HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda Packet 2007-09-19
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
OPEN SESSION – 5: 30 P.M. – COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
5:30 p.m. Mike Bellissimo Traffic Safety Commission
5:40 p.m. Rose Marie Dippel Heritage Preservation Commission
5:50 p.m. Hong Tai Heritage Preservation Commission
OPEN MEETING – 6:00 P.M. – ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
Joint meeting with Saratoga Union Elementary School District
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
September 14, 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.
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
Report from the Saratoga Union School District
Planning Commission Chair – status on Blight Ordinance
1
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
1. City Council Minutes
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
2. Review of Accounts Payable and Payroll Check Registers
Recommended action:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable August 29
and September 5, 2007 and Payroll August 30, 2007.
3. Creation of Ad Hoc Committee to Assist in Negotiation with the Friends of the
Saratoga Libraries for Use of the Village Library Building
Recommended action:
Accept report and designate Mayor Kao and Council member Chuck Page to serve on
an Ad Hoc Committee to assist in negotiations with the Friends of the Saratoga
Libraries (FOSL) for the use of the Village Library Building for the Book-Go-Round.
4. Approval of North Campus Fellowship Hall Improvement Plan and Authorization to
Solicit Construction Bids
Recommended action:
Accept the design and construction drawings and authorize the Public Works
Department to solicit construction bids for renovation construction of the North
Campus Fellowship Hall.
2
5. Use Agreement with the Saratoga Historical Foundation to Operate a Museum at the
Saratoga Historical Park
Recommended action:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with
the Saratoga Historical Foundation for the use of the Museum Building and former
McWilliams House to be operated as a Museum.
6. Second Reading and Adoption for Landmark Status and Mills Act Agreement
Recommended action:
Grant the Second Reading and adopt the Ordinance approving landmark status for the
property located at 13855 Saratoga Avenue.
7. Final Acceptance of Subdivision Public Improvements within Tract 9120
Recommended action:
1. Move to grant final acceptance of the subdivision public improvements within the
Tract 9120.
2. Move to adopt the resolution rescinding the previously rejected Offers of
Dedications and accepting dedication of streets within Tract 9120 which
includes Alta Vista Avenue into the City’s publicly maintained street system.
8. 2007 Pavement Management Program: Award of Contract
Recommended action:
1. Move to declare El Camino Paving, Inc. of Sunnyvale to be the lowest
responsible bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to El Camino Paving, Inc. in the amount of
$733,157.
3. Approve additional work to contract in the amount of $50,000.00.
4. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $66,843.
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
9. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 13, 2007 Modification of Use Permits for
St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church at 18870 Allendale Avenue
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-056).
Recommended action:
Conduct public hearing and consider Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 07-
056 modifying and superseding two Use Permits issued in 1961 and 1968 to the St.
Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church (hereafter “Church”). Consider
grounds of Appeal raised by Appellants and affirm Planning Commission decision
with minor modifications by adopting Resolution in the form of Attachment A.
3
10. Proposed Newsrack Ordinance
Recommended action:
Conduct open the public hearing; approve the attached ordinance; waive the First
Reading; direct staff to schedule this item for a Second Reading for adoption on the
consent calendar at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
11. Motion to Reconsider Herriman Avenue Motor Vehicle Resolution Approved
September 5, 2007
Recommended action:
Consider whether to approve the motion to reconsider the Motor Vehicle Resolution
regarding Herriman Avenue approved by the City Council on September 5, 2007 and
direct staff accordingly.
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
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
4
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
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 September 14,
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 14th day of September 2007at Saratoga, California.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
Note to public:
Please provide the City Clerk with seven (7) copies of any written document that
you would like to submit to the City Council in order for it to become part of the
public record.
5
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
10/3 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts
10/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High
School District
11/7 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation
11/20 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office and Fire Districts
11/21 Regular Meeting – Cancelled
12/4 Special Meeting – City Council Reorganization
12/5 Regular Meeting
12/19 Regular Meeting
6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manger’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Commission Interviews for Heritage Preservation Commission & Traffic
Safety Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct interviews for Heritage Preservation Commission and Traffic Safety Commission.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The following people have been scheduled for interviews:
5:30 p.m. Mike Bellissimo Traffic Safety Commission
5:40 p.m. Rose Marie Dippel Heritage Preservation Commission
5:50 p.m. Hong Tai Heritage Preservation Commission
At the May 2, 2007 meeting, Council adopted a resolution increasing the number of members on
the Traffic Safety Commission from five to seven. On May 16, 2007, Council appointed Mitch
Kane and Judi Coulter, which left one more position to be filled. The term for this additional
position will expire on April 1, 2012. Interviews for this vacancy will continue on September
25, 2007.
There is (1) vacancy to be filled on the Heritage Preservation Commission due to the resignation
of Beth Wyman. The term for this vacancy will expire on April 1, 2011.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution and administer Oaths of Office at the October 3, 2007 City Council meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
7
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Applications
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 1
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Joint Study Session Meeting – August 27, 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 August 27, 2007
20
1
MINUTES
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 2007
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith called the Study Session meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Chuck Page, Vice
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Planning Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Manny Cappello, Rishi
Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers and Yan
Zhao
ABSENT: Mayor Aileen Kao
Planning Commissioner Yan Zhao arrived at 6:00PM
ALSO
PRESENT:
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR AUGUST 27, 2007
Ann Sullivan, Deputy City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of August 27, 2007 was properly posted on August
21, 2007.
1. DIRECTION REGARDING ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
RELATED TO A PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF NORTH
CAMPUS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct Staff accordingly.
Michael Taylor, Interim Recreation Director, presented staff report. Michael
Taylor also provided a detailed cost analysis handout addressing the North
Campus CDC Gymnasium Construction Costs.
Discussion continued regarding costs and how specific improvements to the North
Campus would affect cost.
22
2
Planning Commissioners asked to be brought up to par and needed clarification as
to what had transpired previously for the project to be at the current stage.
Michael Taylor explained that a Council Study Session had been held on June 27,
2007 to ask Council for direction regarding a conceptual proposal received from
Alan and Lisa Beck for the use of the North Campus. At that meeting Council
directed staff to conduct parking and environmental studies; schedule a Joint Study
Session with the Planning Commission the end of August; and invite the public to
participate in the discussion. The meeting was scheduled for August 27, 2007;
was noticed and meeting notices were mailed to residents within 500 feet of the
North Campus property.
Michael Taylor stated that tonight’s meeting was being held to discuss detailed
costs of the conceptual proposal and that staff needed direction on specific project
items regarding the Beck proposal. He also discussed setback requirements,
parking, traffic analysis, design review and environmental reviews.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated the Beck’s would provide more detailed
information in their presentation.
Planning Commission Susie Nagpal asked how staff went about getting a
conceptual design plan.
Councilmember Page stated Council asked for anyone to come up with an “idea”
for the front half of the building and explained how the proposal process is done
and the different conceptual designs that were received.
Michael Taylor responded that the City received nine conceptual proposes.
Planning Commissioner Yan Zhao asked how the decision was made to go with
the proposed conceptual design.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated the decision was made to go with what seemed
do-able for the front half of the property.
City Manager Dave Anderson commented that Council direction to staff was to
solicit proposals for use of the front half of the property only.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith then introduced Alan Beck. Mr. Beck went on to
explain their proposal and that their goal was to turn the property into a point of
gatherings for community events. Mr. Beck continued to explain the exterior of
the buildings would be made of a steel/tin type material along with the use of
stucco on the exterior. Mr. Beck showed samples of flooring that could be used
and explained the cost difference between various types of flooring, noting that
wood flooring is more expensive. Mr. Beck noted that the total proposed
conceptual design comes to $1,217,500.00 and that the Beck’s would fund an
additional $100K in Child Development Center (CDC) items such as; cots, mats,
etc., and would have the Center ready for immediate move in and use condition.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comments.
23
3
The following people requested to speak on this item:
Bill Ford – asked if a poll of the residents had ever been done regarding the North
Campus.
City Manager Dave Anderson stated that a poll of the community did take place in
2005; which resulted in citizens wanting a gymnasium.
Bill Ford commented that he didn’t care for the proposed use of steel/tin for the
exterior; and that the buildings would always look like a steel/tin building no
matter how much stucco was used. Mr. Ford also stated his concern about the fact
that a hundred kids coming in would bring 200 cars coming in and circulating the
building. He asked if there was some other way to approach this problem.
David Egglestone – stated the Planning Commission appears not to be up to speed
and had a lot of questions. The community didn’t have a lot of input and that we
really need to first determine just what is needed and then go out to bid on that
information – have more bids. Mr. Egglestone doesn’t feel this proposal is in line
with the neighborhood; variances not in line with what the neighborhood is; and
the samples shown this evening are more in line with a “school” neighborhood, not
a residential neighborhood. Mr. Egglestone also had concerns regarding injury
liability in a gymnasium.
Councilmember King asked Mr. Egglestone what he would like to see at the North
Campus. Mr. Egglestone said he would like to see a Senior Center at North
Campus.
Howard Miller – stated that we all need day care centers at some time and that a
day care would be nice as well as a arts facility. Mr. Miller asked who is going to
manage this project and felt the City should be the one running the project – not a
private firm.
Doug Robertson – stated he is a structural engineer and is very concerned about
steel buildings and the City needs to scrutinize the appearance of whatever is used.
He noted that maintenance is very low on steel; but you need to have the look and
feel for Saratoga. He also noted that there is a tremendous need for a gym in this
community and that it would get a lot of use; however, the seniors should have
something also and recommended a joint use –for seniors and youth. (Mr.
Robertson offered his professional services, if needed).
Councilmember King stated both seniors and youth would be able to use the North
Campus facility.
Marc Hoffman – feels strongly about community sports for children and
encourages Council to go forward with the gym proposal.
24
4
Tom Saari – supports what Council wants to do to provide places for activities; but
must look at what the proposed plan will do as far as hundreds of cars entering and
exiting the property as well as traffic issues occurring on Prospect Avenue.
Councilmember King asked Mr. Saari what he would like to see on the property
and his response was that he would have liked to see houses built; and also likes
the multi-use facility for both seniors and youth.
Roger Piazza – stated he has several issues. Parking, kids screaming and cars in
and out of the property and suggests a sound wall around the property. If a gym is
constructed – who is going to control it? It is important to know what affect it will
have on the neighborhood.
Sujatha Bodapati – stated her family is very concerned about the traffic and noise;
people hanging out in the parking lot; and people throwing things over the fences
into yards. When asked by Councilmember King what she would like to see on
the property, Ms. Bodapati replied with something that would not generate a lot of
traffic and noise; a senior center would be ideal.
Karlina Ott – stated that this reminds her of Kevin Moran Park in many ways.
People have to live with change and she likes the proposal and that it would be a
nice facility for kids. It would also bring in tax dollars.
Catherine Seng (no speaker card) – likes the proposal; lets move forward.
Sue Cohn (no speaker card) – stated it is a good idea to have a multi-use facility;
and is surprised at a gym proposal. Would like to see something that serves
seniors more.
Councilmember Page asked what kind of senior activities she supports and Ms.
Cohn responded a large meeting room for arts, crafts, dancing, etc. – rather than a
gym.
Councilmember Page stated that presently we are only addressing half the
property; we can think of the larger scope later.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public speaking portion at 8:09PM.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith asked the Planning Commissioners to voice their
concerns:
• Rishi Kumar – Re-design site to minimize traffic; need more alternatives.
• Manny Cappello – Aesthetic/design concerns; traffic flow; parking issues;
sound wall. Feels this is a great project and recommends we move forward.
• Susie Nagpal – Concern of quasi-public facility use in a middle of
residential area. Likes the gym idea and feels there is a need for a daycare
also. Has concerns about where the Planning Commission is in the project
compared to the Council and feels there should be more public outreach.
25
5
Concerned about the façade – can’t have an industrial appearance; has
traffic and parking concerns.
• Robert Kundtz – Would like to encourage Planning Commission and
Council to button down the process – starting with appointment or hiring of
project manager to handle nature of the project, sensitivities of neighbors,
traffic, parking; etc., in order to have a better understanding of what the
community would like to see on this property.
• Yan Zhao – Feels gym/child care could be a good fit for this location. Has
concerns about a steel look as well as noise and traffic getting in and out of
property.
• Linda Rodgers – Stated this is a beautiful lot and the beauty must be
preserved as much as possible; must preserve the trees. Would like to see
quality design with both exterior and interior and stated a commercial
appearance would not be good in a residential area.
Conditional Use Permit: concerns about hours of operation. Construction of
sound wall would have to be aesthetically appealing. Feels the proposed
design is good for this site, but encourages more input regarding gym.
• Joyce Hlava – Concerns about trees coming down; has difficulty with
taking down a tree when residents are told they can’t remove a tree. Has
concerns about parking; if parking is in back and people are walking to front
of facility, feels a “drop off” and traffic queing would be better. Has
concerns about the height; pre-fab structural buildings. Suggests staff find
some pre-fab buildings and have Planning Commissioners take a look at
them to get a better idea of what the proposed design will look like. The
exterior needs to fit into the community. Has signage and noise issues as
well. Has gym concerns and that we may end up with a gym we don’t like.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith thanked the commissioners for their input.
Interim Director Michael Taylor asked for direction to staff.
Councilmember King then asked Planning Commissioners what they would like to
see on the site.
Robert Kundtz stated 1.2 million is a very low price of construction for what was
presented and feels Mr. Beck should spend some money to provide better
estimates. Would like to see a multi-purpose room and feels traffic and sound
concerns are real issues.
Jill Hunter has a lot of reservations about the project, including money issues and
traffic concerns, and feels more research should be done for more ideas for the
North Camp. Mrs. Hunter also has concerns about pre-fab buildings; feels they are
not attractive and doesn’t believe the proposed project can be done for $1.2
million.
Susie Nagpal stated we should get more input from the community and see what
they would like at the North Campus. Also feels the cost would be higher than
projected.
26
6
Chuck Page stated he would like to have a citizens group help decide what can be
done with the property. He also stated he has reservations about the $1.2 million
figure. Mr. Page noted he would like to see something that seniors can use and
thought this was a good “first step” in getting everyone engaged in this project; but
would have to be realistic about what we can do financially.
Linda Rodgers suggested doing things in sequence with the money that is
available.
Joyce Hlava feels the gym is a good idea in terms of low impact use; but feels
money and design issues are concerns for everyone.
Councilmember King stated that she had assumed the Planning Commission was
at the same stage in the North Campus planning process as the Council and feels
we should have more of these meetings with the Planning Commission. She also
feels the Becks came up with the gym idea because it was brought to them by
Council and suggested maybe they could present more ideas with more of a multi-
purpose use.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith would like to move forward with the Beck proposal and
would like money put towards a sound wall and sewer and water upgrades.
Suggested staff work with Mr. Beck for a longer contract and feels we should go
forward with the site proposal and mitigate the issues brought up this evening.
Councilmember King noted she would like to add to Vice Mayor Waltonsmith’s
comments in that she would not like to see the public having voted to keep the
property and in 20 years still see these dilapidated front two buildings; and the
buildings deteriorating. Councilmember King agrees we need to move forward.
Councilmember Page stated he would like to see us move forward; keeping in
mind that we do need more public input.
City Manager Dave Anderson noted the environmental impact is a concern voiced
by most everyone that spoke this evening and we would need money to do a
formal Environmental Impact Study. He also stated staff could research additional
architectural plans with the Beck’s and bring it back to another Joint Meeting.
Councilmember Hunter stated that before we do architectural plans we need to
take a look at these types of proposed buildings. We need to take our time and do
it right and do it well; build a nice building instead of a manufactured building.
Councilmember Hunter suggested going for a bond measure to support the North
Campus.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith stated people are usually not in favor of bonds and that
we move forward with the proposal.
27
7
Councilmember Page stated that by moving forward – it doesn’t necessarily mean
the buildings are being built. He feels the Beck’s will have to do more and will
have to put some money into it.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith ended the discussion by stating the consensus is to direct
staff to work with the applicant on the environmental impact issues and schedule
another Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
There be no further business Vice Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the Joint Meeting at
9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Sullivan, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
28
AGENDA ITEM: 2
CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
Karen Caselli DIRECTOR:Mary Furey
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following payment cycles:
Accounts Payable:August 29 and September 5, 2007
Payroll:August 30, 2007
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Check Registers for:
Date
Ending
Check No.
8/29/07 105910 105979 70 $120,604.52 8/30/07 8/22/07 105909
9/5/07 105980 106013 34 $85,050.15 9/6/07 8/30/07 105979
Total $205,654.67
8/30/07 32613 32638 26 $141,543.45 8/16/07 8/16/07 32612
Total $141,543.45
TOTAL $347,198.12
AP Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount
8/29/07 105915 Dev. Svc.$10,767.75
8/29/07 105942 C.I.P.$48,179.96
9/5/07 105992 Various $19,408.00
9/5/07 106008 Various 35,106.65
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued:
AP Date Check # Issued to Amount
9/5/07 105895 ($4,304.00)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Reason
General
Finance & Administrative Services
Accounts Payable
VariousGachina Landscape Mgt.
Accounts Payable
Payroll (Pay Per.#18-07)
Void CheckProspect High School
Shute, Mihaly & Wein.Various
Prep/Mail Notice of Hearing
Checks
Released
Ending
Check No.
Purpose
Type of Checks
MEETING DATE:
Date
Starting
Check No.
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable and Payroll Check Registers.
Amount
Prior Check Register
DEPARTMENT:
PREPARED BY:
Landscape Services
2006 Concrete Repair
Legal Services
September 19, 2007
Total
Checks
El Quito Curb Replacement
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure:
Advanced Listing Services
George Bianchi Construc.
Fund
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report29
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
Fund #AP 8/29 AP 9/5 Total
001 General 41,152.15 57,042.33 98,194.48
150 Streets & Roads -
201 Manor Drive Landscape 320.00 320.00
202 Ferdericksburg Landscape 264.00 264.00
203 Greenbriar Landscape 75.00 440.00 515.00
204 Quito Lighting -
205 Azule Lighting -
206 Sarahills Lighting -
207 Village Lighting -
209 McCartysville Landscape 430.00 430.00
210 Tricia Woods Landscape 150.00 150.00
211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 170.00 170.00
212 Leutar Court Landscape 170.00 170.00
215 Bonnet Way Landscape 254.00 254.00
216 Beauchamps Landscape 170.00 170.00
217 Sunland Park Landscape 680.00 680.00
222 Prides Crossing Landscape 900.00 900.00
224 Village Commercial Landscape 165.00 165.00
225 Saratoga Legends Landscape -
226 Bellgrove Landscape 3,970.00 3,970.00
227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 290.00 290.00
228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 680.00 680.00
229 Tollgate LLD 180.00 180.00
231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting -
232 Gateway Landscape 490.00 490.00
233 Carnelian Glen -
250 Development Services 11,899.52 10,196.80 22,096.32
260 Environmental Program SRF 160.20 160.20
270 CDBG - Federal Grants -
290 Recreation -
291 Teen Services -
310 Park Dev Cap Proj Fund -
320 -
352 Infrastructure -
400 Library Bond Debt Service -
420 Leonard Road -
501 Equipment Replacement ISF -
502 Information Technology -
503 Facility Improvement 2,299.50 2,299.50
504 Facilities 2,906.07 2,906.07
505 Internal Services Fund 802.40 148.22 950.62
506 Office Stores Fund 163.96 365.83 529.79
510 Liability/Risk Mgt -
511 Workers' Comp -
604 Planning Deposit Pre 2006 -
605 Planning Deposit FY 2006 -
Fund Description
Park Dev Capital Project
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report30
701 Traffic Safety 3,559.14 3,559.14
702 Highway 9 Safety -
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
(continued)
Fund #AP 8/29 AP 8/01 Total
703 Hakone ADA Improvements -
706 Sidewalk Annual Project 1,075.00 1,075.00
707 Aloha Street Safety Improvement -
716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain -
720 KSAR/CATV Agency Fund -
727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 48,179.96 48,179.96
728 Book Go Round Drainage -
731 Storm Drain Upgrades -
732 Median Landscape/Irrigation -
734 Civic Center Landscape 65.67 65.67
735 Village Lights (Zone 7A)-
736 Village Trees Lighting -
738 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing -
741 Blaney Plaza Improvements -
743 Blaney Plaza Improv./Cnstrc -
744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter -
746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway 7,581.46 7,581.46
748 El Ca Grante/Monta Vista -
755 Warner Hutton House Improv.1,264.87 1,264.87
758 Civic Center - CDD Offices -
761 Fire Alarm-McWilliams/Book Go 12.53 12.53
762 North Campus/19848 Prospect -
766 Historical Park Fire Alarm -
780 Beauchamp Park Fund -
790 UPRR/De Anza Trail 4,533.90 4,533.90
791 Kevin Moran -
792 Alternative Soccer Field 667.16 667.16
793 Parks/Trails Repair 1,780.00 1,780.00
120,604.52 85,050.15 205,654.67 - - -
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Registers in the Expenditure Approval List format.
TOTAL
Fund Description
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report31
C:\DOCUME~1\cboyer\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 3MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor
_ _
SUBJECT: Creation of Ad Hoc Committee to Assist in Negotiation with the Friends of the Saratoga
Libraries for Use of the Village Library Building
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and designate Mayor Kao and Council member Chuck Page to serve on an Ad Hoc
Committee to assist in negotiations with the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries (FOSL) for the use of the
Village Library Building for the Book-Go-Round.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Under an agreement dated February 6, 1998, the FOSL leases the former Saratoga Village Library
building at 14410 Oak Street for use as a used bookstore named the Book-Go-Round (BGR). Revenues
from the sales of materials at the BGR directly benefit Saratoga libraries. The current lease was for a
period of ten (10) years, calls for a one dollar ($1.00) rent for the entire term of the lease, and expires
on February 28, 2008.
Staff met with representatives of the FOSL on May 16th and has corresponded regularly since that date
to discuss the terms of the renewal agreement. Staff is requesting input on the direction of the lease
renewal negotiations. The Ad Hoc committee would meet with representatives of the FOSL and staff
an estimated one or possibly two times before bringing a recommendation back to Council in October
or November.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION (S):
None.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S):
Council may choose to authorize staff to represent the City in negotiations without direct Council
involvement at this time.
48
FOLLOW UP ACTION (S):
Staff will return to Council with a use agreement renewal recommendation following the completion of
negotiations with the FOSL.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda according to the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
49
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 4MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor & Thomas Scott DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor & Thomas Scott DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor
_ _
SUBJECT: Approval of North Campus Fellowship Hall Improvement Plan and Authorization to
Solicit Construction Bids
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the design and construction drawings and authorize the Public Works Department to solicit
construction bids for renovation construction of the North Campus Fellowship Hall.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At the July 19, 2006 meeting, City Council authorized renovation of the site and buildings at North
Campus using a multiple phase project. A total of $500,000.00 was allocated for this project. The first
phase of the project was the renovation of the Administration Building which included installing
carpeting, ceiling, flooring, Kitchenette, painting, electrical improvements, ADA restrooms, HVAC
systems, lighting, furniture and a new office. This phase of the project to renovate the Administration
Building was completed May 24, 2007 for a total cost of approximately $135,000.00.
In February 2007, the Facilities Department solicited bids from Steve Benzing, Architect, AAi Design
Solutions, and Steve Yang & Associates to provide architect services for the design and construction
drawings for the renovation of the North Campus Fellowship Hall. The City retained the services of
Steve Benzing of Saratoga at a cost of $19,500.00. Additionally, in August the Mechanical
requirements for the project were awarded to the low bidder, Steve Benzing, Architect, for $5,600.00.
The design submitted includes an addition to the south side of the building to allow for internal and
external access to the restrooms, the reduction of the soffit encompassing the main room, the
installation of decorative ductwork, new HVAC systems, double pane windows, updated kitchen area,
new storage room and complete upgrading of the interior including paint, doors and new flooring. The
design meets all ADA requirements and complies with previous direction received from Council.
The plans have been reviewed by Facilities staff and by the Planning Department. The next step of the
process would be the authorization by Council to direct Public Works staff to solicit construction bids,
per the design plans.
Preliminary estimates of the total cost of the project exceed the remaining project budget of $129,500.
If bids are received in excess of the budgeted amount, staff anticipates the need to selectively value
engineer the project and identify certain components that could be eliminated or downgraded to reduce
50
costs. It is also recommended that a list of add alternatives be included in the construction bid. Some
items that could be included in such an add-alt list include the hardwood floor, soffit and ductwork
improvements, the stainless steel kitchen, and the HVAC system. Staff could incorporate this
itemization in the request for construction bids.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There is no immediate fiscal impact. There is currently $129,500 remaining in the North Campus
renovation fund. Upon receipt of the construction bids, staff will return to Council with options for the
North Campus Fellowship Hall.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION (S):
None.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S):
Council may elect to approve the design and delay the bid process until a future date or Council may
choose to reject the design and delay the bid process until a new design is approved.
FOLLOW UP ACTION (S):
Implement Council direction by preparing a bid and accepting bids for the project, returning to Council
with the results of the bid process.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda according to the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - North Campus Fellowship Hall design and construction drawings
51
52
53
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 5
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DEPT HEAD: Michael Taylor
SUBJECT: Use Agreement with the Saratoga Historical Foundation to Operate a Museum
at the Saratoga Historical Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with the
Saratoga Historical Foundation for the use of the Museum Building and former McWilliams
House to be operated as a Museum.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The non-profit Saratoga Historical Foundation (SHF) was established in November 1962 by
Florence Russell Cunningham. Ms. Cunningham, a school teacher, was vitally interested in local
history and chaired the History Committee.
She was also an avid collector of Saratoga memorabilia which she donated to the Museum. At
her death, she willed her collection and the money from her estate to establish a Museum for
Saratoga.
In 1976, the American Bicentennial Celebration provided an opportunity to relocate and
renovate a historic Saratoga structure for use as a Museum. The Swanee store and the Jarboe-
McWilliams House were moved to their present sites at the Historical Park located at 20450
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and dedicated for use as a Museum in 1976.
The purpose of the SHF organization is threefold:
• To stimulate public interest in Saratoga history.
• To carry on research and collect records, pictures, artifacts and other memorabilia related
to our local history.
• To maintain a Museum for the display and safe-keeping of archival material.
The Saratoga Historical Foundation is currently conducting operations under an agreement dated
March 5, 1975. Staff met with Mr. Chuck Schoppe, President of the Foundation on June 11,
2007 to discuss a renewal agreement. Negotiation of a lease renewal continued and resulted in
the new agreement attached to this report. The new agreement is in a standard format and is
consistent with agreements the City has with other organizations. The lease also complies with
54
2 of 2
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) best practices language and has been
reviewed by City staff and the City Attorney.
The lease calls for continued use by the Historical Foundation as a museum and for special
events such as exhibits, seminars, etc. The City will retain the one thousand dollar ($1,000)
security deposit placed by the Foundation. The City will charge a one dollar ($1.00) per year rent
for a ten-year term. The Historical Foundation will pay for all utilities, telephones, gas,
electricity, water, sewer, heat, and air conditioning. Two ten-year renewal options are available
with mutual agreement by both parties. The City has the right to terminate the lease with a
twelve (12) month written notice. The Historical Foundation may elect to terminate the lease
with a six (6) month notice if they are unable to continue operations of the museum.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The City will collect $1.00 per year for the term of the lease agreement.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
City facility would not be available for Saratoga Historical Foundation museum activities.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council could choose to deny the agreement with the Saratoga Historical Foundation and direct
staff to determine other uses for the facilities.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
City Manager will sign agreement and staff will contact SHF for signatures.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Agenda was posted in compliance with the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
B - Use Agreement
55
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
SARATOGA HISTORICAL FOUNDATION FOR USE OF THE
MUSEUM BUILDING AND THE FORMER McWILLIAMS
HOUSE AS A HISTORICAL MUSEUM
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is in possession of historic buildings and endeavors to make
these historic buildings available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Saratoga Historical Foundation has conducted a museum operation in these
historic buildings since 1976 and has expressed a desire to continue these operations;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
The City Manager of Saratoga is authorized to enter into a lease agreement with the Saratoga
Historical Foundation for the use of the museum building and the former McWilliams House for
use as a museum.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 19th day of September, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
56
Attachment B
Page 1 of 12
LEASE BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AND
SARATOGA HISTORICAL FOUNDATION
1. Parties. This lease (“Lease”), is made by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
Municipal Corporation, located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California (“Landlord”),
and SARATOGA HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, a not for profit IRC 501(c)(3) corporation
organized under the laws of the State of California (“Tenant”).
2. Premises. Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord for the term,
at the rental, and upon all of the conditions set forth herein, the building known as the Saratoga
Village Museum, McWilliams House pioneer cottage, and the new storage building located in
the City of Saratoga, at 20450 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, consisting of approximately 2,622
square feet (the “Premises”). Tenant is presently the owner of all furniture, equipment, and all
other movable personal property on the Premises and Landlord makes no claim to them.
3. Term.
3.1. Commencement. The term of the Lease shall be for one hundred twenty (120)
months, unless sooner terminated pursuant to any provision of the Lease or unless extended
pursuant to Paragraph 3.2 of the Lease. The term of the Lease shall commence on October 1,
2007, (the “Commencement Date”).
3.2. Option to Extend. Tenant shall have two (2) options to extend the term of the
Lease. Each option shall be for a period of one hundred twenty (120) months (the “Option
Term”). The first Option Term shall commence immediately following the expiration of the initial
term of the Lease and the second Option Term shall commence immediately following the
expiration of the first Option Term, and upon satisfaction of and subject to all of the following
conditions:
(A) The Lease term shall extend automatically for each Option Term unless either party
notifies the other in writing at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the
term of the Lease or the expiration of the first Option Term that the Lease term will not be
extended; and
(B) At any time the Lease term is extended, Tenant shall occupy all of the Premises and
Tenant shall not be in default in the performance of any of the terms, covenants or conditions
contained in the Lease.
3.3. Holding Over. Any holding over after the term of this Lease has expired shall be
deemed to be a tenancy for month-to-month and except for the term thereof shall be on the
same terms and conditions specified herein, so far as they are applicable.
4. Rent.
4.1. Consideration. Tenant shall pay to Landlord the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per
year for the term of the Lease.
57
Attachment B
Page 2 of 12
4.2. Time and Manner of Payment.
4.2.1. Prepaid Rent. Tenant shall pay Landlord Ten Dollars ($10.00) within thirty
(30) days of the Commencement Date and shall prepay the rent for each renewal term at least
30 days in advance of the first day of the renewal term.
5. Security Deposit.
5.1. Existing Security Deposit. Tenant has placed on deposit with Landlord the sum
of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), as a cash security deposit under the terms of this Lease
(the “Security Deposit”). Landlord shall continue to hold the Security Deposit as a security
deposit for the Lease. No additional security deposit shall be required.
5.2. Application. Landlord shall hold the Security Deposit as security for the
performance of Tenant’s obligations under the Lease. If Tenant defaults on any provision of the
Lease, Landlord may apply all or part of the Security Deposit to:
(A) Any rent or other sum in default; or
(B) Any expense, loss, or damage that Landlord may suffer because of Tenant’s default.
Upon notification by Landlord of such application, Tenant shall remit to Landlord an
amount in cash equal to the amount expended in order to restore the said security deposit to
the original sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). In the event the Tenant shall fully comply
with the terms of this Lease, the security deposit by Tenant shall be returned to Tenant within
fifteen (15) days after the termination of its tenancy and after delivery of the Premises to
Landlord with the required notice. The amount refunded shall not include interest.
6. Use.
6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises during the term and
any Option Term for the operation of a Museum; benefit receptions; art exhibits; promotional
events such as, but not limited to, retail sales, auction sales, poetry readings, children’s story
hours, book review sessions, autograph sessions, historical seminars, meetings, and other
similar and related uses and for no other purpose. Tenant shall not use or permit the Premises
or any part of the Premises to be used for any purpose or purposes other than the purpose or
purposes for which the Premises are leased.
6.2. Insurance Limitations. No use shall be made or permitted to be made of the
Premises or acts done which will increase the existing rate of insurance on the Premises or any
of its contents, or cause the cancellation of any insurance policy covering the Premises. If any
act on the part of Tenant or use of the Premises by Tenant shall cause, directly or indirectly, an
increase of Landlord’s insurance, such additional expense shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord
upon demand. Tenant shall not sell or permit to be stored, kept, used or sold in or about the
Premises any article that may be prohibited by the standard form of fire insurance policies.
Tenant shall not permit any person to smoke in or about the premises.
6.3. Prohibition of Waste and Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be
committed any waste upon the Premises or any public or private nuisance. Tenant shall not use
the Premises in whole or in part for any purpose or use that is deemed to be in violation of any
of the laws, ordinances, regulations or rules of any public authority or organization at any time.
58
Attachment B
Page 3 of 12
6.4. Rules and Regulations. Landlord shall have the right from time to time to
prescribe reasonable rules and regulations, which in its judgment may be appropriate for the
use of the Premises. Upon written notification to Tenant of such rules, Tenant agrees to comply
with such rules and regulations and any failure to comply shall constitute a default under the
Lease.
6.5. Signs. Tenant shall not place or permit to be placed in, upon, about or outside
the Premises or any part of the building in which the Premises are located any signs (with the
exception of facilities or interpretive identification signs such as restroom, exhibit, or quiet signs,
etc.) without the prior written consent of Landlord. All exterior signs must be approved in
advance by Landlord and must meet applicable City zoning regulations.
7. Utilities and Taxes. Landlord, at its expense, has provided and will continue to provide
adequate sewer, water, electrical and gas lines, pipes, and conduits, to and from the Premises
for telephone, gas, electrical, water, sewer, heat, and air conditioning service. Tenant shall,
during the term of the Lease and during any Option Term, pay all charges for related utilities,
telephones, gas, electricity, water, sewer, heat, and air conditioning. Tenant shall pay any and
all taxes and all special assessments for public improvements as may be levied against the
premises or any part thereof, as well as any applicable possessory interest tax.
8. Repairs and Maintenance.
8.1. Tenant’s Repair and Maintenance Obligations. Tenant shall, at Tenant’s sole
expense and in accordance with the terms of the Lease, repair and maintain in good order and
condition:
(A) The nonstructural interior furnishings of the Premises, including all Tenant
improvements, alterations, fixtures and furnishings;
(B) Incandescent and florescent bulbs and tubes in lighting fixtures;
(C) Window panes, including replacement of window panes, and interior and exterior
window washing; and
(D) Interior painting and carpeting, including carpet cleaning.
8.2. Landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Obligations. Landlord shall, provided the
Tenant give prompt written notice to Landlord as the need arises, repair, including replacement
when necessary, and maintain in good order and condition (reasonable wear and tear
excepted):
(A) The yard, trees, shrubbery, and landscaping surrounding the Premises;
(B) The walkways, sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas;
(C) The structural portions of the Premises;
(D) Exterior portions of the Premises, including walls, roof, gutters, drains and down
spout systems; and
59
Attachment B
Page 4 of 12
(E) Interior and exterior components of electrical, plumbing, and heating and air-
conditioning systems, including electrical wiring and plumbing fixtures.
9. Alterations and Additions.
9.1. Landlord’s Consent. Tenant may not make any improvements, alterations,
additions, or changes to the Premises (“Alterations”) without first obtaining Landlord’s prior
written consent. Any alterations made by Tenant shall be at Tenant’s sole cost.
9.2. Consent Procedure. Tenant shall request such consent by written notice to
Landlord, which must be accompanied by the plans and specifications for the proposed work.
Landlord shall either give or withhold its consent within ninety (90) days following receipt by
Landlord of Tenant’s request for consent. If Landlord fails to give or withhold its consent in
writing within said ninety (90) day period, Landlord shall be deemed to have given its consent to
the proposed Alteration. Landlord hereby waives any processing and inspection fees associated
with any applications to the City of Saratoga provided, however, that said waiver shall not apply
to the costs incurred by Landlord in connection with any contract services required by the City of
Saratoga in order to process said applications. Prior to the commencement of any work, Tenant
shall post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility on behalf of the Landlord.
9.3. Ownership of Alterations at End of Tenancy. Any Alterations made under this
Paragraph 9 shall be the property of Landlord and remain on and be surrendered with the
Premises upon expiration or termination of the Lease.
10. Insurance and Indemnification.
Tenant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the
Tenant’s operation and use of the leased premises. The cost of such insurance shall be borne
by the Tenant.
10.1. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence
form CG 0001).
2. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and
Employer’s Liability insurance (for Tenants with employees).
3. Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or
betterments.
10.2. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Tenant shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury
and property damage. If Commercial General Liability
Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply
separately to this project/location or the general aggregate
limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
60
Attachment B
Page 5 of 12
10.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Landlord and Tenant each hereby release and relieve the
other and waive their entire rights of recovery against the other for loss or damage arising out of
3. Property Insurance: Full replacement cost of the non-structural interior of the
Premises, including all Tenant improvements, alterations,
fixtures and furnishings.
10.3. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the Landlord. At the option of the Landlord,
either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects the Landlord, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Tenant shall
provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Landlord guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
10.4. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability policy is to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The Landlord, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered
as insureds with respect to liability arising out of ownership, maintenance or use
of that part of the premises leased to the Tenant.
2. The Tenant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the
Landlord, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by the Landlord, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Tenant’s insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
Each insurance policy required above shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, a waiver of all
rights of subrogation against the Landlord.
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ (10 days for non-payment) prior written notice has
been given to the Landlord.
10.5. Auto Liability Insurance. Landlord specifies that coverage will be at least as
broad as form number CA 0001 (Edition 1/78) and be code 1 “any auto” and endorsement CA
0025, with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and
property damage. Tenant’s coverage is form numbers CA 0001 (Edited 6/92) and CA 0002
(Edited 1/87) with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) and is code 9 for any auto not
owned, leased, hired, etc.
10.6. Fire Insurance. Landlord specifies fire and extended coverage of at least Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) on Tenant’s personal property. Tenant’s coverage is Fifteen
Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), replacement costs, with Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00)
deductible.
10.7. Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance. Tenant agrees
to provide Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance to employees and
volunteers in compliance with applicable law
10.8. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current
A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, or otherwise acceptable to the Landlord.
61
Attachment B
Page 6 of 12
11.4. Tenant’s Remedies. If Landlord shall be obligated to repair or restore any part of
the Premises under the provisions of sub-paragraph 11.1 and does not make a good faith
or incident to the perils insured against under this Paragraph 10, which perils occur in, on or
about the Premises, whether due to the negligence of Landlord or Tenant or their agents,
employees, contractors and/or invitees. Landlord and Tenant shall, upon obtaining the policies
of insurance required hereunder, give notice to the insurers that this mutual waiver of
subrogation is contained in the Lease and shall thereafter obtain evidence of the waiver by their
respective insurance carriers of any right of subrogation against the other.
10.10. Verification of Coverage. Tenant shall furnish the Landlord with original
certificates and endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and
endorsements are to be received and approved by the Landlord before the property is leased,
but failure to obtain prior to leasing shall not waive any obligation of the Tenant to meet these
requirements. The Landlord reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all
required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications at any
time.
10.11. Indemnification. Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Landlord and
its officers, officials, boards, commissions or committees from and against any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, damages, liabilities, costs or expenses, resulting from any negligent
acts or omissions by the Tenant, its agents, contractors, employees, volunteers, customers or
invitees in connection with Tenant’s occupancy of the Premises, the conduct of Tenant’s
business, and the performance of its obligations under the Lease, including its repair and
maintenance obligations.
10.12. Notice of Claims. Each party to the Lease shall promptly notify the other of any
claim or of any occurrence which the party reasonably believes may give rise to a claim against
either party arising out of the ownership, occupation, use, maintenance, or repairs of the
Premises.
11. Damage or Destruction.
11.1. Damage Covered by Insured Loss. If at any time during the term of the Lease
there is damage which is an Insured Loss, Landlord shall, from the proceeds of the insurance
described in Paragraph 10, repair such damage and, if such insurance especially provides
therefore, Tenant’s equipment or Alterations, as soon as reasonably possible and the Lease
shall continue in full force and effect.
11.2 Damage Not Covered By Insurance. If at any time during the term of the Lease
there is damage which is not an Insured Loss, Tenant shall be responsible for damage to the
non-structural interior of the building, and Landlord shall be responsible for damage to the
structural interior and the exterior of the building, including walls, roof, gutters, drains, yard,
walkways, sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas. Tenant’s maximum liability under this
provision shall be limited to the replacement cost of the non-structural interior with like kind and
quality, excepting for destruction caused by flood, earthquake, seismic activity, and other
natural disasters.
11,3. Destruction of Premises. In the event of destruction either party may terminate
this Agreement.
62
Attachment B
Page 7 of 12 13. Termination.
attempt to commence such repair or restoration within sixty (60) days after receipt of the
insurance proceeds, Tenant may, at Tenant’s option, terminate the Lease by giving Landlord
written notice of Tenant’s election to do so at any time prior to the commencement of such
repair or restoration. If Tenant so elects, the Lease shall terminate as of the date of such notice.
11.5. Termination — Advance Payments. Upon termination of the Lease pursuant to
this Paragraph 11, Landlord shall return to Tenant any advance Rent or other advance payment
made by Tenant to Landlord, including Tenant’s Security Deposit.
12. Defaults and Remedies.
12.1. Tenant’s Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a
default by Tenant and breach of the Lease:
(A) Tenant’s failure to pay when due any rent required to be paid under the
Lease if the failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice of the failure from Landlord
to Tenant;
(B) Abandonment by Tenant of the Premises, provided that Tenant shall not be
required to conduct its business at the Premises while Tenant is prevented from doing so by
reason of any partial or complete damage, destruction or condemnation or by any other reason
beyond Tenant’s control; or
(C) Tenant’s failure to perform any other obligation under the Lease if the failure
continues for thirty (30) days after written notice of the failure from Landlord to Tenant. If the
required cure of the noticed default cannot be completed within thirty (30) days, Tenant’s failure
to perform shall constitute a default under the Lease unless Tenant undertakes to cure the
failure within thirty (30) days and diligently and continuously attempts to complete the cure as
soon as reasonably possible.
12.2. Landlord’s Remedies on Tenant’s Default. On the occurrence of Tenant’s
default under the Lease, Landlord may terminate the Lease and recover possession of the
Premises. Once Landlord has terminated the Lease, Tenant shall, within ninety (90) days,
surrender the Premises to Landlord.
12.3. Landlord’s Default. Except as provided in Paragraph 8.3.2, Landlord shall be in
default and breach of the Lease if it fails to perform any of its obligations under the Lease if the
failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice of the failure from Tenant to Landlord. If
the required cure of the noticed default cannot be completed within thirty (30) days, Landlord’s
failure to perform shall constitute a default under the Lease unless Landlord undertakes to cure
the failure within thirty (30) days and diligently and continuously attempts to complete the cure
as soon as reasonably possible.
12.4. Tenant’s Remedies on Landlord’s Default. On the occurrence of a default by
Landlord, Tenant may terminate the Lease and surrender possession of the Premises to
Landlord. Once Tenant has terminated the Lease, Tenant’s obligations under the Lease shall
cease, including the payment of rent and Landlord shall repay to Tenant all prepaid rent that
has not been credited to Tenant’s account as of the date Tenant surrenders the Premises to
Landlord.
63
Attachment B
Page 8 of 12 17.1. Cooperation. Landlord and Tenant (“the Parties”) recognize the benefits to both
13.1. Landlord’s Right to Terminate. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 12,
above, Landlord may after notice and public hearing, and upon a determination of necessity due
to unforeseen circumstances, terminate the Lease and take possession of the Premises upon a
decision of the Saratoga City Council and twelve (12) months written notice to Tenant. In the
event of such election and notice by Landlord, the Lease will terminate on the last day of the
twelve (12) months written notice.
13.2. Tenant’s Right to Terminate. Landlord and Tenant agree and acknowledge
that Tenant’s Museum on the Premises is operated and staffed entirely by Tenant’s volunteers.
If during the term of the Lease or any Option Term Tenant is no longer able, at Tenant’s sole
discretion, to operate the Museum, Tenant may, upon six (6) months written notice to Landlord,
elect to terminate the Lease. In the event of such election and notice by Tenant, the Lease will
terminate on the last day of the six (6) month written notice.
14. Access. Tenant shall have full and unimpaired access to the Premises at all times.
Landlord shall have the right to enter the Premises at reasonable times for the purpose of
inspecting the same and for repair and maintenance obligations.
15. Assignment and Subletting. Tenant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign,
transfer, mortgage or otherwise transfer or encumber or sublet all or any part of Tenant’s
interest in the Lease or in the Premises without Landlord’s prior written consent.
16. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under the Lease must be in writing
and may be given by personal delivery, certified mail, or U. S. Postal Service Express Mail,
Federal Express or other express delivery service. Notices shall be deemed communicated
immediately if personally delivered. Notices shall be deemed communicated within forty-eight
(48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed by certified mail, and within twenty-four (24) hours if
mailed by express delivery service. If a notice is received on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday,
or any other day on which the City is closed for normal business, it shall be deemed received on
the next business day. Any notice shall be deemed sufficiently given if addressed to Landlord or
Tenant at the address specified below:
Landlord: City of Saratoga
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: City Clerk
Tenant: SARATOGA HISTORICAL FOUNDATION
20450 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention:
Either party may specify a different address for notice purposes, or specify that a copy of any
notice given to such party be concurrently given to another person by giving written notice to the
other party.
17. Dispute Resolution.
64
Attachment B
Page 9 of 12
17.4.3. The arbitrator shall take reasonable steps as may be necessary to hold a
private hearing within sixty (60) days after the initial demand for arbitration and to conclude the
hearing within two (2) days thereafter. Not later than seven (7) days prior to the hearing date set
by the arbitrator each party shall submit a brief with a single proposal for settlement. Evidence
the Parties of the use of the Premises to support the Saratoga Historical Foundation. The
Parties therefore agree to cooperate in order to resolve disputes.
17.2. Meet and Confer. The Parties acknowledge that issues may arise that require
resolution between the Parties. The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to resolve
such issues. Tenant appoints the President of the SARATOGA HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, or
his or her designee, and Landlord appoints the City Manager, or his or her designee, as its
representative for dispute resolution. The party desiring to meet and confer shall notify the other
party in writing (“Dispute Notice”) of the subject matter of the dispute (“Contract Issue”) and the
Parties shall meet and confer at a mutually agreed upon date, time and location not less that
three (3) nor more than ten (10) days following the receipt of notice by the other party.
17.3. Mediation. If within thirty (30) days after receipt of a Dispute Notice, the Parties
have not been able to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution, then either party may refer the
matter to mediation for informal advice and/or resolution. The Parties shall agree upon a
mediator to assist them in resolving their differences. If the Parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator, the Parties shall jointly obtain a list of seven (7) mediators from a reputable dispute
resolution organization and alternate striking mediators on that list until one remains. A coin toss
shall determine who may strike the first name. If a party fails to notify the other party of which
mediator it has stricken within two (2) business days, the other party shall have the option of
selecting the mediator from those mediators remaining on the list. Any expenses incidental to
mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. If either party is dissatisfied with the outcome of
the mediation, that party may then submit the Contract Issue for resolution to binding arbitration
in accordance with subparagraph 19.4.
17.4. Arbitration of Disputes. Any Contract Issue that cannot be settled by mediation
may, upon the demand by either party, be submitted to binding arbitration by an Arbitrator. The
Arbitrator shall be JAMS, or if JAMS is not then in operation or is not then available, the
American Arbitration Association, and the arbitration shall be in accordance with the Arbitrator’s
then applicable rules, as amended by the following:
17.4.1. Any demand for arbitration shall be given in writing to the other party to
the Lease and to the Arbitrator. The demand shall specifically describe the Contract Issue,
including the amounts in controversy and/or other relief sought. A demand for arbitration shall
be made within a reasonable time after the right to demand arbitration under the Lease has
arisen, and in no event shall it be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable
proceedings based on such Contract Issue would be barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. A party who files a notice of demand for arbitration shall assert in the demand all
disputes arising under the Lease then known to that party.
17.4.2. The Contract Issue shall be heard by one arbitrator mutually selected by
the parties, or if the parties cannot agree on a single arbitrator within ten days following the
demand for arbitration, the Contract Issue shall be heard by an arbitrator selected in
accordance with the procedure for selection of a mediator in subparagraph 19.3, provided,
however, that the selected arbitrator will be a former trial judge of the federal or state courts in
California.
65
Attachment B
Page 10 of 12
concerning the financial position of the parties, any offer made or the details of any negotiations
prior to arbitration and the cost to the parties of their representatives, selected arbitrators and
counsel shall not be permissible. The place of the arbitration hearing shall be Saratoga,
California.
17.4.4. The arbitrator may award only such relief or remedy as would be
available pursuant to judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, including
injunctive and affirmative relief; except that the arbitrator may not award punitive damages. The
decision of the arbitrator shall be in writing.
17.4.5. NOTICE: BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE
AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE
“ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES” PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS
PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT
POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY
INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO
DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN
THE “ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES” PROVISION. IF YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO
ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO
ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY.
WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO
SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE “ARBITRATION
OF DISPUTES” PROVISION TO NEUTRAL BINDING ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT.
Landlord’s Initials ________________ Tenant’s Initials__________________
18. General Provisions.
18.1. Whenever consent or approval of either party is required, unless otherwise stated
above, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
18.2. All exhibits and addenda referred to are attached to the Lease and incorporated
by reference.
18.3. The Lease shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
successors, except as provided in paragraph 16, above.
18.4. The Lease shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
18.5. The definitions contained in the Lease shall be used to construe and interpret the
Lease.
18.6. The captions and the table of contents of the Lease shall have no effect on its
interpretation.
18.7. When required by the context of the Lease, the singular shall include the plural.
66
Attachment B
Page 11 of 12
18.8. “Party” shall mean Landlord or Tenant, and if more than one person or entity is
Landlord or Tenant, the obligations imposed on that party shall be joint and several.
18.9. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of the Lease shall not
render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
18.10. Neither Landlord nor Tenant shall discriminate because of race, religion, color,
sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin against any person in the management, operation or
use of the Premises.
18.11. The Lease shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties, and shall
supersede in all respects the Lease Agreement dated March 5, 1975, by and between Landlord
and Tenant for the Premises, and any other agreements, either oral or written, between the
parties hereto with respect to the lease of the Premises.
18.12. Landlord and Tenant shall take reasonable measures to cooperate to apply for
grant funds that may become available form time to time from state, federal, international,
private, and public sources.
18.13. The specified remedies to which Landlord and Tenant may resort under the
terms of this Lease are cumulative and not intended to be exclusive of any other remedies
afforded by law. No covenant, term or condition or the breach thereof shall be deemed waived,
except by written consent of Landlord, and any waiver or the breach of any covenant, term or
condition shall not be deemed to be a waiver or any preceding or succeeding breach of the
same or other covenant, term or condition. Acceptance of all or any portion of rent at any time
shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any covenant, term or condition except as to the rent
payment accepted.
18.14. In the event of litigation, arbitration, or mediation arising under the terms of this
agreement each party shall bear its own legal costs regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
67
Attachment B
Page 12 of 12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
City of Saratoga Saratoga Historical Foundation
By: _________________________
Dave Anderson,
City Manager
Date: ________________________
By: _________________________
Chuck Schoppe,
SHF President
Date: ________________________
Attest:
__________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Date: ________________________
By: _________________________
Robert Himel,
SHF Treasurer
Date: ________________________
Approved as to Form:
__________________________
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Date: ________________________
Approved as to Budget Authority &
Insurance:
__________________________
Mary Furey,
Administrative Services Director
Date: ________________________
68
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 6
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Shweta Bhatt DIRECTOR: John Livingstone
SUBJECT: Second Reading and Adoption for Landmark Status and Mills Act Agreement
(CONSENT ITEM)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Grant the Second Reading and adopt the Ordinance approving
landmark status for the property located at 13855 Saratoga Avenue.
BACKGROUND: On September 05, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing and
introduced an ordinance that will designate the property at 13855 Saratoga Avenue as a landmark
property. The City Council did not request any changes to the draft ordinance, and voted to place
this item on consent for a second reading and adoption.
FISCAL IMPACTS: The City will incur a one-time cost of approximately $200.00 to have a
bronze plaque made for the property owner to mount on the exterior of the residence. The cost of the
plaque has been budgeted for.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The residence
would not be designated as a landmark. Additionally, since the landmark status is necessary to
participate in the Mills Act, the future maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing landmark could
be jeopardized without the incentive of the tax break from the Mills Act Agreement.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Deny the proposed ordinance;
2. Modify the proposed ordinance.
FOLLOW UP ACTION: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance designating the subject property as a landmark.
Page 1 of 1
69
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS
LAMPHEAR HOUSE AT 13855 SARATOGA
AVENUE AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK
(APN 393-45-017)
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1-Findings: After careful review and consideration of the report and
recommendations of the Heritage Preservation Commission concerning the property at
13855 Saratoga Avenue (the “Property”) together with the application and supporting
materials, the City Council hereby determines that:
The Property exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the
County, the State or the nation in that it represents a Craftsman style home
constructed in the early 1900s. The structure exhibits many of the character
defining features of such a home, and has retained these features through history.
The home also fronts on a portion of Saratoga Avenue designated as a heritage
lane.
The Property embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or
method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous
materials in that it “is a distinguished example of a Craftsman residence.
Containing many characteristic details, such as rock walls, knee braces, wood
siding, and multi-lite windows, the strong hand-crafted sense inherent in the
building forms clearly associate the design with bungalows from the period. The
house remains today as a clear representation of its era, in both design and
detailing, and is an excellent example of Craftsman residential architecture in
Saratoga.”
The Property embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics
representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or
district within the City in that it is located on the portion of Saratoga Avenue that
has been designated a heritage lane. It has been designed and constructed in a
distinctive style, including rock detailing on the facades.
Section 2 – Designation: The Property is hereby designated as a Historic Landmark
pursuant to section 13-15.060 of the Saratoga City Code.
Section 3- Publication: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be
published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within
fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
70
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 5th day of September, 2007, and was
adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 19th day of September
2007:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
71
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 7
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Final Acceptance of Subdivision Public Improvements within Tract 9120
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Move to grant final acceptance of the subdivision public improvements within the Tract
9120.
2. Move to adopt the resolution rescinding the previously rejected Offers of Dedications and
accepting dedication of streets within Tract 9120 which includes Alta Vista Avenue into the
City’s publicly maintained street system.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The subdivision public improvements within Tract 9120 have been completed and satisfactorily
maintained by the subdividers for the required one year maintenance/warranty period.
Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council grant final acceptance of these
improvements and assume the maintenance responsibility for them as contemplated by the
Subdivision Improvement Agreements. This can be accomplished by adopting the attached
Resolution which rescinds the previously rejected Offers of Dedications made on the Final Map.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There will be an increase of approximately $200 per year (using figures from the Pavement
Management Program) in the City’s street and storm drain maintenance expenses as a result of
adding these improvements to the inventory of City maintained streets and storm drains.
Approximately 130 feet of street will be added to the City’s street system.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The subdivision public improvements would continue to remain as private improvements for
which the developers and the individual lot owners within the subdivision would collectively
have maintenance responsibility.
Page 1 of 2
72
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The Resolution will be recorded.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Accepting Dedication of Streets for Tract 9120
2. Tract 9120 Vicinity Map.
73
Page 1 of 2
Recording requested by,
and to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
Department of Public Works
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
RESOLUTION NO. 36-B-______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION
TRACT NO. 9120
WHEREAS, on or about August 1, 2006, the streets, storm drains and other
improvements as shown on the hereinafter referred to subdivision map and on approved
improvement plans were completed and thereafter were maintained by the subdivider for a
period of not less than an additional year from the date of satisfactory completion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga
hereby resolves as follows:
That portion of the City’s previous resolution rejecting the dedication of certain streets, storm
drains and other easement as shown on the following described subdivision map:
Map of Tract 9120 recorded in book 716 of Maps, Pages 6 and 7 Santa Clara County Records on
May 25, 1999.
And as set forth in the City Clerk’s certification on said map, is hereby rescinded and the
previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted, except the following:
NONE
and all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be
public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certain Warranty/Maintenance Deposit posted
with the City on March 31, 1999, in the amount of $7,700, is hereby authorized to be released to
the subdivider.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 19th day of September, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
74
Page 2 of 2
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
75
S A R A T O G A
HE RRIM AN AVE.
R
I
V
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
CIR
C
L
E
S A
R A T O G A
JE R R I E S
D R .
J
U
N
E W A Y
A V E .
WILLIAMS R I O
AVE.
L O M A
V I S T A
H
O
L
L
O
W
A L T A
WALNUTAVE.
S
E
A
G
R
A
V
E
S
LN.S Q U I R R E L
W
Y
.
P
L
.
V I
C
T O
R
O A
K H
O
L L
O
W
L N
.
VI CINITY MA P
1400 Alta Vista Avenue (Original Address)
9120
Blackwell Properties
Sep tember 19, 2007
-0 250 500 750 1,000125
Feet
SIT E
Locatio n:
Tract N umber:
Ow ner:
Accept ance Date:
76
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19th, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 8
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Morgan Kessler DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: 2007 Pavement Management Program - Award of Construction Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Move to declare El Camino Paving, Inc. of Sunnyvale to be the lowest responsible bidder on
the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to El Camino Paving, Inc. in the amount of $733,157.
3. Approve additional work to contract in the amount of $50,000.00.
4. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $66,843.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Sealed bids for the 2007 Pavement Management Program were opened on Monday, September 10th.
A total of eight contractors submitted bids and a summary of the bids received is attached
(Attachment 1). El Camino Paving, Inc. of Sunnyvale submitted the lowest bid of $733,156.50,
which is 10% below the Engineer’s Estimate of $814,762. Bid amounts were competitive and quite
favorable considering recent petroleum prices. Staff has carefully checked the bid along with the
listed references and has determined that the bid is responsive to the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids
dated August 21st, 2007.
Staff recommends incorporating additional work into the contract in the amount of $50,000 because
of the favorable bids received. This additional amount will be fully covered by the PMP budget, and
will allow for the treatment of additional City facilities per the recommendations of the City’s
adopted Pavement Management Program.
The scope of work includes furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor to perform asphalt overlay
work and re-stripe segments of public roadway at various locations throughout the City. This
contract scope will also include the surface treatment of City-owned and maintained parking lots.
It is therefore recommended that El Camino Paving, Inc. be the lowest responsible bidder on the
project, and to award a construction contract this firm in the amount of their bid.
Page 1 of 2
77
Page 2 of 2
Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract
up to an amount of $66,843 to cover any unforeseen circumstances and address additional work,
which may arise during the course of the project.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for street resurfacing is now included in the CIP budget, whereas in previous years such
work was included in the Operating budget. The upcoming CIP budget will reflect this contract,
and future expenditures for major street-related construction.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
El Camino Paving, Inc. will not be declared the lowest responsible bidder and a construction
contract will not be awarded to that firm. The Council may make specific findings to declare
another bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all of the bids and direct staff to re-bid
the entire project. However, staff does not believe that a lower bid will be obtained by re-bidding
the project due to the competitive nature of the current bids received.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The contract will be executed and the contractor will be issued a Notice to Proceed. Work will begin
as soon as possible, and be completed by within 45 working days.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Bid Summary
2. Advertisement
78
CITY OF SARATOGA
Bid Summary: 2007 Pavement Management Program
Bid Opening Date: September 10th, 2007 Engineer's Estimate El Camino Paving Archibald Paving
Item No.Approx.Unit Description Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Quantity Price Price Price
1 6,338 TON 2" A/C Overlay 80.00 507,040 78.26 496,011.88$ 78.00 494,364.00$
2 1,200 SQ. YD.GlasGrid mesh 12.00 14,400 10.23 12,276.00$ 12.00 14,400.00$
3 49,206 LIN. FT.Wedge Cut 2.00 98,412 0.77 37,888.59$ 1.10 54,126.56$
4 500 TON Repair Failed Street Section (RFSS), 6" lift 150.00 75,000 105.65 52,825.00$ 110.00 55,000.00$
5 4,000 SQ. FT.A/C Leveling Course (thickness varies, up to 4")1.50 6,000 1.95 7,800.00$ 2.00 8,000.00$
6 41 EA.Adjust water valves 200.00 8,200 300.00 12,300.00$ 250.00 10,250.00$
7 71 EA.Adjust monuments 200.00 14,200 300.00 21,300.00$ 250.00 17,750.00$
8 25 EA.Adjust Storm Sewer Manholes 350.00 8,750 405.00 10,125.00$ 300.00 7,500.00$
9 47 EA.Adjust Sanitary Sewer Manholes 350.00 16,450 405.00 19,035.00$ 300.00 14,100.00$
10 80 LIN. FT.Thermoplastic Striping--Crosswalk (yellow where needed)2.00 160 3.00 240.00$ 4.50 360.00$
11 300 LIN. FT.Thermoplastic Striping--Limit Line (Stop Bar)2.00 600 3.00 900.00$ 4.50 1,350.00$
12 1,900 LIN. FT.Thermoplastic Striping--Detail 22 3.00 5,700 2.75 5,225.00$ 2.20 4,180.00$
13 20 EA.Thermoplastic Legend--"Stop"150.00 3,000 150.00 3,000.00$ 200.00 4,000.00$
14 4 EA.Thermoplastic Legend--"Ahead"150.00 600 170.00 680.00$ 200.00 800.00$
15 50 EA.Blue Reflective Fire Hydrant Markers 25.00 1,250 25.00 1,250.00$ 20.00 1,000.00$
16 2,000 LIN. FT.A/C Dike/Berm "Type A"5.00 10,000 9.40 18,800.00$ 10.00 20,000.00$
17 20,000 SY OverKote Parking Lots (with crack sealing & Striping)1.50 30,000 1.18 23,500.00$ 1.80 36,000.00$
18 1 LS Traffic Control 15,000.00 15,000 10,000.00 10,000.00$ 25,000.00 25,000.00$
TOTAL BID 814,762 TOTAL BID 733,156.5$ TOTAL BID 768,180.6$
79
Galedridge Construction O'Grady Paving G. Bortolotto Top Grade Construction Duran & Venables Granite Construction
Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total
Price Price Price Price Price Price
83.35 528,272.30 84.00 532,392.00 84.48 535,434.24 79.00 500,702.00 78.00 494,364.00 100.00 633,800.00
12.90 15,480.00 11.00 13,200.00 11.71 14,052.00 13.20 15,840.00 13.00 15,600.00 13.00 15,600.00
1.25 61,507.45 1.25 61,507.45 1.70 83,650.14 1.30 63,967.75 1.00 49,205.96 0.50 24,602.98
103.00 51,500.00 110.00 55,000.00 111.00 55,500.00 110.00 55,000.00 150.00 75,000.00 135.00 67,500.00
0.50 2,000.00 2.00 8,000.00 1.71 6,840.00 1.90 7,600.00 1.70 6,800.00 2.60 10,400.00
250.00 10,250.00 175.00 7,175.00 180.00 7,380.00 280.00 11,480.00 265.00 10,865.00 340.00 13,940.00
255.00 18,105.00 175.00 12,425.00 180.00 12,780.00 280.00 19,880.00 265.00 18,815.00 340.00 24,140.00
500.00 12,500.00 300.00 7,500.00 301.00 7,525.00 500.00 12,500.00 480.00 12,000.00 445.00 11,125.00
475.00 22,325.00 300.00 14,100.00 301.00 14,147.00 500.00 23,500.00 480.00 22,560.00 445.00 20,915.00
5.00 400.00 5.00 400.00 4.00 320.00 4.40 352.00 3.50 280.00 4.00 320.00
5.00 1,500.00 5.00 1,500.00 4.00 1,200.00 4.40 1,320.00 3.50 1,050.00 4.00 1,200.00
3.00 5,700.00 2.20 4,180.00 2.00 3,800.00 2.20 4,180.00 3.80 7,220.00 2.00 3,800.00
200.00 4,000.00 165.00 3,300.00 150.00 3,000.00 163.00 3,260.00 180.00 3,600.00 150.00 3,000.00
300.00 1,200.00 220.00 880.00 200.00 800.00 217.00 868.00 252.00 1,008.00 200.00 800.00
20.00 1,000.00 20.00 1,000.00 15.00 750.00 16.00 800.00 18.00 900.00 15.00 750.00
7.25 14,500.00 4.00 8,000.00 5.75 11,500.00 3.60 7,200.00 4.50 9,000.00 2.00 4,000.00
1.43 28,600.00 2.35 47,000.00 1.20 24,000.00 2.50 50,000.00 0.75 15,000.00 2.00 40,000.00
14,950.00 14,950.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 27,095.95 27,095.95 45,000.00 45,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00 24,010.00 24,010.00
TOTAL BID 793,789.75$ TOTAL BID 797,559.5$ TOTAL BID 809,774.3$ TOTAL BID 823,449.8$ TOTAL BID 833,268$ TOTAL BID 899,903$
80
BID SHEET
Item Approx.Unit Description Unit Unit
Quantity Price Total
1 6,338 TON 2" A/C Overlay
2 1,200 SQ. YD.GlasGrid mesh
3 49,206 LIN. FT.Wedge Cut
4 500 TON
Repair Failed Street Section (RFSS),
6" lift
5 4,000 SQ. FT.
A/C Leveling Course (thickness
varies, up to 4")
6 41 EA.Adjust water valves
7 71 EA.Adjust monuments
8 25 EA.Adjust Storm Sewer Manholes
9 47 EA.Adjust Sanitary Sewer Manholes
10 80 LIN. FT.
Thermoplastic Striping--Crosswalk
(yellow where needed)
11 300 LIN. FT.
Thermoplastic Striping--Limit Line
(Stop Bar)
12 1,900 LIN. FT.Thermoplastic Striping--Detail 22
13 20 EA.Thermoplastic Legend--"Stop"
14 4 EA.Thermoplastic Legend--"Ahead"
15 50 EA.Blue Reflective Fire Hydrant Markers
16 2,000 LIN. FT.A/C Dike/Berm "Type A"
17 20,000 SY
OverKote Parking Lots (with crack
sealing & Striping)
18 1 LS Traffic Control
TOTAL BID
Bid Form 58
81
NOTICE INVITING BIDS
2007 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SEALED BIDS will be received by the CITY OF SARATOGA (CITY) until 11:00
am, September 10th, 2007 for the 2007 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM. Sealed bids shall be submitted addressed and noted as follows:
Public Works Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Sealed Bids for: 2007 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
All bids must be accompanied by bidder's security in accordance with California
Public Contract Code Sections 20170 et seq.
Following the closure of the bid submittal period, bids will be publicly opened and
read for performing work as follows:
Furnishing all labor, materials, equipment, and performing all work
necessary and incidental to the construction of the project known as the
2007 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, according to drawings
and specifications as prepared by the City of Saratoga and according to
the Contract Documents. The work to be done consists of supplying all
labor, methods or processes, implements, tools, machinery, equipment
and materials for asphalt overlay, striping, manhole raising, traffic control
and other work not specifically mentioned herein, but which may be
required as directed by CITY or its designated representative.
CITY hereby notifies all Bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in
regard to any contract entered into pursuant to this Invitation for Bid,
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE’s) will be afforded full
opportunity to submit Bids in response to this invitation and will not be
discriminated against on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, in
consideration for an award.
Project is to be completed within 45 working days. The Contractor
shall pay to the City of Saratoga the sum of three hundred dollars
($300.) for each and every calendar day’s delay in finishing the
work in excess of the calendar day completion time.
Notice Inviting Bids 1
82
Notice Inviting Bids 2
Bidders may obtain copies of the bidding documents free of charge at the
Saratoga Public Works Department. Send requests for project drawings and
specifications to City of Saratoga; 13777 Fruitvale Avenue; Saratoga, California
95070; Attn: Public Works Director.
Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1771, the successful bidder and all
subcontractors shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of per diem wages as
determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations.
Copies of such prevailing rate of per diem wages are available for view at the
City of Saratoga Department of Public Works.
Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22300, the Contractor may,
at its option, choose to substitute securities for monies earned by the Contractor
and retained by CITY to ensure the performance of the Contract.
Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 3300, City has determined
that the Contractor shall possess a valid Contractors License at the time that the
bid is submitted. Failure to possess the specified license shall render the bid
non-responsive.
The successful bidder will be required to furnish a payment bond in the amount
equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract Price, as well as a faithful
performance bond, in the amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the
Contract Price. The bonds shall be on the forms included in the Contract
Documents.
The successful bidder shall insure that employees and applicants for
employment are not discriminated against on the basis of age, color, race,
national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, sexual preference, or marital status, and
shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Bids will be examined and reported to the City of Saratoga City Council (Council)
at a meeting within sixty (60) days of the bid opening. CITY reserves the right to
reject any and all bids, or to waive any irregularities or informalities in any bid or
in the bidding procedure, or to postpone the bid opening or award for good
cause. No Bidder may withdraw its bid for a period of five (5) calendar days after
the date of opening of the bids. Each bidder will be notified of award of contract,
if award is made. Contract Documents, Forms of Bid and any questions
concerning this bid should be addressed to Public Works Director, City of
Saratoga, (408) 868-1239.
CITY OF SARATOGA
Public Works Department
August 21st, 2007
83
Page 1 of 7
+
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: 9
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director and Assistant City Attorney
DIRECTOR: John Livingstone
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s June 13, 2007 Modification of Use
Permits for St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church at 18870
Allendale Avenue (Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-056).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct public hearing and consider Appeal of Planning
Commission Resolution 07-056 modifying and superseding two Use Permits issued in 1961 and
1968 to the St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church (hereafter “Church”). Consider
grounds of Appeal raised by Appellants and affirm Planning Commission decision with minor
modifications by adopting Resolution in the form of Attachment A.
REPORT SUMMARY: This Agenda item presents an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s
June 13, 2007 Resolution No. 07-056 which merged and modified the Church’s two existing Use
Permits, issued in 1961 and 1968 respectively. (Resolution No. 07-056 is Attachment B and the
Staff Report to the Planning Commission is Attachment C). This matter was originally scheduled
to be heard by the Council on September 5, 2007, but was continued to September 19, 2007. The
Planning Commission Resolution addressed the neighbors’ previous concerns regarding service
and sale of food and alcohol, catering, dancing, signage and parking. The Planning Commission
had authority to modify the Use Permits pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.100, which
establishes that the Planning Commission has continuing jurisdiction over Use Permits as follows:
“The Planning Commission shall, in all cases, retain continuing jurisdiction over each use
permit and may at any time, either on its own initiative or in response to an application or
request to do so, modify or delete any conditions of a use permit or impose any new
conditions if the Commission determines that such action is necessary in order to preserve
a substantial right of the applicant, or to preserve the public health, safety or welfare, or to
prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or where such action is necessary
to preserve or restore any of the findings set forth in Section 15-55.070 of this Article.”
84
Page 2 of 7
The Planning Commission found: (1) that the City has previously notified the Church on more
than one occasion that certain of its prior activities were not incidental to the Church’s organized
religious worship and religious education purposes and the Church has acknowledged that this has
been the case and apologized and stated its intention to correct the situation; (2) that some
advertisements by the Church for its current Serbian Orthodox Dance Lessons have been
inconsistent with City regulations governing public dances and the Church has agreed to revise
such advertisements; (3) that the Church’s illumination of certain signs without a sign permit is
prohibited by the City’s Sign Regulations and the Church has agreed to eliminate such
illumination; and, (4) that some complaints raised against certain of the Church’s operations (such
as parking in an area complained of) Code warrant imposition of clarifying conditions establishing
the propriety of such operations so as to reduce the likelihood of further complaints. Based on
these findings, the Planning Commission utilized its continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permits
in question to modify the Use Permits to establish clarity as to what is allowed and what is not.
The City recently discovered additional records related to the Church and on September 6,
2007 provided copies of those records to the Appellants and the Church, These records clearly
reinforce the need for the modifications to the Use Permits made by the Planning Commission.
Saratoga Neighbors Group a.k.a. Saratoga Neighbors Taskforce (“Appellants”) filed an
Appeal specifying a total of eight grounds (the Appeal is Attachment D). This Staff Report has
organized these grounds into five categories for purposes of responding: (1) claims regarding
unequal treatment and lack of due process (Grounds #1 and 6); (2) claims regarding service and
sale of food and alcohol (Grounds #2, 3 and 4); (3) claim that condition designed to prevent
Church parking on adjacent residential property owned by Church is “inadequate, ambiguous and
therefore unenforceable” (Ground #5); (4) claim that the modified Use Permit allows regular
public dances and use of Church as a public dance hall prohibited in an R-1-40 Zoning District.
(Ground #7); and (5) claim that failure of Use Permit 07-056 to expressly include 150 seat limit
for sanctuary approved in 1968 (but never constructed) allows for an intensification of a non-
conforming use (Ground #8). A number of e-mails concerning this matter have been received
from the public. While these e-mails are not attached to this Staff Report, they have all been
provided to the Council.
This Staff Report will not repeat the information contained in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission (Attachment C) which sets forth the context and detailed analysis relevant
to this proceeding. Furthermore, because of the volume of material submitted by interested
parties in connection with this proceeding, such material has been collected in a set of files in one
location in the Community Development Department and made available for review by
Councilmembers and other interested parties and made a part of the administrative record for this
proceeding. Furthermore, as is standard practice in the City of Saratoga for appeals of a
Planning Commission decision, the Commission Chair will be present to answer questions (if any)
from the City Council.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL:
1. Claims regarding Unequal Treatment and Lack of Due Process. Appellants base
this claim on alleged: (1) short notice before the appeal deadline as to the wording of the
85
Page 3 of 7
final signed Resolution; (2) unequal application of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); and (3) unequal allocation of time at the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 13, 2007. (Grounds #1 and #6)
a. Short Notice of Wording of Final Signed Version of Resolution
Appellants claim that because the final signed version of the modified Church Use Permit
Resolution was not emailed until 12:30 a.m. on June 28, 2007 (approximately five hours after it
was signed) that they were given insufficient notice for purposes of identifying appeal issues. The
deadline for filing this appeal was 5:00 p.m. on June 29, 2007, two full business days later. In
addition to having adequate time, Appellants were not deprived of due process for a number of
other reasons. First, the City Council conducts a de novo review on the Appeal, so once the
Appeal was filed, any issue relevant to the modification or revocation of the Church’s Use Permits
may be presented to the City Council. Furthermore, Appellants proposed remedy for this claim
was their “reserv[ation of] the right to raise additional appeal issues once sufficient time to review
[the] new CUP has been allowed.” Appellants have not raised any additional appeal issues in the
more than 60 days since they filed their Appeal. Additionally, the final signed version was not
needed to prepare an Appeal because the language approved by the Planning Commission was
captured on videotape and was available on the City website promptly after the June 13, 2007
Public Hearing. Also, the draft Resolution was included in the publicly-available Staff Report and
Appellants attended the June 13, 2007 Public Hearing and had full opportunity to ascertain first-
hand the modifications to the Use Permits made by the Planning Commission.
b. RLUIPA Claim
Appellants’ RLUIPA claim is not applicable here because Appellants lack standing to
invoke this federal statute. RLUIPA protects religious institutions and institutionalized persons.
Because Appellants are not a religious institution or institutionalized persons, RLUIPA cannot
apply to support their claim of unequal treatment by the City of Saratoga.
c. Unequal Time to Speak at the Meeting
As to Appellants’ claim that they were denied an opportunity to be heard and equal time at
the podium, this claim was addressed in a letter to the Community Development Director dated
July 3, 2007. This letter is Attachment E. In summary, the Planning Commission conducted a
Public Hearing lasting several hours and allowed anyone to speak who wanted to speak.
Furthermore, the City invited the presentation of documentary information and emails prior to the
Public Hearing and made that information available to all, either in the Staff Report or in the
collection of files on this matter at the Community Development Department. Appellants
submitted over 250 pages of documents that directly influenced the language and objectives of the
modified Use Permit. As a result, St. Archangel Michael’s Church now has a modified Use
Permit.
Much of the concern expressed in Ground #6 of the Appeal appears to stem from the fact
that speakers from the Church received more questions from the Commission. This was not an
indication of favoritism. In fact, the Commissioners asked Church leaders to address many
difficult questions and ultimately made findings supporting a significant modification of the
Church’s Use Permits resulting in more express restrictions on the Church’s activities.
Commissioners are charged with pursuit of the interest of the public and one way they do this is
through asking their own questions. The Commissioners had questions of the Church’s traffic
86
Page 4 of 7
study preparer and asked those questions as they are allowed to do. The Commissioners’
questions and a speaker’s response do not count towards any time limits. Thus, unequal time at
the podium based on questions from the Commissioners does not support a claim of unequal
treatment or discrimination.
2. Claims regarding service and sale of food and alcohol. Appellants claim that the
City is allowing a “restaurant” and a “bar” in an R-1-40,000 Zone District. Appellants also
claim that the Planning Commission erred in finding that Church alcohol sales and food
preparation and service are incidental uses in an R-1-40 Zoning District. (Grounds #2, #3,
and #4).
a. The City has the Ultimate Authority to Determine Whether a Use is Incidental to the
Church Use.
The City has jurisdiction to determine whether a particular use is incidental to the
operation of a Church. A detailed analysis of this issue is contained in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission (Attachment C) at pages 3-6. The following is a summary. The Church is
located in an R-1-40,000 Zone District which allows religious institutions under Section 15-
12.030(e) of the City Code. Included in this permitted use are “activities incidental” to “religious
worship and religious education” for a “religious institution.” The City Code does not define
“incidental” uses for a church. However, the City’s prior communications to the Church and the
City Code make it clear that for a use to qualify as “incidental” to the “organized religious
worship and religious education” of the Church, the events and/or activities:
(1) must be directly related to the religious objectives of the Church;
(2) must not involve mere commercial rental of Church facilities to the public;
(3) must not involve commercial catering for public events;
(4) must be one of the following: (a) intrinsically religious; (b) directly related to a religious
activity (fellowship meeting, etc.); or (c) predominately fundraising for the Church.
The Planning Commission has examined the Church uses and determined that the Church uses are
within the parameters mentioned above. In this respect, the Planning Commission has determined
activities of a religious institution to be “incidental” if they involve (e.g.) service of post-worship
service meals to parishioners and guests and hosts weddings (including receptions) and other
Church-related events that serve food and/or alcohol. Thus, if the City Council agrees that such
activities are incidental to the operation of the Church, then the Planning Commission’s
determination should be affirmed.
b.The Church does not and may not operate as a “restaurant” or a “bar”.
The claim that the Church is operating as a “bar” because it has the requisite permit from
the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) to serve alcohol (and in fact serves alcohol)
as part of some of its Church-related activities is not a correct interpretation of the City Code.
Likewise, the claim that the Church is operating as a “restaurant” because it has the requisite
“1623 Restaurant 0-5 Employees Permit” from the County Environmental Health Department to
serve food (and in fact serves food) as part of some of its Church-related activities is not a correct
interpretation of the City Code. Indeed, Section 7-25.030 of the City Code requires such a license
87
Page 5 of 7
for food preparation by the Church. These issues are addressed in detail in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission (Attachment C) at pages 8-12.
The Church’s merged and modified Use Permit as approved by the Planning Commission
(and now on Appeal) ensures at Conditions 3, 6 and 7 that the Church cannot operate a
“restaurant” or a “bar” within the meaning of the prohibitions contained in R-1-40,000 zoning
regulations. The Church events that serve food are not offers for sale to the public in an ordinary
sense because the food is prepared and served for parishioners and guests only. Nor does the
Church does operate as a bar, open to the general public and charging for alcoholic drinks.
3. Claim that condition designed to prevent Church parking on adjacent residential
property owned by Church is “inadequate, ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.”
(Ground #5).
The Community Development Department has determined that the Church is precluded by
existing City regulations from using the yard of the adjoining residential property owned by the
Church (APN 397-01-012) as an overflow parking lot for Church events. That is because (among
other reasons) the Residential Zone Districts do not allow residential properties to be used as
parking lots.
The Planning Commission’s merged and modified Use Permits currently on Appeal
provide as follows:
“The Church shall only use APN 397-01-014 for parking. In addition, the Church shall be
required to either construct a fence or other feature separating the parcel on which the
Church is located from APN 397-01-012, which shall be subject to prior approval by the
Community Development Director.” (emphasis added)
The above-quoted condition added by Resolution No. 07-056 is intended to make this parking
prohibition express and require a feature separating the two parcels in a manner satisfactory to the
Community Development Director. In response to complaints of parking on APN 397-01-012 in
violation of City regulations, the Code Enforcement Specialist has successfully enforced the
prohibition. Nevertheless, the Community Development Director recommends clarifying
Condition 13 to require that the separation feature at minimum include a solid fence at least five
feet in height.
The Church has confirmed that it is committed to not parking on APN 397-01-012.
However, the Church prefers to wait to install the required separation feature until the application
for Design Review Approval for the proposed new Church Sanctuary is considered by the
Planning Commission (estimated for November 2007). If the City Council concurs with the
approach to this issue taken by the Community Development Department and the Planning
Commission, it should determine the appropriate timing for installation of the separation feature.
Staff recommends installation within 60 days after final action on this Appeal.
4. Claim that the modified Use Permit allows regular public dances and use of Church
as a public dance hall which is prohibited in the Zoning District. (Ground #7).
88
Page 6 of 7
City Code Section 4-15.020 provides that “[n]o public dance shall be conducted and no
public dance hall shall be operated at any location in the City except within the C-C or C-V
zoning districts.” City Code Section 4-15.010(c)(3) provides and exclusion as follows: “[a] dance
conducted by any nonprofit social, fraternal, religious, educational or charitable organization,
provided such dance is not conducted on a regular basis. A dance shall be deemed to be
conducted on a regular basis if held more frequently than twice a year.” (Emphasis added).
Prior to the June 13, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting there was some lack of clarity as
to what was allowed in terms of dance classes and events at the Church social hall. The Planning
Commission endeavored to clarify this issue, providing at Condition 9 in Resolution No. 07-056
as follows.
“Public dances are prohibited and use of any Church facility as a public dance hall is also
prohibited. Dance Lessons are required to be conducted as educational classes for the
preservation of church-related Orthodox Christian traditions and shall not be allowed to
evolve into public dances. In order to comply with this condition, no advertisement may
invite the general public, the educational aspect shall predominate, and no admission may
be charged (other than a suggested donation clearly noticed as voluntary only).”
Consistency with the requirement that Dance Lessons be educational and for the preservation of
Church-related Orthodox Christian traditions was found on the basis of a Church Bulletin states
that the Church has an “adult dance program” in which local adults are “introduce[d] … to the
Orthodox Christian world view through the rich variety of dances … [primarily] … with the
dancers holding hands and dancing in a circle … [which] emphasizes a communal culture … and
an external existence and bond which flows from the Orthodox Christian world view.”
Subsequent to the Planning Commission action at its June 13, 2007 meeting, Loui Tucker
addressed a detailed email to the City and the Neighbors. The letter indicated a misunderstanding
as to the limits on the conduct of Ms. Tucker’s Dance Program at the Church as compared to its
former venue on City-owned property. When the Dance Program was on City-owned property,
there were no limitations on public dances inviting the general public and charging admission. On
July 31, 2007, the Assistant City Attorney’s Office sent a letter to Community Development
Director, John Livingstone, with a copy to the Church, Loui Tucker and the Neighbors making
clear that limitations in such regard do apply to her Dance Program at the Church and requiring
the Church to formally establish such limitations as to Ms. Tucker. (Attachment F). The Church
has followed up with a letter to Ms. Tucker establishing that such limitations apply to her Dance
Program on Church property. (Attachment G). Ms. Tucker has provided written confirmation of
her understanding and acceptance of these limitations. (Attachment H).
5. Claim that failure of Use Permit 07-056 to expressly include 150 seat limit for
sanctuary approved in 1968 (but never constructed) allows for an intensification to non-
conforming use in violation of the City Code. (Ground #8).
In light of the fact that the Church obtained Use Permits for its buildings and uses, (UP
147 in 1968 and UP 29 in 1961) there is no basis alleged as to why the Church would be a non-
conforming use; so there is no issue of an intensification of a nonconforming use. In any event,
the language in UP 147 from 1968 specifying that such Use Permit approval was subject to the
89
Page 7 of 7
condition that “maximum seating capacity of new sanctuary shall be 150 seats,” never became
operative because the new sanctuary was never built.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 07-056: The Church has
requested modifications to Resolution No. 07-056 (see Attachments I and J) as follows: (1) to the
time Church operations may commence and continue on Sundays per Conditions 8 and 10,
namely commencing at 8:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. and continuing until 10:00 p.m. rather than
9:00 p.m.; and (2) to have the Orthodox Easter exception for hours of operation last for the full
week of Orthodox Easter Staff supports request (1) because preparation for Sunday worship
services and the post-worship meal service reasonably requires an earlier start time. Staff does
not support request (2).
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives to the recommended action include: (1) revising the conditions
of approval; (2) declining to modify the existing Use Permits; (3) revoking the existing Use
Permits; or (4) affirming the Planning Commission action without modifying the commencement
time for Church operations on Sundays as requested by the Church.
FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Current Use
Permits 29 and 147 will remain in effect unless revoked or modified in other ways.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice has been given pursuant
to Government Code Section 65091 and City Code Section 15-90.070(a), specifically
Appellants, the Church, and property owners within 500 feet of the Church real property
were informed by mail on August 24, 2007 and newspaper publication of the notice
occurred on August 22, 2007.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed City Council Resolution
B – Planning Commission Resolution 07-056 Modifying Use Permit
C - Planning Commission Staff Report
D - Letter of Appeal
E – Letter re Planning Commission Proceedings re Modification of St. Archangel Michael’s Use
Permits (July 3, 2007)
F - Letter from Assistant City Attorney to Community Development Director with copy to Loui
Tucker re Dance Classes at the Church
G - Letter from Church to Loui Tucker re Dance Classes at the Church
H - Letter from Loui Tucker to the Church
I - Letter from Jolie Houston to Jonathan Wittwer re Church Hours (8-24-07)
J - Letter from Jolie Houston to John Livingstone re Church Hours (8-30-07)
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Motion to Reconsider Herriman Avenue Motor Vehicle Resolution Approved
September 5, 2007.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider whether to approve the motion to reconsider the Motor Vehicle Resolution regarding Herriman
Avenue approved by the City Council on September 5, 2007 and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On September 5, 2007 the City Council approved a Motor Vehicle Resolution establishing a “No Parking
or Stopping” zone on Herriman Avenue starting at the northwest corner of Herriman Avenue where it
meets Saratoga Vista (20121 Herriman, APN: 393-43-011) and continuing west ending at the corner of
Herriman Avenue where it meets Saratoga Avenue. The Resolution in the staff report was amended to
require staff to report back to the City Council within one year regarding the effectiveness of the
parking/stopping restriction. The Resolution, as amended, was approved by a 4-1 vote.
Following the City Council meeting, the Mayor received a request from a Council member who voted in
the majority to have the matter placed on the agenda for reconsideration. In accordance with Saratoga
City Code section 2-10.110(f) a motion for reconsideration may be heard at a subsequent City Council
meeting for any matter other than an ordinance or approval of “an application or request by any person
for a permit, license, right, privilege, approval or contract.”
If a majority of the City Council approves the motion to reconsider the Motor Vehicle Resolution, the
matter will be brought back to the City Council for further consideration at a subsequent meeting.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice for this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Copy of September 5, 2007 Staff Report for Herriman Avenue Motor Vehicle
Resolution.
Page 1 of 1
239
2
4
0
2
4
1
2
4
2
2
4
3
2
4
4
2
4
5
2
4
6
2
4
7
2
4
8
2
4
9
2
5
0
2
5
1
2
5
2
2
5
3
2
5
4
2
5
5
2
5
6
2
5
7
2
5
8
2
5
9