HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2008 City Council Agenda PacketAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING – 5:30 P.M. – ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM – 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING
OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 12, 2008.) COMMUNICATIONS FROM 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. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Gov’t Code 54957) Title:
City Attorney ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION – 6:00P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1377?7 FRUITVALE AVENUE CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00P.M. 1. Joint Meeting with the Saratoga
Union Elementary School District. ADJOURNMENT 1 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 City Clerk 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
2 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 (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. 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 Posing of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for
the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 12, 2008, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available
for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 12th day of September 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan,
CMC, Acting City Clerk
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, September 17, 2008 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 12, 2008) 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. City Council Minutes -September 3, 2008 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 2. Review of Accounts Payable Registers Recommended action: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers
for Accounts Payable cycles: August 28, 2008 September 04, 2008 3. Amendment to Delta MicroImaging Contract Recommended action: Accept report and approve amendment to the existing contract
with Delta MicroImaging and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. 4. Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 19161 Cox Avenue Owner: Parker/Tickes Recommended
action: Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval of tentative map application No. SUB 07-0001 for two lots located at 19161 Cox Avenue. 5. Ordinance Establishing Various
Standards for State Video Franchisees Operating in Saratoga. Recommended action: Waive the Second Reading and Adopt the Proposed Ordinance. 6. Prospect Road Median Improvement Project
– Median No. 11 Recommended action: Approve proceeding with the Prospect Road Median No. 11 11 design. 7. Cooperative Agreement with City of Cupertino for Joint Paving Work on Prospect
Road Recommended action: Approve Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino for joint paving work on Prospect Road and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 8. Adopt
the Zoning Map Amendment for 20500 Lomita Avenue, 20568 Lomita Avenue, and 20550 Lomita Avenue. Recommended action: Waive the Second Reading and adopt the Proposed Ordinance and Zoning
Map Amendment. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item
for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s
approval at the Council meeting 9. APC08-0003 – Appeal of a Decision by the Planning Commission Granting Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Design Review Application, and
a 2
Modification to a Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from Standards for the Proposed Construction of a New 3,994 Square Foot Church Building on the Approximately 3.1 Acre Project
Site Located at 18870 Allendale Avenue. Recommended action: Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and approve the proposed new 3,994 square foot Church building for Saint
Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church by adopting, in sequence, the attached Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the attached Resolution Denying the Appeal and
Approving Application No. 03-259. 10. Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Recommended action: Open public hearing; listen to public testimony; and close public hearing. Take no further action
based on determination that all identified properties are in compliance as determined by inspection of Enforcement Officer. OLD BUSINESS 11. Relocation of Coast Live Oak From City's
Heritage Orchard to West Valley College Recommended action: Provide direction to staff concerning the the relocation of one coast live oak from the City's Heritage Orchard to the West
Valley College campus. NEW BUSINESS 12. Term Extensions for Library Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. ADHOC
& AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Ann Waltonsmith Association of Bay Area Government Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Advisory Board (PAB) Hakone Foundation Executive Committee
Santa Clara County Emergency Council SASCC West Valley Mayors and Managers Association Sister City Liaison Council Finance Committee Highway 9 Safety AdHoc TEA AdHoc Vice Mayor Chuck
Page Chamber of Commerce Hakone Executive Board West Valley Sanitation District Council Finance Committee Village AdHoc Valley Transportation Authority PAC 3
Councilmember Kathleen King Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Santa Clara County Cities Association City School AdHoc TEA AdHoc Councilmember Jill Hunter Historic Foundation
KSAR Library Joint Powers Association Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission Village AdHoc West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Councilmember Aileen Kao County HCD Policy
Committee Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) City School AdHoc Highway 9 Safety
AdHoc Airport Land Use Committee CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 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 City Clerk 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 (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, Acting
City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 12, 2008, of the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 12th
day day of September 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC Acting City Clerk 4
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2008 10/1 Regular
Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees 10/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District 11/5 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting
with the Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery 12/3 Regular Meeting – Reorganization 12/17 Regular Meeting – Traffic Safety Commission
1/07/09 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts 5
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk DIRECTOR:
Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – September 3, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting – September 3, 2008 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 September 3, 2008 6
MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 CLOSED SESSION – 5:00 P.M. Mayor Waltonsmith announced there was no reportable information. OPEN SESSION – 6:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE
ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. The City Council held a Joint Meeting with the Heritage Preservation Commission at 6:00 P.M. Mayor Waltonsmith 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, Aileen Kao, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Michael Taylor, Recreation Director Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst Michael Fossati, Assistant
Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 29, 2008) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The following
people requested to speak at tonight’s meeting: Carl Guardino, CEO of Silicon Valley Leadership Group, addressed the Council on the Fourth Annual Thanksgiving Turkey Trot event on Thanksgiving
Day, November 27, 2008. He invited Councilmembers and members of the public to participate in the event. Council thanked Mr. Guardino for his efforts in helping to fund the improvements
to the Austin Way bicycle area. 7
2 Mimi Mather thanked the Council for all they do for the community. In addition, she voiced her concerns over the construction of carports on Ronnie Way. She asked the Council to: 1)
Require owner notice posting for over the counter permits so neighbors are informed and have a chance to respond; 2) Update City code to reflect that two walls and a roof count in square
footage of floor area calculations; and 3) Have carport requests go through the Planning Commission. Vibha Gaitonde addressed the Council on the water problems in the basement of her
home. She has installed a sump pump with a battery backup and now wants to install a generator to run the sump pump. The cost to address this problem has been high and she asked the
Council to waive the $4,700 Conditional Use Permit fee for the generator. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Council discussed the carport issue regarding: o noticing requirements o over the
counter permit approval versus Planning Commission approval o updating the City Code with regard to carports o overlay possibilities in the Ronnie Way neighborhood Councilmember Hunter
asked to agendize the evaluation of carports for discussion and whether carports should be added to the Ordinance list; seconded by Councilmember Kao. Councilmember King asked to agendize
for discussion the status of the current Ordinance list and the lengthy process; seconded by Councilmember Hunter. Council discussed the sump pump issue and the request to waive the
fee for the installation of a generator. Council directed staff to: o Not waive the fee o Provide additional generator information in the weekly Council Newsletter o Director Livingstone
to contact the applicant regarding Conditional Use Permit fees for generators COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMUNICATIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission met in a Joint Meeting
at 6:00P.M. in the Administrative Conference Room. Commissioner Joan Gomersall addressed the Council regarding the Commission’s goals: o Update the Historic Resources Inventory list
o Agendize status of the Heritage Orchard sign on future Council agenda o Pursue the National Register of Historic Places status for the McWilliams House and the Saratoga Museum o Working
with the Parks and Recreation Commission to create an educational program for the Orchard o Devise a ceremonial plan to distribute the Historical Plaques that they already have in recognition
of the historical homes in the community 8
3 COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Council thanked the Heritage Preservation Commission for their hard work and everything they do to preserve the historic buildings and homes in the community.
Council directed staff to: o Budget for a professional to update the existing Historic Resources Inventory list o Visit other cities for comparison and best practices o Tools and incentives
for Ordinance revision ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Waltonsmith: The owner of Akeena Solar has challenged the communities of Los Gatos and Saratoga to go solar. He will give 10 kilowatts of power
to the community that installs the most solar panels in the next couple months (ending in November). GEAR – Giants baseball game fundraiser on September 24th for the California Parks
and Recreation Society. If you purchase the tickets from Saratoga resident, Jaime Hoffman, Saratoga Recreation Coordinator, a portion of the cost of tickets will go towards the Saratoga
Youth program. Lawrence Expressway Sidewalk Crossing Grand Opening (near McDonalds) – Friday, September 5th at 10:00 A.M. Councilmember Hunter: Village Lantern Walk on Saturday, September
13th at 4:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Page: Chamber of Commerce sponsoring Taste of Saratoga on Saturday, September 20th from 10:00 to 6:00 in the Village. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
1. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT – 60TH ANNIVERSARY PRESENTATION STAFF RECOMMEDATION: Accept presentation. Santa Clara County Fire Department Chief Ken Waldvogel presented each
Councilmember with a 60th Anniversary Year Book in celebration of 60 years of service. The leather bound book depicts pictures of the rich history of regional fire protection in the
Western portions of Santa Clara County, including the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and adjacent unincorporated
areas. Council thanked Chief Waldvogel for the Anniversary Book as well as for the continued excellent fire protection service not only in the local communities, but also in Southern
California during the wild fires. 9
4 CONSENT CALENDAR 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – AUGUST 6, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Vice Mayor Page requested that this item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Vice
Mayor Page stated that he submitted one minor correction to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. PAGE/KING MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2008 AS AMENDED. MOTION
PASSED 5-0-0. 3. STUDY SESSION MINUTES – AUGUST 25, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KAO/KING MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 25, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 4. TREASURER’S
REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED BY MAY 31, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Council review and accept the Treasurer's Report for the month ended May 31, 2008. KAO/KING MOVED TO ACCEPT
TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED MAY 31, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 5. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and accept
the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: July 31, 2008 August 07, 2008 August 14, 2008 August 21, 2008 KAO/KING MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR JULY
31, 2008, AUGUST 7, 2008, AUGUST 14, 2008, AUGUST 21, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 6. REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving
the revised Gann Appropriation Limit for FY 2008/09 10
5 RESOLUTION NO. 08-054 KAO/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REVISED GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 2008/09. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 7. APPROVE A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION
FOR TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH VALLEY CREST TREE CARE SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one-year Contract Extension with Valley Crest Tree Care Services and authorize the
City Manager to execute the same. KAO/KING MOVED TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH VALLEY CREST TREE CARE SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION
PASSED 5-0-0. 8. APPROVE A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one-year Contract
Extension with Gachina Landscape Management and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. KAO/KING MOVED TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT
AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 9. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR KEVIN MORAN PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO B & B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS,
INC., AND APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH MPA DESIGN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve attached budget resolution. 2. Move to declare B & B Landscape Contractors, Inc. to be the lowest
responsible bidder on the project. 3. Move to award a construction contract for Kevin Moran Park Improvement Project to B & B Landscape Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $1,312,006.90
and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract in the amount of $11,717.82. 4. Amend contract with MPA Design
for bid support and construction observations in the amount of $25,000. City Attorney Richard Taylor removed this item from the Consent Calendar. 11
6 City Attorney Taylor informed the Council that City staff had received a bid protest from one of the contractors that had submitted a bid, asking the City to reject the low bid award
because of addition errors in the low bid statement. City Attorney Taylor stated staff routinely checks the math on submitted bids and in this case there were addition errors in all
the bids that were submitted. He also noted that the addition errors would not matter as the contract wording clearly states that the correct math governs the bid contract, not the numbers
that are entered in the bid amount. Taylor also stated City staff had sent a letter to the protesting bidder stating the City was rejecting the protest. He also recommended Council accept
the staff report and approve the item, which will reflect the correct bid amount. The following people requested to speak on this item: Marty Goldberg stated he supports this project
and encouraged Council to move forward with it. Howard Miller stated he also supports this project saying Kevin Moran Park has something for everyone and not too much for any one group
or one person. He asked the Council to move forward by approving the next step for Kevin Moran Park. RESOLUTION NO. 08-055 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO 1) APPROVE BUDGET RESOLUTION; 2) DECLARE
B & B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC. TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE PROJECT; 3) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR KEVIN MORAN PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO B & B LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,312,006.90 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,717.82;
4) AMEND CONTRACT WITH MPA DESIGN FOR BID SUPPORT AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 10. KSAR CONTRACT AMENDMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept
report and approve KSAR contract amendment. KAO/KING MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT AND APPROVE KSAR CONTRACT AMENDMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. RESOLUTION DECLARING HAZARDOUS
VEGETATION ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing, listen to public testimony, and close public hearing. Adopt resolution declaring
hazardous vegetation on specified properties to be a public 12
7 nuisance. Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan presented staff report. Moe Kumre, Weed Abatement Coordinator for Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture, was present to provide additional
updates to the Council regarding the abatement of two properties that remained in non-compliance. He noted the property owners had commenced weed abatement procedures; however, he recommended
Council declare the two properties a public nuisance, thereby giving the County permission to abate the hazardous vegetation on the two properties if the property owners failed to do
so themselves. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. The following person requested to speak on this item: Ho Wai-Yan, owner of one of the specified
properties said he did receive the letter saying his property required additional weed abatement and that he was working with the Enforcement Officer to ascertain what additional work
was to be done. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 08-056 KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES TO BE A
PUBLIC NUISANCE. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 12. CITY INITIATED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR 20500 LOMITA AVENUE, 20568 LOMITA AVENUE, AND 20550 LOMITA AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open and conduct
the public hearing, introduce the ordinance amending the zoning designation for three (3) parcels, waive the first reading, and schedule the item for a second reading and adoption on
consent calendar. Assistant Planner Michael Fossati presented staff report. Councilmember Hunter recused herself from discussion and left the Council Chamber because she has a property
interest located within 500 feet of the affected area. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing for public comment. No one was present to speak on this item. Mayor Waltonsmith closed
the public hearing. PAGE/KAO MOVED TO AMEND THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THREE (3) PARCELS: 20500 LOMITA AVENUE, 20568 LOMITA AVENUE, AND 20550 LOMITA AVENUE, WAIVE THE FIRST READING,
AND SCHEDULE THE ITEM FOR A SECOND READING AND ADOPTION ON 13
8 CONSENT CALENDAR ON THE NEXT SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER HUNTER RECUSED. 13. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING VARIOUS STANDARDS FOR STATE VIDEO FRANCHISEES
OPERATING IN SARATOGA INCLUDING A FEE TO SUPPORT PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMMING IN SARATOGA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct public hearing regarding standards and fees
for State Video Franchisees operating in Saratoga and introduce and waive first reading of ordinance and direct staff to place ordinance on consent calendar for final adoption. City
Attorney Richard Taylor presented staff report. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Tom Moran, Chair of the Saratoga Community Access Television Foundation
KSAR, addressed the Council noting his support of this franchise fee and recommended Council approve this item. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. HUNTER/KING MOVED TO WAIVE
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE REGARDING STANDARDS AND FEES FOR STATE VIDEO FRANCHISEES OPERATING IN SARATOGA AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE ORDINANCE ON CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FINAL ADOPTION.
MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. Councilmember Hunter thanked Mr. Moran for his hard work and volunteer efforts regarding KSAR. 14. APCC08-0003 – APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION,, AND A MODIFICATION TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH A VARIATION FROM STANDARDS FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 3,994 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING ON THE APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRE PROJECT SITE LOCATED AT 18870 ALLENDALE AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council open the
public hearing on this item, accept public comments, close the public hearing, and continue the item to the meeting of September 17, 2008. City Attorney Richard Taylor presented staff
report. Attorney Taylor noted this is a procedural item because the mailed notices for the public hearing for Saint Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church had been mailed to the residents
residents that were within 500 feet of the affected property. 14
9 Subsequently the appellant had requested a continuance – prior to the new Ordinance procedures taking affect – and the continuance was granted. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public
hearing for public comment. No one was present to speak on this item. PAGE/KAO MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. OLD BUSINESS
None NEW BUSINESS 15. SARATOGA SPORT USER GROUPS – USE OF REUSABLE WATER BOTTLES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide direction to staff Public Works Director John Cherbone
presented staff report. Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment. The following person spoke on this item: Howard Miller addressed the Council on the environmental benefits of using
reusable water bottles at athletic events rather than the disposable plastic water bottles. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public comment. Council discussed the benefits of using reusable
water bottles at the various sporting events and that it is a great opportunity to reduce waste but also to educate our youth regarding the importance of conservation and environmental
stewardship. The sport user groups were very receptive to this idea as well as including a stipulation to the Sport User Group Agreements regarding this voluntary program. KAO/PAGE MOVED
TO ACCEPT REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THIS VOLUNTARY PROVISION IN THE NEXT UPDATE OF THE SARATOGA SPORT USER GROUP AGREEMENTS. Motion passed 5-0-0. 16. CONSOLIDATING ALLOCATION
OF COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and determine if FY 2007/08 carry forward funding for community grants should be consolidated for allocation in March. Administrative Analyst II Crystal Morrow presented
staff report. 15
10 Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment. No one was present to speak on this item. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public comment. Councilmember King stated she was uncomfortable about
making a decision on this item without the presence of participants that were told to come back in September or October for discussion on the $22,000 funding. She felt they should be
present and be part of the decision. Vice Mayor Page agreed there was some direction to have participants come back when there was money available; however, having a consistent set of
forms available that could be reviewed all at the same time has a greater benefit to everyone, including the people requesting funds. Councilmember King stated she would not be voting
for the consolidation of funds. Councilmember Kao and Hunter both supported Vice Mayor Page’s comments. Mayor Waltonsmith noted she supports this program to consolidate the funds. DIRECTION
TO STAFF: Move forward with consolidating the FY 2007/08 carry forward funds with the upcoming Community Grant and CDBG program grant allocation process. Direction to staff was 4-1-0
with Councilmember King opposing. 17. FEASIBILITY OF AFTER SCHOOL “DROP-IN RECREATION” PROGRAMMING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide direction to staff. Recreation Department
Director Michael Taylor presented the staff report. Discussion took place on: o The history of the Warner Hutton House (WHH) and the designated use of the WHH o Current uses of the WHH
o Reasons for discontinuing the use of the WHH as the Teen Center o Current after school programs and locations that are available to students other than the WHH, such as the Zone at
Redwood Middle School and the West Valley College program o Survey of students that would participate in an after school program o Cost of reopening an after school Drop In Center o
Fee per family/student to use the WHH if it was to reopen as the after school teen Drop In Center o Re-instituting Friends of the Warner Hutton House to help pay the cost of the WHH
after school Drop In Center 16
11 Lisa Pirlot, Teen Librarian at the Saratoga Library, addressed the Council regarding the current use of the Saratoga Library as an after school Drop In Center for teens. She indicated
that currently there were about 30 students that use the Library for an after school Drop In Center on a daily basis and that some behavioral issues were apparent. She also noted that
the Library wasn’t staffed to handle this issue. Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment. The following people spoke in support of reopening the WHH as an after school Drop In Center:
Youth Commissioners Cory Rateau, Justin El-Diwany, and Jacob Baker. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public comment. DIRECTION TO STAFF: o Create an Adhoc comprised of members of the Council,
Youth Commission, and representatives from the YMCA, Los Gatos Saratoga Recreation, and West Valley College to pursue options regarding after school youth activities o Provide Council
with WHH use data split by resident/non-resident in the weekly Council Newsletter o Provide a report to the Council at the Council Retreat early next year regarding the feasibility of
an after school program Direction to staff was 5-0-0 with Vice Mayor Page and Councilmember King volunteering to be a member of the Adhoc. PAGE/KING MOVED TO CREATE AN ADHOC TO LOOK
INTO AFTER SCHOOL DROP IN FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS IN OR AROUND CITY HALL, FUNDING AND OTHER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AFTER SCHOOL DROP-IN PROGRAM AND THAT THE ADHOC COMMITTEE BE
COMPRISED OF COUNCILMEMBER KING AND VICE MAYOR PAGE. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. Mayor Waltonsmith declared a break at 9:10. Mayor Waltonsmith reconvened the meeting at 9:15. 18. APPROVAL TO
APPLY FOR CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT GRANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff to apply for a “Citizen Engagement Grant” through Common Sense California to undertake a visioning
process for the Downtown Village, through the Village Economic Development City Council-Planning Commission Advisory Committee. Assistant City Manager Barbara Powell presented staff
report. Councilmember Hunter expressed her concerns about the October 1, 2008 award announcement and if there is sufficient time to apply for this grant. She noted she has 17
12 some reservations about moving forward with the application, however, she will vote to move forward. DIRECTION TO STAFF: Apply for a “Citizen Engagement Grant” through Common Sense
California to undertake a visioning process for the Downtown Village, through the Village Economic Development City Council-Planning Commission Advisory Committee. Direction to staff
was 5-0-0. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Ann Waltonsmith – reported: Hakone Foundation Executive Committee – Puccini’s “Madame Butterfly” fundraiser is on Friday, September
5th. Santa Clara County Emergency Council – met and has set a County-wide emergency exercise on October 23. SASCC – new website is up and running – www.sascc.org Sister City Liaison
– the exchange students were welcomed by Councilmember Aileen Kao on August 18 and toured City Hall. Ministerial Association – Joint meeting with Council scheduled on November 5th. They
consider the Saratoga community as a whole and want to provide community service. They would like Council to provide some ideas and suggestions regarding community joint project ideas.
Vice Mayor Chuck Page – reported: Chamber of Commerce – met and their main focus is Taste of Saratoga event on September 20th. West Valley Sanitation District – thanked Councilmember
Kao for attending the last meeting for him and asked if she could attend the next meeting on September 10th for him because he will be unavailable. Councilmember Kao agreed to attend
in his place. Council Finance Committee – met earlier in the day. Valley Transportation Authority PAC – met and discussed governance. Councilmember Kathleen King – reported: Santa Clara
County Cities Association -meets next week and that she is on the selection committee for the Executive Director’s position. City School Adhoc – working on acquiring the sign off on
the contract with the Campbell Union High School District Board. Councilmember Jill Hunter – reported: Historic Foundation – is having their event on September 20th at the Garrod Ranch
Library Joint Powers Association – stated the Library’s Association is discussing ways in which to provide funding to increase hours of library service. Santa Clara County Valley Water
Commission – Major concerns about water supplies in the affordable housing areas, as well as concerns about the Delta Smelt. West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – noted
that when the contract was signed there was a stipulation that if they didn’t provide the service they were saying they would, they would be penalized; and they have been penalized $15,000.
Based on the number of telephone calls they have received regarding their service, they could have been penalized up to $24,000. 18
13 Councilmember Aileen Kao – reported: She attended the West Valley Sanitation District Board meeting for Vice Mayor Page and noted the Quito Basin project will be starting in December
2008 and that the project will be completed in 135 working days. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember King asked if she could agendize for discussion the Solar Power Challenge between the
Town of Los Gatos and the City of Saratoga. Attorney Taylor noted that this sounds like it is something that is being done by a private enterprise and suggested the business owner attend
a Council meeting and address the Council during the Non-Agendized Items. He could also provide informational flyers for the public. Councilmember King asked if staff could address the
issue with the “speaker’s microphone” at the podium by putting operating instructions on the microphone so that the speaker knows how to turn the microphone on or off when they are at
the podium. Councilmember King thanked staff for the “new” Council Calendar of Activities. Mayor Mayor Waltonsmith asked Council members to please forward any and all notices of events
and invitations to Debbie Bretschneider so that she can add it to the Council Calendar of Activities. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Dave Anderson added additional comments regarding
the Ministerial Association’s Joint Meeting in November. He noted the Association is looking for recommendations regarding projects that they can do for the community on a volunteer
basis. He has asked the City’s Volunteer Coordinator to come up with some ideas and suggestions and bring it to a future staff meeting for discussion. Staff will then provide Council
with some suggestions and ideas for the Joint meeting with the Ministerial Association. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AT
10:15 P.M. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, CMC Acting City Clerk 19
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: August 28,
2008 September 03, 2008 REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 08/28/08 108441 108442 2 5,267.82 08/28/08 08/14/08 108440 08/28/08 110307 110342
36 46,101.35 08/28/08 08/14/08 110306 09/04/08 108443 108445 3 5,010.07 09/04/08 08/14/08 108442 09/04/08 110343 110387 45 130,636.99 09/04/08 08/14/08 110342 Total: $187,016.23 AP Date
Check No. Issued to Dept. Amount 08/28/08 110319 IT 11,239.38 09/04/08 110353 N Campus 21,311.82 09/04/08 110356 Parks & Landscape 24,588.76 09/04/08 110366 Various 13,823.26 09/04/08
110383 Finance 13,900.00 The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check No. Issued to Amount 8/22/2008 110251 City of Saratoga (10.00) 8/22/2008
110252 (14.98) 8/22/2008 110305 (24.80) 9/2/2008 110306 (24.80) 9/2/2008 108433 (2,072.14) The The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 8/28 AP 9/04 Total 111 General
23,176.50 62,358.82 85,535.32 211 CDBG Administration ---Fund Description Ann Sullivan Void Pixel USA Void-Reissue Void-Reissue Ann Sullivan Void Void-Printing Error Fehr & Peers General
Consultant Services Description Pacific Gas & Electric Various Monthly Service Varinek, Trine & Day General Audit services ECS Imaging IT Services Annual Support CRW Industries CIP-Facility
Projects Fellowship Hall Project Accounts Payable The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: Fund Purpose
Prior Check Register Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: DEPT. DIRECTOR: SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers. Type of Checks Date Starting
Check No. Ending Check No. Total Checks Amount Checks Released SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY
MANAGER: 20
212 Saratoga Housing & Rehab. Pgm. ---The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 8/28 AP 9/04 Total 231 Village Lighting -2,048.92 2,048.92 232 Azule Lighting -218.18
218.18 233 Sarahills Lighting -243.55 243.55 241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape ---242 Bonnet Way Landscape 122.57 202.61 325.18 243 Carnelian Glen 101.46 -101.46 244 Cunningham/Glasgow
Landscape 122.88 -122.88 245 Ferdericksburg Landscape ---246 Greenbriar Landscape -179.00 179.00 247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape ---248 Leutar Court Landscape ---249 Manor Drive Landscape
---251 McCartysville Landscape 850.26 17.16 867.42 252 Prides Crossing Landscape -536.95 536.95 253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 102.00 -102.00 254 Sunland Park Landscape ---255 Tricia
Woods Landscape 35.68 8.58 44.26 271 Beauchamps Landscape 190.00 43.18 233.18 272 Bellgrove Landscape -707.11 707.11 273 Gateway Landscape ---274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 236.74
9.17 245.91 275 Quito Lighting -1,057.22 1,057.22 276 Tollgate LLD ---277 Village Commercial Landscape 627.48 61.38 688.86 311 Library Bond Debt Service ---411 CIP Street Projects 184.89
3,540.22 3,725.11 412 CIP Parks Projects 4,674.57 22,884.11 27,558.68 413 CIP Facility Projects -22,160.87 22,160.87 414 CIP Admin Projects ---421 Tree Fine Fund -378.00 378.00 431 Grant
Fund -CIP Streets ---481 Gas Tax Fund ---611 Liability/Risk Mgt ---612 Workers' Comp ---621 Office Stores Fund 104.20 1,564.60 1,668.80 622 Information Technology 13,288.82 2,888.37
16,177.19 623 Vehicle & Equimpent Maint 4,086.56 3,258.96 7,345.52 624 Building Maintenance 3,464.56 11,280.10 14,744.66 631 ---632 ---51,369.17 135,647.06 187,016.23 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: TOTAL Fund Description Vehicle & Equipment Replacement IT Equipment Replacement 21
Check Registers in the A/P Checks By Period and Year report format 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 3, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works
Analyst SUBJECT: Amendment to Delta MicroImaging contract RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and approve amendment to the existing contract with Delta MicroImaging and authorize the City
Manager to execute the contract amendment. BACKGROUND: The City of Saratoga had a contract for scanning services with ECS Imaging which was approved by the Council in 2005. The contract
expired in March 2007, and a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released on November 27, 2007. In the RFP the City asked consultants to provide the following services: • Retrieve and transport
records identified by the City to the Contractor’s facility • Scan and convert the records to a Laser Fiche format at 300 dpi for documents and 400 dpi for maps and plans • Work with
the City on index criteria for the scanned images • Scanning of archive documents which would require special handling or specialized scanning • Creation of CD masters and duplicates
of scanned images A total of five scanning consultants responded to the RFP, including Coastal Business Services Group, Delta MicroImaging, Evolve Discovery, Soft File and Total Records
Management. The evaluation was based on two criteria: response to the submittal requirements; and a sample scanning of documents provided by the City. Only two companies were responsive
to all the submittal requirements -Coastal Business Services and Delta MicroImaging. Each consultant was also asked to scan a sixty page document at 300 dpi and five different plan sheets
(provided by the City) at 400 dpi. Only three of the companies followed all the RFP submittal requirements. Delta MicroImaging provided examples of techniques that could be use to improve
old or degraded documents. This is particularly important because the departments are currently working on scanning plans and documents in storage, most of which are old and in various
states of decay. The staff was impressed that the Delta technicians hand fed all the documents into the scanners as opposed to other companies that used bulk feeders, which reduces the
quality and reliability of the scans. Page 1 of 2 32
The three staff members who reviewed the proposals all determined that the submittal from Delta MicroImaging best met the requirements stated in the RFP. After the staff review and selection,
the City Manager approved a $25,000 contract with Delta MicroImaging so that the City could have an opportunity to check the quality of the work on a limited basis. The Public Works
Department and Building Division have sent approximately 150 sets of plans and 30 boxes of documents to be scanned and we have verified the quality and consistency of the work over the
last eight months. Therefore the City would like to amend the existing contract with Delta MicroImaging for scanning services for two years through June 30, 2010, for an amount not to
exceed $121,000. FISCAL IMPACTS: The Council previously approved funding for scanning of Public Works and Community Development Department archived documents in the CIP. The Building
Division funds current year scanning services in the Operating Budget each year. Funding for this contract is available from the following sources Budget Department Account Available
Contract Remaining Public Works 414-9412-001-81148 77,731 76,000 1,731 Planning 414-9412-002-81148 60,000 30,000 30,000 Building 111-4201-64123 15,000 15,000 -CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING
THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City would proceed with another Request for Proposal. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The contract amendment will be executed. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract amendment Page 2 of 2 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer
Public Works Director SUBJECT: Final map approval for two lots located at 19161 Cox Avenue Owner: Parker/Tickes RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval
of tentative map application No. SUB 07-0001 for two lots located at 19161 Cox Avenue. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a Resolution, which, if adopted, will grant final map approval for
two lots located at 19161 Cox Avenue (APN 386-47-035). The City Surveyor has examined the final map and related documents submitted to the City in accordance with the provisions of Section
14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and it was determined that: 1. The final map substantially complies with the approved tentative map. 2. All conditions of the approved tentative map,
as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-016, have been completed or will be completed concurrent with development of the two lots. 3. The Subdivision Map Act, the City's
Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of law have been complied with. 4. The final map is technically correct. Consequently, the City Surveyor’s certificate has been
executed on the final map and the final map has been filed with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: The
subdivider has paid $1,031.25 in Engineering Fees and $20,700 in Park Development Fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: 60
The final map must either be approved or rejected by the City Council. If the map is rejected, it would be returned to the subdivider with findings as to why the map was rejected. ALTERNATIVE
ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The signed map will be released to the subdivider's Title Company for recordation along with recording instructions. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Map. 2. Parcel Map. 3. Resolution granting final map approval. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-016 approving
the tentative map with conditions. 61
PL. WOODSIDE PALMTAG BELLWOOD DR. DR. DR. CT. HARGRAVE TITUS GUNT HER CT. CT. CREEK GLEN EASTON LN. CT. SARATOGA DR. SARATOGA GLEN CT. RODONI BROOK CT. HOMES AVE. DR. Brookglen Park
SITE Brookside Tennis Club SITE MAP Application Number: Location: APN: Owner: Date: SUB 07-0001 19161 Cox Avenue 386-47-035 Parker/Tickes September 17, 2008 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 -Feet
COX 62
63
64
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF APPLICATION NO. SUB07-0001 19161 COX AVENUE The City Council of the City of Saratoga
hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Two lots as shown on that certain Parcel Map prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc., dated June 2008, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of
Saratoga on September 17, 2008, are approved as TWO (2) individual lots. SECTION 2: All streets and easements shown on said map and offered for dedication to public use are hereby rejected
on behalf of the public, save and except for public service easements; and to the limited extent that any offers for public street purposes either expressly or implicitly include offers
for easements for utility purposes along or beneath said street rights of way, then as to such express or implied offers of easements for public utility purposes, the same are hereby
accepted on behalf of the public. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 17th day of September, 2008
by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 65
RESOLUTION NO. 08-016 Application No. SUB 07-0001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Parker/Tickes – William Cox Trust; 19161 Cox Avenue Approval of a Tentative
Parcel Map to subdivide a parcel of land into two parcels WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Advisory Agency, herein know as the Planning Commission, under the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 45,560 square foot (gross), in an R-1-12,500
zoning district located at 19161 Cox Avenue into two parcels, or as more particularly set forth in File No. SUB-07-0001 of this City; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission hereby finds
that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan and with all specific plans relating thereto;
and the proposed subdivision and land use are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specified in such General Plan, reference to the staff report
dated May 14, 2008 being hereby made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing, on May 14, 2008 at which time all interested
parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, The applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for subdivision
approval and the following findings specified in the Saratoga General Plan have been determined: (1) Land Use Element Goal 1.0 – Maintain the predominantly small-town residential character
of Saratoga which includes semi-rural and open space areas. The project will maintain the small-town residential character by creating two parcels that are consistent with the pattern
of development in the surrounding neighborhood, and that will exceed the minimum standard for the zoning district. The project will further maintain the small-town character by preserving
mature landscaping on site. The opens space areas will be maintained and improved through the dedication of a pedestrian trail easement to connect to Brookglen Park to the north of the
development. (2) Land Use Element Policy 1.3 – Ensure that existing undeveloped sites zoned singlefamily detached residential remain so designated. The project does not propose any changes
to current zoning standards. (3) Open Space/Conservation Element Goal 5.0 -A city-wide system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails shall be provided within the community
which includes regional trail linkages with City county, State and regional parks, and other publicly owned open space lands. The project as conditioned will meet this 66
goal through dedication of a pedestrian trail easement to connect Cox Avenue to Brookglen Park to the north of the proposed development. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission shall not approve
any tentative map or building site if it makes any of the nine findings listed in Municipal Code Section 14-20.070(b). The Subdivision Map as proposed can be approved because the findings
for denial were not supported based on the following evidence: (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed map is
consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Medium Density (M 12.5), which allows up to 3.48 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed map meets and exceeds the minimum
lot size required by the Municipal Code for the R-1-12,500 district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the Municipal
Code. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and are compatible with the existing
density in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate single-family residences. Building envelopes provided on the proposed
tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet or exceed the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable in the Municipal Code,
for new single-family residences. At the time an application to construct single-family residences on the proposed parcels is filed with the Planning Department the mass, bulk, view,
privacy, compatibility issues of the proposed residences with the existing neighborhood, and impacts to mature vegetation shall be examined. (3) That the site is not physically suitable
for the type of development proposed. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed building envelopes and surrounding areas are level. Geotechnical clearance
shall be required for construction of either parcel at the time it is proposed if such construction will include a basement. Future development on the proposed parcels will not be compromised
or constrained as a result of the subdivision. Existing trees do not preclude development on the proposed parcels. The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding
size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. The existing conditions are such that they do not include physical features including topography, location, or surroundings
that may hinder future development on the site. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed
density or development in that the subdivision application may result in the construction of new single-family residence on one or both parcels. The Tentative Parcel Map meets or exceeds
the minimum required area for development at the 2.27 units per acre density proposed by the project. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the surrounding uses and densities
in the area. Densities in the immediate surrounding area are characterized by medium-density single-67
family residential uses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are predominately 12,500 square feet (approximately .28 acres). (5) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project, which includes subdivision of one lot into two building sites is categorically
exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15315 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 15 exemption applied to the division of property
in urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning no variances or exceptions are required,
all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel
does not have an average slope of greater than 20 percent. (6) That the design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious health or safety problems. The proposed project is consistent
with the zoning and subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed and conditioned by the West Valley Sanitation District, Santa
Clara County Fire District, San Jose Water, Pacific Gas and Electric, the Planning Division and Public Works Department. All
structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department including the City Arborist and the Public Works Department. The project site is located
in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Maps by FEMA. This designation incorporates the vast majority of properties within the City. Floodway areas of Zone AE are located along the City’s major
creeks and require certain construction techniques; however, the project site is designated as Zone X. (7) That the design of the subdivision will conflict with easements for access
or use. The design of the proposed subdivision will not conflict with any easements for access or use. The site contains a Pacific Gas and Electric easement, and an offer to dedicate
property for street purposes to the City. A pedestrian easement for access to Brookglen Park along the eastern edge of the project site will not interfere with the use of the future
development of the property and all zoning regulations will be met. The subdivision does not conflict with any of the above-mentioned easements. (8) That a proposed subdivision of land
which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act will be of insufficient size for agricultural use. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. (9)
That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements. The West Valley Sanitation District
of Santa Clara County has reviewed the proposed subdivision (please reference correspondence dated February 28, 2008) and found that the necessary sewer service is available. The developer
will be required to install a new 4-inch building sewer for each parcel and pay all connection and permit fees prior to recordation of the Final Map. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that
the Planning Commission of the City of 68
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the Tentative Parcel Map submitted in connection with this matter Subdivision Application No. SUB 07-0001
is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Noted on the Final Map. 1. The applicant shall record a deed restriction on both newly created
lots with a statement, to be reviewed and subject to approval by the Community Development Director, indicating that the Brookside Tennis Club is a neighboring property owner operating
under an approved Use Permit UP-96-003 with specific allowances and limitations on activities, including, but not limited to, noise levels. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Shown on the Final Map. 2. The subdivision and development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit “A” (incorporated by reference and date stamped February 12,
2008) and as presented to the Planning Commission on May 14, 2008) and in compliance with the conditions stated in the Tentative Map Resolution of Approval. The Final Map shall also
clearly identify the front and rear property lines of each lot and show the appropriate side yard setbacks. The subdivision and development will incorporate a pedestrian access to Brookglen
Park as described in conditions 15 and 16 of this Resolution. Acknowledged. 3. The existing historic home on Parcel, known as the Cox Residence, shall be retained on site and renovations
and future additions shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, Community Development Director and Planning Commission as required by current City Code.
Acknowledged. 4. Applications for Design Review shall be submitted for any proposed single-family homes to be constructed on either parcel. Acknowledged. 5. The applicant shall submit
for an Arborist Review, for any future driveway construction or Design Review application that includes proposed removals of any ordinance-sized trees per Saratoga Municipal Code Section
15-50. Acknowledged. 6. Access to Parcel 1 is shall be from Cox Avenue while access to Parcel 2 shall be from Brookglen Court. 69
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT Fees paid to the WVSD. 7. The developer shall install a new 4-inch building sewer for each parcel. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the developer
is required to pay all applicable fees (connection fee, plan check fee, inspection fee, permits fee, etc.). Fees will be determined when the developer submits the improvements plan to
the district for review and approval. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC Acknowledged. 8. Proposed development plans shall provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent interference with
PG&E easements. Acknowledged. 9. The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG& E facilities shall be performed in accordance with common law
or Rules and Tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission. PUBLIC WORKS Completed. 10. Prior to submittal of the Final Map to the City Engineer for examination,
the owner (applicant) shall cause the property to be surveyed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or an authorized Civil Engineer. The submitted map shall show the existence of a monument at
all external property corner locations, either found or set. The submitted map shall also show monuments set at each new corner location, angle point, or as directed by the City Engineer,
all in conformity with the Subdivision Map Act and the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Final Map submitted. 11. The owner (applicant) shall submit four (4) copies of a Final Map in
substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map, along with the additional documents required by Section 14-40.020 of the Municipal Code, to the City Engineer for examination
and prior approval. The Final Map shall contain all of the information required in Section 14-40.030 of the Municipal Code and shall be accompanied by the following items: a. One copy
of map checking calculations. b. Preliminary Title Report for the property dated within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal for the Final Map. c. One copy of each map referenced
on the Final Map. Map. d. One copy of each document/deed referenced on the Final Map. e. One copy of any other map, document, deed, easement or other resource that will facilitate the
examination process as requested by the City Engineer. 70
f. One copy of the approved Tentative Map. Fee paid. 12. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Map Checking fee, as determined by the City Engineer, at the time of submittal of the Final
Map for examination. Monuments set. 13. Interior monuments shall be set at each lot corner either prior to recordation of the Final Map or some later date to be specified on the Final
Map. If the owner (applicant) chooses to defer the setting of interior monuments to a specified later date, then sufficient security as determined by the City Engineer shall be furnished
prior to Final Map approval, to guarantee the setting of interior monuments. Shown on the Final Map. 14. The owner (applicant) shall provide Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for all
required easements and/or rights-of-way on the Final Map, in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map and conditions of approval, prior to Final Map approval. Easement
dedicated on the Final Map. 15. A pedestrian pathway easement along the easterly property line shall be be dedicated to the public and shown on the Final Map. This easement shall be
ten feet wide except that it shall vary up to 12 feet where necessary to avoid existing mature trees. Acknowledged. 16. The pedestrian pathway shall be constructed along the easterly
property line per City standard specifications at the time that improvements are made to Parcel 2. The pathway connection to the existing concrete pad in Brookglen Park shall be designed
in compliance with ADA requirements. The section of the existing fence around Brookglen Park at the pathway connection shall be replaced with a gate. Construction of the pathway shall
meander around mature trees as necessary. Construction details shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and all work shall comply with the guidelines as established by the
City Arborist upon review and approval of the pathway. Acknowledged. 17. At the time that improvements are made to Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 the area along the Cox Avenue subdivision frontage
between the sidewalk sidewalk and the roadway shall be landscaped. Existing storm drain inlet on north side of Cox Avenue shall be replaced with a City standard drain inlet. Referenced
improvements shall be incorporated in the development plan of each parcel and submitted to the Public Woks Department for review and approval prior to final Zone clearance. Acknowledged.
18. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department is required for all improvements in any portion of the public right-of-way or of a public easement. Condition of existing
curb, gutter and sidewalk along Cox Avenue shall be evaluated by a Public Works Engineer at the time of Encroachment Permit application. Replacement or repair of curb, gutter and/or
sidewalk may be required at that time. 71
Will-serve letters submitted. 19. Prior to Final Map approval, the owner (applicant) shall furnish the City Engineer with satisfactory written commitments from all public and private
utility providers serving the subdivision guaranteeing the completion of all required utility improvements to serve the subdivision. Acknowledged. 20. The owner (applicant) shall secure
all necessary permits from the City and any other public agencies, including public and private utility providers, prior to commencement of subdivision improvement construction. Copies
of permits other than those issued by the City shall be provided to City Engineer. Fee paid. 21. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final
Map approval. Acknowledged. 22. The owner/applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use
and maintain Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for site design and storm water treatment. Acknowledged. 23. Certification of engineered stormwater treatment by a qualified engineer/architect
shall be required to confirm that the plan meets the criteria established in Provision C.3 prior to issuance of building permits. Acknowledged. 24. Post-construction operation and maintenance
of storm water treatment BMP’s shall be the responsibility of the owner. Maintenance Agreement between the City and the owner shall be recorded prior to final occupancy approval of each
lot, if needed. Acknowledged. 25. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices as adopted by the City
for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution. CITY ATTORNEY Acknowledged. 26. Owner an Applicant agree to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney’s
fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with City’s defense of its action in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging
the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project. Section 2. An approved or conditionally approved tentative subdivision map approval shall expire 24 months from the date on
which the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal granted its approval or conditional approval. An extension may be granted pursuant to Article 14-20-080 of the Saratoga City
Code. 72
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90
of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 73
74
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Amending the Saratoga City Code Concerning Video Service Standards __________________________________
_____________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the Second Reading and adopt the Proposed Ordinance. REPORT SUMMARY: On September 3, 2008, the City Council conducted
a public hearing, introduced the ordinance, and voted to place the ordinance on consent for adoption. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the proposed ordinance and allow video services to be provided
in the City without City regulation or fees. FISCAL IMPACTS: The PEG fee would not be a new source of revenue to the City. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): This ordinance or a comprehensive summary
thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 1 75
Page 1 of 6 Ordinance No. _____ ORDINANCE _______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING VIDEO SERVICE STANDARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) was signed into law on September
30, 2006 authorizing video service providers to operate in California cities and elsewhere in the state pursuant to a franchise issued by the State Public Utilities Commission. B. DIVCA
establishes that local entities, such as the City of Saratoga are responsible for administration and implementation of certain provisions of DIVCA. C. DIVCA imposes a franchise fee of
five percent to be paid to the local government where video services are being provided and authorizes local governments to establish, by ordinance, financial support provisions for
Public, Educational and Governmental Access (PEG) channel facilities. D. The City has earlier adopted adopted the DIVCA’s customer service standards applicable to video service operators
and set a schedule for penalties to be imposed in the event of a material breach of state law. E. The City wishes to add to the earlier adopted provisions regarding customer service
standards new provisions regarding the state franchise fee and PEG programming. F. The City Council held a duly notice public hearing on September 3, 2008 at which all persons had an
opportunity to be heard and following consideration of all testimony and written materials presented to the City Council determined that adoption of this ordinance is in the public interest.
Section 2. Adoption. 76
Page 2 of 6 Ordinance No. _____ The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by repealing Article 4-26 in its entirety and replacing it with the text shown below: Article 4-26 VIDEO SERVICES
4-26.010 Purpose and Definitions. This Article implements the the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (the “Act”, Public Utilities Code § 5800 et seq.). All terms
used in this article shall be defined as defined by that Act or this Code; in the event a term is defined in the Act and this Code, the definition in the Act shall apply to this section.
4-26.020 Applicability. This Article applies to all video service providers serving Saratoga residents pursuant to a state franchise. 4-26.030 Customer Service Standards. (a) All video
service providers subject to this Article shall comply with the customer service standards mandated by section 5900 of the Public Utilities Code and with the requirements of Section
53088.2(e) of the Government Code concerning standards for answering customer calls for installation, service, and complaints. (b) Monetary penalties may be assessed for a material breach
of those standards unless the breach is out of the reasonable control of the video service provider. One half of each penalty collected shall be submitted to the Digital Divide Account
established by the Act. The penalties shall be as follows: (1) Five-hundred dollars ($500) for each day of material breach, but not to exceed one-thousand five-hundred dollars ($1,500)
for each occurrence of a material breach. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, if notice has been provided and a penalty has been assessed pursuant to subsection (1) above and a
subsequent material breach of the same nature occurs within 12 months, an amount of one-thousand dollars ($1,000) shall be assessed for each day of each material breach, not to exceed
77
Page 3 of 6 Ordinance No. _____ three-thousand dollars ($3,000) for each occurrence of the material breach. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), above, if notice has been provided
and a fine or penalty has been assessed pursuant to subsection (2), above, and a third or further material breach of the same nature occurs within 12 months of the original breach, an
amount of two-thousand five-hundred dollars ($2,500) shall be assessed for each day of each material breach, not to exceed seventhousand five-hundred ($7,500) for each occurrence of
the material breach. (c) Prior to assessing any penalty pursuant to this Article, the City shall notify the video service provider of the alleged material breach and allow the video
service provider at least 30 days from receipt of the notice to remedy the specified material breach. 4.26-040 State Franchise Fee. Any state franchise holder operating within the City
shall pay to the City a state franchise fee equal to five percent of the gross revenues of it or any affiliate that are subject to a franchise fee under California Public Utilities Code
Section 5860. 4-26.050 Public, Educational and Governmental Programming. (a) Each state franchise holder, and each incumbent cable operator operating under a City franchise issued prior
to December 31, 2006 shall negotiate in good faith to interconnect their networks for the purpose of providing PEG programming. Interconnection may be accomplished by any means authorized
under Public Utilities Code Section 5870(h). Each state franchise holder and incumbent cable operator shall provide interconnection of PEG channels on reasonable terms and conditions
and may not withhold the interconnection. If a state franchise holder and an incumbent cable operator cannot reach a mutually acceptable interconnection agreement, the City may require
the incumbent cable operator to allow the state franchise holder to interconnect its network with the incumbent cable operator’s network at a technically feasible point on the state
franchise holder’s network as identified by the state franchise holder. If no technically feasible point for interconnection is available, each state franchise holder will make an interconnection
available to each channel originator providing PEG 78
Page 4 of 6 Ordinance No. _____ programming to an incumbent cable operator, and will provide the facilities necessary for the interconnection. The cost of any interconnection will be
borne by the state franchise holder requesting the interconnection unless otherwise agreed to by the state franchise holder and the incumbent cable operator. The City reserves the right
to request that state video franchise holders designate and activate PEG channels on their networks in accordance with the rules set forth in section 5870 of the California Public Utilities
Code. A state video franchise holder shall provide an additional PEG channel when the standards set forth in section 5870(d) of the California Public Utilities Code are satisfied. (b)
Any state franchise holder operating within the City shall pay to the City a fee to support public, educational, and governmental programming (“PEG Fee”) equal to one percent of the
gross revenues of it or any affiliate that are subject to a franchise fee under California Public Public Utilities Code Section 5860. 4-26.060 Payment of fees. The state franchise fee
and the PEG fee shall each be paid to the City quarterly, in a manner consistent with California Public Utilities Code Section 5860. The state franchise holder shall deliver to the City,
by check or other means specified by the City, a payment for the state franchise fee and a separate payment for the PEG fee not later than fortyfive (45) days after the end of each calendar
quarter. Each payment made shall be accompanied by a report, detailing how the payment was calculated, containing such information as the city manager may require consistent with DIVCA.
Unless the City Manager provides otherwise, the summary statement shall identify: (a) revenues received from subscribers, by category, with service revenues broken out by service levels;
(b) any charges to subscribers for which revenues were received, but on which a franchise fee was not paid; and (c) where the fee is paid on an allocated portion of revenues received,
the total revenues received; the allocation factor; and how the allocation factor was calculated. In the event a state franchise holder fails to make payments required by this Article
on or before the due dates specified, the city may, to the extent consistent with state law, impose a late charge at the rate per year equal to the highest prime lending rate during
the period of delinquency, plus one percent. 4-26.070 Audits. The City may audit the business records of the holder of a state franchise in a manner consistent with California Public
Utilities Code 79
Page 5 of 6 Ordinance No. _____ Section 5860(i). 4-26.080 Notices. Each state franchise holder or applicant for a state franchise shall file with the City a copy of all applications
or notices that the state franchise holder or applicant is required to file with the public utilities commission. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, all notices or other documentation
that a state franchise holder is required to provide to the City under this Division 6 or the California Public Utilities Code shall be provided to the City Manager. Section 3. Severance
Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section,
sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express
intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive
summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. ////////The foregoing ordinance was introduced
and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 3rd day of September, 2008, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on
the 17th day of September, 2008: 80
Page 6 of 6 Ordinance No. _____ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ______________________________________ Ann Waltonsmith MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: ____________________________________
Ann Sullivan ACTING CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Richard Taylor CITY ATTORNEY 81
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer
Public Works Director SUBJECT: Prospect Road Median Improvement Project – Median No. 11 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proceeding with the Prospect Road Median No. 11 design. REPORT SUMMARY:
Background: The 1.9 mile section of Prospect Road, between Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, is a four lane major arterial with the centerline of the road forming the boundary
between Saratoga and San Jose. Currently the majority of Prospect Road is devoid of landscaped medians with the exception of existing medians located between Saratoga Creek and Johnson
Avenue and some “hardscape” type medians near Highway 85. The existing landscaped medians were installed approximately 20 years ago and are located within the section of Prospect Road
that is entirely within Saratoga’s city limits. In 2001 the City adopted a five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which included a median improvement project on Prospect Road between
Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The project was supported by area residents in both Saratoga and San Jose as illustrated in the petition form signed by approximately 270
residents. Additionally, a similar petition signed by San Jose residents was submitted to the City of San Jose. The project was unfunded at that time. During the 2006 CIP update, Council
appropriated $50,000 towards developing a Median Master Plan for the corridor and in 2007 the City approved a Professional Services Agreement with Callander Associates, Landscape Architecture,
Inc. The City held two community meetings with Mayor Waltonsmith and Councilmember Hunter representing Saratoga and Mary Anne Groen attending on behalf of the City of San Jose. Based
on the input from both communities, the Prospect Road Median Master Plan was developed and on June 4, 2008 approved by the Council. Discussion: At their recent study session, the Council
appropriated $150,000 for this project. Because of the funding limitation and the extensive length of Prospect Road, the project requires a phased approach. Per the 82
approved Master Plan, the project consists of 17 individual medians. Appropriated funds will allow for design and construction of one of the medians. Staff recommends commencing with
median No. 11 located between Provincetown Drive and Titus Avenue. The primary factor in determining the selection of this median was safety. Median No. 11 is located in front of Christa
McAuliffe Elementary School. Median construction at this location will provide needed pedestrian refuge in the middle of the Prospect Road crosswalk. Estimated cost of the design and
construction of this median is within the available budget. In addition, completion of a single median will benefit future grant applications for the project. Staff received a proposal
from Callander Associates, Landscape Architecture, Inc. for the Median No. 11 design services in the amount of $22,118. This company provided excellent services during the Master Plan
development and is recommended for proposed design work. Therefore it is recommended that the Council approve proceeding with the design of Prospect Road median No. 11. FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for this project has been appropriated by the Council. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Prospect Road Median design will not be initiated. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Council may postpone proceeding with Median No. 11 design or may select another median. FOLLOW UP ACTION: City staff will execute a contract with Callander Associates for the professional
design services of Prospect Road median No. 11. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Prospect Road Master Plan with median No. 11 indicated.
2. Proposal from Callander Associates to design median No. 11. 83
City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 20’ 40’ 80’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN of 10 1 MATCHLINE F MATCHLINE A MATCHLINE E RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIALaccent tree, type a, typical flowering groundcover,
typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type a, typical A accent tree, type b, typical flowering groundcover, typical pedestrian refuge, typical canopy tree, type b, with groundcover
and shrub, typical existing tree, typical RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CHRISTIE MC AULIFFE SCHOOL 10’-0” minimum nosing pavement 30’ minimum clear of trees existing median to
be renovated SAN JOSESARATOGA SAN JOSESARATOGAShort merge lane with 30’ refuge and 60’ taper Short merge lane with 30’ refuge and 60’ taperMedian No. 11 84
City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 20’ 40’ 80’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN of 10 2 MATCHLINE G MATCHLINE B MATCHLINE F MATCHLINE A RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ENLARGEMENT
PLAN A accent tree, type a, typical flowering
groundcover, typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type a, typical accent tree, type a, typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type a, typical flowering groundcover,
typical existing median to be renovated 10’-0” minimum nosing pavement 30’ minimum clear of trees existing median to be renovated existing tree, typical SAN JOSESARATOGA SAN JOSESARATOGA
Short merge lane with 30’ refuge and 60’ taper 85
3 City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 20’ 40’ 80’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN of 10 MATCHLINE H MATCHLINE C MATCHLINE G MATCHLINE B B accent tree, type a, typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type a, typical
flowering groundcover, typical RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL flowering groundcover, typical accent tree, type b, typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type
b, with groundcover and shrub, typical RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 10’-0” minimum nosing pavement existing median to be renovated existing tree, typical SAN JOSESARATOGA SAN JOSESARATOGA
86
4 City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 20’ 40’ 80’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN of 10 MATCHLINE C MATCHLINE D MATCHLINE H ASCENSION CHURCH PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL VILLA FONTANA RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL accent tree, type b,
typical flowering groundcover, typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type b, with groundcover and shrub, typicalaccent brick pavers, typical 10’-0” minimum nosing pavement
30’ minimum clear of trees SAN JOSESARATOGA SAN JOSESARATOGA 10’ Median nosing setback with 50’ refuge and 60 ‘taper 87
5 City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 20’ 40’ 80’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN of 10 MATCHLINE E MATCHLINE D C RESIDENTIAL ASCENSION CHURCH RESIDENTIAL ENLARGEMENT PLAN B accent tree, type b, typical flowering groundcover,
typical accent brick pavers, typical canopy tree, type b, with groundcover and shrub, typical 10’-0” minimum nosing pavement 30’ minimum clear of trees SAN JOSESARATOGA 88
6 ENLARGEMENT PLANS City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 5’ 10’ 20’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN of 10 Existing oak tree, typical PROSPECT ROAD PROSPECT ROAD JOHNSON AVENUE MILLER AVENUE Existing shrub and groundcover Infill shrub and groundcover
plantings Infill oak tree planting Brick accent paving at median nosing Accent groundcover Accent tree, typical Accent tree, typical Brick accent paving at median nosing Accent groundcover
6” Concrete curb Canopy tree, type b Shrub massing Groundcover B NEW MEDIAN, TYPE B PLANTING A RENOVATED EXISTING MEDIAN, TYPE A PLANTING Existing tree to be removed 30’-0” minimum clearance
1’ Maintenance band on San Jose side, typical 1’ Maintenance band on San Jose side, typical Curb cut for drainage, locations to be determined, typical * Note: All trees in existing medians
shall be evaluated by the City Arborist prior to final landscape design. Trees selected for preservation shall be incorporated in the design and shall not be removed subject to the City
Arborist’s approval. 89
7 SECTIONS City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 2’ 4’ 8’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN of 10 13’-6” Renovated existing median 13’ Drive lane 12’ Drive lane 22’ Drive lane 6’ Bike lane 15’ Drive lane 9’ Bike lane Sidewalk with curb and gutter
Sidewalk with curb and gutter A Renovation of Existing Median (typical canopy tree planting, type b) Section Parking lot Parking lot Canopy tree Shrub Flowering groundcover Concrete
curb 1’ Maintenance band 90
8 SECTIONS City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 2’ 4’ 8’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape
Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN of 10 7’ Proposed median 11’ Drive lane 11’ Drive lane 13’ Drive lane 6’ Bike lane 6’ Bike lane 7’ Parking lane 5’ Vegetated parkway Parkway Sidewalk 8’
Parking lane 13’ Drive lane 15’ Drive lane B New Median Between 5’ and 12’ Wide (with typical accent tree planting) Section Accent tree Flowering groundcover Concrete curb 1’ Maintenance
band 91
1’ Maintenance band 9 SECTIONS City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 2’ 4’ 8’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander
Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN of 10 19’ Proposed median 13’ Drive lane 13’ Drive lane 6’ Bike lane 6’ Bike lane 7’ Parking lane 5’ Parkway and sidewalk Sidewalk
8’ Parkway 8’ Parking lane 13’ Drive lane 14’ Drive lane C New Median Larger Than 12’ Wide (with accent tree type A, shrubs and flowering groundcover) Section Canopy tree Shrub Flowering
groundcover Concrete curb 92
1’ Maintenance band Root barrier, typical where trees are present SECTIONS City of Saratoga 07066Masterplan1.7.08.indd Approved by the City of Saratoga City Council June 4, 2008 0 1’
2’ 4’ PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. MASTER PLAN of 10 Typical section through Drive lanes proposed median 7’-19’ Drive lanes Canopy
tree Shrub planting Flowering groundcover Finished grade of existing pavement Existing subsoil Import topsoil D Typical Median Construction Section Sawcut existing pavement at median
edge 6 1 Concrete curb 10 93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone, PW Director John Cherbone, PW
Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with City of Cupertino for Joint Paving Work on Prospect Road RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino for
joint paving work on Prospect Road and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. REPORT SUMMARY: Cupertino is presently under contract with G. Bortolotto for resurfacing work in
the City of Cupertino with Prospect Road included in the scope of work. The City was approached by Cupertino’s Public Works Department to inquire if Saratoga would like to take advantage
of their contract and have our half of the road resurfaced from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the City limits. In 2001, Saratoga reimbursed the City of Cupertino for paving work they performed
on the same section of Prospect Road. Cooperative agreements are an effective way for smaller jurisdictions and agencies with shared rightof-way to accomplish work without the bid process,
and higher costs associated with smaller jobs. Additionally, it is advantageous to the lifecycle of a roadway if maintenance is performed at the same time rather than portions maintained
at different intervals with different treatments. It is therefore recommended that Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino. FISCAL
IMPACTS: The cost for the resurfacing work is estimated at $25,000 plus a 10% construction contingency in the amount of $2,500. The contingency will be used for any unforeseen issues
which may occur during the course of the project. There is sufficient funding in the CIP under Annual Street Resurfacing for this work. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
106
The Cooperative Agreement with the City of Cupertino would not be executed and Saratoga’s half of Prospect Road would be resurfaced at a later date. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition
to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The Cooperative Agreement will be executed and the work will proceed. Once work is completed, Saratoga will be invoiced for the final cost of the work.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cooperative Agreement 107
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CUPERTINO AND SARATOGA FOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE WORK ON PROSPECT ROAD BETWEEN STELLING ROAD AND DE ANZA BLVD. This agreement (herein "Agreement") is made
and entered into this ______ day of __________, 2008, (herein the "Effective Date") by and between the City of Saratoga, a California municipal corporation (herein "SARATOGA") and the
City of Cupertino, a California municipal corporation, (herein "CUPERTINO"). SARATOGA and CUPERTINO may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or a "City" or collectively as
the "Parties", "Cities" or the "Parties to this Agreement". R E C I T A L S WHEREAS: A. SARATOGA and CUPERTINO find that it is in the public interest to perform pavement maintenance
work on that portion of Prospect Road between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard over which the Cities have dual jurisdiction; and B. It is in the public interest for CUPERTINO and
SARATOGA to complete the PROJECT in a cooperative and economical manner by constructing both CUPERTINO and SARATOGA portions of the PROJECT together; and C. Each Party has agreed to
perform its obligations as described herein. In consideration of the above referenced recitals and the following mutual covenants, agreements and obligations of the Parties, SARATOGA
and CUPERTINO agree as follows: AGREEMENT PROVISIONS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The work to be performed under this Agreement will consist of slurry sealing approximately 148,114 square
feet of Prospect Road between Stelling Road and De Anza Blvd. and associated activities (herein the “PROJECT”). The work to be performed is more fully described in the document entitled
"Scope of Work and Schedule of Performance" set forth in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by reference. 2. CUPERTINO'S OBLIGATIONS: CUPERTINO agrees as follows: A. To act as the
lead agency to administer the design and construction of the PROJECT. Administration shall include preparation of plans, specifications, contract documents and cost estimate; notification
of local businesses; coordination with various agencies; preparation of all necessary environmental document; obtaining permits; obtaining bids; awarding the construction contract; administering
the construction contract; providing materials control and inspection services; and making progress payments to the contractor. B. To provide SARATOGA with final plans and specifications
for the PROJECT. C. To pay CUPERTINO’s share of the PROJECT cost. The PROJECT cost is defined as the actual amount paid to the contractor plus ten percent (10%) for engineering, construction
and other administrative services. CUPERTINO’s share of the Cost is 100% of the PROJECT cost for the CUPERTINO owned portion of the road. AGREEMENT PAGE 1 OF 7 108
D. CUPERTINO agrees to cooperate with SARATOGA should SARATOGA raise any issues concerning the work in SARATOGA’s jurisdiction that requires correction prior to acceptance or within
the warranty period. E. The designated project manager for CUPERTINO for the duration of the PROJECT is Glenn Goepfert. CUPERTINO's project manager shall have all the necessary authority
to direct technical and professional work within the scope of the Agreement and shall serve as the principal point of contact with SARATOGA. 3. SARATOGA'S OBLIGATION: SARATOGA agrees
as follows: A. To pay CUPERTINO SARATOGA’s share of the PROJECT cost, as defined in Section 2.C. SARATOGA’s share of the Cost is 100% of the Project Cost for the SARATOGA owned portion
of the road. SARATOGA’S share of the Cost will be based on the total bid shown on Exhibit B, and is estimated to be $25,000.00. B. To pay its share of the PROJECT cost within forty-five
(45) days of receiving an invoice from the CUPERTINO, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The PROJECT has been completed and SARATOGA has approved that portion of the
work in its jurisdiction; and 2. The detailed invoice sets forth the cost of construction of all PROJECT work based on the actual contract unit prices paid and negotiated change order,
if any. C. The designated project manager for SARATOGA for the duration of the PROJECT is John Cherbone (phone number: 408-868-1241). SARATOGA's project manager shall have all the necessary
authority to review and approve and accept technical and professional work within the scope of the Agreement and shall serve as the principal point of contact with CUPERTINO. SARATOGA
may request documentation of such cost, and may review the original invoices and weight certificates or request copies of same, which shall be provided within a reasonable time. 4. TERM
OF AGREEMENT: A. Unless otherwise modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be (1) until the PROJECT acceptance by both parties and final payments
of all all outstanding balances or (2) one year if no work on the PROJECT has commenced within one year of the Effective Date. B. In case of any defect in the work, materials, apparatus
or equipment, whether latent or patent, revealed to Cupertino within one (1) year of the date of acceptance of completion of the PROJECT by Cupertino, the contractor awarded the PROJECT
construction contract will forthwith remedy such defects without cost to Cupertino or Saratoga, pursuant to Section 20, Contractor’s Guarantee, of the project contract documents. 5.
OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE: A. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed as a part of the PROJECT within
the city limits of SARATOGA will automatically be vested in SARATOGA, and all materials, equipment and AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 7 109
appurtenances installed as a part of the PROJECT within the city limits of CUPERTINO will be vested in CUPERTINO, and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer ownership. B.
This Agreement does not change any authority or responsibility between CUPERTINO and SARATOGA with regard to maintenance, operation or future repair responsibility. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL
BE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Any contractor(s) hired by either Party to perform the work included in the PROJECT shall not be an agent or employee of either Party and will perform such
work as independent contractor. All persons employed by or contracted with such contractor(s) to furnish labor and/or materials in connection with the work in the PROJECT shall not be
employees of either Party in any respect. 7. TERMINATION: A. The construction contract for the PROJECT was awarded on August 5, 2008. The Agreement can be terminated only upon the mutual
written consent and terms acceptable to both parties. 8. NO PLEDGING OF EITHER CITY'S CREDIT: Under no circumstances shall either SARATOGA or CUPERTINO have authority or power to pledge
the credit of the other public entity or incur obligation in the name of the other public entity. 9. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY: This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be
an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 10. AMENDMENTS: No
alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties and incorporated into this Agreement. 11. NOTICES: Notices are
to be sent as follows: To SARATOGA: John Cherbone Director of Public Works City of SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 To CUPERTINO: Glenn Goepfert Assistant Director
of Public Works City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 12. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 7 110
In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other
provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 13. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: Both Parties to this Agreement will cooperate and/or provide access to its consultants, engineers and
contractors for the PROJECT in the jurisdictional boundaries of each Party. Contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit from SARATOGA and SARATOGA shall provide such a permit at no
cost. 14. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION: Neither of the respective Parties, their respective City Council, employees, officers, agents and assigns shall be responsible for any damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the other Party in connection with the PROJECT. It is understood and agreed that pursuant to California Government
Code Section 895.4, the each Party shall fully indemnify and hold the other harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by the indemnifying Party in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the indemnifying Party under this Agreement. This hold
harmless and indemnification provision shall apply to any activities, error or omission of each Party and/or the Party's officers, employees, agents, consultants or contractor or any
person or entity acting or omitting to act for or on behalf of said City or such person or entities as are specifically authorized and empowered by the respective Party to act for the
Party. 15. CAPTIONS: The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving
questions of interpretation of this Agreement. 16. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: It is mutually understood and agreed that during the term of the construction activities on the PROJECT, CUPERTINO
will will require the contractor(s) which performs any work on the PROJECT to carry commercial general liability insurance policy with policy limits in an amount not less than Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000); automobile liability insurance policy with policy limits in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000); and, a Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy
with policy limits in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). CUPERTINO shall require that both SARATOGA and CUPERTINO, their officers, employees, and agents shall
be named as additional insureds on such policy. 17. STATUTES AND LAW GOVERNING CONTRACT: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the
State of California. AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF 7 111
18. WAIVER: The parties' waiver of any term, condition or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant
or breach of any other term, condition or covenant. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between CUPERTINO and SARATOGA relating to the PROJECT. Any prior
agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or effect. 20. OTHER AGREEMENTS: This Agreement shall not prevent either
Party from entering into similar agreements with others. The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their
duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the effective date. The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions
of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the
Effective date: CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ RICHARD S. TAYLOR DAVE ANDERSON City Attorney City Manager
City of SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ATTEST: ___________________________ ANN SULLIVAN Acting City Clerk CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________
____ ___________________________ CHARLES KILIAN RALPH A. QUALLS, Jr City Attorney Director of Public Works 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 777-3200 ATTEST: ___________________
_______ KIM SMITH City Clerk – Cupertino AGREEMENT PAGE 5 OF 7 112
EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE The work to be performed under this Agreement will consist of slurry sealing approximately 148,114 square feet of Prospect Road
between Stelling Road and De Anza Blvd. and associated activities. The project shall include traffic control, replacing of all traffic striping, crack sealing, as well as incidental
associated work that may be discovered during the project, as required. The work to be performed is fully described in the contract documents. The contract documents are incorporated
into this Agreement by reference. AGREEMENT PAGE 6 OF 7 113
AGREEMENT PAGE 7 OF 7 EXHIBIT “B” Street Add Alternate No. S6 – Prospect Road Contract Bid Price from G. Bortolotto & Co. I T E M NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX. QTY UNIT PAYMENT REFEREN
CE UNIT PRICE *TOTAL ITEM PRICE 1 Traffic Control *** LS 101-4 1,111.11 1,111.11 2 Asphalt Concrete, 1/2" Max. Medium 0 TN 102-4 97.00 0.00 3 Asphalt Concrete, 3/8" Max. 0 TN 102-4 104.00
0.00 4 Pavement Reinforcing Fabric 0 SY 107-4 1.65 0.00 5 Cold Plane 0.21’AC 0 SY 105-4 2.53 0.00 6 Keycut Type A 0 LF 104-4 1.39 0.00 7 Keycut Type B 0 LF 104-4 3.71 0.00 8 Type II
Slurry Seal 148,114 SF 110-4 0.23 34,066.22 9 Crack Sealing 3,259 LF 109-4 1.27 4,138.93 10 4" Digout 0 SF 105-4 3.11 0.00 11 Cape Seal 0 SF 110-4 1.39 0.00 12 Lower Manhole Covers Prior
to Cold Planing 0 EA 106-3 180.00 0.00 13 Lower Water Valve/Sewer Cleanout/Survey Monument/Gas Valves Prior to Cold Planing 0 EA 106-3 180.00 0.00 14 Adjust Manhole Cover to Finish Grade
0 EA 106-3 301.00 0.00 15 Adjust Water Valve/Sewer Cleanout/Survey Monument/Gas Valve Covers to Finish Grade 0 EA 106-3 180.00 0.00 16 Install Box & Cover @Existing Survey Monument 0
EA 106-3 212.00 0.00 17 Traffic Signal Loops 0 EA 111-6 777.00 0.00 18 Blue Reflective Marker @Hydrant 0 EA 108-4 17.00 0.00 19 “PED” Legend (Thermo) 0 EA 108-4 85.00 0.00 20 “SIGNAL”
Legend (Thermo) 0 EA 108-4 85.00 0.00 21 "STOP" Legend (Thermo) 3 EA 108-4 85.00 255.00 22 "AHEAD" Legend (Thermo) 1 EA 108-4 85.00 85.00 23 "KEEP" Legend (Thermo) 0 EA 108-4 85.00 0.00
24 "CLEAR" Legend (Thermo) 0 EA 108-4 85.00 0.00 25 "XING" Legend (Thermo) 0 EA 108-4 85.00 0.00 26 "25" Legend (Thermo) 0 EA 108-4 85.00 0.00 27 "35" Legend (Thermo) 2 EA 108-4 85.00
170.00 28 "Bike Lane" Legend (Paint) 7 EA 108-4 45.00 315.00 29 12" White Crosswalk/Limit Line (Thermo) 180 LF 108-4 2.20 396.00 30 12" Yellow Crosswalk (Thermo) 0 LF 108-4 2.20 0.00
31 Type I -Turn Arrow (Thermo) 2 EA 108-4 60.00 120.00 32 Type IV -Turn Arrow (Thermo) 6 EA 108-4 60.00 360.00 33 TypeVIII -Turn Arrow (Thermo) 1 EA 108-4 120.00 120.00 34 Striping Detail
#23C (Markers) 0 LF 108-4 0.90 0.00 35 Striping Detail #27B (Thermo) 2,955 LF 108-4 0.80 2,364.00 36 Striping Detail #27C (Thermo) 593 LF 108-4 0.70 415.10 37 Striping Detail #30 (Markers)
0 LF 108-4 2.90 0.00 38 Striping Detail #33C (Markers) 1,101 LF 108-4 0.60 660.60 39 Striping Detail #38 (Markers) 626 LF 108-4 0.70 438.20 40 Striping Detail #39 (Thermo) 3,200 LF 108-4
0.55 1,760.00 41 Striping Detail #39AC (Thermo) 936 LF 108-4 0.50 468.00 TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 6 ITEMS BID: $47,243.16 114
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Michael Fossati, Asst. Planner DIRECTOR:
John F. Livingstone, AICP ________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Adopt the Zoning Map Amendment for 20500 Lomita Avenue, 20568 Lomita Avenue,
and 20550 Lomita Avenue ________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the Second Reading and adopt the Proposed Ordinance and Zoning
Map Amendment. REPORT SUMMARY: The City initiated an ordinance amending the zoning designation for parcels’ 20500 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-020), 20568 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-021),
and 20550 Lomita Avenue (APN 517-12-022) from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000. The zoning change from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 will be consistent with the parcels’ General Plan (GP) designation
of Residential Low Density (RLD). BACKGROUND: On September 3, 2008, the City Council open and conducted a public hearing, introduced the ordinance, and voted to place the ordinance for
a second reading and adoption on consent. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Deny the proposed ordinance amendment; 2. Modify the proposed ordinance amendment. FOLLOW UP ACTION: This ordinance or
a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance approving
the Zoning Map Amendment 1 115
2 ATTACHMENT – 1 ORDINANCE NO.08-XXX A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF PARCELS 517-12-020, 517-12-021, AND 517-12-022 FROM R-1-40,000
TO R-1-20,000 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Parcels 517-12-020, 517-12-021,
and 517-12–022 are each less than 30,000 square feet in size and have a current zoning designation of R-1-40,000 typically requiring a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The General
Plan designation for these parcels is “RLD” (Residential Low Density) which is compatible with the R-1-20,000 zoning designation. B. Following a public hearing on July 23, 2008 at which
all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard the Planning Commission recommended reclassifying the subject parcels from the R-1-40,000 zone district to the R-1-20,000 zone district.
The City Council considered the Planning Commission Recommendation at a public hearing at which all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard on September 3, 2008. C. As demonstrated
by the materials in Community Development Department File Number 07-140, this rezoning is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the housing element and the sites identified
in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. This zoning map amendment will not reduce, require,
or permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community
Development in determining compliance with housing element law. D. In order to apply a zoning designation that is more closely aligned with the General Plan designation and to remove
the current non-conforming status of the subject parcels it is appropriate to amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000. Section 2. Zoning
Map Amendment Pursuant to Article 15-85 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the City of Saratoga Zoning Map is 116
3 hereby amended by reclassifying the Zoning District designation from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 for the three (3) parcels shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this action is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15305,
“Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations”, Class 5 of Article 19, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). This exemption allows minor alterations in land use limitations in areas which do not
result in any changes in land use or density. Section 4. Publication This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation of
the City of Saratoga within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held
on the 3rd day of September 2008, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 17th day of September 2008: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Richard Taylor, City Attorney 117
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: APC08-0003 – Appeal of a decision by
the Planning Commission granting approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Design Review application, and a modification to a Conditional Use Permit with a Variation from Standards
for the proposed construction of a new 3,994 square foot church building on the approximately 3.1 acre project site located at 18870 Allendale Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends
the City Council deny the appeal and approve the proposed new 3,994 square foot Church building for Saint Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church by adopting, in sequence, the attached
Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the attached Resolution Denying the Appeal and Approving Application No. 03-259. DISCUSSION: Project History The Planning Commission
(Commission) originally reviewed and unanimously approved this application at its June 25, 2008 Public Hearing (see minutes, Attachment 6). After considering the evidence presented prior
to and during the hearing, the Commission duly approved a use permit for the three requested Variations from Standards for structure height, site coverage, and a reduction in required
parking spaces and modified the existing use permit to include this new Church building without change to the existing uses and activities on the site by the Church. The Commission also
granted Design Review Approval based on required findings including those related to the design and exterior materials of the new Church building. During the June 24, 2008 site visit
and the public hearing, the adjacent neighbor to the east at 18866 Allendale Avenue expressed concern regarding the noise created when supplies are delivered to the Church through a
rear door of the Fellowship Hall adjacent to his property. The Planning Commission discussed the issue during the hearing and added a condition to eliminate this noise by requiring that
all deliveries into the Fellowship Hall be made through a door on the opposite side of the Fellowship Hall located near the southwestern corner of the building. Appeal Page 1 of 2 118
Page 2 of 2 The appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was filed on July 9, 2008 on behalf of the Saratoga Neighborhood Task Force. The appeal letter is included
as Attachment 3. Relevant background documents, including the June 25, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes are attached. A Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and a Resolution Denying the Appeal and Approving Application #03-259 for the Construction of the New Church Building have been prepared for Council adoption and are included as Attachments
1 and 2. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed project, thus denying Application No. 03-259. 2. Continue the Public Hearing
to allow the applicant an opportunity to restudy any projectrelated issues raised by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Mailed
notices to property owners within 500-feet, posted notice, and publication of advertised notice in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution of City Council Adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration with attached Mitigation Monitoring Plan 2. Proposed Resolution of City Council Denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision and Approving Application
No.03-259 3. Appeal letter from Project Appellant 4. Email from Rhonda Huff, dated June 30, 2008 including her email dated June 25, 2008 5. Planning Commission Staff Report for the June
25, 2008 meeting (attachments listed separately below) 6. Excerpt of Minutes from the June 25, 2008 Planning Commission meeting 7. Project Description Letter, dated January 27, 2006,
submitted by the Project Architect 8. Letter from Bishop Longin of the Western American Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church in USA and Canada. 9. City Arborist Reports, dated March
9, 2006 and May 25, 2006 10. Letters from Neighbors (available for review in the Community Development Department due to the number of comments received) 11. Project’s Energy Efficiency
Measures (submitted by the Applicant) 12. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification 13. Mitigated Negative Declaration (Copy many be
viewed and/or purchased in the Community Development Department) 14. Exhibit A – Plans reviewed by Planning Commission (Copy may be viewed in the Community Development Department) 119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING APPLICATION #03-259 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH BUILDING
FOR SAINT ARCHANGEL MICHAEL SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Saint Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church 18870 Allendale Avenue WHEREAS, on June 25, 2008, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission
approved application #03-259 for Design Review, modification of a Conditional Use Permit, and a request for Variation from Standards (increased structure height, increased site coverage,
and a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces) for the construction of a new Church building for Saint Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church in the R-1-40,000
zone district. The square footage of the new construction is approximately 3,994 square feet and the maximum height of the buildings will not exceed approximately 50 feet (referred to
hereinafter as the "Project"); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2008, an appeal was filed of the the Planning Commission’s approval of application 03-259; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2008 the
City Council duly held a public hearing to consider application #03-259 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS,
the City Council has considered application #03-259 de novo and duly considered all testimony and other evidence submitted in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, An Initial Study and
a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or
Mitigated Negative Declaration). The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public comment period from March 25 – April 25, 2008. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been duly adopted for the Project by the City Council on September 17, 2008; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 15-55.030 states that a conditional use
may be permitted by a use permit to have a different site area, density, structure height, distance between structures, site coverage, setback minimums, and off-street parking and loading
requirements, other than those listed under the specific regulations for unconditional permitted uses in the zoning district in which it lies. The Project will have increased structure
height, increased site coverage, and a reduction in the required number of off street parking spaces in comparison with standards normally applied in the R-1-40,000 zone district; and
WHEREAS, application #03-259 is consistent with the General Plan, including the following policies: Land Use Element Policy LU 5.2 – Development proposals shall be evaluated against
City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light, appearance, and Page 1 of 11 129
intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be fully mitigated. The Project included the preparation of an Initial Study and MND that evaluated the
Project’s impacts on traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity and includes recommendations and conditions of approval to reduce Project related impacts (if any) to a level which
is less than significant. The Project has also been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Commission has found that the Project is compatible with the design criteria contained
in Saratoga City Code Section 15-46.040. Land Use Element Policy 5.4 –Through the development review process; ensure that adjoining neighborhoods are protected from noise, light, glare
and other impacts resulting from new or expanded non-residential development. The Project has been subject to the development review process. Conditions of approval have been added to
the Project to ensure that adjoining neighborhoods are adequately protected. Land Use Element Policy LU 6.2 – Development proposals shall incorporate stormwater quality features, including
but not limited to grassy bio-swales, to protect surface and subsurface water quality. The Project will include stormwater quality features such as bioswales, permeable paving, drywells,
detention/retention ponds, as well as directing stormwater towards landscaped areas. Land Use Element Goal 13 – The City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction
and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The Project is subject to the Design Review Approval process before the Planning Commission and
a Staff Report has been prepared recommending conditions of approval to assure the Project’s compatibility with the site and the adjacent surroundings. WHEREAS, application #03-259 has
met the burden of proof as to findings required to support approval of said application for Design Review Approval: Design Review Findings The proposed project is consistent with all
of the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-46.040: (a) Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping
thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color, and appurtenances. This Project does not involve the construction of more than one building
or structure. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the new Church building would possess design elements that would be compatible and harmonious with the other existing
buildings on the Project site, including the chapel/classroom and the Fellowship Hall. Both of these existing buildings feature stucco and stone exterior finishes and accents which are
included in the new building. The hipped and articulated roof style of the new Church would more closely reflect the roofing styles of the residential neighborhood. Page 2 of 11 130
(b) Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the sign shall have a common or compatible design theme and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance.
No more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that a single sign is proposed for the Project at the driveway entrance
to the site. The conceptual design for this sign would be compatible with the style and design of the new building. (c) Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and
vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall
be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that all healthy mature landscaping on
the site would be maintained as part of the Project. No healthy protected trees are proposed for for removal. None of the new landscaping will be placed in rows nor regularly spaced
and instead will be planted in natural, organic patterns. The applicant will be adding thirty new 24-inch box trees to the site. The Project will make use of water-conserving plants,
materials and irrigation systems to the maximum extent feasible. (d) Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective This finding may
be made in the affirmative in that the walls and roofing materials are nonreflective and natural in color which will enable it to blend with the natural landscape and environment. The
building’s size and height precludes the screening of the building by landscaping. (e) Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition
as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that
the roofing material is proposed to be reddish-brown colored slate roof tiles and no mechanical equipment is proposed to be installed on the roof. (f) The proposed development shall
be compatible in terms of height, bulk, and design with other structures in the immediate area. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that the height and style of the proposed
Church would be in keeping with other similar developments in the area. Bulk would be reduced by the use of varying roof lines, pitches, natural colors and materials, and a mix of both
horizontal and vertical features. To increase the projects architectural compatibility with structures in the immediate area, the proposed bulk, size, height, site orientation, and exterior
finishes would be in keeping with other developments including other nearby churches and the buildings on the West Valley Junior College campus. The classic design elements of the proposed
new Church building also complement other types of buildings in the City. Page 3 of 11 131
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the findings required for said application to be issued approval for modification to a Conditional Use Permit,
including variation from standards pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.030 by approval of a use permit to have different structure height, site coverage, and number of off-street parking
spaces, other than as listed under the specific regulations for unconditional permitted uses in the zoning district in which it lies (in this case increased structure height, increased
site coverage, and a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces) as set forth following: (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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the construction
of a new Church building on the site will not adversely affect or intensify the existing use of the site as a religious institution and that the Project is both consistent with the purposes
of the R-1-40,000 zone district and the zoning ordinance in that the Project, as conditioned, is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance as a specified conditional use
in the zone district and provides adequate light, air, and privacy for surrounding single-family dwellings and provides space for religious facilities needed to complement residential
areas and for religious institutions, which are most appropriate in a residential environment. (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. This finding may
be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Project which evaluated the Project’s impacts on the
environment and that adequate mitigations have been incorporated into the Project and the conditions of approval that will assure that there are no impacts which rise to a level of significant
and that Project has been designed to reduce mass and bulk, minimize noise, protect views and privacy of adjacent single-family residences, and otherwise prevent detriment to the public
health, safety and welfare and avoid consequences 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. This finding may be made in the affirmative in that staff finds that the City has given careful consideration to the Project’s effects on surrounding
properties and has imposed reasonable conditions of approval to assure compliance with Chapter 15 – Zoning Regulations. (d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect
existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. This finding may be made in the affirmative
in that the Project site has been used as a church since the late 1950’s, and the new building will not result in additional or intensified uses on the site. Furthermore, an Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the Project. This document evaluated the Project’s aesthetic, privacy, traffic, Page 4 of 11 132
and noise impacts on the surrounding properties and has been determined that the Project would not have an adverse effect on existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood
or surrounding properties or the occupants thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of
the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits and materials submitted in connection with this matter and the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adopted, the required
findings are hereby made for the applications for Design Review Approval and modification to the Conditional Use Permit as well as a use permit for the Variations from Standards and
the same are hereby determined to be in compliance with City regulations and/or approved for variations therefrom so as to have an increased structure height, increased site coverage,
and a reduction in the required number of off street parking spaces normally allowed in the R-1-40,000 zone district. The Design Review Approval, modification to Conditional Use Permit,
and use permit for Variations from Standards are hereby granted subject to the following conditions, and said conditions hereby modify the Conditional Use Permit approved for the Project
site by City Council Resolution 07-067, and these conditions are hereby combined and incorporated by reference and made a part thereof: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL – 1. Prior to
building permit issuance the applicant shall develop a traffic and parking management plan for Christmas Eve, Easter, and other special events subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director. The plan shall describe methods for parking the vehicles generated by the special events. These methods could include the use of an off-site parking location with
a bus to shuttle attendees to the Church, limiting the use attendances at these two events to 277 people (based on 2.2 persons per vehicle), or other measures approved by the City. The
plan shall also be subject to review and approval by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office prior to building permit issuance. 2. The Church buildings, including the existing and new
Church building, shall not include exterior operable bells of any kind or any other type of mechanical, electrical or other device that emits a ringing sound to the exterior. OTHER CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3. The development and use shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped May 29, 2008 (hereby incorporated by reference).
All changes to said approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director’s and/or Planning Commission’s prior
approval as determined appropriate under City regulations. 4. The parking and driveway area shall be constructed of pervious paving. 5. All activities on the site shall be those that
are incidental to the use of the site as a religious facility. Page 5 of 11 133
6. The Project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board dated June 12, 2008 and on file with the City. Prior to the new Church building’s occupancy, the Fellowship Hall
and current chapel shall be painted a color similar to the new Church building subject to the prior approval of the Community Development Director. 7. The following notes shall be incorporated
on the grading and building plans prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and the measures shall be implemented during construction activities: a) Water all active construction
and disturbed areas at least twice daily during dry periods b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction site. d) Sweep daily (with water
sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at constructions sites. Dust, sediment, or debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system. e) Excavation and
grading activities shall be suspended and dust control measures shall be implemented when winds exceed 25 mph. 8. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall incorporate via
a note on the first page of the construction plans, a requirement that should cultural resources be encountered during site grading or other site work, such work shall immediately be
halted in the area of discovery and the applicant shall immediately notify the Community Development Director of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to promptly retain the
services of a qualified archeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, analyzing, and curating the discovery as determined by the archaeologist and Community Development Director
to be appropriate and adequate mitigation. The cost of the qualified archaeologist and of any recording, protecting, or curating shall be borne solely by the applicant. The archaeologist
shall be required to submit a Cultural Resources Management Plan, per City Requirements, to the Community Development Director and subject to his/her review and approval that outlines
the findings and mitigation methods of curation and/or protection of the resources. No further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall be allowed until the preceding
has occurred. Disposition of Native American remains shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). The note on the plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department. 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit plans subject to review and approval by the Building Department. These plans shall demonstrate
to the City Building Official that the Project will comply with all City Building regulations as set forth or adopted by reference in Chapter 16 of the City Code. 10. During all phases
of construction, the applicant shall install and maintain temporary safety fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active on-site construction activities, materials, or chemicals.
11. The following construction noise control measures shall be implemented by the applicant in order to limit the amount of noise generated during the construction period. Page 6 of
11 134
a) Limit construction to the daytime hours between 7:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday, with no construction activities allowed on Sundays or
holidays per Section 7-30.060 of the Saratoga City Code. b) Construction activities or equipment shall not generate noise levels exceeding 83 dBA at any point 25 feet from the source
of noise per Section 7-30.060 of the Saratoga City Code. c) Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such technology is reasonably available
as determined by the Community Development Director. d) Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e) Equip all internal combustion engine equipment with intake an exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. f) Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive receptors. g) Designate
a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The applicant’s designated noise disturbance coordinator shall
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, or other cause) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Conspicuously post
a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. 12. All building interior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights
do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. 13. A soils report for the Project site shall be prepared prior to the application for a building permit. This report
shall be submitted to the Building Official and the City’s Geotechnical Engineer Consultant at the time of building permit application. All new construction shall comply with the provisions
of the geotechnical report (which shall be subject to prior review and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer Consultant) and with the provisions of the most current City Building
regulations, including (without limitation) the portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. 14.
So as to limit short term soil erosion and increased sediment, all conditions of the Cityapproved grading and drainage permit shall be implemented. 15. All conditions of the grading
and drainage permit as required by the Public Works Department shall be met. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval indicating how all storm
water will be retained on-site to the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. 16. The applicant shall adhere
to all provisions of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 17. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building plan check
review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan as separate plan pages. Page 7 of 11 135
b. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification
that all building setbacks are in compliance with approved plans.” 18. Staff shall not approve downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved Project. Downgrades may include,
but are not limited to architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, or similar items. Any exterior changes to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall
require filing an additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans, which are
not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees. 19. The landscape plan shall be designed
with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 20. To the extent feasible,
landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water,
plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. 21. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout
the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape areas. 22. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate,
amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 23. Existing
native trees, shrubs, and ground cover, if applicable, shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 24. All processing fees, in the form
of deposit accounts on file with the Community Development
Department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the Project shall cease until
the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00. 25. The provisions of this Resolution shall be incorporated into Resolution No. 07-067 so as to place all conditions of approval in one
document. 26. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically,
the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other
forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property.
The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. Page 8 of 11 136
CITY ARBORIST 27. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Reports dated March 9, 2006 and May 25, 2006, shall be followed. 28. Tree protective measures, as specified by the
City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of City Permits. 29. Prior to issuance of any City Permits authorized by this Resolution, the applicant
shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $95,150 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 30. The City
Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with required tree protective measures. The security shall be released after the planting of any required replacement trees, a favorable
site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding City Arborist fees. 31. Prior to removal or pruning of any native tree species with a diameter of six inches or greater
measured at breast height, or for any tree species with a diameter of 10 inches or or greater measured at breast height, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal or pruning permit from
the City of Saratoga and comply with any conditions imposed by the tree removal or pruning permit. Such conditions shall include replacement of such tree(s) with replacement tree(s)
of equal value to the trees to be removed. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the City Arborist’s Report that was prepared for the Project. FIRE DISTRICT 32. Applicant
shall comply with all Saratoga Fire District requirements and conditions. PUBLIC WORKS 33. The owner/applicant shall install concrete sidewalk along the property frontage. Sidewalk design
and setback from the roadway shall match existing sidewalk along Allendale Avenue at Camino Barco. Plans and specifications for the sidewalk and driveway approach shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department for prior approval. 34. The owner shall landscape area between the sidewalk and Allendale Avenue. An Irrigation system shall be installed if determined
necessary by the Public Works Director. The landscaped area shall be maintained in perpetuity by the applicant or its successor(s). 35. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement satisfactory
to the Public Works Director for the maintenance of the landscaped area per the condition above shall be recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 36. An Encroachment Permit issued
by the Public Works Department is required for the new sidewalk, new driveway approach, landscaping, and other improvements in any portion of the public right-of-way or of a public easement.
The Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the improvements. Page 9 of 11 137
37. The applicant shall comply with requirements of Provision C.3 of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The applicant shall use and maintain Best Management Practices
(BMP’s) for site design and storm water treatment. Certification of engineered stormwater treatment by a qualified person shall be required to confirm that the plan meets the criteria
established in Provision C.3 prior to issuance of building permits. Post-construction operation and maintenance of storm water treatment BMP’s shall be the responsibility of the owner.
A Maintenance Agreement between the City and the applicant satisfactory to the Public Works Director shall be recorded prior to final occupancy approval. 38. Prior to beginning of construction,
the applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain coverage under and be subject to the State General Construction Activity NPDES
Permit. Satisfactory evidence of the filing of the NOI shall be furnished to the City. City. The applicant shall comply with all provisions and conditions of the State Permit, including
preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Copies of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City prior to beginning of construction and maintained
on site at all times during construction. CITY ATTORNEY 39. The Church shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its employees, agents, independent contractors and volunteers
(collectively “City) from any and all costs and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City’s
defense in any proceeding brought in State or Federal Court, challenging the City’s action with respect to this Permit or contesting any action or inaction in the City’s processing and/or
approval of this Permit. Section 2. A Building Permit shall be obtained and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the approval granted
thereby will expire. Section 3. The uses by the Church shall maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities having jurisdiction.
Section 4. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met with regard to the construction authorized by this Resolution. Section 5.
Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. Page 10 of
11 138
Page 11 of 11 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council, State of California, on the 17th day of September 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Ann Waltonsmith Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Ann Sullivan Acting City Clerk This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall
have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions
and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions. __________________________________ _________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church City of Saratoga Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2008 Prepared for: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga,
California 95070 Prepared by: MHA Environmental Consulting, An RMT Business 4 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 303 San Mateo, California 94402 208
St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church City of Saratoga Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2008 Prepared for: City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga,
California 95070 Tel: (408) 868-1230 Prepared by: MHA Environmental Consulting, An RMT Business 4 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 303 San Mateo, California 94402 Tel: (650) 373-1200 www.mha-inc.com
www.rmtinc.com 209
TABLE OF CONTENTS St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT TOC-i March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Description ...........................................................
.......................................................... 1 1. Applicant..............................................................................................................................
1 2. Proposed Location................................................................................................................ 1 3. Proposed Action ...........................................
....................................................................... 1 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures.................................................................................
1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................ 1 Air Quality.............................................
.................................................................................. 1 Biological Resources .............................................................................................
.................. 2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 2 Geology..................................
................................................................................................ 2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................
...................... 2 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Traffic and Transportation.....
................................................................................................... 3 Review Period....................................................................................
......................................... 3 Contact Person(s) ........................................................................................................................
3 Environmental Checklist Form.................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................
...................................................... 5 Determination..............................................................................................................................
5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 6 Environmental Analysis......................................
.......................................................................15 1. Aesthetics................................................................................................................
..........15 2. Agricultural Resources.........................................................................................................17 3. Air Quality.......................................
...................................................................................17 4. Biological Resources .........................................................................................
.................18 5. Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................19 6. Geology..................................
...........................................................................................20 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................
...............21 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................................21 9. Land Use and Planning ...........................
...........................................................................22 10. Mineral Resources....................................................................................................
........23 210
TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC-ii MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 11. Noise ......................................................................................
........................................ 23 12. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 24 13. Public
Services ................................................................................................................. 24 14. Recreation ..........................................................
............................................................. 25 15. Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................................
25 16. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 26 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance............................
...................................................... 26 Sources .....................................................................................................................................
27 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 28 Preparers ...........................................
................................................................................... 28 Saratoga Staff..................................................................................................
...................... 28 Persons Contacted ................................................................................................................. 28 List of Attachments Attachment
1: Area Map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Tree Inventory, Dated November 8, 2005 and Prepared by Arbor Resources Attachment 4: Geotechnical Report, Dated May 8, 2007 and
Prepared by Murray Engineers Attachment 5: Traffic Report, Dated July 14, 2006 and Prepared Prepared by Higgins Associates Attachment 6: Traffic Report, Dated May 21, 2007 and Prepared
by Higgins Associates LIST OF TABLE Table 1: Zoning Regulations ........................................................................................................ 22 211
St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 1 March 2008 CITY OF SARATOGA DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use
Permit and Design Review for the construction of a 6,609-square-foot church with a seating capacity of 254 people, with an associated request to vary from the City’s standards for maximum
impervious site coverage, maximum height, and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 223 spaces to 126 spaces. 1. Applicant: St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox
Church 18870 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 2. Proposed Location: 18870 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 (see Attachment 1) 3. Proposed Action: Approval of Conditional
Use Permit and Design Review for construction of the proposed church project. The request also includes approval of a variation from standards for impervious site coverage, building
height, and on site parking. NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics Mitigation Measure Measure 1-1: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a color
board for the project that shows a compatible color scheme for the proposed church and the existing structures on the site. This color board shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. Mitigation Measure 1-2: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan that complies
with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or
allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels
will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. Air Quality Mitigation
Measure 3-1: The following notes shall be incorporated on the grading and building plans prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and the measures shall be implemented during
construction activities: a) Water all active construction and disturbed areas at least twice daily during dry periods. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials
or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas,
and staging areas at construction sites. 212
CITY OF SARATOGA 2 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites. Dust, sediment, or debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system. e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets. Dust, sediment, or debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system. f) Excavation and grading activities shall be suspended and dust control measures
shall be implemented when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4-1: Prior to removal or pruning of any native tree species with a diameter of 6 inches
or greater measured at breast height, or for any tree species with a diameter of 10 inches or greater measured at breast height, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal or pruning
permit from the City of Saratoga and comply with any conditions imposed by the tree removal or pruning permit. Such conditions shall include replacement of such trees with replacement
trees of equal value to the trees to be removed. Mitigation Measure 4-2: Prior to removal or pruning of any native tree species with a diameter of 6 inches or greater measured at breast
height, or for any tree species with a diameter of 10 inches or greater measured at breast height, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Arborist Report that was
prepared for this project. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 5-1: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall incorporate via a note on the first page of the construction
plans, that should cultural resources be encountered during site grading or other site work, such work shall immediately be halted in the area of discovery and the applicant shall immediately
notify the Community Development Director of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to retain the services of a qualified archeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting,
analyzing, and curating the discovery as determined by the archaeologist and Community Development Director to be appropriate. The cost of the qualified archaeologist and of any recording,
protecting, or curating shall be borne solely by the applicant. The archaeologist shall be required to submit a Cultural Resources Management Plan, per City Requirements, to the Community
Development Director for review and approval that outlines the findings and mitigation methods of curation and/or protection of the resources. No further grading or site work within
the area of discovery shall be allowed until the preceding has occurred. Disposition of Native American remains shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). The note on the
plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Department. Geology Mitigation Measure 6-1: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit plans for the
review and approval of the Building Department. These plans shall indicate that the project will comply with all State building codes, as well as with all recommendations in the Geotechnical
Report prepared for this project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 7-1: During all phases of construction, the applicant shall install and maintain temporary safety
fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active on-site construction activities, materials or chemicals. 213
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 3 March 2008 Noise Mitigation Measure 11-1: The following construction noise control measures shall
be implemented by the applicant in order to limit the amount of noise generated during the construction period: a) Limit construction to the daytime hours between 7:30 am to 6:00 pm
Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday, with no construction activities allowed on Sundays or holidays per Sec. 7-30.060 of the Saratoga City Code. b) Construction
activities or equipment shall not generate noise levels exceeding 83 dBA at any point 25 feet from the source of noise per Sec. 7-30.060 of the Saratoga City Code. c) Utilize “quiet”
models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such technology is reasonably available as determined by the Community Development Director. d) Prohibit unnecessary
idling of internal combustion engines. e) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
f) Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive receptors. g) Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding
to any local complaints about construction noise. The applicant’s disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.)
and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Traffic and Transportation
Mitigation Measure 15-1: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall develop a traffic and parking management plan for Christmas Eve and Easter events subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Director. The plan shall describe methods for parking the vehicles generated by the special events. These methods could include the use of an off-site
parking parking location with a bus to shuttle attendees to the church, limiting attendance at these two events to 277 people (based on 2.2 persons per vehicle), or other measures approved
by the City. REVIEW PERIOD All comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by the Saratoga
Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, no later than 5:00 PM on April 25, 2008. CONTACT PERSON(S) Jeffrey Smith Chris Riordan Senior Planner Senior Planner MHA Environmental
Consulting, City of Saratoga An RMT Business 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 4 W. Fourth Avenue, Suite 303 Saratoga, California 95070 San Mateo, California 94402 Tel: (408) 868-1230 Tel: (650)
373-1200 Fax: (408) 867-8555 Fax: (650) 373-1211 criordan@saratoga.ca.us jeff.smith@rmtinc.com 214
CITY OF SARATOGA 4 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Saint Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox
Church 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeffrey Smith, Senior Planner, (650)
373-1200 or Chris Riordan, Senior Planner, (408) 868-1235 4. Project Location: 18870 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, California (Attachment 1) 5. Applicant’s Name and Address: St. Archangel
Michael Serbian Orthodox Church, 18870 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 6. General Plan Designation: CF (Community Facilities) 7. Zoning: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) 8.
Description of Project: The proposed project includes a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the construction of a 6,609-square-foot church with a seating capacity of 254 people
and a proposed height of 50-feet. The proposal includes an associated request to vary from the City’s standards for a maximum impervious site coverage, maximum building height, and a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 223 to 126. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is an L-shaped parcel on Allendale Avenue, located less than
half a mile south of Highway 85. It is currently occupied by a 1,224-square-foot chapel, a 9,731-square-foot fellowship hall, and a 2,521-square-foot Pastor’s Residence. The site is
located within a residential neighborhood with a small vineyard located to the rear of the property. The neighborhood also contains West Valley College and the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints within half a mile of the proposed project. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) would need to issue
a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit for the project. 215
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 5 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would
be potentially affected by this project, involving several impacts that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
v Aesthetics and Visual Agricultural Resources v Air Quality v Biological Resources v Cultural Resources v Geology/Soils v Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land
Use/Planning Mineral Resources v Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation v Traffic/Transportation Utilities/Service Systems v Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find
that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the
environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. March 25, 2008 Signature Date Chris Riordan Printed name Senior Planner Title 216
CITY OF SARATOGA 6 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? v C b) Substantially
damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? v A, C c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
v A, C, F d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? v A ,F, J 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use? v A, K b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? v A, E, L c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? v A, C, D, E 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? v A, G b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? v A, C, D, G 217
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 7 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? v A, D, G
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? v A, C, D, G e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? v A, G 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or NOAA -Fisheries? v A, C, M b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? v A, C c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? v A, C d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? v A, C e) Conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? v A, C 218
CITY OF SARATOGA 8 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? v A, C g) Adversely affect previously established mitigation site(s) for other project(s)? v A, C 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? v A, C, D b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? v A, C, D c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? v A, C, D d) Disturb
any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? v A, C, D 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. v A, H, Q b) Strong seismic
ground shaking? v A, H, Q c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? v A, H, I, Q d) Landslides? v A, C, Q e) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? v A, C, Q 219
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 9 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources f) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? v A, C, Q g) Would the project be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? v A, C, Q h) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? v A 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? v A b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? v A c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? v A, C, D d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? v
A, C, N e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? v A, C, D 220
CITY OF SARATOGA 10 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area? v A, C, D g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
v A, D h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands? v A, C, D 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? v A b) Substantially
deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (for example, the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
v A, C c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site? v A, C d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. v A, C e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? v A, C f) Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? v A, C 221
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 11 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? v A, C, I h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? v A, C, I i) Expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? v A, C, I j) Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow? v A, C, I 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? v A, C, D, E b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? v A, C, D, E c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? v A,
C, D, E 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
v A, C, D b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? v A,
C, D 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies? v A, E 222
CITY OF SARATOGA 12 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
v A c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? v A, C d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? v A, E e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? v A f) For
a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? v A, C, D 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)? v A b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? v A c) Displace substantial
numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? v A 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? v A, C, O b)
Police protection? v A, P 223
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 13 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources c) Schools? v A d) Parks? v A, C, D e) Other public facilities? v A, C 14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
v A, C, D b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? v A,
C, D 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (for
example, result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? v A, B b) Exceed, either individually
or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? v A, B c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks? v A, B, D d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? v A, B e) Result in inadequate emergency access? v A, B f) Result in inadequate
parking capacity? v A, B, E g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks? v A, B 224
CITY OF SARATOGA 14 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? v A, C b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? v A, C, R c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? v A, C d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? v A, C, R e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? v A, C f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? v A, C, S g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? v A, C, S 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? v A, C, M b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
v A, C 225
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 15 March 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? v A, C ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following analysis is intended to explain responses outlined in the Environmental Checklist
(above), pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1. Aesthetics a-b) The proposed project is not in the vicinity of a scenic vista, state scenic
highway, or other scenic resource, and will therefore have no impact on scenic resources. No mitigation is required. c) The proposed project is located within a residential district
and is surrounded by single-family residential development. Section 15-46.040 of the City Code outlines a series of design criteria that the Planning Commission uses as a guideline when
reviewing new development. These design criteria include the following guidelines: • Where more than one building or structure will be constructed, the architectural features and landscaping
thereof shall be harmonious. Such features include height, elevations, roofs, material, color and appurtenances. • Colors of wall and roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape
and be non-reflective. • Roofing materials shall be wood shingles, wood shakes, tile, or other materials such as composition as approved by the Planning Commission. No mechanical equipment
shall be located upon a roof unless it is appropriately screened. • The proposed development shall be compatible in terms of height, bulk and design with other structures in the immediate
area. • Where more than one sign will be erected or displayed on the site, the signs shall have a common or compatible design and locational positions and shall be harmonious in appearance.
• Landscaping shall integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; it shall make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems to the maximum
extent feasible; and, to the maximum extent feasible, it shall be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. 226
CITY OF SARATOGA 16 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 The proposed project is a 6,609-square-foot building that is designed with architectural
features to break up its mass. The impact of the bulk of the proposed design is reduced by the use of varying roof lines pitches, natural colors, setbacks for taller portions of the
building, and a mix of horizontal and vertical features. The proposed project is a natural tan color with an earthtone tile roof, and no mechanical equipment would be visible on top
of the roof. The natural colors proposed for the new structure would help the building to blend with the environment. The building’s size and height precludes the screening of the building
by landscaping. The proposed project’s height is stylistic in nature and only provides two stories of usable space. Side yard setbacks and the proposed building’s angle will reduce views
of adjacent properties and help maintain privacy. The site of the proposed project is located between residential buildings and views of the Santa Cruz mountain range. The height and
size of the proposed project would partially block those views for some neighbors located across Allendale Avenue, but the existing buildings and trees on the project site already partially
screen these mountains from view. Therefore, the new church would have a minimal impact on surrounding views. The height and style of the proposed church would be in keeping with other
similar developments in the area. The proposed bulk, size, height, site orientation, and exterior finishes would be in keeping with other developments in the City of Saratoga, including
other nearby churches and the buildings on the West Valley College campus. For example, the proposed 50-foot building height would be lower than the 58-foot building height of the nearby
Mormon Church, a structure that is much larger than the proposed building at approximately 45,000 square feet in floor area. The classic design elements of the proposed new church also
compliment other types of buildings in the City, including the fire house. The proposed new church would also possess design elements that would be compatible with the other existing
buildings on the project site, including the chapel and the fellowship hall. Both of these existing buildings feature stucco and stone exterior finishes and accents, and these design
elements would be included in the new building as well. The hipped and articulated roof style of the new church would more closely reflect the roofing styles of the residential neighborhood,
and would not match the flat roofing style possessed by the two existing buildings on the site. However, the flat roofing style of these two buildings is considered outdated, and is
not a design element worth emulating. The proposed church could be considered incompatible with the existing structures on the site if these buildings did not share a similar color palette.
Therefore, in order to make the proposed church more compatible with the other buildings on the property, the following mitigation measure has been included: Mitigation Measure 1-1:
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a color board for the project that shows a compatible color scheme for the proposed church and the existing structures on
the site. This color board shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. A single sign is proposed for the project at the
driveway entrance to the site. The conceptual design for this sign would be compatible with the style and design of the new building. With the exception of the removal of one large pine
tree and three small ornamental trees, the existing mature landscaping on the site would be maintained as part of the project. Additional landscaping would be installed that would be
compatible with the existing vegetation, and would be planted in natural, organic patterns rather than in structured rows. The design of the proposed project largely follows the design
criteria outlined in City Code Section 15-46.040. No mitigation is required. 227
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 17 March 2008 d) The proposed project is expected to include a number of exterior light sources. The
Conceptual Lighting Plan provided by the applicant shows maximum lighting levels of 2.2 foot lamberts at the property line, and a maximum of approximately 25.8 foot lamberts in the parking
lot. As a reference, a single candle generates 1 foot lambert of light, while a full moon creates about 0.5 foot lamberts of light. Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance states
that parking lot lighting shall not exceed 100 foot lamberts and shall be deflected away from adjoining residential sites so as to cause no annoying glare. The use of downward facing
and shielded fixtures for exterior building illumination would prevent any potential negative impact of exterior lighting by reducing the amount of spill light that would be emitted.
The following mitigation will reduce potential light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure 1-2: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall
submit an exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15-35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow
direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations.
The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior
to building permit issuance. 2. Agricultural Resources The proposed project will be located on a currently developed site in a developed residential area. There are no agricultural resources
on the project site. Two properties, one adjacent to the south of the project site, and one approximately 200 feet to the east, are currently developed as vineyards. a) The adjacent
agricultural properties are not identified as important farmland by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The project will therefore have
no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Significance. No mitigation is required. b) The adjacent agricultural properties are covered under the Williamson
Act and are labeled on the 2005 Agricultural Preserves Map as Prime Agricultural Land and Non-Prime Agricultural Land. The project would not conflict with these existing agricultural
uses. No mitigation is required. c) The proposed project would have no impact on the nearby agricultural lands. No mitigation is required. 3. Air Quality a-d) There are potential air
quality impacts from the construction of the proposed building. The project site is generally level, and the proposed construction would therefore require only minimal excavation of
earth material for foundations. Excavation and fine grading of the balance of the project site would involve soil disturbance and could result in dust emissions (particulates less than
10 microns [PM10]) that could significantly impact air quality. Sensitive receptors, in the form of residential uses, surround the project site and could be negatively affected by dust
and particulate emissions. Construction-related dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the type and level of activity, silt content of the soil, and weather. The project
site is situated within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD’s approach to CEQA analyses of construction impacts is 228
CITY OF SARATOGA 18 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures, rather
than detailed quantification of emissions. The BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for construction activities. The BAAQMD’s “Basic Measures” should be implemented
at all construction sites, regardless of size. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce air quality impacts from construction activities to a less than significant
level. Mitigation Measure 3-1: The following notes shall be incorporated on the grading and building plans prior to issuance of grading or building permits, and the measures shall be
implemented during construction activities: a) Water all active construction and disturbed areas at least twice daily during dry periods. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and
other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Dust, sediment, or debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system. e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Dust, sediment, or debris shall not be washed into the storm drain system. f) Excavation and grading activities shall be suspended and dust control measures shall be implemented when
winds exceed 25 miles per hour. The proposed project would produce minimal emissions during operation. Daily emissions sources for criteria air pollutants include emissions from vehicles
traveling to and from the site. These indirect emissions would be minor and would not exceed established BAAQMD thresholds. The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for State
and federal ozone ozone standards (BAAQMD 2007). The BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for ozone precursor pollutants (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and nitrogen
oxides [NOx]) and particulate matter (PM10). Both project construction and operation emission levels would be below the BAAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors and PM10. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors),
and the project would result in impacts that would be less than significant. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact in regard to air quality with the appropriate
mitigation above, and the project would not conflict with implementation of any air quality plans. e) The construction and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable
odors and would therefore not have any odor impacts. No mitigation is required. 4. Biological Resources a) a) The project is located on a developed site with a chapel, fellowship hall,
and pastor’s residence within a residential area. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database was conducted, and only one special status species was found to occur within five
miles of the project area. In 1997, four California redlegged frogs were reported at a location west of Cupertino, and at least three miles from the site. Due to lack of appropriate
habitat, no special status species are expected to exist on the project site. The proposed project would 229
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 19 March 2008 have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species. No mitigation is required. b) There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community within the vicinity of the project site. The project would have no impact on
such natural communities. No mitigation is required. c) No wetlands are located on the project site, nor would any wetlands be affected by the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
d) The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites due to the previously developed state of the site. No mitigation is required. e) The project is located on a developed
site with a chapel, fellowship hall, and pastor’s residence within a residential area. The landscape demolition plan designates four trees for removal, including one 18-inch diameter
pine tree and three 5-inch ornamental trees. According to an arborist report that was prepared for this project, the 18-inch pine tree is in decline and in poor condition. City of Saratoga
regulations state that for any native tree species with a diameter of 6 inches or greater at breast height, or for any tree species with a diameter of 10 inches or greater at breast
height, a tree removal or pruning permit is required (Sections 15-50.020(n) and 15-50.070(c)). With the following mitigation measures requiring obtaining a tree removal permit for the
18-inch pine tree and adherence to the Arborist Report prepared for this project, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the local policies protecting biological
resources: Mitigation Measure 4-1: Prior to removal or pruning of any native tree species with a diameter of 6 inches or greater measured at breast height, or for any tree species with
a diameter of 10 inches or greater measured at breast height, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal or pruning permit from the City of Saratoga and comply with any conditions imposed
by the tree removal or pruning permit. Such conditions shall include replacement of such trees with replacement trees of equal value to the trees to be removed. Mitigation Measure 4-2:
Prior to removal or pruning of any native tree species with a diameter of 6 inches or greater measured at breast height, or for any tree species with a diameter of 10 inches or greater
measured at breast height, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Arborist Report that was prepared for this project. f) The project location is near the Santa Clara
Valley Habitat Conservation Plan area, but not within the plan area’s bounds. No mitigation is required. g) There are no previously established mitigation sites for other projects on
or near the project site. No mitigation is required. 5. Cultural Resources a) There are no known historical resources on the project site or in the project vicinity that would be impacted
by the proposed project. The project site is currently developed with 13,476 square feet of buildings including a church, fellowship hall, and pastor’s residence, all of which were built
between 1962 and 1968. Generally, properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are at least 50 years old. Properties less than 50 years of age must be
exceptionally important to be considered eligible for listing. No mitigation is required. 230
CITY OF SARATOGA 20 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 b-d) There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources on or near the site.
However, the proposed project would require site excavation with the potential to unearth undiscovered cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources, or human remains, which
could represent a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to any unidentified historical or archaeological resources to less than significant
levels. Mitigation Measure 5-1: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall incorporate via a note on the first page of the construction plans, that should cultural resources
be encountered during site grading or other site work, such work shall immediately be halted in the area of discovery and the applicant shall immediately notify the Community Development
Director of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to retain the services of a qualified archeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, analyzing, and curating the discovery
as determined by the archaeologist and Community Development Director to be appropriate. The cost of the qualified archaeologist and of any recording, protecting, or curating shall be
borne solely by the applicant. The archaeologist shall be required to submit a Cultural Resources Management Plan, per City Requirements, to the Community Development Director for review
and approval that outlines the findings and mitigation methods of curation and/or protection of the resources. No further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall be allowed
until the preceding has occurred. Disposition of Native American remains shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). The note on the plans shall be subject to review and approval
of the Planning Department. 6. Geology a-b) The project site is an L-shaped parcel approximately 3.1 acres in size. It is located in a region of three major fault zones: the Hayward
Fault Zone, approximately 13 miles east of the site, the San Andreas Fault Zone, approximately 4 miles west of the site, and the Calaveras Fault Zone, located approximately 16 miles
east of the site. The project could be subject to ground shaking with a rupture in one of these faults. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce these potential
seismic impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 6-1: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit plans for the review and approval of the Building
Department. These plans shall indicate that the project will comply with all State building codes, as well as with all recommendations in the Geotechnical Report prepared for this project.
c-e) The Association of Bay Area Governments identifies the site as having a low susceptibility to liquefaction, and the relatively flat nature of the site and its surroundings reduces
the risk of landslides, erosion, or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required. f) The subject property is a nearly flat parcel that would not be subject to landslides, lateral spreading,
or subsidence. The underlying geology consists of stable alluvial soils that would not be subject to any unusual risk of liquefaction or collapse. No mitigation is required. g) The underlying
soils at the site have a relatively high clay content, making them potentially expansive soils. Impacts on the proposed project from these potentially expansive soils would be less than
significant with compliance with State building codes. No mitigation is required. h) The proposed project would be served by the existing sewer system. No mitigation is required. 231
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 21 March 2008 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a-b) The proposed project will not involve hazardous
materials beyond those routinely used in construction. Construction employee safety would be maintained through providing personal safety equipment on an as-needed basis, and holding
periodic safety meetings to discuss issues dealing with site operations and existing construction activity safety plans. There would be no increased likelihood of injury or harm to employees
involved in development activities. This safety impact to project-associated construction personnel would be less than significant. Public access to the construction site would be prohibited
and considered trespassing. Public access to the site could create a significant threat to humans by exposure to the construction site and any hazards inherent in construction work including
hazardous materials, large machinery, and unstable structures. The following mitigation measure will reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation
Measure 7-1: During all phases of construction, the applicant shall install and maintain temporary safety fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active onsite construction activities,
materials or chemicals. c) The proposed project is located approximately one quarter of a mile from West Valley College, but no hazardous materials will be used beyond the normal construction
materials and equipment. Impacts due to the proximity to West Valley College would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) The California Department of Toxic Substance
Control’s EnviroStor Database contains only one hazardous materials site within the City of Saratoga. This site is located over a mile south of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
project would have no impact on any hazardous materials sites. No mitigation is required. e-h) There are no airports or airstrips within 2 miles of the project site, nor are there wildlands
in the area. Due to the proposed project’s relatively small size and development on an already improved property, the project would not impair or interfere with emergency response or
evacuation plans. No mitigation is required. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality a) The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The amount of
permeable surface on the site would increase under the proposed project, reducing the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the site. The project would adhere to all water quality and
waste discharge requirements. No mitigation is required. b) The project would be served by the City’s existing water supply system. No groundwater would be accessed or utilized by the
project, and thus the project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or aquifer volumes. No mitigation is required. c-d) No streams or rivers are located near the project vicinity,
and the modifications to the project site would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a way that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding
on-or off-site. The project would result in a net increase in the amount of permeable surface on the site, reducing the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the site. No mitigation is
required. e) The project would result in a net decrease in the amount of impermeable surface on the site, reducing the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the site. No mitigation is
required. f) Due to the proposed increase in permeable surfaces on the project site, the proposal would not substantially degrade water quality. No mitigation is required. 232
CITY OF SARATOGA 22 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 g-j) The proposed project is not within the 100-year flood zone and is not located within
three miles of any large body of water. Therefore, the project does not pose a hazard due to flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation is required. 9. Land Use and Planning
a) The proposed project will not physically divide an established community as it is located on one lot in a fully developed residential neighborhood. No mitigation is required. b) The
proposed project is designated Community Facilities (CF), and is within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Compliance with the R-1-40,000 zoning regulations is discussed in Table 1, below.
The proposed project does not meet all the requirements of this zoning district. However, the Planning Commission’s review and approval of a Variation from Standards for impervious site
coverage, building height, and onsite parking would make these elements compliant with the Zoning Ordinance (Section 15-55.030 of Zoning Ordinance). Section 15-46.020(6) of the City
Code applies to this project. Therefore, there are no Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for this project. The proposal involves both the construction of a new church and the removal
of a significant portion of paving from the site, resulting in a net 4.7% reduction in the impervious site coverage. This reduction in the amount of impervious site coverage would increase
the amount of permeable surfaces on the site, and would be an environmental benefit of the project. However, the proposed project would still exceed the maximum allowable impervious
site coverage by 15.5%. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve a Variation from Standards (Section 15-55.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance) in order to allow
the project to exceed the 35% maximum allowable impervious site coverage. A Variation from Standards allows a conditional use to have different site area, density, structure height,
distances between structures, impervious site coverage, front, side and rear setback area minimums and off-street parking and loading requirements, other than as listed under the specific
regulations for unconditional permitted uses in the zoning district in which it lies. A Variation from Standards is reviewed and approved through the Use Permit process. The proposed
project would comply with the required building setbacks. Table 1: Zoning Regulations Regulation Existing Facility Proposed Church Result Site Coverage 35 % Maximum (approx 47,263 sq.
ft.) 55.2% 50.5% 50.5% Setbacks Front Yard 30 ft 129 ft. 47 ft. 47 ft. Side Yard (East) 20 ft or 25 ft for second story 20 ft. 31 ft. 20 ft. Side Yard (West) 20 ft or 25 ft for second
story 35 ft. 56 ft. 35 ft. Rear Yard 50 ft or 60 ft for second story 139 ft. 400 ft. 139 ft. Height 30 ft, two stories 18 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Parking 2 per residential building (2 spaces)
1 for every 4 fixed seats (64 spaces) 1 for every 40 sq. ft. (157 spaces) 1 for every 2 employees (0 spaces) Total Parking (223 spaces required) 2 0 19 0 --0 64 41(unpaved) 0 --2 64
60 0 126 233
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 23 March 2008 The proposed project would exceed the maximum allowable building height of 30 feet,
with a proposed maximum height of 50 feet. As with impervious site coverage, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve a Variation from Standards in order to allow
the project to exceed the 30-foot maximum allowable building height. The zoning regulations for this district require that the applicant supply 223 on site parking spaces, but the proposal
only includes 126 parking spaces. Of these 126 parking spaces, 85 spaces would be paved, while 41 spaces would be “grass crete”. Grass crete involves the use of concrete pavers covered
by grass or lawn on top. The concrete pavers are strong enough to support the weight of parking vehicles, but porous enough to allow for grass to grow above, allowing the area to serve
the dual purposes of parking and lawn area. As with impervious site coverage and building height, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve a Variation from Standards
in order to allow the project to provide 126 parking spaces where 223 are required. Parking is discussed in greater detail under Section 15, Traffic and Transportation, below. The Variations
from Standards from the impervious site coverage, building height limitations, and on site parking are permitted by Section 15-55.030 of the City Code and will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process provided for by Article 15-55. Therefore, no mitigation is required. c) The proposed project is located near the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Conservation Plan area, but is not within the plan area’s bounds. The project would have no effect on the plan. No mitigation is required. 10. Mineral Resources a-b) The City
of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element states that mineral resources in the Saratoga vicinity are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. Currently, there are no mines or quarries
known to be operating in Saratoga or its Sphere of Influence. There are no known mineral resources on the project site. No mitigation is required. 11. Noise a, d) The construction of
the proposed project has the potential to create noise levels in excess of City’s standards. Anticipated construction noise levels are not expected to be above construction noise levels
for typical residential construction and are considered temporary in nature. The following measures would mitigate the impact of construction noise to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 11-1: The following construction noise control measures shall be implemented in order to limit the amount of noise generated during the construction period: a) Limit
construction to the daytime hours between 7:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday, with no construction activities allowed on Sundays or holidays
per Sec. 7-30.060 of the Saratoga City Code. b) Construction activities or equipment shall not generate noise levels exceeding 83 dBA at any point 25 feet from the source of noise per
Sec. 7-30.060 of the Saratoga City Code. c) Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such technology is reasonably available as determined by
the Community Development Director. d) Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers
that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. 234
CITY OF SARATOGA 24 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 f) Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive
receptors. g) Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine
the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. b) The proposed project would only include minor ground borne vibrations during construction. The temporary vibration would
be dissipated to imperceptible levels within a few feet of the activity. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c) The proposed project does not include
any change in use and only an enlargement of the existing church facilities to include a new 6,609-square-foot church. The church’s hours of operations, as stipulated in Resolution 07-067,
would be as follows: Monday – Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday – Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Additional restrictions regarding hours of operation
for catered and non-catered events, as well as deliveries to the church, are also included in Resolution 07-067, which was approved by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on June
13, 2007. The church’s hours of operation, and noise generation during these hours, would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The proposed project would not result in
a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. No mitigation is required. e-f) The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan
or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No mitigation is required. 12. Population and Housing a-c) The proposed development of 6,609-square-foot church on the project site would not
induce substantial population growth. The proposed project would not include any new housing nor displace any people or housing. No mitigation is required. 13. Public Services a-e) Fire
protection is provided by two fire districts, both independent of the city – the Saratoga Fire District and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The County Fire Department has jurisdiction
over the proposed project site. Police services are provided on a contract basis by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department. Existing fire, police, and other governmental services
are sufficient to accommodate the service needs of this project. The project would not necessitate the expansion of the equipment, facilities, or manpower of responsible fire, police,
health, or school services to more than existing resources in order to maintain current service ratios and response times. The project also would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or altered fire, police, health, or school facilities. There would be no need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. No mitigation
is required. Saratoga Fire District Joe Parker, Battalion Chief 14380 Saratoga Avenue 235
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 25 March 2008 Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867-9001, Emergency 911 Santa Clara County Fire Department
Ken Waldvogel, Chief (408) 378-4010, Emergency 911 Sheriff Department, West Valley Patrol Division Terry Calderone, Captain 1601 S. De Anza Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 868-6600
14. Recreation a-b) The proposed project will not increase the use of existing parks nor require the construction of recreational facilities. The proposed project will have no impact
on recreational facilities. No mitigation is required. 15. Traffic and Transportation Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact analysis for the project in July 2006 based on traffic
counts performed in 2004, and performed a subsequent traffic impacts analysis based on counts collected in April 2007. The traffic analysis is attached to this document. The proposed
project would use the existing driveway access to the site via Allendale Avenue. a-b) The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic or a significant change
to the level of service (LOS) of local streets. The Higgins Associates traffic study determined that Allendale Avenue currently operated at LOS A, and would continue to operate at LOS
A even on days with large events, including Easter and Christmas Eve. The project would have a less than significant impact on traffic load and capacity. No mitigation is required. c-e)
The proposed project would result in a slight increase in traffic volumes, but neither this traffic increase nor the proposed project design would result in an alteration of air traffic
patterns, safety hazards, or inadequate emergency access. No mitigation is required. f) The proposed project would provide less parking capacity than is required by Article 15-55 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The parking requirement is based not just on seating for the new church, but also on the assembly and classroom areas of the existing chapel and fellowship hall.
Since all three buildings would not be in active use at the same time, it is reasonable to conclude that the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement exceeds the actual parking demand that
would be experienced on site, and that the parking requirement should be based on the actual usage patterns of this facility. The Higgins Associates traffic impact analysis determined
that the 126 proposed parking spaces would be sufficient parking for the proposed project for all days except Easter and Christmas Eve. These two days are the busiest days of the year
for the church, and even with the applicant’s proposal to limit attendance at these two events to no more than 277 people, the proposed parking would be insufficient to accommodate all
of the attendees of church events on these two days. With the approval of a Variation from Standards (Section 15-55.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance), and implementation of the following
mitigation measure, however, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity, and related potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 236
CITY OF SARATOGA 26 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 Mitigation Measure 15-1: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall develop
a traffic and parking management plan for Christmas Eve and Easter events subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. The plan shall describe methods for parking
the vehicles generated by the special events. These methods could include the use of an off-site parking location with a bus to shuttle attendees to the church, limiting attendance at
these two events to 277 people, or other measures approved by the City. g) The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
No mitigation is required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems a, e) The project site is served by West Valley Sanitation for waste water collection and treatment. The proposal would not
add a significant amount to the wastewater stream that is processed by West Valley Sanitation. The project would result in a less than significant impact in terms of sanitary waste treatment
and disposal. No mitigation is required. b-d) Both the San Jose Water Company, the agency that supplies water to the project site, and West Valley Sanitation have sufficient facilities
and resources to meet the water, waste water, and storm water drainage needs of the proposed project. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a substantial impact on existing
water supplies. Nevertheless, as standard conditions of approval, the project will be required to comply with all applicable state and local codes that mandate the use of water conserving
equipment, plumbing fixtures, and drought tolerant landscaping. The project would have a less than significant impact on water, waste water, and stormwater collection and treatment facilities.
No mitigation is required. f-g) West Valley Collection and Recycling provides the solid waste collection and disposal needs of the project site, and has adequate capacity to serve both
the construction and operation of the proposed project. Given the fact that site preparation and construction is an isolated
occurrence, the amount of waste to be generated from the construction of the project is not considered to be a significant impact. Moreover, with the ability to recycle a large portion
of the construction debris, the overall amount of solid waste that would be hauled directly to a landfill can be substantially reduced. Operation of the proposed project is not anticipated
to generate substantial amounts of solid waste, and the project would comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to solid waste management. Impacts to solid waste
collection and disposal are therefore considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) The proposal is on a previously developed
site and has no known protected species or habitats on site. The proposal would result in the removal of one mature tree and three smaller ornamental trees from the site, which would
be replaced according to the requirements of the City of Saratoga and the Arborist Report prepared for this project. The proposal would also be required to implement certain mitigation
measures in the event that cultural resources are unearthed on the site in the process of project construction. With adherence to these measures, the project does not have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory. 237
CITY OF SARATOGA St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND MHA/RMT 27 March 2008 b) The proposal would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area.
The proposal would have minimal cumulative impacts on air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and utilities, and would not have significant cumulative impacts
on traffic and transportation. c) With the adoption of the mitigation measures identified in this report, the proposal would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. SOURCES The following information sources were used in the preparation of this document and referenced throughout the
Initial Study Checklist: A. Project Plans, Bunton Clifford Associates, June 5, 2006. B. St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, July 14, 2006.
Additional Traffic Impact Analysis, Higgins Associates, May 21, 2007. C. Field Inspection, MHA, December 22, 2006. D. City of Saratoga General Plan, 2007, and Land Use Map. E. City of
Saratoga Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. F. City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook, adopted November 2, 1988. G. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA
Guidelines. 1999. Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. H. Association of Bay Area Governments, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, July 2006. I. Flood Hazard Map,
Association of Bay Area Governments, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/eqfloods/floods.html, January 2007 J. Conceptual Lighting Plan, Bunton Clifford Associates, October 4, 2005
K. Important Farmland In California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004. L. Agricultural Preserves
Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2005. M. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Department of Fish and Game, 2006.
N. California Department of Toxic Substance Control EnviroStor Database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed February 2007. O. Santa Clara County Fire Department, conversation
on February 14, 2007. P. Deputy Brad Davis, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, conversation on February 14, 2007. Q. Engineering, Geologic, and Geotechnical Reconnaissance, St.
Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church, Murray Engineers Inc., May 8, 2007. 238
CITY OF SARATOGA 28 MHA/RMT St. Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church Draft IS/MND March 2008 R. Bill Tuttle, Engineering Division, San Jose Water Company, personal communication,
June 21, 2007. S. Todd Hansen, Operations Manager, West Valley Collection and Recycling, personal communication, June 26, 2007. LIST OF PREPARERS Preparers Dain Anderson, Director of
Environmental Services, Project Manager Jeffrey Smith, Senior Planner Jennifer Cutler, Environmental Planner MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc. 4 W Fourth Avenue, Suite 303 San Mateo,
CA 94402 Saratoga Staff Chris Riordan, Senior Planner Persons Contacted Lieutenant Mark Eastus, Sheriff Department, West Valley Patrol Division, June 26, 2007. Cheryl Roth, Operations
Support Services Division, Santa Clara County Fire Department, June 28, 2007. Attachments 1. Area Map 2. Project Plans 3. Tree Inventory, dated November 8, 2005 and prepared by Arbor
Resources 4. Geotechnical Report, dated May 8, 2007 and prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc. 5. Traffic Report, dated July 14, 2006 and prepared by Higgins Associates 6. Traffic Report,
dated May 21, 2007 and prepared by Higgins Associates 239
ATTACHMENT 1: AREA MAP 240
ALLENDALE AVE. SERRA OAKS CT CHESTER AVE CAMINO BARCO DOLPHIN DR ALCOTT WAY FORTUNA CT 0 500Feet Saratoga Church Project Location SOURCE: City of Saratoga 2007, Google Earth Pro 2007,
ESRI 2006, and MHA Environmental Consulting 2007 LEGEND 18870 Allendale Ave. Saratoga, California 95070 San Francisco Bay Area Pacific Ocean MAP LOCATION San Francisco San Jose Oakland
Project Location Area 241
ATTACHMENT 2: PROJECT PLANS 242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
ATTACHMENT 3: TREE INVENTORY, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2005 AND PREPARED BY ARBOR RESOURCES 257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
ATTACHMENT 4: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, DATED MAY 8, 2007 AND PREPARED BY MURRAY ENGINEERS, INC 267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
ATTACHMENT 5: TRAFFIC REPORT, DATED JULY 14, 2006 AND PREPARED BY HIGGINS ASSOCIATES 281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
ATTACHMENT 6: TRAFFIC REPORT, DATED MAY 21, 2007 AND PREPARED BY HIGGINS ASSOCIATES 301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk Dave
Anderson, City Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal of Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds and Brush) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Open
public hearing; listen to public testimony; and close public hearing. Take no further action based on determination that all identified properties are in compliance as determined by
inspection of Enforcement Officer. REPORT SUMMARY: On September 3, 2008 the City Council adopted a RESOLUTION DECLARING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION GROWING ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES TO BE A PUBLIC
NUISANCE. The September 3, 2008 Resolution was based on the need for a supplemental weed abatement process initially for ten additional properties identified after the original 2008
weed abatement program had been commenced. The supplemental process was based on the fact that this fire fire season has already been one of the worst on record and that the months of
September and October historically experience the greatest fire risk. Of the ten additional properties identified, only the two properties specified in Attachment B needed additional
weed abatement work. The County Agricultural Commissioner serves as the Enforcement Officer for the City of Saratoga as to abatement of hazardous vegetation and has been in contact with
the property owners listed on Attachment B, each of whom has already commenced weed abatement. At the September 3, 2008 Public Hearing the Enforcement Officer reported that at the last
inspection, additional weed abatement work was required as to those properties. The Enforcement Officer mailed letters to both property owners on September 4, 2008, informing them of
Council’s decision to adopt a resolution declaring hazardous vegetation as a public nuisance on the properties as noted above. On September 10, 2008, the Enforcement Officer inspected
both properties and notified the City Clerk that the hazardous vegetation on both properties had been abated by the property owners and are now in full compliance. The Enforcement Officer
provided the City Clerk with a signed written confirmation of the results of this final inspection, a copy of which is attached to this Staff Report. As a result of the Enforcement Officer’s
determination that the two properties are in compliance abatement requirements, a Council resolution ordering such abatement is no longer warranted. FISCAL IMPACTS: None to the City.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: There is no further recommended action; the purpose of the supplemental abatement process has now been accomplished. 331
ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None FOLLOW UP ACTION: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Mercury News , posted at City Hall and mailed
to the property owners affected, all as required by law. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Legal Notification to Public Attachment B – Commencement Report Attachment C – Resolution from September
3, 2008 Hearing Attachment D– Enforcement Officer’s Written Confirmation of Compliance with Abatement Requirements as to Remaining Properties 332
NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Notice is hereby given that the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, California, has set Wednesday, the 17th
of September 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearings on adoption of a RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION. Notice is further hereby given that on September 3, 2008 the City
Council of the City of Saratoga adopted a RESOLUTION DECLARING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION GROWING ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. The properties specified in said Resolution
as having hazardous vegetation growing thereon and thereby constituting a public nuisance are described in the chart below. At the September 17, 2008 public hearings described above,
the City Council will provide an opportunity for any person objecting to the declaration of nuisance or the proposed abatement thereof to present such objections and will hear and determine
any objections by the owners of properties on which a nuisance has been declared to exist. The Council may sustain or overrule such objections and shall notify both the owner and the
Enforcement Officer of its decision within ten days after the conclusion of the public hearing. The decision by the Council shall be final. Notice is further given that upon failure
by the owner to abate the nuisance within 30 days after notice to abate the nuisance is mailed to said owner, the hazardous vegetation (including weeds or other materials) will be removed
by the County of Santa Clara and all abatement costs incurred by the County, together with an administrative fee in the amount of 150% of the costs of the actual abatement, shall be
charged to the owner. Nonpayment of the abatement costs and the administrative fee will result in the same being levied as a special assessment against the property, to be collected
at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary real estate taxes. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge any order of abatement
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the City Council’s information packet, written communications should be filed on or before noon on Wednesday one
week before the meeting. A copy of any material provided to the City Council on the above hearing(s) is on file at the Office of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
California. Questions may be addressed to the City Clerk, 868-1269. 2008 SPECIAL WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF SARATOGA APN STREET ADDRESS 397-05-028 Quito Road
c/o 1451 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA, 95070 503-13-067 Mt. Eden Road c/o 22121 Lindy Ln., Cupertino, CA 95014 /s/Ann Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk PUB: 09/06/08 333
334
RESOLUTION NO. 08-056 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION GROWING ON SPECIFIED PROPERTIES TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING ON ABATEMENT WHEREAS, hazardous vegetation is growing in the City of Saratoga upon certain private properties: APN 397-05-028 at 14521 Quito Road, Saratoga, California APN 503-13-067
on Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California; and WHEREAS, said vegetation has attained such growth as to become a fire menace; and WHEREAS, said vegetation constitutes a public nuisance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: 1. That hazardous vegetation exists on the following properties: APN 397-05-028 at 14521 Quito
Road, Saratoga, California APN 503-13-067 on Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga, California and is hereby declared and does now constitute a public nuisance; and 2. That as a declared public nuisance
the hazardous vegetation on the subject properties may be ordered abated by the City of Saratoga and the cost thereof collected from the owners of the above described private properties
if the owners thereof fail to complete abatement on their own; and 3. That it is ordered that Wednesday, the 17th day of September, 2008, at a public hearing during a regular meeting
which will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Saratoga Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place where objections to the declaration of
nuisance or the proposed abatement of said vegetation shall be heard and given due consideration. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council
at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of September 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Aileen Kao, Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 335
336
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 1, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kate Bear DIRECTOR: John Livingstone, Director
of Community Development SUBJECT: Relocation of coast live oak from City’s Heritage Orchard to West Valley College RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff concerning the relocation
of one coast live oak from the City’s Heritage Orchard to the West Valley College campus main entrance. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: At the March 20, 2002 City Council Meeting, Council
directed that the non-orchard trees in the City’s Heritage Orchard, including several coast live oaks, be relocated to other locations in the City, in order to maintain the health of
the fruit bearing trees by preventing shading from the taller, non-orchard trees. In 2004 the City planned to relocate the oak from the Heritage Orchard to the Gateway Improvement Project
planned for the corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale and Prospect Roads. When bids were received for the Gateway Project, relocation of the oak turned out to be cost prohibitive due to low hanging
PG&E wires along the relocation route, so it remained in the orchard. At the May 21, 2008 City Council Meeting, Council approved the relocation of the oak from the City’s Heritage Orchard
to the new main entrance for West Valley College. It will be installed in the oval-shaped landscaped area in front of the administration building where the new entrance off of Fruitvale
is being constructed. Detailed recommendations for the preparation of the oak prior to relocation and follow-up care following its transplant were obtained from Barrie D. Coate and have
been provided to the college. The college has indicated that they intend to use Valley Crest Tree Company to perform the move. Discussion: Page 1 of 2 337
Page 2 of 2 In general, a mature tree such as this oak has about a 50% chance of survival when transplanted. These odds can be improved significantly by carefully preparing the tree
prior to its relocation in a manner such as is specified in the report by Barrie D. Coate, dated May 27, 2004. I concur with these recommendations, and have verified with Valley Crest
Tree Company that there is still time this year to prepare the tree and relocate it this winter. Valley Crest recommends that the tree be boxed 90 days prior to a scheduled move, which
is consistent with the recommendations in the report. To further improve the odds of a mature tree surviving transplant, the work should be done by a contractor experienced in this type
of work. Valley Crest has a division devoted specifically to the relocation of large trees, including oak trees of this size. Follow up care and monitoring after the tree has been moved
is just as important as preparation prior to the move. Watering the tree adequately after it is moved is extremely important. Careful monitoring on a regular basis to adjust care can
make the difference between survival and not surviving. Again, the report by Barrie D. Coate provides recommendations to follow after the tree is moved. Follow up care and monitoring
will be necessary for up to three years after the move. FISCAL IMPACTS: 1. All costs associated with the relocation will be paid for by West Valley College. 2. Once the oak tree is removed
new fruit trees will be planted to fill the spot. The trees will cost approximately $1,500 and would be funded out of the Public Works Department orchard maintenance budget with no amendment
necessary. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The coast live oak tree would remain in the orchard and continue to shade the fruit bearing trees. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION: If the City Council directs staff to have the oak tree relocated to West Valley College, staff will work with the college to ensure that the tree is prepared for relocation
as specified in the report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, and monitored following its relocation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENT: Attachment A
– Recommendations for relocation of the oak, by Barrie D. Coate and Associates 338
339
340
341
342
343
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell
Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Term Extensions for Library Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff
accordingly. BACKGROUND: City of Saratoga Municipal Code states in Section 2-12.030(c) that “the terms of the Commissioners shall be staggered such that each year the four year terms
of approximately an equal number of the Commissioners shall expire. Where a Commission has seven Commissioners, the terms of two Commissioners shall expire each year except that in the
year after the first six Commission terms have expired, only one term shall expire. The limitations set forth in this subsection (c) shall not apply to the Youth Commission.” This system
of term staggering creates a balance in new and experienced commissioners. Currently, none of the City’s Commissions are staggered in this fashion. Of the Commissions that Municipal
Code Section 2-12.030(c) applies to, only the Library Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission have terms that end in October instead of April. Three members of the Library Commission
and two members of the Parks and Recreation Commission, including the Chair and Vice Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, are scheduled to end their current terms in October
2008. Council has the option to grant a six month term extension to the members of the Library and Parks and Recreation Commissions. As a result, the terms of these two Commissions will
end in April rather than October. This will provide staff with sufficient time to explore various options for realigning term staggering and seek Council direction before any of the
City’s Commissioners end their terms in April 2009. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Page 1 of 2 344
Page 2 of 2 Terms for three members of the Library Commission and two members of the Parks and Recreation Commission will expire in October 2008. New or returning Commissioners will
be appointed before Council has had the opportunity to evaluate and give direction on options for realigning Commission terms. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Nothing additional. 345