga-based events to be included in the schedule when dates are available. A proposed
banner policy is attached to this report as Attachment B.
North Campus
Staff recently received requests for banners to be placed at North Campus for two recycling
events held at the facility. Without a formal policy, staff permitted the hanging of the banners on
a temporary basis across two trees on the site.
With the improvements to the North Campus and the anticipated increase in scheduled activities
at the facility, additional exposure is expected to be drawn to the campus. The North Campus site
may be a favorable location for placement of a banner to allow public announcement of events,
similar to the Blaney Plaza Banner program.
Staff recommends that if a formal policy is adopted, the policy match that of the proposed
updated Blaney Plaza Banner program (Attachment B) and that Council direct staff to determine
an acceptable location at North Campus to hang the banners.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There is no fiscal impact of the proposed change in the banner policy. Minimal revenues may
potentially be realized through the addition of the North Campus site to the Banner Policy.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council does not approve an update of the Banner Policy, internal inefficiencies will continue.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
If the banner policy amendments are approved, staff will revise practices and procedures for
hanging banners at Blaney Plaza and, if approved, add North Campus to the updated policy.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Current Blaney Plaza Banner Policy
B – Proposed Banner Policy
2 of 2
199
ATTACHMENT A
City of Saratoga
Blaney Plaza Banner Policy
1. Non-Profit Organizations advertising Saratoga-based community events or
organizations advertising Saratoga-based non-profit events may hang banners in
Blaney Plaza. Groups may be asked to show proof of non-profit status.
2. In June of each year, community groups will be asked to submit their requests for
preferred dates from July 1st to June 30th to hang a banner at Blaney Plaza. The
City will consider all requests and finalize the schedule for the coming fiscal year.
Dates open after the calendar is established can be filled throughout the year.
3. Requests will be given the following priority: 1) City of Saratoga sponsored
activities, 2) groups who’ve previously hung banners, and 3) new groups.
4. Groups may be allowed the use of Blaney Plaza no more than two (2) times in a
twelve-month period.
5. A banner may be hung seven (7) days per usage, from Monday through
Monday. If there are no other requests, the seven-day time period may be
extended to a maximum of fourteen (14) days.
6. All banners will be handled by the City’s Maintenance Department. Banners
must be submitted to the City’s Maintenance Corporation Yard (19700 Allendale
Ave., (408) 868-1245, Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.) at least one
week in advance of the allotted time.
7. Groups will be charged fee of $300 per week. Please make checks payable to the
City of Saratoga. Checks are due when the schedule request is confirmed.
8. Banners must be claimed within five (5) working days from the date of its
removal. Please claim banners at the City’s Maintenance Corporation Yard.
Banners not claimed may be disposed of at the discretion of the Maintenance
Department.
200
ATTACHMENT A
9. To ensure that your banners be highly effective and properly placed at Blaney
Plaza, the following standards must be met:
a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty-five (25) feet long. If
properly prepared, banners up to forty-five (45) feet in length may be
allowed.
b) Banners must be made from a heavy-duty canvas or awning type of
material.
c) One-half (1/2) inch inside diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all
four corners of the banner. Rope should be sewn at the top and bottom of
the banner with a loop at the end on all four corners.
d) One-half (1/2) inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at
least every thirty-two (32) inches along the tope edge of the banner.
e) Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five (5) feet of
length in order to avoid tearing or ripping. Depending on the type and
weight of banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to
avoid tearing and/or ripping.
10. The City of Saratoga assumes no responsibility or liability for banners, theft,
damage or injury that may result from the placement of banners at Blaney Plaza.
11. The City of Saratoga will be exempt from the fee requirement and the limitation
of time per year.
Adopted by Saratoga City Council: June 20, 1990
Revised: July 1, 2005
201
ATTACHMENT B – Proposed Updated
City of Saratoga
Blaney Plaza Banner Policy
1. Non-Profit Organizations advertising Saratoga-based community events or
organizations advertising Saratoga-based non-profit events may hang banners in
Blaney Plaza and at North Campus. Groups may be asked to show proof of non-
profit or Saratoga residency status.
2. In June of each year, community groups will be asked to submit their requests for
preferred dates from July 1st to June 30th to hang a banner at Blaney Plaza and /
or North Campus. The City will consider all requests and finalize the schedule
for the coming fiscal year. Dates open after the calendar is established can be
filled throughout the year.
3. Requests will be given the following priority: 1) City of Saratoga sponsored
activities, 2) groups who’ve previously hung banners, 3) Saratoga-based non-
profit organizations or events, and 4) new groups.
4. Groups may be allowed the use of Blaney Plaza no more than two (2) times in a
twelve-month period.
5. A banner may be hung seven (7) days per usage, from Monday through
Monday. If there are no other requests, the seven-day time period may be
extended to a maximum of fourteen (14) days.
6. All banners will be handled by the City’s Recreation Department. Banners must
be submitted to the Community Center (19655 Allendale Avenue, (408) 868-
1249, Monday-Friday from 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.) at least one week in advance
of the allotted time.
7. Groups will be charged fee of $300 per week. Please make checks payable to the
City of Saratoga. Checks are due when the schedule request is confirmed.
8. Banners must be claimed within five (5) working days from the date of its
removal. Please claim banners at the Community Center. Banners not claimed
202
ATTACHMENT B – Proposed Updated
within five (5) working days may be disposed of at the discretion of the
Recreation Department.
9. To ensure that your banners be highly effective and properly placed at Blaney
Plaza, the following standards must be met:
a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty-five (25) feet long. If
properly prepared, banners up to forty-five (45) feet in length may be
allowed.
b) Banners must be made from a heavy-duty canvas or awning type of
material.
c) One-half (1/2) inch inside diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all
four corners of the banner. Rope should be sewn at the top and bottom of
the banner with a loop at the end on all four corners.
d) One-half (1/2) inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at
least every thirty-two (32) inches along the tope edge of the banner.
e) Half moon air holes must be cut into the banner every five (5) feet of
length in order to avoid tearing or ripping. Depending on the type and
weight of banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to
avoid tearing and/or ripping.
10. The City of Saratoga assumes no responsibility or liability for banners, theft,
damage or injury that may result from the placement of banners at Blaney Plaza.
11. The City of Saratoga will be exempt from the fee requirement and the limitation
of time per year.
Adopted by Saratoga City Council: June 20, 1990
203
ATTACHMENT B – Proposed Updated
Revised: July 18, 2007
204
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE July 18, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor,
Interim Recreation
Director
SUBJECT: Master Fee Schedule Update for the North Campus Administration Building
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Staff recommends that Council update the fee schedule for the North Campus Administration
Building Main Room rental to $100 per hour and the Conference Room rental to $40 per hour.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The North Campus Administration building was made available for rentals in September 2002
until the facility was closed for renovation in January 2007. Rental charges during that term were
$40 per hour with the established 10% discount for Saratoga residents or 50% discount for non-
profit organizations. There were a total of 856 uses of the facility (55 months of use with an
average of about 16 uses per month) that produced a total of $37,939 in revenues (average of
$690 per month).
Renovation of the building was completed on May 24, 2007. The newly remodeled main room
has a capacity of up to 80 people for parties, meetings, receptions, etc. Staff conducted a
comparative survey of fees (Attachment A) for sixteen comparable facilities. The average
security/cleaning deposit was $415, compared to Saratoga’s $300 deposit. The average hourly
rental rate for a small room that accommodates less than 50 people was $136. The average fee
for larger rooms for 80 people or more was $180 per hour. Due to the size of the rooms in
comparison with other facilities available to rent from the Recreation Department and the
comparative survey of fees, staff is proposing that a $100 per hour rental fee for the main room
and a $40 per hour rental fee for the conference room per the Facility Use Policy (Attachment B)
with the previously approved $300 security deposit and $25 processing fee.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
North Campus rentals are anticipated to produce progressively higher revenues with
approximately $8,000 expected (currently budgeted) in fiscal 2007-08.
205
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council does not approve a new fee schedule for the North Campus Administration Building,
no reservations will be accepted for rental use and the budget will need to be adjusted
accordingly. If the rental fee is not adopted, additional recreational programming may be
scheduled as an alternative to reserved use.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may choose to establish alternative fees other than those identified.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
If the fee proposal is approved, staff will immediately begin accepting reservations and collect
fees for the exclusive use of North Campus Administration Building rooms.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – North Campus Fee Proposal Comparison table
B – Facility Use Policy
2 of 2
206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
m
p
u
s
F
e
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
Ci
t
y
/
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ro
o
m
Sq
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
De
p
o
s
i
t
Ho
u
r
l
y
Fe
e
s
Comments
Ca
m
p
b
e
l
l
Ro
o
s
e
v
e
l
t
Ro
o
m
wi
t
h
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
12
5
ba
n
q
u
e
t
20
0
th
e
a
t
e
r
$3
0
0
$8
5
•
N
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
•
S
e
t
-
u
p
t
i
m
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
5
0
%
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
•
E
v
e
n
t
s
o
v
e
r
4
h
o
u
r
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
ov
e
r
1
2
5
w
i
t
h
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$3
7
/
h
o
u
r
f
o
r
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
P
o
l
i
c
e
se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ca
m
p
b
e
l
l
Bo
a
r
d
Ro
o
m
Un
k
n
o
w
n
29
$3
0
0
$4
5
•
N
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
•
S
e
t
-
u
p
t
i
m
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
5
0
%
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
•
E
v
e
n
t
s
o
v
e
r
4
h
o
u
r
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
ov
e
r
1
2
5
w
i
t
h
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$3
7
/
h
o
u
r
f
o
r
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
P
o
l
i
c
e
se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Ca
m
p
b
e
l
l
Or
c
h
a
r
d
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
Ro
o
m
wi
t
h
Ki
t
c
h
e
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
30
0
ba
n
q
u
e
t
40
0
th
e
a
t
r
e
$3
0
0
$1
1
0
•
N
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
•
S
e
t
-
u
p
t
i
m
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
5
0
%
d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
•
E
v
e
n
t
s
o
v
e
r
4
h
o
u
r
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
ov
e
r
1
2
5
w
i
t
h
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
c
h
a
r
g
e
$3
7
/
h
o
u
r
f
o
r
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
P
o
l
i
c
e
se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
So
c
i
a
l
Ro
o
m
Qu
i
n
l
a
n
Ce
n
t
e
r
Un
k
n
o
w
n
80
ba
n
q
u
e
t
$7
5
0
$9
0
• R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
n
l
y
•
$
2
5
/
h
o
u
r
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
h
a
r
g
e
f
o
r
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
•
S
t
a
f
f
s
e
t
-
u
p
a
n
d
t
e
a
r
-
d
o
w
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
ho
u
r
l
y
f
e
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ha
l
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
15
0
ba
n
q
u
e
t
17
0
th
e
a
t
r
e
$7
5
0
$2
3
0
• R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
n
l
y
•
$
2
5
/
h
o
u
r
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
c
h
a
r
g
e
f
o
r
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
•
S
t
a
f
f
s
e
t
-
u
p
a
n
d
t
e
a
r
-
d
o
w
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
h
o
u
r
l
y
f
e
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
C
l
u
b
Cl
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
12
5
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
u
n
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
s
e
t
-
u
p
t
i
m
e
(
o
n
e
ev
e
n
t
p
e
r
d
a
y
)
Ha
k
o
n
e
Co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Si
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$6
0
0
$3
5
0
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
2
.
5
h
o
u
r
s
s
e
t
-
u
p
a
n
d
c
l
e
a
n
-
u
p
ti
m
e
Ha
k
o
n
e
Ou
t
d
o
o
r
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$6
0
0
$5
5
0
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
2
.
5
h
o
u
r
s
s
e
t
-
u
p
a
n
d
c
l
e
a
n
-
u
p
ti
m
e
Lo
s
A
l
t
o
s
MP
R
o
o
m
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$5
0
0
$2
1
8
•
20
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
m
p
u
s
F
e
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
T
a
b
l
e
Mo
n
t
a
l
v
o
*
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$1
,
4
0
0
•
4
h
o
u
r
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
Mo
n
t
a
l
v
o
*
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$2
,
4
5
0
•
4
h
o
u
r
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Se
n
i
o
r
Mu
l
t
i
-
pu
r
p
o
s
e
Ro
o
m
32
’
x
5
0
’
27
5
st
a
n
d
i
n
g
13
0
se
a
t
e
d
$3
0
0
$1
0
0
•
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
2
5
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
f
e
e
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
Mu
l
t
i
-
pu
r
p
o
s
e
Ro
o
m
St
a
g
e
1
6
’
x
2
9
’
MP
R
o
o
m
51
’
x
5
4
’
40
0
st
a
n
d
i
n
g
19
0
se
a
t
e
d
$3
0
0
$1
1
5
•
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
2
5
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
f
e
e
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Pa
t
i
o
Ro
o
m
50
$3
0
0
$5
5
•
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
$
2
5
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
f
e
e
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Ro
o
m
46
4
s
q
.
f
t
16
$5
0
0
w/
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
$3
5
0
w
/
o
$7
5
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
l
a
s
t
h
o
u
r
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Bo
a
r
d
Ro
o
m
64
0
s
q
.
f
t
25
$5
0
0
w/
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
$3
5
0
w
/
o
$7
5
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
l
a
s
t
h
o
u
r
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ro
o
m
16
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
80
$5
0
0
w/
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
$3
5
0
w
/
o
$1
0
0
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
l
a
s
t
h
o
u
r
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ba
l
l
r
o
o
m
35
4
8
s
q
.
f
t
25
0
$5
0
0
w/
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
$3
5
0
w
/
o
$2
0
0
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
f
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
l
a
s
t
h
o
u
r
•
*
F
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
l
y
-
n
o
t
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
/
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
=
$
4
1
5
Av
e
r
a
g
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
“
s
m
a
l
l
r
o
o
m
”
h
o
u
r
l
y
r
e
n
t
a
l
r
a
t
e
=
$
1
8
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
“
l
a
r
g
e
r
o
o
m
”
h
o
u
r
l
y
r
e
n
t
a
l
r
a
t
e
=
$
1
3
6
20
8
RESERVATIONS
•
•
•
•
PROCESSING FEE & SECURITY DEPOSIT
•
•
•
•
•
Facility Use Policy
209
CANCELLATION POLICY
•
•
NON-PROFIT GROUPS
•
•
•
•
SET UP & CLEAN UP
•
•
•
•
USE OF ALCOHOL
•
•
•
210
ROOM CAPACITIES
GENERAL REGULATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
211
Saratoga Facility Rental Fees
Processing Fee
The non-refundable Processing Fee of $25.00 is to be paid at the time the Reservation
form is completed.
Security Deposit
The refundable Security Deposit of $300.00 is to be paid at the time the Reservation form
is completed.
Rental Fees
The Rental Fees are to be paid 30 days in advance of event.
COMMUNITY CENTER
Multipurpose Rm w/kitchen $115/Hr
Senior Center Rm w/kitchen $100/Hr
Patio Rm $55/Hr
Dance Studio $50/Hr
Arts & Craft Rm $50/Hr
Garden Patio $225/Day*
*Available only when renting a room w/kitchen.
WARNER HUTTON HOUSE
House $80/Hr
Garden $80/Hr
House & Garden $115/Hr
AVAILABLE DISCOUNTS
Saratoga Residents 10% of Rental Fee
Non-Profit Organizations 50% of Rental Fee
212