HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2009 City Council Agenda Packet
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
February 4, 2009
SPECIAL MEETING –5:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 5:00 P.M.
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
January 30, 2009)
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.
COMMUNICATIONS
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
Direction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
The following people have been scheduled for interviews:
5:00 p.m. Sesh Ramaswami
5:10 p.m. Douglas Robertson
5:20 p.m. Omid Shaken
5:30 p.m. David Reis
5:40 p.m. Christopher Kinn
5:50 p.m. Mary Bernald
CALL JOINT MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M.
1. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission
Recommended Action:
Informational only.
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the
office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently
with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any
materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review
at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council.
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification
24 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, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for
the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on January 30, 2009,
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 30th day of January 2009 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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
January 30, 2009)
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
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
1
1. Minutes – CH-2 Study Session – January 12, 2009
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
2. City Council Minutes – January 21, 2009
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
3. Review of Accounts Payable Registers
Recommended action:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles:
January 15, 2009
January 22, 2009
4. Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement Program – Award of Construction Contract
Recommended action:
1. Move to declare Guerra Construction Group to be the lowest responsible bidder on
the Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement Program.
2. Award a construction contract for the Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement
Program to Guerra Construction Group in the amount of $237,465 and authorize the
City Manager to execute the same.
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract in the amount
of $40,000.
4. Adopt Budget Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget.
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
5. Ordinance Amending the Regulations Related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges &
Negative Declaration
Recommended action:
Staff recommends City Council open the public hearing, accept public testimony,
close the public hearing, approve the attached ordinance, waive the First Reading and
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
2
NEW BUSINESS
6. Review the fees required for Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
Recommended action:
Direct Staff Accordingly.
7. Potential 2009 Work Plan Priorities for the Santa Clara County Cities Association
Recommended action:
Accept report and recommend potential 2009 work plan priorities for the Santa Clara
County Cities Association (SCCCA), and authorize staff to return these suggestions
to the SCCCA Board of Directors.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Chuck Page
Hakone Foundation Executive Committee
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities
SSC Cities Association Executive Board
SCC Cities Association Selection Committee
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
West Valley Sanitation District
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association Council Finance Committee
City School Ad-Hoc
Vice Mayor Kathleen King
Hakone Foundation Board
West Valley Flood Control Zone & Watershed Advisory Committee
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities
SSC Cities Association Executive Board
SCC Cities Association Selection Committee
SCC Cities Association – Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC)
City School Ad-Hoc
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association
Councilmember Jill Hunter
ABAG (Alternate Representative)
Historical Foundation
KSAR (Alternate Representative)
Library Joint Powers Association
Santa Clara County Valley Water District Commission
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
SASCC (Alternate Representative)
Sister City Liaison
Village AdHoc
Councilmember Howard Miller
Chamber of Commerce
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
Council Finance Committee
County HCD Advisory Committee
3
Historical Foundation
KSAR
SCC Cities Association – Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC)
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
Santa Clara County Valley Water District Commission
West Valley Flood Control Zone & Watershed Advisory Committee
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association
Council Finance Committee
Councilmember Susie Nagpal
ABAG
Chamber of Commerce
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
County HCD Policy Committee
Library Joint Powers Association
SASCC
Sister City Liaison
Village AdHoc
West Valley Sanitation District
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Council will adjourn the Regular Council Meeting and proceed to the Administrative
Conference Room for Closed Session.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to (Gov’t Code Section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to (Gov’t Code 54956.9(b) (1 Item)
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS –
Property: (Saratoga Village Parking District No. 1 at 4th Street and Wildwood Park)
Agency Negotiators: John Cherbone and Dave Anderson
Negotiating Parties: Kwan M. Lee
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the
office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently
with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any
materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review
at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council.
4
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, Ann Sullivan, 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 January 30, 2009,
at 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 30th day of January 2009 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City
Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us
5
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2009
2/4 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
2/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office and County Fire
3/4 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with School Districts: Saratoga Union
Elementary School District; Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School
District; Cupertino School District; Campbell School District Moreland
School District; Fremont High School District; Sacred Heart; St. Andrews,
and Campbell Union High School District
3/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Supervisor Liz Kniss
4/1 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Library Commission and Friends of
the Saratoga Libraries
4/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Youth Commission
5/6 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Mt. Winery
5/20 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts
6/3 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission
6/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with HOA Presidents
7/1 Regular Meeting –
7/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with SASCC
8/5 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association
8/19 SUMMER RECESS – NO COUNCIL MEETING
9/2 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation
9/16 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees
10/7 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission
10/21 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation & Heritage
Preservation Comm.
11/4 Regular Meeting – Saratoga Village Development Council
11/18 Regular Meeting -
12/1 Council Reorganization
12/2 Regular Meeting -
12/16 Regular Meeting -
6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: Minutes – CH-2 Study Session – January 12, 2009
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the January 12, 2009 CH-2 Study Session:
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 from January 12, 2009 – CH-2 Study Session
7
MINUTES
CH-2 STUDY SESSION
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL & SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 2009
Mayor Page called the CH-2 Study Session to order at 6:30PM.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Jill Hunter, Susie Nagpal, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Chuck Page,
ABSENT: Howard Miller
PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION:
Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Linda Rodgers, Joyce Hlava, Vice Chair Yan Zhao
ABSENT: Chair Manny Cappello
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
Mayor Page began the meeting by noting that the Study Session was scheduled in order to review the
CH-2 requirements and to discuss the results of the CH-2 District Review Committee (Committee)
meeting held on September 8, 2008.
Mayor Page invited public comment on non-agendized items.
No one requested to speak at this time.
Community Development Director Livingstone presented the staff report.
Director Livingstone noted that the Committee, comprised of Vice Mayor Kathleen King and Planning
Commissioner Joyce Hlava, held a public meeting on September 8, 2008 whereby property owners that
attended the meeting expressed an interest in allowing residential and office development as a permitted
use in the district and allowing owner occupied units. There was also interest in allowing more
flexibility than the current code allows and the possibility of creating some type of zoning or overlay
similar to a Planned Development zoning to provide flexibility. The Committee then asked staff to
bring a report based on this meeting to both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mayor Page invited comments from the Committee members.
1
8
Commissioner Hlava noted that based on public input there are two issues; 1) overlay in commercial
zone – means you can’t develop owner-occupied housing; and 2) make the CH-2 District more
residential or continue it as a commercial area. Ms. Hlava also noted the alternatives would be the CH-2
District as a straight residential zone or continue the concept of an extension of commercial and if the
current regulations would foster this concept.
Commissioner Hlava raised a question regarding the accuracy of the Commercial-Historic Map that was
attached to the staff report. She noted the attached map indicates a Neighborhood and Visitor
Commercial zone and thought those two zones had been collapsed into one “Commercial Neighborhood
Zone”.
Vice Mayor King asked that staff research the issue regarding the accuracy of the map.
Vice Mayor King also commented that at the September 8, 2008 Committee meeting the CH-2 business
owners conveyed their frustration in that it is difficult to get financial backing to make that area
commercial on the lower level and residential upstairs. She also noted that there hasn’t been much
commercial development in the past 18 years in this area and suggested maybe keeping this area as a
historic residential district.
City Manager Dave Anderson noted that over the years various Councils have tried to do two
contradictory things in the same space – extend commercial district into the CH-2 area and
simultaneously added approximately 37 housing units into the CH-2 Zone during the last Housing Plan.
He noted that it isn’t feasible to achieve both goals in that small area and continue to overlay two
different uses on the same property; therefore Council is being asked to decide what they would like to
see in the CH-2 Zone.
Mayor Page invited public comment and the following people requested to speak:
Gene Zambetti – stated he supports owner-occupied townhome/condomiums in the CH-2 Zone without
the 1250 sq. ft. restriction; Permitted Uses – retail on ground floor beyond 5th street is not viable;
supports professional administrative offices at street level without use permit requirement; feels
personal services, restaurants and banks should require Use Permit due to parking concerns; supports
Permitted Use over the counter for professional and administrative offices at ground level facing Big
Basin.
Holly Davies –supports professional offices on Big Basin, feels low income housing should be on
outskirts of town and feels Big Basin is too busy for residential; supports owner-occupied use – with
professional use in front and residence in back.
Nahm Lee – spoke about his concerns regarding the overlay issue and whether or not he could rebuild is
house to the same size if it was destroyed by fire or earthquake
John Kang - spoke in favor of the business/owner occupied dwelling with a studio/gallery in front and
feels the 50% rule does not work.
2
9
David Rossi –feels the city should do all it can to develop business and feels housing above or behind
commercial or professional will work. He feels the first 20 to 40 feet off the CH-2 Zone might be a
better benchmark than a 50/50 benchmark.
Mark Hirth – stated that he senses a “residential” feel once you pass 5th Street on Big Basin and would
like to see more office mixed use rather than more retail; supports office/business use in front and
residential behind or upstairs.
Paul Hernandez- asked Council to explain the term “overlay” and also suggested combining CH-1 and
CH-2 into business. He suggested moving City Hall to the downtown area and convert the current City
Hall property into residential for school teachers, etc.
Kip Knight – addressed the Council regarding his property and the zoning concern that says he may not
be able to rebuild his home if it was destroyed in an earthquake or fire. He stated this is a major concern
for him and many other property owners and asked that a grandfather clause be built in.
Marilyn Marchetti – noted that once you pass 5th Street it looks and feels like a residential area and feels
commercial use would not work in that area and would be problematic.
Bob Shepherd – commended Councilmember Jill Hunter for her outstanding efforts in the Village. Mr.
Shepherd stated that he feels the downtown is lacking energy and that one way to bring that back is to
create new housing and new business like Gene Zambetti’s project.
Mayor Page closed the public comment and asked for comments from Council and Planning
Commissioners.
Vice Mayor King – Stated most businesses aren’t interested in coming to Saratoga because we don’t
have a big enough customer base to rely on and that is why we lose that “energy” feeling. She stated she
does support mixed use with housing on the upper level and business on the lower level. She noted the
CH-2 District will not become retail, supports housing in that area and is all for what neighbors want in
that area.
Robert Kundtz – Stated he is conflicted because he feels a sense of withdrawal from the Village to areas
like Quito Center. He feels the opportunities that exist at the Quito Center will dilute the opportunities
for growth and vibrancy on Big Basin. He noted that even though there are differences of opinions
regarding CH-1 and CH-2 it would be interesting to see a study run on Quito Center in parallel with the
challenges that we face in the Village so that we can make a decision that will not negatively impact one
or the other. In terms of CH-2 District he prefers that to be more residential.
Kumar Rishi – Would like to develop a Master Plan for the Village – long term plan for the Village. He
would recommend an intensification of CH-2 and merge CH-1; feels that turning the CH-2 District into
residential would constrict the Village and create repercussions later on.
Linda Rodgers – Stated she agrees with Vice Mayor King and doesn’t feel they can do an overall
blueprint for the Village right now and would like to keep the CH-2 District more flexible for now so
that if opportunities arose later on to have more retail in that area – they could be allowed to grow on its
3
10
own. She stated she would like to see the current trend in that area – owner-occupied housing and some
professional administrative uses; before visitors get to the business area of the downtown. She noted that
most people do not park and walk a great distance in the Village to go from one business to another like
they do at Santana Row or in Los Gatos; therefore, would not recommend putting that type of use in the
CH-2 area that would require that type of parking. She supports having a professional/administrative use
on Big Basin Way and allowing owner-occupied buildings down the hill facing the creek. She also
supports not allowing retail, personal services, banks, etc. in that area due to the parking issue in a
residential area. She does support looking at the ordinances with regard to specific issues such as height
and set-backs. She also supports allowing any current owner-occupied dwelling to rebuild.
Councilmember Nagpal – With regard to the owner-occupied issue – supports consideration to remove
the housing overlay in the CH-2 District and to do this through the Housing Element Plan. With regard
to the CH-2 District and if it’s commercially viable – would advocate an interim position before going to
residential; such as looking at ways to equate CH-1 and CH-2. She supports professional administrative
uses under the permitted uses and would support this for a limited time to see if this works.
Councilmember Hunter – Stated she has a concern regarding water shortage and that there is a high
demand for housing – with water supplies diminishing. She feels retail will not be successful past 5th
street; supports professional uses in that area; feels some changes need to be done but does not support
changing set-backs or height; would like to see the overlay in a different area, and feels there is a way to
develop the Village without competing with Quito Center.
Planning Commission Hlava – Feels that basically there are three options:
1) Do away with the CH-2 Zone and go back to what it used to be – residential/multi-family RN-Zone. It
would address the owner-occupied issue because the overlay is only on commercial districts and this
would now make it a non-commercial district. On the negative side of this option it would not allow for
professional/administrative uses and it would create some non-conforming uses; not ready to give up on
the possibility of wanting commercial in that area at some time.
2) Keep CH-2 Zone, would have to deal with the owner-occupied issue in the housing element. Ms.
Hlava stated she is willing to look at making some changes in the CH-2 Zone in order to address the
limited commercial and professional administrative uses.
3) Re-Zone the entire area as Planned Development or re-write the CH-2 Zone in order to tailor the
development to the types of uses that there currently is a market for. Should probably keep the 15 ft.
setback, but should look at the height; allow three stories in back. Concluded by saying she is leaning
towards Option 3 - Planned Development.
Yan Zhao – Feels we need to be more flexible in CH-1 and CH-2 Zone; should allow owner-occupied;
should look at height limit and setback in CH-2 Zone; need to make some changes up to 6th Street –
including part of CH-2; and should allow professional/administrative uses.
Mayor Page – Noted that he agrees that some changes need to be made; would love to see a zone that
was residential/professional. He noted the main problem is the fact that the CH-2 is zoned commercial
and that if there was a way to change the zoning so the overlay didn’t apply, that would be the right
thing to do. In addition, he noted that it would be ideal if they could develop and design the CH-2 area
in a way so that it would become the entrance to the beautiful hills.
4
11
5
CONSENSUS:
City Manager Dave Anderson – Noted that the consensus from the Council and Planning
Commissioners was to allow more flexibility and bring the CH-2 area back to more of a residential
character than to force a commercial character.
Community Development Director John Livingstone – Noted the consensus also supported the
owner/occupied use in the CH-2 District and to preserve some commercial use with offices.
Vice Mayor King requested staff provide some information on the Planned Development suggestion and
asked for the City Attorney’s opinion on the Planned Development option.
Mayor Page adjourned the Study Session at 8:40PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
12
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – January 21, 2009
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting – January 21, 2009
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 – January 21, 2009
13
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 21, 2009
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in a Joint Meeting at 6:00 p.m. with the
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Board.
Mayor Page called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Jill Hunter, Howard Miller, Susie Nagpal,
Mayor Chuck Page
ABSENT: Councilmember Kathleen King
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
PRESENT: Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
Chris Riordan, Senior Planner
Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2,
the agenda for the meeting of January 21, 2009, was properly posted on January 15,
2009.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Van Nelson, President of the Chamber of Commerce Board – thanked council for inviting
the Chamber of Commerce to the Joint meeting this evening. He noted that last year’s
focus was to improve relationships with council, community and businesses. In addition,
he stated that when the Chamber planned community events, the event had to accomplish
one of two things – enhance the image of Saratoga or improve the business opportunities
for Saratoga businesses. He noted the Chamber primarily depends on volunteers to help
them increase the benefit of the Chamber’s services to the community. He noted the
Chamber created a Legislative Committee to work with the City on a number of issues –
including the support of the TEA issue; joined the County of Coalition of Chambers; co-
sponsored the League of Women Voters forum; endorsed Prop 11; endorsed Jim Beall’s
Healthy Worker Bill; and are currently studying the single plastic bag ordinance and the
Village post office closure. He noted that last year they created the first Business Expo –
an opportunity for businesses to showcase their business and services to the community.
The Chamber has also revised The Taste of Saratoga by placing the food booths for
participating restaurants in the middle of the street directly in front of the restaurant,
which helped increase foot traffic into the restaurants and provided marketing
opportunities for the restaurants.
14
2
Mr. Vance stated they have many upcoming events scheduled – including:
o New Member Breakfasts which are held quarterly to provide orientation to new
members
o Quarterly lunches
o Monthly “Mixers”
o Annual Crab Feed scheduled for February 7th at 6:30 at the Sacred Heart Church
o Business Expo and will be held at the Community Center
o Business of the Year
o Citizen of the Year
o Mother’s Day Tea
o Hot August Nights
o Auto Show
o Taste of Saratoga on the third Saturday in September
o Antique Show and Pumpkin Patch in October
o Annual Tree Lighting Event in November
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Nylesh Stalker – addressed the Council on a recent home burglary while they were on
vacation. Mr. Stalker also wanted to share the advice he received from the Sheriff’s
Office on how to safeguard your home and that is to call the Sheriff’s Office and ask
them to patrol your neighborhood during your absence. He noted more burglaries
occurred shortly after his home was burglarized. Mr. Stalker also asked if there was
anything the City Council could do to help keep neighborhoods safe.
Greg Gobel – Board member from the Saratoga Drama Group announced that he will be
playing “Will Rogers” in the Will Rogers Folly that is playing in the Saratoga Theater
starting next Saturday, January 31 and going through February 21st. Mr. Gobel also
noted the Saratoga Drama Group has been presenting musicals in the Saratoga Theater
since 1966. If anyone is interested in the performance or to purchase tickets there are
flyers available in the theater lobby and people can visit their website at:
www.saratogadramagroup.com or call 408-266-4734.
Paul Clark Miller – addressed the Council regarding crimes in his neighborhood. He
asked what can be done to protect the neighborhoods and asked if the Sheriff’s Office has
a matrix available and if they have any data that indicates if Saratoga is a high crime area;
if so, alert people in the area. He asked about the possibility of a private patrol and more
lighting in the community, as well as considering a citizen’s committee to work with the
Sheriff’s Office to help educate the community.
George Hill – addressed the Council regarding the December 15th auto burglary of his
vehicle, as well as a neighbor’s vehicle down the street. He stated he is concerned about
the neighborhood safety and asked what can be done to create a higher visibility of the
Sheriff’s presence in their neighborhood.
Kip Knight – asked Council to prioritize the revision of Article 15-65 Nonconforming
Uses and Structures (Article 15-65). Mr. Knight commended Community Director John
Livingstone for his assistance in helping him to understand the history of Article 15-65.
15
3
Julie Monroe – addressed the Council regarding her recent home burglary and asked
Council for assistance in raising neighborhood safety awareness.
Joey Wang – addressed the Council regarding Article 15-65 and asked Council to
prioritize the zoning issue.
Mayor Page noted Captain Calderone from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office was
in the audience and asked him to address the issues that were raised tonight.
Captain Calderone expressed his sympathy to the citizens that have been victims of these
crimes of opportunity and noted that it is a difficult crime to monitor and be in the right
area at the right time. Captain Calderone also noted that these types of crimes are
growing in all cities and are mainly due to the poor economy. He noted vehicle
burglaries have increased. He stated the Sheriff’s Office does have a matrix and it
appears that the Golden triangle area is being hit more with vehicle burglaries due to an
easy exit from the area via the quick access to the freeways. He also stated he has
assigned extra patrols in visible areas and residential areas and that the Sheriff’s Office
does reach out to citizens regarding vehicle burglaries and they do advise citizens not to
keep valuables in their vehicles. In addition, he noted that Sheriff’s Deputies have made
more property crime arrests in the past year than in any other years previously; they do
have a Neighborhood Watch Program – with a deputy assigned to facilitate this program
for anyone that is interested.
Captain Calderone stated that residents could do several things to protect their home and
property and recommended that residents have motion sensor lights, car alarms, and not
leave valuable items visible in their vehicles, including documents that identify your
residence.
Councilmember Nagpal thanked Captain Calderone for his support and asked if there was
a way to get the matrix information out to neighborhoods at large regarding burglary
trends in the community – such as through Neighborhood Watch Programs.
Captain Calderone stated that he currently provides this information to the contact person
in neighborhoods that have the Neighborhood Watch Program and that they should
forward this information on to other neighborhoods that may not have a Neighborhood
Watch Program.
Mayor Page thanked Captain Calderone for his continued efforts to keep the community
safe and stated that we all need to work together to keep neighborhoods safe. He also
asked if there was a need for a community meeting.
Captain Calderone stated that he would like to put together a forum to provide feedback
to the community regarding safety recommendations.
Sangita Joshien – addressed the Council regarding Article 15-65 and asked that properties
that are currently not in compliance with the zoning requirements be grandfathered in so
that they can become compliant and also asked that this issue be a Council priority.
COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
16
4
Councilmember Hunter asked when Article 15-65 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
ordinance is scheduled for discussion.
City Manager Dave Anderson responded that Council will be discussing this issue at the
January 30th Council Retreat, along with other ordinance revision priorities, during the
Annual Community Development Work Plan segment.
Councilmember Miller inquired about speaking with specific staff to familiarize himself
with Article 1565.
City Manager Anderson stated he should meet with Community Development Director
John Livingstone.
Councilmember Nagpal inquired about an action item with regard to the neighborhood
safety issue and the forum Captain Calderone spoke of.
City Manager Anderson noted that he meets regularly with Captain Calderone and that he
would discuss the options with Captain Calderone. Staff will provide Council with an
update via the Weekly Newsletter as to the actions the Sheriff’s Office will take
regarding neighborhood safety and how they will communicate this information to the
public.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Page noted that Administrative Analyst Crystal Morrow was present to provide
information and a display regarding the City’s new on-line Community Event Calendar.
Ms. Morrow stated the Community Event Calendar is now up and running. She noted the
intent of the on-line calendar is to provide information to the community regarding
upcoming events, keep the community connected, and to increase local tourism. Event
organizers can add their events to the Artsopolis calendar and the Saratoga calendar by
completing a Submission Form that is accessible on line by going to Saratoga’s website
calendar and click on the link that says “Submit an Event”.
Councilmember Miller announced the Redwood Middle School Band had the honor of
marching in the Inaugural Parade. He noted the school has received generous donations
from the community to help fund this event and is continuing to accept donations to help
off-set unplanned expenses.
Mayor Page reminded people to be more careful with regard to auto and home burglaries
and to lock their doors and not to leave valuables in their vehicles.
Councilmember Miller asked everyone to watch out for their neighbors.
Councilmember Hunter announced former Councilmember Vic Monia, who was living in
Reno with his family, passed away this week. She extended condolences to the family on
behalf of the community. Councilmember Hunter reminded everyone about the Saratoga
Love Notes and said the Love Note program has started and they are looking for a
committee to help decorate the Village shop windows with the love notes. She noted
people could use their own paper or go to Lupretta’s, Skin Prophecy Boutique, or the
17
5
candy shop in the Village to pick up love note paper. In addition, Councilmember Hunter
announced that two ladies have opened up a new accessory shop in the Village – The
Wig Store – and welcomed them into the community. She also announced that the
business owners in the Village said they had a very good holiday season this year and that
many of the shoppers indicated they were shopping locally this year because they do care
about supporting the shops in the Village.
City Manager Dave Anderson noted that he and Crystal Morrow met today with Mr. and
Mrs. Jerry Venz, owners of the Venz Photography Studio. They talked about the
community photography contest and encouraged people to enter their photos in the
photography contest. Mr. Anderson stated they also talked about the possibility of using
some of the submitted photos on the new City website.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1. APPOINTMENT OF HERITAGE PRESERATION COMMISSIONER AND
OATH OF OFFICE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing Paul Conrado to the Heritage Preservation
Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
RESOLUTION NO. 09-005
NAGPAL/MILLER MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPOINTMING
PAUL CONRADO TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF
OFFICE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – DECEMBER 17, 2008
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
Councilmember Miller removed this item for a clerical correction to reflect the
correct vote for Item No.2, which would be 4-0-1 not 5-0-1.
MILLER/NAGPAL MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES –
DECEMBER 17, 2008 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE
MAYOR KING ABSENT.
3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 7, 2009
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
18
6
Approve minutes.
Councilmember Miller removed this item for clarification regarding Item No. 7
stating the minutes note that Councilmember Miller would like to agendize the
Conditional Use Permit fees for the Village. Councilmember Miller noted his intent
was to agendize the Conditional Use Permit fees for the entire City, not just the
Village.
MILLER/NAGPAL MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES –
JANUARY 7, 2009 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE
MAYOR KING ABSENT.
4. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2008
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended
November 30, 2008.
HUNTER/NAGPAL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2008. MOTION PASSED
4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
5. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REGISTERS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles:
December 25, 2008 - None
January 01, 2009 - None
January 08, 2009
Councilmember Miller removed this item for clerical correction. Councilmember
Miller noted Council received an updated Review of Accounts Payable Register
reflecting the correct number.
MILLER/NAGPAL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE UPDATED ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE REGISTERS FOR ACCOUNTS PAYALE CYCLES: DECEMBER
25, 2008 - NONE, JANUARY 01, 2009 - NONE, AND JANUARY 08, 2009.
MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
6. ESTABLISH BILLING RATE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING STAFF’S
ANNUAL HOURLY BILLING RATES
STAFFS RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt proposed billing rate formula for calculating staff's annual hourly billing rates
Councilmember Miller removed this item for clarification. Councilmember Miller
wanted to clarify for the citizenry that the proposed formula for billing annual hourly
staff time for performing specific activities is not to raise fees, but to ascertain the
actual hourly cost to the City for staff performing specific activities.
19
7
RESOLUTION NO. 09-004
MILLER/NAGPAL MOVED TO ADOPT PROPOSED BILLING RATE
FORMULA FOR CALCULATING STAFF’S ANNUAL HOURLY BILLING
RATES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
7. ACCEPT AWARD OF ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENT
(ABAG) SAFETY GRANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to accept the reimbursable safety grant from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to the City of Saratoga in the amount
up to $16,791 for risk management programs, employee safety education, safety
programs, and projects, and authorize a General Fund appropriation in the Fiscal Year
2008/09 budget in order for the City to expend the funds in advance of the
reimbursement. The City must expend the funds for the approved grant items and
then submit a reimbursement request to ABAG for payment of the expenditures.
RESOLUTION NO. 09-002
HUNTER/NAGPAL MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT THE REIMBURSABLE SAFETY GRANT FROM THE
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) TO THE CITY
OF SARATOGA IN THE AMOUNT UP TO $16,791 FOR RISK
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, EMPLOYEE SAFETY EDUCATION,
SAFETY PROGRAMS, AND PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZE A GENERAL
FUND APPROPRIATION IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 BUDGET IN
ORDER FOR THE CITY TO EXPEND THE FUNDS IN ADVANCE OF THE
REIMBURSEMENT. THE CITY MUST EXPEND THE FUNDS FOR THE
APPROVED GRANT ITEMS AND THEN SUBMIT A REIMBURSEMENT
REQUEST TO ABAG FOR PAYMENT OF THE EXPENDITURES. MOTION
PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AS TO SPECIFIED
PROPERTIES CONTAINING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION (WEEDS)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution.
City Clerk Ann Sullivan presented the staff report.
Ms. Sullivan noted that this public hearing represented the second step in Saratoga’s
Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program.
Mayor Page opened the public hearing.
The following people requested to speak on this item:
20
8
Alex Tennant addressed the Council regarding landscaping/vegetation on his property
and noted that he prefers to keep approximately a fifth of an acre as its natural
vegetation and by doing this he can preserve an Oak tree in that area and conserve on
water usage. He also noted that he contracts with a company on an annual basis to do
the weed abatement on that fifth of an acre area and that this company does it in a
timely manner based on the rainy season. He asked Council to remove him from the
weed abatement program.
Al Campbell addressed the council stating that he had received a notice in the mail
last June and that this was the first notice he ever received indicating that he was in
violation of hazardous weeds. Mr. Campbell commended Moe Kumre, representative
from the Santa Clara County Agriculture Department, for his assistance and
willingness to work with Mr. Campbell regarding the abatement of weeds in low
areas that are too wet to access currently. Mr. Campbell stated he objects to the
required 30 feet of abatement as a fire break around his property. He stated there is a
lot of habitat living in the areas that he is being asked to abate and he prefers not to
disturb their environment. He asked Council to shorten the easement requirement.
Mayor Page closed the public hearing.
Moe Kumre, representative from the Santa Clara County Agriculture Department,
was present to answer Council’s questions and to explain how the abatement process
works. Mr. Kumre stated the abatement program is set up to incorporate deadlines for
the worst possible environment - dry season, flat lands, etc. He noted he will work
with individual property owners to ensure a safe tractor entry to abate specific areas.
He understands that certain properties have conditions that don’t allow tractor entry
by the abatement deadline and will work with property owners to have a safe
compliant deadline. He noted he would also like to meet with Mr. Campbell to look at
the specific property area he addressed regarding the wildlife habitat to determine if
this area could pose a fire hazard to his neighbors as well as to himself, the property
owner. Mr. Kumre noted the April 15th deadline has been set and that an additional
notice informing property owners of the deadline will be sent out in March. He stated
property owners will need to be in compliance by that April 15th date or they can
contact him to request an extension and must provide a reasonable explanation as to
why they cannot abate their property by the deadline. In addition, Mr. Kumre stated
no fees would be accessed until after the agreed upon date with a non-compliant
property. There are no charges assessed to property owners that are compliant by the
deadline.
Council had some discussion regarding the number of notices sent to property owners
and the purpose of the weed abatement program and how a property owner can get
off the abatement program list.
Mr. Kumre explained that there are two ways to get off the list; build and landscape
your property so there is no natural vegetation and dry grasses (weeds) that could
pose a fire hazard; or to provide voluntary compliance for three consecutive years
during the inspection period of the abatement program.
Council thanked Mr. Kumre for his efforts in keeping the community safe and for
working with property owners that have special requirements.
21
9
RESOLUTION NO. 09-003
MILLER/NAGPAL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING A
PUBLIC NUISANCE AS TO SPECIFIED PROPERTIES CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS VEGETATION (WEEDS). MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH
VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
9. HERITAGE RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Recommend Staff initiate a contract with an Architectural Historian to update the
Heritage Resources Inventory and;
2. Direct staff to apply for a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office
potentially offsetting sixty percent of the consultant cost to update the Heritage
Resources Inventory.
Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report.
Mr. Riordan noted that Council had met with the Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC) in a Joint meeting on September 3, 2008 and it was determined that Council
and the HPC was interested in updating Saratoga’s Heritage Resources Inventory
(The Inventory). The Inventory is an official listing of properties identified by the
HPC as having a heritage value or heritage character. The Inventory Update will
confirm and update the documentation of historic resources already listing on the
Inventory.
Council and the HPC agreed that it could take a number of years to update the
Inventory list if it was done by the HPC and felt that the Inventory update should be
accomplished in a much shorter period of time. Based on direction from Council at
that joint meeting, staff contacted three separate historical consultants to research the
costs for a professional historian to update the Inventory. Mr. Riordan noted staff has
discussed alternatives and projected costs to update the inventory with the HPC and
with three separate Architectural Historian Consultants.
Mr. Riordan provided Council with the specifics of those alternatives, which are: 1)
The HPC completes the update which could take three years or longer to update the
Inventory; 2) The HPC could update the Inventory with guidance and input by an
Architectural Historian Consultant; 3) Staff initiates a contract with an Architectural
Historian to update the Inventory. Mr. Riordan also noted that staff could apply for a
grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to offset sixty percent of the
consultant’s cost to update the Heritage Resources Inventory.
Councilmember Miller asked if there was a real sense of urgency or if this update
could be done effectively over a two-year schedule.
22
10
Mr. Riordan stated that at the Joint meeting with HPC in September of 2008, Council
directed staff to update the Inventory quickly and to research costs to have an
Historian update the list.
Councilmember Hunter noted that she recently attended a presentation at the San Jose
Historic Museum and asked if staff and HPC were aware that the State will provide
free training to the HPC with regard to historic preservation status.
Mr. Riordan noted he was aware of this free service.
Councilmember Nagpal asked if the Inventory update was budgeted for if the City is
unable to secure a grant.
City Manager Anderson noted that some funds may be available in the Community
Development department for the purpose of hiring consultants for this purpose.
Councilmember Hunter noted that if a consultant is hired it is important to hire a
reputable consultant in this field.
Discussion continued regarding the HPC’s involvement in the Inventory update. Mr.
Riordan noted the HPC would like to be involved in the process with the assistance of
a consultant to complete the Inventory; however, this method may take two years or
longer to complete.
City Manager Dave Anderson suggested that in order to expedite the process they
should do this in the same manner as the Housing Element plan was done. Have HPC
provide the input, consultants do a draft, and then get comments from HPC. HPC
would still give policy advice and overall direction without being involved in the time
consuming details.
Councilmember Hunter stated that when she was on the HPC in 2000 the inventory
was the main focus of their job, which was very time consuming. Councilmember
Hunter asked what the disadvantage was to having a consultant.
Mr. Riordan noted that often times, projects that are done without the help of a
consultant have to be redone by a professional consultant.
Councilmember Nagpal stated that she thought it would be advantageous to have a
consultant involved in this project and liked the concept illustrated by City Manager
Dave Anderson.
Mayor Page concurred that this method would involve the HPC by allowing them to
set the guidelines and direction and have a consultant do the work.
Councilmember Miller noted that if a consultant is to be hired to do the work with the
participation of the HPC, the Inventory update should be completed within one year.
Councilmember Miller asked if the budgetary estimate was $25,000 as stated in
Option 1.
23
11
City Manager Anderson stated that is the estimate and that staff would do additional
research to determine the cost of the project to see if it is within the $25,000 estimate;
if not, staff will present additional options to Council.
Councilmember Hunter also suggested staff call the State noting that she had an in-
depth conversation with Mr. Donaldson at the recent San Jose Historic Museum
presentation and that Mr. Donaldson suggested the City of Saratoga contact them
regarding Saratoga’s Heritage Resources Inventory update.
NAGPAL/MILLER MOVED TO: 1) DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A
CONTRACT WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN TO UPDATE THE
HERITAGE RESOURCES INVENTORY WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF
THE HPC TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE YEAR, AND; 2) DIRECT
STAFF TO APPLY FOR A GRANT FROM THE STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICE TO OFFSET THE CONSULTANT COST TO
UPDATE THE HERITAGE RESOURCES INVENTORY. MOTION PASSED
4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Chuck Page – reported:
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities – met and discussed the proposed
ordinance of a .25 cent fee on single use of plastic bags or paper. He noted this topic will
be discussed at the Council Retreat on January 30th and the LCC Peninsula Division
Committee would like input from the participating cities.
SCC Cities Association Selection Committee – met and appointed Evan Low to the
Recycling and Waste Reduction Committee.
Valley Transportation Authority PAC – met and noted that he was elected as Vice Chair
of this committee.
West Valley Sanitation District – met and noted he was appointed Chair of this
committee. He noted he would not be able to attend the next meeting and asked
Councilmember Nagpal (Alternate) if she could attend in his place.
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association – meets next week.
Council Finance Committee – attended the last meeting.
[Mayor Page made a request of his fellow Councilmembers to contact their
Agency/Committee Alternate and provide them with updates regarding
Agency/Committee meetings that they attended so that the Alternate can provide updates
to the Council if the Primary representative is unable to attend the next scheduled
Council meeting].
Vice Mayor Kathleen King – absent.
Councilmember Jill Hunter – reported:
Historical Foundation – attended the last meeting and noted things are going very well
for them and suggested people read their informative Newsletter.
Councilmember Howard Miller – reported:
24
12
Chamber of Commerce – he attended the last meeting and noted the Chamber did not
make a significant amount of money on September’s Taste of Saratoga event. He noted
the Crab Feed was scheduled for February 7th from 6:30 – 8:30.
Council Finance Committee – attended the monthly meeting today and discussed
preparations for the mid-year budget.
KSAR – In the process of working out a budget; Dave Anderson has removed himself as
the staff liaison and has appointed Barbara Powell to be the official staff liaison.
Councilmember Susie Nagpal – reported:
That she and Councilmember Hunter attended a meeting regarding the new City website
and discussed what to put on it – including the photos from the Photo Contest.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Hunter stated she would like the HPC to initiate a program to honor
those citizens who keep their heritage homes in beautiful condition. Hunter also noted
that Saratoga currently has two pending trust applications – the McWilliams House and
the Historical Museum.
Mayor Page noted he was appointed to the LCC Environmental Quality Policy
Committee and that he will be in Sacramento on Thursday.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Dave Anderson noted that he along with Councilmembers Nagpal and Miller would be
attending the League of California Cities Annual Meeting for Newly Elected Council
Members in Sacramento on Thursday and Friday of this week. In addition, he noted that
Assistant City Manager Barbara Powell would also be out of the office on Thursday and
Public Works Director John Cherbone would be the Acting City Manager during this
time and would provide his contact information to Council via the Weekly Newsletter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Mayor Page asked for a motion to adjourn the Regular
Meeting.
NAGPAL/MILLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AT
8:56PM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH VICE MAYOR KING ABSENT.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Sullivan, CMC
City Clerk
25
13
26
Dave Anderson
Melanie Whittaker Mary Furey
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles:
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Check Registers for:
Date Ending Check No.
01/22/09 111387 111438 51 533,600.75 01/22/09 01/15/09 111386
01/15/09 111323 111386 63 395,346.02 01/15/09 01/08/09 111322
AP Date Check No. Issued to Dept.Amount
01/15/09 111330 Public Works 52,785.72
01/15/09 111339 Public Works 12,764.67
01/15/09 111349 Public Works 13,985.77
0/15/09 111356 Public Works 24,172.40
01/15/09 111357 City Clerk 32,374.00
01/15/09 111369 Public Works 30,000.00
01/15/09 111380 Public Works 20,628.00
01/15/09 111383 Public Works 15,980.00
01/15/09 111386 Public Works 120,430.35
01/22/09 111392 Public Works 66,021.26
01/22/09 111411
Public Safety &
Human Resources 330,042.46
01/22/09 111425 Various 41,039.35
01/22/09 111437
General
Administration &
Public Works 20,222.20
Monthly Services - Legal
Fees / City Attorney /
Litigation
West Valley Sanitation General
General Supplies & NPS
Storm Drain Cleaning
K Moran Improvements
B&B Landscape Park & Trail Improvmements K Moran Improvements
County of Santa Clara
Office of the Sheriff General
Monthly Law Inforcement
& Finger Print Fee
Shute Mihaly &
Weinberger Various
Tree Planting, Turf
Conversion
Western Truck
Fabrication Equipment Replacement Truck Bed for Veh #121
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:DEPT. DIRECTOR:
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers.
January 15, 2009
January 22, 2009
Type of Checks Date
Starting
Check No.
Ending Check
No.Total Checks Amount
Checks
Released
Prior Check Register
Fund Purpose
CRW Industries North Campus Improvement N Campus Improvements
Streets & General
Consulting - Village
Lighting
Consulting - Traffic
MPA Design Inc Park & Trail Improvmements Plans - K Moran Park
N Campus Meter
Registrar of Voters General 2008/09 Election Costs
Stevens Creek Quarry Gas Tax Quito Rd Repair
General & Citywide Projects
North Campus Improvements
B&B Landscape Park & Trail Improvmements
Accounts Payable
PG&E CFM/PPC
Fehr & Peers
Accounts Payable
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure:
Vista Landscape &
Maintenance
27
The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued:
AP Date Check No.Amount
1/15/2009 111325 (133,811.50)
1/22/2009
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
Fund #AP 01/15 AP 01/22 Total
111 General 89,648.38 411,849.70 501,498.08
231 Village Lighting 27.78 338.29 366.07
243 Carnelian Glen 30.80 30.80
247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 147.71 147.71
249 Manor Drive Landscape 53.87 53.87
252 Prides Crossing Landscape 270.60 150.58 421.18
253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 68.00 256.76 324.76
254 Sunland Park Landscape 102.67 102.67
274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 71.88 71.88
277 Village Commercial Landscape 223.94 223.94
411 CIP Street Projects 12,447.95 23,783.24 36,231.19
412 CIP Parks Projects 154,169.72 6,201.60 160,371.32
413 CIP Facility Projects 79,288.87 6,750.00 86,038.87
421 Tree Fine Fund 7,789.00 954.00 8,743.00
431 Grant Fund - CIP Streets 1,224.00 66,021.26 67,245.26
481 Gas Tax Fund 30,000.00 30,000.00
611 Liability/Risk Mgt 999.76 3,094.72 4,094.48
612 Workers' Comp 349.89 349.89
621 Office Stores Fund 118.19 365.83 484.02
622 Information Technology 124.17 10,390.00 10,514.17
623 Vehicle & Equimpent Maint 1,585.13 1,585.13
624 Building Maintenance 1,222.13 2,813.90 4,036.03
631 16,012.45 16,012.45
395,346.02 533,600.75 928,946.77
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Registers in the A/P Checks By Period and Year report format
B&B Landscape
Issued to Description
(None)
TOTAL
Fund Description
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement
K Moran Improvements &
Retention (120,430.35
reissued ck#111386)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Public Works Director Public Works Director
_______
SUBJECT: Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement Program – Award of Construction Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Move to declare Guerra Construction Group to be the lowest responsible bidder on the Annual
Concrete Repair and Replacement Program.
2. Award a construction contract for the Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement Program to
Guerra Construction Group in the amount of $237,465 and authorize the City Manager to execute
the same.
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract in the amount of $40,000.
4. Adopt Budget Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Sealed bids for the Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement Program were opened on January 13, 2009.
A total of nine contractors’ submitted bids and a summary of the bids received are attached (Attachment 1).
Guerra Construction Group of San Jose submitted the lowest bid of $237,465. 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 December 22, 2008.
The scope of work consists of supplying all labor, equipment and materials to repair and replace
damaged concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at various locations throughout the City as identified
on the attached location list (Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPACTS:
A budget resolution amending the current fiscal year budget in the amount of $22,500 is attached
(Attachment 3) for additional sidewalk work above the approved CIP budget for that purpose.
The majority of sidewalk repair funds were expended last fall and since that time staff has
identified additional sidewalk repair locations. The additional work is primarily the mitigation of
tripping hazards.
39
Page 2 of 2
If approved by City Council, the funds for the additional sidewalks work will be transferred from
the Streets and Roads account. The following is a breakdown of the funding:
Sidewalk Repair Budget: $50,000
Sidewalk Repair Work Completed: ($37,500)
Balance: $12,500
Additional Work w/Contingency: $35,000
Budget Amendment: $22,500
Concrete repairs other than sidewalk work are funded from the Street Improvements Fund.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Guerra Construction Group would not be selected for this project. The Council may make specific findings
to declare another bidder to be the lowest responsible bidder, or reject all the bids and direct staff to re-bid
the entire project again.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None additional to the Recommended Actions.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The Construction Contract will be executed and Guerra Construction Group will be notified to start
construction as described above.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Bid Summary
2. Repair Locations
3. Budget Resolution
4. Construction Contract
40
Itemized Bid Summary: Annual Concrete Repair and Replacement Program: Bid Opening January 13, 2009 11:00 A.M.
Item
No.
Approx.
Qty Unit
Description of Street
Maintenance Bid Items Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total
1 4,300 LF
Remove and Replace Curb
and Gutter 40.00 172,000.00 31.00 133,300.00 30.20 129,860.00 29.00 124,700.00 36.00 154,800.00 45.30 194,790.00
2 1,500 SF
Remove and Replace
Driveway Approach 20.00 30,000.00 10.00 15,000.00 15.75 23,625.00 22.00 33,000.00 10.00 15,000.00 11.00 16,500.00
3 9,100 SF
A/C saw cut and Patch
Paving 10.00 91,000.00 5.30 48,230.00 6.03 54,873.00 4.80 43,680.00 9.00 81,900.00 4.80 43,680.00
4 1 LS
Quito Rd & Aspesi Dr
W ork N/A 10,000.00 N/A 3,820.00 N/A 3,095.00 N/A 8,000.00 N/A 2,500.00 N/A 4,900.00
5 1 LS Clear and Grub N/A 5,000.00 N/A 7,335.00 N/A 2,012.50 N/A 3,500.00 N/A 500.00 N/A 1,934.00
6 1 LS Traffic Control N/A 2,500.00 N/A 2,730.00 N/A 500.00 N/A 4,000.00 N/A 500.00 N/A 6,610.00
Description of Sidewalk
Bid Items
7 2,500 SF
Remove and Replace
Sidewalk 10.00 25,000.00 9.50 23,750.00 12.36 30,900.00 12.00 30,000.00 9.00 22,500.00 10.00 25,000.00
8 1 LS Clear and Grub N/A 5,000.00 N/A 3,300.00 N/A 2,012.50 N/A 2,500.00 N/A 500.00 N/A 1,058.00
TOTAL BID
JJR Const Jos J Albanese
$249,380.00 $278,200.00 $294,472.00
Bianchi Const Alaniz Const
$340,500.00 $237,465.00 $246,878.00
Engineers Estimate Guerra Const.
41
42
43
44
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK REPAIRS AT VARIOUS
LOCATIONS IN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to perform additional sidewalk repair work at
various locations in the City; and
WHEREAS, financing in the amount of $22,500 is needed for said work; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2008/09 budget as
follows:
Account Description Account# Amount
Transfer funding from Street Improvements project 411-9111-001-99999 $22,500
To Annual Sidewalk Repair project 411-9141-001.49999 $22,500
Appropriate expenditures in Annual Sidewalk project 411-9141-001.81161 $22,500
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby approves adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2008/09 budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 21st day of January 2009 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________
Chuck Page, Mayor
City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Ann Sullivan, City Clerk
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
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
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Regulations Related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges &
Negative Declaration
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends City Council open the public hearing, accept public testimony, close the
public hearing, approve the attached ordinance, waive the First Reading and direct staff to
schedule this item for a Second Reading for adoption on the consent calendar at the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The following is a summary of topics being addressed with the update related to fences, walls
and hedges:
Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes
Definitions The code currently does not define hedges
and does not distinguish walls from
retaining walls. The regulations use the
terms interchangeably throughout the
subsection, requiring assumptions and
interpretations.
The definition of fence will include walls
(other than walls of a building and
retaining walls). Definitions for hedge
and retaining wall have been added.
Height
Measurement
Fences are currently measured from the
lower elevation points and include the
height of any retaining walls. A property
owner with the higher grade on one side
of a property line is thus allowed a shorter
fence than a property owner on the
opposite side. Where, for example, a 4-
foot grade differential exists between two
properties, a property owner with the
higher elevation point is allowed only 2-
foot high fence if the maximum fence
height is 6-feet.
The proposed language will measure
fence height from the higher of two
properties. Some language has been
removed for consistency purposes.
Retaining walls will be measured from the
lower elevation of two properties and the
5-foot maximum height for retaining
walls has not been changed.
Fence Height The code currently permits fences to a The proposed changes would allow a 6-
1
153
Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes
maximum height of 6-feet. However,
fences are frequently constructed to be 6-
feet in height with 2-feet of lattice on top.
These fences are not allowed by code and
create code enforcement issues.
foot tall solid fence with additional 2-feet
of lattice for a maximum of 8-feet. The
proposed changes would also allow
fencing composed of wrought iron or wire
to a maximum height of 8-feet.
Fence
Exception
Currently, any variation to code
regulations requires a variance. Variances
are reserved for situations where a
hardship exists.
The update would establish a fence
exception process allowing property
owners to request the Planning
Commission approve a modification to
regulations for a particular situation where
a hardship may not exist, but where
deviation from the code is allowed.
Green Fences The code currently does not regulate the
height of trees or other natural
landscaping, even when planted in a linear
pattern creating a boundary similar to that
of a fence.
A definition of hedges has been added to
the code in lieu of the term “green
fences,” which is not used in the proposed
language. The proposed language will
exempt hedges from height restrictions,
except for street and driveway
intersections.
Driveway
Intersections
The code currently does not limit the
height of fences near driveway
intersections.
The proposed update will add a height
requirement of 3-feet for fences and other
elements located within a 12-foot by 12-
foot triangle near driveway intersections
for projects triggering design review.
Pedestrian
Entry
Elements
The current code does not regulate the
number or the size parameters of entry
elements.
The proposed language suggests a height
maximum of 8-feet, and a 5-foot
maximum for both width and depth.
There are no limits on the number of entry
elements.
Existing Non-
Conforming
Fences
Fences legally established prior to a
particular date are currently exempt from
some limitations within the code. Given
that many fences do not require building
permits, it is difficult to determine when a
fence was legally constructed.
Specific dates have been eliminated and
the term “legal” has been added to ensure
that the section applies only to legally
constructed fences. Removal of more
than half of a legal fence or element will
require the replacement structure to
comply with code requirements or require
review via a fence exception.
Height and
Materials
Within
Hillside
Districts
Currently, wire fencing (other than chain
link, barbed wire or galvanized wire) with
4-inch openings to allow for the passage
of wildlife is permitted. The code
specifies that the wire must be black or
otherwise colored to blend with the
terrain. With the exception for
The code has been modified to permit
fencing that delineates the area of
enclosure in hillside properties to be
composed of the same materials and
heights that are permitted elsewhere,
including chain link. The height and
materials for fencing outside the area of
2
154
Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes
recreational courts, chain link fencing in
the hillside district is currently prohibited.
enclosure have also been specified.
Area of
Enclosure for
Hillside
Properties
Hillside properties are currently permitted
a maximum of 4,000 square feet of fence
enclosure. Common practice is to enclose
a larger area with the goal of allowing for
the passage of wildlife. The code exempts
recreational courts from the enclosure
requirement, even though recreational
courts are permitted to be as large as
7,200 square feet.
The code will be modified to allow a
6,000 square foot or 15 percent of the
gross site area, whichever is greater,
enclosure that may be fenced with the
same material and maximum heights as
stipulated elsewhere in the City.
However, outside the area of enclosure,
fencing must be no taller than 3-feet and
consist only of split rail, stone, or stucco.
Additionally, recreational courts are no
longer exempt from the enclosure
requirement.
Chain Link
Fencing
Material
Chain link fencing is commonly used in
many areas of the City, but is prohibited
in the hillside district.
The ordinance has been revised to allow
chain link fencing in the hillside districts
within the allowed enclosure area.
Swimming
Pool Fences
(Building
Regualtions)
Chapter 16 (Building Regulations) of the
City code regulates fences required
around pools.
This update will reference that section of
the City code.
Swimming
Pool Fences
(Hillside
District
Enclosures)
The code currently limits the square
footage of enclosure within the hillside
district to 4,000 square feet, but exempts
the area needed to fence a pool from the
square footage maximum. Therefore,
since the building code requires properties
with a pool to be enclosed, a fence may
surround the property and inadvertently
enclose more than 4,000 square feet.
The proposed language will require
fencing for pools in hillside districts to
follow the contour of the pool with no
more than 10-feet of distance between the
water line of the pool and fence. Only
properties that already have a 6,000-
square foot enclosure for another purpose
are subject to this requirement.
Enclosure
Maximum
with Hillside
Districts
Currently there is no requirement for a
minimum distance in-between two fences
to be considered not enclosed.
This section was included in the Planning
Commission draft Ordinance but has been
removed for the City Council based on the
Commission’s intent.
Agricultural
Uses
Parcels with agricultural uses are subject
to the maximum 6,000 square foot
enclosure requirement.
The proposed language includes and
exemption which excludes fencing around
the immediate perimeter of an agricultural
use from the enclosure limitation.
3
155
Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes
Front Yard /
Side Yard
Fencing
The City has numerous lots (i.e. flag lots)
that do not have frontage on a street, but
are still required to adhere to a 3-foot
maximum height for fences in the front
setback area. This is particularly
applicable when the front lot line of a lot
abuts a side lot line of an adjacent lot.
Where the adjacent lot may be permitted a
fence that is 6-foot solid with 2-foot
lattice, the subject property may be
limited to a 3-foot fence along the same
property line.
The proposed language adds a provision
that allows the maximum fence height for
a side yard or a rear yard be allowed
within the front setback area of the lot that
would otherwise be limited to 3-feet in
height.
Solid 8-foot
Fence
An 8-foot fence or wall is currently
permitted for certain arterial streets and
for fencing adjacent to commercial
properties. Since the proposed language
would permit 6-foot solid fence with 2-
foot lattice on other properties, language
regarding the permitted 8-foot solid fence
needs to be clarified.
The phrase “solid or other type of fence
permitted by this Article” has been added
to existing language for clarification.
Parker Ranch The Parker Ranch subdivision has specific
fencing requirements; however the code
does not reference these regulations.
The regulations describing Parker Ranch
fencing requirements will be referenced in
the proposed language.
Environmental Review
Environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study. A notice regarding the
opportunity to review the document and a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was
published in the Saratoga News November 28, 2007. The comment period took place between
December 3, 2007 and January 3, 2008. Staff has not received any comments directly relating
to the environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The ordinance may lead to a decrease in fence complaints to the City’s Code Enforcement staff
thereby reducing staff time spent on enforcement and reductions in City Attorney costs.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Fence Ordinance would remain unchanged and would continue to be difficult to interpret for
both staff and the public.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Deny the proposed resolution and provide staff with direction.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Schedule the ordinance for a second reading.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
4
156
5
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and proposed
amendments to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations
B. Negative Declaration and Initial Study.
C. Minutes from the January 23, March 12, April 23, and November 12, 2008 Planning
Commission meetings.
D. Written Comments from Members of the Public
157
RESOLUTION NO.
Application No. ZOA 07-0001
MODIFICATIONS TO ARTICLE 15 OF THE SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO
REGULATIONS AFFECTING FENCES, WALLS, AND HEDGES
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request to consider amendments of certain
sections of the Zoning Code relating to fences, walls, and hedges; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all
interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
WHEREAS, the staff presented sufficient information required to evaluate the proposed
amendments;
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration were
available for public review from December 3, 2007 through January 3, 2008 and no comments
were received;
WHEREAS, all Interested Parties desiring to comment on the Negative Declaration were
given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the Negative
Declaration prior to this recommendation by the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with the intent
and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines, and the Negative Declaration represents the City’s independent judgment.
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guideline Section 15025, subd. (c), the City
Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and has
determined that the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of all of the testimony and related information the
City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby approve the Negative Declaration and the
proposed amendments to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations of the City Code as stated below.
Deleted language is shown in strikeout text and new language is shown in bold text with double
underline. Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Article 15-06 DEFINITIONS
15-06.261 Fence.
“Fence” means any structural device, other than a wall of a building, forming a physical barrier
by means of glass, wood, masonry, metal, chain, brick, stake, plastic, concrete block, wrought
iron, wire, or other similar materials. A wall, other than a wall of a building or a retaining
wall, is considered a fence.
158
15-06.341 Height of fence s, walls and hedges.
"Height of fences, walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence
(including lattice or similar material), wall or hedge to a point directly below at either the
natural grade or the finished grade, at the owners choice. whichever grade is lower. Where a
fence is constructed upon, or approximately parallel to and within two feet of the top of a
retaining wall, the height of the fence shall be the vertical distance measured from the top of the
fence to the bottom of the retaining wall in the manner prescribed herein. Where there are
differences in grade between adjacent properties, the fence height is measured from the
property with the higher grade, except for street and driveway intersections which shall
comply with subsections 15-29.010(e), (g), and (h).
(grade)
( g r a d e )
15-06.xxx Hedge.
A hedge means a series of trees or other natural landscaping planted in a linear and
uninterrupted pattern such that a boundary is created. The natural landscaping must be
able to stand on its own and shall not require supports upon maturity. A hedge is not a
fence. Except for requirements related to street and driveway intersections as noted in
subsections 15-29.010(e), (g), and (h) there are no limitations on the height of hedges.
15-06.xxx Height of retaining wall.
"Height of retaining wall" means a vertical line from the highest point of the retaining wall
to a point directly below the lowest natural grade, except for street and driveway
intersections as discussed in subsections 15-29.010(e), (g), and (h).
15-06.xxx Retaining Wall. A retaining wall means a structural device constructed and erected
to resist lateral pressure from earth or to retain soil.
Article 15-29 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES
15-29.010 Height restrictions.
(a) General regulations.General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no
fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height. A building permit shall be required for any
fence more than six feet in height. Height maximums and permitted materials for fences
shall be as follows:
159
(1) Solid fences. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no solid fence shall exceed
six feet in height. However, up to two feet of lattice (or similar material) that is at
least twenty-five percent open to the passage of light and air may be added to the
top of a solid fence. A solid fence taller than six feet shall not be permitted unless
approved by the Planning Commission through the exception process detailed in 15-
29.080, or approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to sections
15-29.030, 15-29.040, or 15-29.050 of this Chapter.
(2) Open fences. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, open fencing, such as
wrought iron, wire material, split rail, chain link, or other similar fencing shall not
exceed eight feet in height. With the exception of chain link fencing, open fencing
shall have openings sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a
diameter of four inches. For chain link fencing, the opening shall be two inches at
minimum and no slats are allowed in any opening.
(b) Front setback area. No fence located within any required front setback area shall exceed
three feet in height.
(c) and eExterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any
required exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height.
(d) The height limitations do not apply to the following circumstances: Exceptions to these
height limitations are as follows:
(1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not
exceeding six feet, if such fence or wall does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian
or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; provided,
however, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one-half of the length of such
nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height.
(2) (1) Wrought iron entrance gates within the front setback area, designed with openings to
permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet, and shall be
located a minimum of twenty feet from the edge of street pavement.
(3) (2) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform California Building Code shall be
excluded from the height requirements of this Section.
(3) Pedestrian entryway elements, such as arbors and trellises, when attached to a fence
within a front setback area or within an exterior side setback area, may be permitted to a
maximum height of eight feet, a maximum width of five feet, and a maximum depth of five
feet.
(d) (e) Street intersections. No fence, wall or compact, hedge, retaining wall, entryway
element, pilaster, gate, or other similar element located within a triangle having sides fifty
feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting
edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height above the
established grade of the adjoining street.
(f) Flag lots and other lots where the front lot line is not adjacent to the street and abuts
side or rear setback areas of adjacent lots. Any lot where the front setback area, or a
portion thereof, of the subject property: (1) does not have street frontage as defined by
Article 15-06.290; and (2) the front lot line, or a portion thereof, of the subject property
abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent property, the maximum permitted fence
160
height for side or rear setback area shall be permitted within the front setback area of the
subject property where it abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent property.
(g) Driveway Intersections. No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, pilaster,
gate, or other similar element located within a triangle having sides twelve feet in length
from either side of a driveway where it intersects with edge of pavement shall exceed three
feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. Ordinance size trees are
not subject to this requirement.
Property Line
Edge of pavement
(h) Vehicular Obstructions. No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, or any
other similar element shall constitute an obstruction as provided for in City Code Section
10-05.030.
Provided for reference only, emphasis added:
10-05.030 Types of obstructions.
The following is a nonexclusive list of obstructions which, under this Article, are deemed to
obstruct the view from vehicles traveling on public streets and the passage of pedestrians on the
sidewalks, and the same are declared to constitute a public nuisance:
(a) Any tree, hedge, shrub or structure overhanging a public street or sidewalk, the lowest part
of which is less than ten feet above such street or sidewalk.
(b) Any tree located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection,
as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no
curb exists, the limbs of which are less than ten feet above the ground surface.
(c) Any hedge, shrub, sign or other structure located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in
length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges
of the street pavement where no curb exists, the overall height of which is more than three feet
above the established grade of the adjoining street.
(d) Any vegetation, structure or object which is so situated as to in any manner interfere with the
unobstructed view by motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians of approaching or intersecting traffic
161
or the view of traffic control devices or directional signs placed upon any street or right-of-way
for the safety of the public.
(i) (d) Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations
contained in Section 15-80.030(c) of this Chapter.
(j) (e) Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part of a fence, in reasonable numbers and scale in
relationship to the nature and style of the fence, may extend to a height of not more than two feet
above the height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters, but in no case shall the
height of pilasters exceed eight feet. If pilasters within the front setback area are attached
to a wrought iron entrance gate, the pilasters are permitted to a maximum height of seven
feet.
(k) (f) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not include light fixtures mounted thereon at the
entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such light fixtures
shall be installed at each driveway and sidewalk entrance.
(l) Swimming Pool Fences. Fences required for swimming pools are governed by City Code
Section 16-75.010 and 15-29.020(e).
(m) (g) Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet
in height.
(h) Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development Director may issue a
special permit to allow a fence up to eight feet in height where such fence is installed along a
rear setback area or interior side setback area of a residential site which abuts a commercial
district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions deemed appropriate
to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not limited to,
requirements with respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape screening.
Applications for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the Community
Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a
processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council. (Amended
by Ord. 71.86 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71-106 § 6, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
15-29.020 Fencing within hillside districts.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article, fences and walls
located within an HR or R-OS district shall comply with the following regulations:
(a) (c) Area of Enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing
on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of six thousand square feet or
15 percent of the gross site area, whichever is greater, unless approved by the Planning
Commission. The fencing shall meet the requirements stipulated in 15-29.010 of this
Chapter. “Encompass and enclose,” as used in this subsection, shall mean to surround an
area with a continuous fence or a fence.
162
(b) Fencing Outside Area of Enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part of a
corral or fencing required by the California Building Code for swimming pools, fencing
outside the area of enclosure shall not exceed three feet in height, and shall be split rail
fencing, stone wall, or stucco.
(a) Length of solid fences and walls. Solid fences and walls, having no openings to permit
visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any
street or adjacent property. This restriction shall not apply to retaining walls.
(c) (b) Parallel retaining fences and walls. Parallel retaining fences and walls shall be separated
by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fences or retaining walls
are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or
less, the combined height of such fences or walls shall not exceed ten feet.
(d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals
utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site.
(c) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which
constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in
excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the
Planning Commission, which approval may be granted in any of the following cases:
(1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from
public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography,
landscaping or other features of the site.
(2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety
reasons.
(3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the
Planning Commission for a “designated neighborhood area,” as hereinafter defined, in response
to a petition for such exemption signed by the owners of lots comprising not less than sixty
percent of the designated area. Before granting such exemption, the Planning Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least ten days prior to
the date of the hearing to all persons owning property located within the designated
neighborhood area and within five hundred feet from the boundaries of such area. As a condition
for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish alternative rules concerning
the enclosure of sites in the designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules
pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, and mitigation of visual
impacts; provided, however, in no event shall such rules permit enclosure of more than sixty
percent of the gross site area, or the installation of any solid fences or walls, or use of any
fencing material having exposed sharp points, or the installation of any fencing within an area
dedicated as open space. The term “designated neighborhood area,” as used in subsection (c)(3)
of this Section, means a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the
Planning Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous to each other.
Lots which are separated only by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a petition for
exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded subdivision or tract map, the
Planning Commission may, in its discretion, require that all of the lots shown on such map be
included within the designated neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to
163
an existing designated neighborhood area upon application by the property owner and approval
by the Planning Director, based upon his determination that the additional lot has similar
topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the designated neighborhood
area.
(d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals
utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site.
(e) Wire fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, shall be
permitted only if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a
sphere having a diameter of four inches and the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with
the terrain. Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts and shall similarly
be colored to blend with the terrain. No barbed wire fencing shall be allowed except as permitted
by Section 15-29.050 of this Article.
(e) Swimming Pool Fences within hillside districts. When a fence already encompasses or
encloses more than six thousand square feet on a single site, and a swimming pool fence is
required for a swimming pool that is not located within the area of enclosure as described in
Article 15-29.020(a), an additional area around the swimming pool may be enclosed with a
fence, provided the swimming pool fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than ten
feet of distance located between the fence and edge of water.
(f) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any property located within and constituting
a part of Tract 7763, as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the
County Recorder. (Amended by Ord. 71.89 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 § 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 3,
1992)
(g) Any property located within and constituting a part of Tracts 6526 and 6528 (Parker
Ranch Subdivision), as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the
County Recorder shall meet the regulations stipulated in Resolution FE-90-001 or
successor amendments.
(h) 15-29.030 Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development
Director may issue a special permit to allow a solid fence, or other type of fence permitted by
this Article, fence up to a maximum of eight feet in height where such fence is installed along a
rear setback area or interior side setback area of a residential site which abuts a commercial
district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions deemed appropriate
to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not limited to,
requirements with respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape screening.
Applications for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the Community
Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a
processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council. (Amended
by Ord. 71.86 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71-106 § 6, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
15-29.030 15-29.040 Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets.
(a) For the purpose of noise mitigation, a solid fence, or other type of fence permitted by this
164
Article, exceeding the height otherwise prescribed in this Article as the limit for such fence may
be located within any required setback area abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road,
Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence
Expressway or the portion of Cox Avenue between Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga
Avenue, upon the issuance by the Community Development Director of a fence permit and
subject to the following provisions:
(1) Where the fence is located within an exterior side setback area or rear setback area abutting
one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height at the
property line, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback from the
property line, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within a required
setback area.
(2) Where the fence is located within a front setback area abutting one of the arterial streets
specified herein, the fence may be located no closer than ten feet from the front property line and
shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five
feet of setback from the front property line in excess of ten feet, up to a maximum height of ten
feet if the fence is still located within the required front setback area.
(3) Where a street line is located within a site, the location and setback of the fence as specified
in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the street line rather than the
property line.
(4) The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the
entire exterior side of the fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape plan approved
by the Community Development Director. All or any portion of such area may be located within
the public right-of-way, subject to approval by the Community Development Director. The
landscaped area required herein shall be not less than five feet in width, except that where the
available space between the fence and the interior edge of the sidewalk, or the edge of the street
pavement where no sidewalk exists, is less than five feet, the Community Development Director
may approve a landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a
landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office
of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land.
(5) The design of the fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development
Director, based upon a finding that the fence is compatible with existing or proposed structures
on the site and upon neighboring properties.
(6) No permit shall be issued if the Community Development Director finds that the fence will
constitute a hazard for vehicular or pedestrian traffic or will otherwise be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
(b) Applications for a fence permit under this Section shall be filed with the Community
Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a
processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
(Amended by Ord. 71.110 § 2, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
15-29.040 15-29.050 Fencing adjacent to scenic highways.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to
State designated scenic highways shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or wall which faces and is located within
one hundred feet from the right-of-way of a State designated scenic highway without first
165
obtaining a fence permit from the Planning Director. Application for such permit shall be
submitted to the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied
by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City
Council.
(b) Setback. No fence or wall shall be constructed within fifteen feet from the property line
abutting the right-of-way of a scenic highway. The Planning Director may require this minimum
setback to be increased to a maximum of one hundred feet if he determines that such increased
setback is necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway.
(c) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adjacent to scenic highways may be constructed
of wood, stone, stucco, masonry, wrought iron or similar material, but no chain link, plastic or
wire fencing shall be permitted. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Director, based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not
adversely affect the scenic qualities of the highway and will be compatible with the natural
terrain.
(d) Landscape screening. The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area
parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of the fence or wall facing the scenic
highway, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. Such
landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area,
fast growing, and require little or no maintenance. The Planning Director shall not approve the
landscape plan unless he finds that the proposed landscaping will effectively screen the fence
from public view and enhance the visual appearance of the scenic highway. Prior to issuance of
the fence permit, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and
recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant
running with the land.
(e) Height. The height of any fence or wall adjacent to a scenic highway shall comply with the
regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article; provided, however, where the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that his property is subjected to greater
noise impacts from the scenic highway as compared generally with other properties located
adjacent to such highway, the Planning Director may approve a fence or wall not exceeding eight
feet in height. As a condition of such approval, the Planning Director may require increased
setbacks and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the higher fence or wall.
(f) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence lawfully constructed prior to March 20,
1987, if such fence does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and
does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; and provided further, that upon
the destruction or removal of more than one-half of the length of such nonconforming fence, any
replacement fence shall comply with the permit requirement and restrictions specified in this
Section.
15-29.050 15-29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire prohibited.
No fence or wall constructed or installed within the City shall contain barbed or electrified wire
unless approved by the Planning Commission, based upon a finding that the barbed or
166
electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when
appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire.
15-29.060 15-29.070 Fences adjacent to heritage lanes.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a
designated heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or wall which faces and is located within
fifty feet from the right-of-way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in
height, without first obtaining a fence permit from the Community Development Director.
Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article
13-20 of the City Code. If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the Community
Development Director shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any
condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections (c), (d), (e) and
(f) of this Section and pursuant to the process prescribed in Article 13-20.
(b) Supporting data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13-20.030
shall be determined by the Community Development Director to allow adequate review of the
proposed fence or wall.
(c) Setback. No fence or wall which exceeds three feet in height shall be constructed within the
required setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be required to be
increased to a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to
preserve the historic qualities of the heritage lane.
(d) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adjacent to a the heritage lane may be constructed
of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the
fence or wall shall be approved based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not adversely
affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of
existing buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties.
(e) Height. The height of any fence or wall adjacent to the a heritage lane shall comply with the
regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of the City Code.
(f) Landscaping. The applicant shall landscape and maintain an area within the right-of-way,
parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence or wall in excess of three feet
in height and facing the heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the
Community Development Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees
and vegetation that are native to the area and require little or no maintenance. The landscape plan
may be approved by the Community Development Director upon the finding that the proposed
landscaping will effectively blend the fence with its environment and enhance the visual
appearance of the lane.
(g) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence lawfully constructed prior to September
16, 1992, if such fence does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic
and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; and provided further, that
upon the destruction or removal of more than one-half of the length of such nonconforming
167
fence, any replacement fence shall comply with the permit requirement and restrictions specified
in this Section. (Ord. 71.110 § 1, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
15-29.080 Exemption for Agricultural Uses. Fencing around the immediate perimeter of an
orchard, vineyard, equestrian facility or similar agricultural use is exempt from this
Chapter. This exemption applies to Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and
horticultural specialties, but does not include nurseries, greenhouses or storage of
landscaping equipment, products or supplies for commercial uses.
15-29.090 Fence Exceptions.
(a) The owner(s) of a fence, or proposed fence, including any gates or pilasters attached
thereto, may request that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the regulations
regarding fences. The Planning Commission may grant this exception if all of the following
findings are made:
(1) The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the
neighborhood;
(2) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high
quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable;
(3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
in which the fence is located;
(4) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to the
property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and
district in which the property is located; and,
(5) The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular,
pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from
adjacent properties.
(b)For exceptions proposed in the HR or R-OS districts, the Planning Commission may
grant the exception if, in addition to the findings made in subsection (a), it also makes all of
the following findings:
(1) The visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will
substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the
site; and,
(2) The fence does not unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals
utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site; and,
(3) In the event the exception is to increase the area of enclosure pursuant to Section
15-29.020(a), the fence is required for safety reasons.
(c) A public hearing on the application for exception approval under this Article shall be
required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than
thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, to the applicant
and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County
as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the parcel which is the
subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a
168
newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of
the hearing.
(d) A decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may
be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90
of this Chapter.
15-29.100 Existing Legal Non-Conforming Fences, Pilasters, Entryway Trellises.
Upon destruction or removal of more than one-half length of a legal non-conforming
portion of a fence, gate, pilaster, or entryway trellis, the element shall be constructed to
meet height requirements as prescribed in this chapter or be approved by an exception
process described in section 15-29.080 of this chapter.
15-80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts.
(c) Recreational courts. Subject to approval by the Community Development Director,
recreational courts may be allowed, provided that such recreational courts shall comply with all
of the following restrictions, standards and requirements:
(1) The recreational court shall not exceed seven thousand two hundred square feet in area.
(2) The recreational court shall not be illuminated by exterior lighting.
(3) No direct opaque screening shall be utilized around any portion of the recreational court.
(4) No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed ten feet in height.
(5) No recreational court shall be located in a required front or side setback area. Such courts
may be located within a required rear setback area, but no closer than fifteen feet from any
property line.
(6) The natural grade of the area to be covered by the recreational court shall not exceed an
average slope of ten percent, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15-70 of this
Chapter.
(7) The recreational court shall be landscaped, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by
the Community Development Director, so as to create a complete landscaping buffer from
adjoining properties within two years from installation. In addition, a bond, letter of credit or
other security, in such amount as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be
furnished to the City to guaranty the installation of the landscaping improvements in accordance
with the approved landscaping plan.
(8) The recreational court shall be designed and located to minimize adverse impacts upon trees,
natural vegetation and topographical features and to avoid damage as a result of drainage,
erosion or earth movement.
(9) The recreational court shall be designed to preserve the open space qualities of hillsides,
creeks, public paths, trails and rights-of-way on or in the vicinity of the site.
Section 2. Publication.
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.
169
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of February, 2009, and was adopted by the following
vote following a second reading on the (Insert Date) 2009:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _____________________________
Chuck Page Ann Sullivan
M A Y O R C I T Y C L E R K
Saratoga, California Saratoga, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY
Saratoga, California
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
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Review the fees required for Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct Staff Accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Review the fees required for Conditional Use Permit requirements.
DISSCUSSION:
The current cost of a Conditional Use permit may be deterring new businesses from applying for
permits, and looking to other areas or cities that do not require a use permit and the associated
fees. A Conditional Use Permit requires a flat fee of $4,400 and a document storage fee of $300
for a total fee of $4,700. Conditional Use permits for a restaurant typically take approximately
three months from the date the application is submitted to the Community Development
Department to Planning Commission approval.
In the City’s top 10 sales tax contributors there are two restaurants that generate 7.1% of the total
sales tax for the City. Of the top 25 sales tax contributors there are nine restaurants contributing
17.71% of the City’s sales tax. All restaurants require a Conditional Use Permit and are subject
to the associated fees.
The City Council has expressed interest in reducing the cost, time, and uncertainty of obtaining a
Conditional Use Permit. This report focuses on the cost component of the process. The City
Council may choose to lower the cost by subsidizing the Conditional Use Permit fee to
encourage new business development in the City of Saratoga.
Background:
Each zoning district has permitted uses and conditional uses. The permitted uses are allowed
uses that require no discretionary review. The Conditional Uses are also allowed, but only with
Planning Commission approval. Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses
require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to
achieve these purposes, the Planning Commission is empowered to grant and to deny
applications for use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of use
permits, subject to review by the City Council.
Page 1 of 3
311
Types of permitted and conditional uses:
The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City:
(a) Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in any commercial district,
unless a use involves the operation of a business providing direct customer service (including,
but not limited to, conducting a delivery service) on-site between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and
6:00 A.M., in which event such use may be allowed upon the granting of a use permit pursuant
to Article 15-55 of this Chapter:
(1) Retail establishments, except restaurants, markets, delicatessens, and any establishment
engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages.
(2) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15-40
of this Chapter.
(3) Parking lots which comply with the standards for off-street parking facilities as set forth in
Section 15-35.020 of this Chapter.
(4) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use.
(b) Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in any commercial district,
upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter:
(1) Restaurants.
(2) Markets and delicatessens.
(3) Any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages.
(4) Hotels and motels.
(5) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(6) Institutional facilities.
(7) Community facilities.
(8) Game arcades.
(9) Gasoline service stations on sites abutting Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga/Los Gatos
Road or Saratoga Avenue and accessible directly from such arterial road; provided, that all
operations except the sale of gasoline and oil shall be conducted within an enclosed structure.
(10) Animal establishments, as defined in Section 7-20.010(c) of this Code. All animal
establishments shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-
20.210 of this Code.
(11) Public buildings and grounds.
(12) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and
structures, storage tanks, transmission lines and cable television facilities.
(13) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use.
(14) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular
telephone and other wireless communications.
Findings:
A use permit is not a matter of right, and the Planning Commission may deny a use permit or
impose conditions upon the granting thereof if it finds that the proposed conditional use will
adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will adversely
affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.
The Planning Commission may grant a use permit as applied for or in modified form if, on the
basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes all of the following
findings:
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
Page 2 of 3
312
Page 3 of 3
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this
Chapter.
Number of Conditional Use Permits processed:
2007
Type CUP In the Village Other Areas 2007 CUP Total
Generator 2 2
Antenna/Cell Tower 1 4 5
Accessory 1 1
Restaurant 2 2
Total 1 9 10
2008
Type CUP in the Village Other Areas 2008 CUP Total
Accessory 1 1
Generator 3 3
Day Care 2 2
Height Limit 4 4
Church 1 1
Restaurant 1 1 2
Sleep Center 1 1
Total 1 13 14
FISCAL IMPACTS:
A budget amendment would be required to waive or reduce fees for Conditional Use Permits to
supplement the Community Development Department budget. The Community Development
Department is a self funded department. Waiving fees may also cause an increase in use permit
applications.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Council could recommend staff investigate a way to streamline the Conditional Use process.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
As directed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
313
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR:
Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Potential 2009 Work Plan Priorities for the Santa Clara County Cities Association
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and recommend potential 2009 work plan priorities for the Santa Clara County
Cities Association (SCCCA), and authorize staff to return these suggestions to the SCCCA
Board of Directors.
BACKGROUND:
The SCCCA was developed in 1990 to provide local leaders with a connection to one another
and provide municipalities in Santa Clara County with a unified voice when dealing with other
levels of government and other agencies. Each of the fifteen cities in Santa Clara County has a
councilmember appointed to serve on the Board of Directors—Councilmember Kathleen King is
the City of Saratoga representative on the SCCCA Board of Directors. The Board meets
monthly to support Santa Clara County cities and monitor state and federal legislation that will
have an impact on municipalities in Santa Clara County.
Each year, the SCCCA compiles a list of potential work plan priorities. In January 2008, the
SCCCA developed the attached list of potential work plan priorities to pursue. In February
2008, the City of Saratoga identified the italicized items (#1, 8, 10 & 12) as its priorities to
forward to the Board.
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on potential work plan priorities to forward to
the SCCCA Board for consideration at its February meeting.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The City of Saratoga will not provide input on suggested SCCCA work plan priorities for 2009.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Page 1 of 4
314
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” – 2008 Potential Policy Priorities.
Page 2 of 4
315
Santa Clara County Cities Association
Potential Work Plan Priorities for 2008
Community Development
1. Countywide Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Housing Allocations vs.
Allocations by City
a. Review by SCCCA of benefits of pooling housing resources and working as an
entire county to meet overall ABAG housing requirements, similar to the
approach used by the County of San Mateo.
2. Review of State Law Governing ABAG Housing Allocations
a. Study of benefits of drawbacks of potential amendments or repeal of the state law
that governs housing allocations.
3. Streamlined Planning and Permitting Process
a. Examination of feasibility of expedited planning and permitting process based on
additional fees and tools for implementing this supplemental resource for
residents and businesses facing development timelines.
Emergency Preparedness
4. Countywide Coordination of SUASI Grants
a. Explore possibility of working as a county to collectively leverage investments in
disaster and terrorism preparedness when applying for Bay Area Super-Urban
Area Security Initiative (SUASI), a Department of Homeland Security grant.
5. Emergency Communications Best Practices
a. SCCCA to determine best practices for emergency communications, when it is
vital to provide the public with accurate and consistent information.
Employee Benefits
6. Prepayment of PERS and Realized Savings
a. Evaluate benefits of prepaying Public Employee Retirement System (PERS)
expenses, using the City of Gilroy as a case study.
7. Retirement: Medical Benefits and Retirement at 55
a. Study of benefit packages that prevent Santa Clara County cities from being
competitive in attracting qualified employees due to benefits packages that may
be unaffordable in the years ahead (particularly when many employees are offered
the opportunity to retire at age 55, which may create a significant number of
vacant positions in the years ahead).
Environmental Sustainability
8. Countywide Green Building Standards
a. Create green building standards for all new private construction that can be used
in each of the 15 jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, making it easier for builders
to adopt green building standards.
9. Countywide Solar Assessment Districts
a. Explore opportunities to promote installation of solar panels through solar
assessment districts and assess the success of solar assessment districts in the City
of Berkeley. In November 2007, Berkeley adopted a program that would allow
the City to pay for the upfront cost of solar panel installation on a home and be
reimbursed by the homeowner with a 20-year assessment on their property.
10. Countywide Streamlined Solar Policy and Solar Permitting Process
Page 3 of 4
316
Page 4 of 4
a. Establish countywide policy on installation of solar panels on residential and
commercial property to make it easier and less expensive to install photovoltaic
panels.
11. Green Power Challenge
a. Coordinate a contest between Santa Clara County cities and residents to reduce
energy use.
12. Water Conservation Best Practices
a. Identify most effective ways to conserve water.
13. Encouraging Use of Reclaimed Water
a. Promote the use of reclaimed or recycled water.
Public Records Requests
14. Email Policy & Public Records Requests
a. Review email policies of other cities, particularly in relation to public records
requests.
15. Public Records Requests
a. Review how other cities handle public records requests.
Public Safety
16. Gang Intervention, Suppression, and Prevention
a. Develop regional solutions to gang problems that are an increasing problem
throughout Santa Clara County.
17. Speed Limit Policy
a. Review the State of California’s method for determining street speed limits and
identify opportunities to work with state legislators to improve this policy.
Purchasing Practices
18. Vendor Clearing House/ Purchasing Pool
a. Review purchasing methods, such as a vendor clearing house or purchasing pool,
which would allow smaller cities to work with larger municipalities to receive
better more competitive rates for goods and services.
317