HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2008 City Council Agenda PacketAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING – 6:00 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 October 10, 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. OPEN SESSION – 6:00P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE CALL MEETING TO ORDER –
6:00P.M. 1. Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District ADJOURNMENT In accordance ?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. 1
2 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.u
. 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 October 10, 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 10th day of October 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC, Acting City Clerk
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, October 15, 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 October 10, 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 -October 1, 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: September 25, 2008 October 2, 2008 3. Treasurer's Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2008 Recommended action: The City Council review and accept the Treasurer's
Report for the month ended June 30, 2008. 4. 2006 Annual Concrete Project -Notice of Completion Recommended action: Move to accept the 2006 Annual Concrete Project as complete and authorize
staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. 5. Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 12651 Saratoga Avenue. Owner: John Saich Recommended action: 1.
Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval of tentative map application No. SUB 07-0002 for two lots located at 12651 Saratoga Avenue. 6. Resolution in Support of Measure A
Recommended action: Adopt resolution. 7. Resolution in Support of Proposition 1 -High Speed Rail Bond Recommended action: Adopt resolution. 8. Resolution Amending Council Adhoc & Agency
Assignments Recommended action: Adopt Resolution Amending Council Agency and Adhoc Committee Liaison Assignments 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. Amendment to the Circulation and Scenic Highway
Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt attached resolution amending the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City
of Saratoga General Plan to implement the 2
recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission and Planning Commission OLD BUSINESS 10. Review of the Heritage Preservation Commission’s Proposed Design for the Heritage Orchard Sign
Recommended action: Review the proposed design for the Heritage Orchard Sign and direct Staff accordingly. NEW BUSINESS 11. 1-Year Review of Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Establishing
“No Parking or Stopping” Along a Portion of Herriman Avenue Recommended action: Receive report and provide direction to staff 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 Vice Mayor Chuck Page Chamber of Commerce Hakone Executive Board West
Valley Sanitation District Council Finance Committee Village AdHoc Valley Transportation Authority PAC Councilmember Kathleen King Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Santa
Clara County Cities Association City School 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 3
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, California 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 October
10, 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 10th day of October 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 11/5 Regular
Meeting –Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery 12/2 Council Reorganization meeting 12/3 Regular Meeting –
12/17 Regular Meeting – Traffic Safety Commission 1/07/09 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts 5
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 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 – October 1, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting – October 1, 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 October 1, 2008 6
MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 1, 2008 The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED
SESSION Conference With Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (1 case) Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Christiano v. Saratoga et al., and Potential Litigation (1 case)Title: City Attorney
MAYOR’S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Mayor Waltonsmith announced there was no reportable information. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO Dave Anderson,
City Manager PRESENT: Richard Taylor, City Attorney Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Michael Taylor,
Recreation Director Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II Leo Salindong, IT Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 1, 2008. Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk,
reported that Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 26, 2008. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS The following people
requested to speak at tonight’s meeting: Glenda Rossie addressed the Council regarding the neglect of the median landscaping along Fruitvale Avenue. She commented on the trees that were
removed along the median as a result of the construction for the new entrance to the college; noted two of 7
2 the small trees had died and asked if the dead trees would be replaced. She also noted that many of the streets in Saratoga have been newly landscaped and asked why Fruitvale Avenue
hasn’t received the same. She also asked why the Heritage Orchard oak tree is being removed and given to WVC. Jack Mallory addressed the Council regarding the annual Fourth of July festivities
and the efforts to find a leader to organize the event. In addition, he spoke about the enforcement of City ordinances. Janice Gamper addressed the Council regarding the new island in
the middle of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenue and the confusion it has created for drivers approaching the island. She also noted the new directional construction on Allendale Avenue across
from WVC, stating it appears to be too far into the road and that it should be moved back more. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF Vice Mayor Page asked that Code Compliance Officer Jana Rinaldi
contact Jack Mallory regarding the possibility of code violations and to provide a report in the weekly newsletter. Mayor Waltonsmith asked Public Works Director John Cherbone to step
forward and address the concerns raised by Ms. Rossie regarding the dead trees along Fruitvale Avenue. Director Cherbone stated the trees were not dead based on evaluation reports from
the city arborist. He also noted the City has already purchased two new trees to replace the two trees in question and noted the two trees that will be removed will not be discarded;
they will be nursed back to health at the Public Works Corporation Yard over the winter and then replanted in the Fruitvale Avenue median. Director Cherbone also addressed the concern
regarding the median landscaping along Fruitvale Avenue. He noted that as part of the WVC Master Plan Improvement project, all medians fronting the college would be landscaped – including
irrigation, curbs and gutters and that only one median, not included in this Master Plan, would be left to address. City Manager Dave Anderson stated that when WVC put forth their last
bond issue four years ago, they were asked by the City to address these issues and to include the restoration of the medians in their Master Plan Improvement project. Mayor Waltonsmith
asked Director Cherbone to address the concerns raised by Ms. Gamper regarding the island in the middle of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenue. Director Cherbone noted staff would call Ms.
Gamper to get the exact location of the island she was referring to. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Dr. Phil Hartley, West Valley College (WVC) President, addressed the Council
by thanking them for the opportunity to meet with them in a Joint meeting prior to the Regular meeting. He then introduced John Hendrickson – the new Chancellor for WVC. He noted Mr.
Hendrickson assumed the position effective August 1, 2008. Mr. 8
3 Hendrickson thanked the Council for the invitation to meet with them and that he looked forward to many more productive meetings in the future. Dr. Hartley introduced members of the
WVC Board of Trustees – Jack Lucas, Joy Atkins, Chris Stampolis and Adam Black. Dr. Hartley announced the construction work to the new entrance of WVC should be completed by the end
of November and invited members of the Council and community to come by the college and take a tour of the various construction sites on campus. ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Mayor Page announced
the renaming ceremony for the Joan Pisani Community Center on Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 2:00PM. Councilmember King inquired about the Fourth of July concerns voiced by Jack Mallory;
Mayor Waltonsmith noted they are actively looking for a new leader for the event. Councilmember King also announced the Akeena solar energy contest between the Town of Los Gatos and
the City of Saratoga and that at the end of the contest (end of November) the winner will receive the equivalence of $75,000 in solar energy for their town/city buildings. Councilmember
Hunter announced the Witchy-Walk-About in the Village on October 25th from 2:00 to 4:00PM. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 4 – 11, 2008 AS NO DRUGS DOWN THE DRAIN
WEEK STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept presentation. Melody Tovar, Deputy Director of the City of San Jose Environmental Services Department, was present to accept the presentation. SPECIAL
PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. KAO/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17,
2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 9
4 3. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REGISTERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable Cycles: September 11, 2008 September 18, 2008 KAO/PAGE
MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CYCLES SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 AND SEPTEMBER 18, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 4. REVIEW AND ACCEPT REPORT ON FINANCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Council review and accept the proposed Financial Policy Statements for inclusion in the Annual Operating and Capital Budget document. KAO/PAGE MOVED TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED FINANCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET DOCUMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. 5. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SARATOGA’S
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending the City of Saratoga’s Conflict of Interest Code. RESOLUTION NO. 08-060 KAO/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE CITY OF SARATOGA’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) F.Y. 08/09 UPDATE – PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive report, conduct Public Hearing, and provide direction to staff. 2. Adopt attached Environmental Impact Assessment for new CIP projects
(Attachment 2) 3. Adopt Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 08/09 Budget reflecting Council direction from the May 7th, May 21st, June 3rd, and July 19th City Council Study Sessions
(Attachment 3) 4. Adopt Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 08/09 Budget connected to the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Paving Project. Public Works Director John Cherbone presented the staff
report. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing. The following person spoke on this item: 10
5 Chuck Shoppe, representative of the Historical Museum and Historical Foundation, was present to address any questions Council may have regarding their $10,000 request for the McWilliams
House project. Council reassured Mr. Shoppe that the $10,000 request was granted and noted in the CIP project list. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. City Attorney Richard
Taylor informed the Council that they were adopting the resolutions that were provided to the Council prior to the start of the meeting and were made available to them on the Dias, as
those resolutions were not included in the Council packet that Council received on September 26, 3008. RESOLUTION NO. 08-061 RESOLUTION NO. 08-062 RESOLUTION NO. 08-063 KING/PAGE MOVED
TO ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR NEW CIP PROJECTS, ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 08/09 BUDGET REFLECTING COUNCIL DIRECTION FROM THE MAY 7, MAY 21, JUNE 3, AND
JULY 19 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 08/09 BUDGET CONNECTED TO THE SARATOGASUNNYVALE ROAD PAVING PROJECT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
FISCAL YEAR 08-09 BUDGET CONNECTED TO THE WEST VALLEY SOCCER FIELD PROJECT. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. OLD BUSINESS 7. CITY OF SARATOGA WEBSITE AGREEMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report
and direct staff to enter into an agreement with Civica for design and hosting services for the City’s website. Administrative Analyst Crystal Morrow presented the staff report. Mayor
Waltonsmith invited public comment. The following person spoke on this item: Paul Hernandez addressed the Council regarding the possibility of a website community discussion bulletin
board allowing members of the community to express their ideas and where citizens could go back to later on and read the exchange of comments and ideas. He also suggested using web standards
rather than Microsoft standards so that everyone could have full browser access to the website. Mayor Waltonsmith closed public comment. 11
6 PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT AND DIRECT STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CIVICA FOR DESIGN AND HOSTING SRVICES FOR THE CITY’S WEBSITE. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. NEW BUSINESS
8. BIG BASIN WAY BANNER – PROMOTE SARATOGA BUSINESSES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and provide direction to staff. Public Works Director John Cherbone presented the staff report.
Director Cherbone noted Vice Mayor Page and Councilmember Hunter (Village AdHoc Committee) asked to agendize this item for discussion and invited them to present their ideas regarding
a business banner in the Village. There was discussion regarding: ?? Types of banners ?? Cost involved ?? How the banner would be hung across Big Basin Way o support poles o from building
to building ?? Encroachment permission from Caltrans to hang banner ?? Staff time to change banner messages ?? Types of messages permitted on banner – city only or public/personal ??
Establish policies/guidelines for City banner Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment. No one was was present to speak on this item. Mayor Waltonsmith closed public comment. Council
expressed an interest in moving forward with additional exploration of a Big Basin Banner and agreed to have the Village Adhoc Committee work with Gates and Associates, the Landscape
Architect firm that is doing a study for the Village, and direct them to include a Village banner into their scope of work. In addition, Council agreed it was important to do something
now, before the holiday season, to promote shopping in the Village and directed staff to design a new City banner to hang between the trees at Blaney Plaza during the weeks when Blaney
Plaza hasn’t been rented; with the final banner wording approved by The Village Adhoc Committee. HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ALLOCATE $1500 FROM THE COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUND FOR A CITY BANNER
PROMOTING THE VILLAGE AND TO BE HUNG AT BLANEY PLAZA WHEN NOT RENTED. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS 12
7 Mayor Ann Waltonsmith – reported: SASCC – an appeal letter for donations would be mailed soon. West Valley Mayors and Managers Association – had their monthly meeting last week. Vice
Mayor Chuck Page – reported that he and the City Manager attended the League of California Cities convention in Southern California. Chamber of Commerce – met prior to “Taste of Saratoga”
event. Hakone Executive Board – meets in October. West Valley Sanitation District – Councilmember Kao attended last meeting in his place. Valley Transportation Authority PAC – still
discussing governance; all the committees of the VTA are going through a mission exercise establishing their specific missions and they relate to the other committees. Councilmember
Kathleen King – reported: Santa Clara County Cities Association – Executive Director would be leaving soon and that the recruitment process has been narrowed down to two candidates with
a possible replacement occurring soon. King also noted the Cities Association Executive Board is asking that each city pass a resolution in support of: ?? Measure A ?? Proposition 1
?? Supporting San Jose and Palo Alto’s ban of plastic bags She also noted the Board would be discussing Measure B at the next meeting. City School AdHoc – she provided staff with an
update regarding the POP Warner issue and asked that staff include the report in the weekly newsletter. TEA AdHoc – Jim Beall has stated that in the present economic circumstances he
would not be introducing this legislation next year. Councilmember Jill Hunter – had nothing to report. Councilmember Aileen Kao – reported: Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory
Board – will meet on November 19, 2008. Airport Land Use Committee – met last week, however, was unable to attend it due to the League of Women Voter’s forum for Council candidates.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember King announced John Nolan, Director of Support Services at Campbell Union High School District and liaison between the High School District and the City
of Saratoga, is retiring and asked if the City could do a commendation noting his positive contributions to the community. Councilmember King also voiced her concerns regarding the SVDC
list serve emails and if there is a Brown Act violation. She asked that the Mayor meet with the City Attorney regarding this issue. The City Attorney recommended that Council agendize
this item for discussion at a future meeting. Council concurred to remove TEA from the Council Adhoc and Agency assignment list until such time that it is determined that the TEA legislation
might have a reasonable chance for passage. 13
8 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Dave Anderson noted there would be an article in the weekly newsletter regarding the League of California’s Convention that he, along with Vice Mayor
Page, attended last week. ADJOURNMENT PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AT 9:30PM. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan Acting City Clerk 14
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: September
25, 2008 October 2, 2008 REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 09/25/08 110498 110543 46 80,330.63 09/25/08 09/18/08 110496 10/02/08 110544 110601
58 115,777.21 10/02/08 09/25/08 110543 Total: $196,107.84 AP Date Check N o . Issued to Dept. Amount 09/26/08 110506 Public Safety Services 14,176.04 10/01/08 110563 Public Works -Streets
35,692.36 10/01/08 110581 Various 14,638.69 The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check N o . Issued to Amount 9/23/2008 110321 Barbara
Taixeira (30.00) 9/25/2008 110497 2,659.11 9/25/2008 110518 (2,659.11) 10/1/2008 110521 (8,221.96) 10/1/2008 110557 (581.92) 10/1/2008 110578 (126.00) 10/1/2008 110580 (54.00) Deep Cliff
Golf Nutritive Foods Yelena Okin Horizon Distributors Printing Error-Reissue on 10/01/08 Ck Run Void and Reissue Void and Reissue Void and Reissue Void -Dinner payment Extravaganza Catering
Commission Dinner Extravaganza Catering Void -Payment issued on ck# 110497 Description George Bianchi Construction CIP Activity Annual Street Resurfacing Pacific Gas & Electric Various
Monthly Gas & Electric Service Fund Purpose City of San Jose General Animal Control -Monthly Services Accounts Payable Accounts Payable The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks
issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers. Type of Checks Date Starting Check No. Ending Check No.
Total Checks Amount Checks Released Prior Check Register DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT. DIRECTOR: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 15
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 9/26 AP 10/01 Total 111 General 42,091.58 41,271.16 83,362.74 231 Village Lighting 2,064.68 2,064.68 232 Azule Lighting 218.20
2 18.20 233 Sarahills Lighting 243.56 2 43.56 241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape -242 Bonnet Way Landscape -243 Carnelian Glen 270.00 2 70.00 244 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape -245 Ferdericksburg
Landscape -246 Greenbriar Landscape -247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape -248 Leutar Court Landscape -249 Manor Drive Landscape 132.65 1 32.65 251 McCartysville Landscape 18.34 1 8.34 252 Prides
Crossing Landscape 28.86 2 8.86 253 Saratoga Legends Landscape -254 Sunland Park Landscape -255 Tricia Woods Landscape 9.17 9 .17 271 Beauchamps Landscape 44.28 4 4.28 272 Bellgrove
Landscape 180.64 317.28 4 97.92 273 Gateway Landscape -274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 320.00 9.17 3 29.17 275 Quito Lighting 1,057.24 1,057.24 276 Tollgate LLD -277 Village Commercial
Landscape -311 Library Bond Debt Service -411 CIP Street Projects 8.49 36,981.60 36,990.09 412 CIP Parks Projects 8,821.27 9,454.82 18,276.09 413 CIP Facility Projects 495.00 4 95.00
414 CIP Admin Projects -421 Tree Fine Fund 450.00 4 50.00 431 Grant Fund -CIP Streets 107.89 1 07.89 481 Gas Tax Fund 223.69 218.15 4 41.84 611 Liability/Risk Mgt -612 Workers' Comp
-621 Office Stores Fund 8,221.39 365.83 8,587.22 622 Information Technology 13,888.95 104.95 13,993.90 623 Vehicle & Equimpent Maint 3,844.47 5,834.28 9,678.75 624 Building Maintenance
1,862.50 16,150.61 18,013.11 631 465.00 332.14 7 97.14 632 ---80,330.63 115,777.21 196,107.84 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the A/P Checks By Period and Year report format IT Equipment ReplacementTOTAL Fund Description
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant DEPT HEAD:
Mary Furey, Director SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION The City Council review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June
30, 2008. REPORT SUMMARY California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates
the City Manager as the City Treasurer) submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Section 41004.
Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall file
a copy with the legislative body. The following attachments provide various financial data and analysis for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the
City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL IMPACT Cash and Investments
Balance by Fund As of June 30, 2008, the City had $298,126 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $17,340,940 on deposit with LAIF. Council Policy on operating reserve funds, adopted
on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $2,000,000. The total
pooled cash balance as of June 30, 2008 is $17,639,066 and exceeds the minimum limit required. Cash Summary Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank $ 298,126 Deposit with LAIF $ 17,340,940 Total
$ 17,639,066 24
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION The City would not be in compliance with Government Code Section 41004. ALTERNATIVE ACTION N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING
AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A – Cash Balances by Fund B – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund C – Cash and Investments by CIP Project D – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP
Project E – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates 25
ATTACHMENT A The following table summarizes the City’s total cash and investment balances by Fund. Fund Types Fund Description Cash & Investment Balance at June 30, 2008 General General
Fund $ 4 ,070,652 Reserved Fund Balance Petty Cash Reserve $ 1 ,300 Retiree Medical Reserve $ 6 2,500 Reserved for Development Deposits $ 6 04,909 Designated Reserves: Designated for
Economic Uncertainty $ 1 ,500,000 Designated for Operations $ 2 ,688,037 Designated for Claims $ 3 8,695 Designated for Development Services $ 7 50,171 Designated for Environmental Services
$ 7 10,667 Special Revenue Landscape and Lighting Districts $ 2 28,689 CDBG Federal Grants $ (24,040) SHARP Program $ 1 07,494 Capital Project Street Projects $ 1 ,897,734 Park and Trail
Projects $ 1 ,660,934 Facility Improvement Projects $ 7 14,476 Adminstrative Projects $ 1 08,389 Debt Service Library Bond $ 8 45,505 Internal Service Equipment Replacement $ 1 23,310
IT Replacement $ 3 16,310 Facility Maintenance $ 1 40,980 Equipment Maintenance $ 1 6,551 Information Technology Services $ 1 35,039 Office Stores Fund $ 3 3,053 Liability/Risk Management
$ 1 30,399 Workers Compensation $ 4 8,060 Trust/Agency Library Fund $ 6 90,886 KSAR -Community Access TV $ 3 8,365 Total City $ 1 7,639,066 26
ATTACHMENT B CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE The following table presents the ending Fund Balances for the City’s major fund types as at June 30, 2008. This table excludes Trust and Agency
funds where the City acts merely as a third party custodian of an outside party’s funds. Fund Description Fund Balance 07/01/07 Inc/(Dec) Jul-May Revenues Expenditures Transfers Fund
Balance 6/30/08 General Undesignated Unreserved Balance 2,505,665 2,081,653 3,548,263 4,993,745 3,141,836 Reserved Fund Balance: Petty Cash Reserve 1,300 ---1,300 Retiree Medical Reserve
62,500 ---62,500 Development Deposit Reserves 604,909 604,909 Designated Fund Balances: -Designated Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000 ---1,500,000 Designated for Operations 2,688,036 ---2,688,036
Designated for Claims 38,695 38,695 Designated for Development 750,171 ---750,171 Designated for Environmental 710,668 ---710,668 Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting 316,077 (90,839)
142,890 158,306 209,821 CDBG Federal Grants -----SHARP Loan 89,588 16,795 (12,506) -93,877 93,877 Capital Project Street Projects 2,141,646 (380,897) 860,765 665,517 -1,955,994 Park
and Trails 1,507,815 431,877 126,963 564,256 -1,502,400 Facility Improvements 441,991 (103,549) 590,000 413,127 -515,317 Adminstrative Projects -103,405 -2,564 -100,841 Debt Service
Library Bond 746,556 (390,461) 498,319 795 853,620 Internal Service Fund Equipment Replacement 8,572 86,637 50,000 47,100 98,109 Technology Replacement 352,280 (47,232) 13,026 1,764
316,310 Building Maintenance (15,617) (15,595) 193,575 61,002 101,361 Equipment Maintenance -(24,162) 70,241 32,667 13,412 Information Technology Services -73,025 92,452 42,935 122,541
Stores Fund -19,350 26,935 13,669 32,616 Liability/Risk Management -60,949 72,159 4,418 128,689 Workers Compensation -(19,238) 61,750 (5,224) 47,736 Total City 14,450,852 1,801,718 6,334,832
6,996,643 -15,590,760 27
ATTACHMENT C CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT The following table details the cash balances for each project in the Streets, Parks & Trails, Facility Improvements, and Administrative
Project Program Funds. CIP Funds/Projects Cash & Investment Balance at June 30, 2008 Street Projects Traffic Safety 1 1,757 Highway 9 Safety Project 5 5,460 Annual Street Resurfacing
Project 5 19,592 Sidewalks Yearly Project 9 8,980 Saratoga Sunnyale Road Resurfacing (114,321) Traffic Signal @Verde Vista Lane 9 0,000 Fourth Street Bridge 1 00,000 Highway 9 and Oak
Place Pedestrian Sign (16,188) Quito Road Bridge Replacement 9 ,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction 1 15,726 Village Newsrack Enclosur 2 5,233 Village Façade Program 1 9,430 Solar Power
Radar Feedback Signs 24,158 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 3 7,552 Sobey Road Culvert Repair 1 50,000 Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 3 1,965 Village Pedestrian Enhancement 1 15,000
Prospect Road Median 4 ,508 City Entrance Sign/Monument 2 3,788 Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs) 5 40,665 Saratoga-Sunnyvale ADA Curb Ramps (2,525) Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway
Sidewalk 5 7,224 Total Street Projects $ 1 ,897,734 Parks & Trails Hakone Garden Kol Pond 5 0,000 EL Quito Park Improvement 1 18,209 Wildwood Park -Water Feature/Seating 7 ,199 Historical
Park Landscape 3 7,200 Citywide Tree Replanting 1 31,416 Hakone Garden D/W 1 42,829 Wildwood Park Improvement (4,543) Carnelian Glen Footbridge 1 3,885 DeAnza Trail (67,644) Kevin Moran
Improvements 9 89,128 West Valley Soccer Field 5 6,706 Park/Trail Repairs 2 1,130 Heritage Orchard Path 1 6,713 Trail Segment #3 Repair 7 ,912 Teerlink Ranch Trail 2 2,242 CIP Allocation
Fund 1 18,552 Total Parks & Trails $ 1 ,660,934 Facility Improvements Civic Center Landscape 1 3,385 Warner Hutton House Improvements 5 ,868 Facility Projects 6 8,561 Fire Alarm at McWilliams
& Museum 1 1,371 North Campus Improvements 6 13,529 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 1 ,762 Total Facility Improvements $ 7 14,476 Administrative Projects Financial System System Upgrade
1 6,064 Document Imaging Project 9 2,325 Total Administrative Projects $ 1 08,389 Total CIP Funds $ 4 ,381,533 ATTACHMENT D 28
FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT The following table details the fund balances for each project in the Streets, Parks & Trails, Facility Improvements, and Administrative Project Program
Funds. CIP Funds/Projects Fund Balance 07/01/07 Inc/(Dec) Jul-May Revenues Expenditures Transfers Fund Balance 6/30/08 Street Projects Traffic Safety 41,355 (29,598) --11,757 Highway
9 Safety Project 58,960 --3 ,500 55,460 Annual Street Resurfacing Project 438,338 (35,319) 525,347 1 95,387 732,980 Sidewalks Yearly Project 108,605 (9,625) -1 02,544 (3,564) Saratoga
Sunnyale Road Resurfacing -(131,488) (41,092) 5 ,712 (178,292) Traffic Signal @Verde Vista Lane --90,000 -90,000 Fourth Street Bridge 100,000 ---100,000 Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian
Sign (164,891) 152,580 16,188 3 ,877 -Quito Road Bridge Replacement 9,730 ---9,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction 113,859 1,867 --115,726 Village Newsrack Enclosur -(2,464) 30,000 4
,152 23,384 Village Façade Program -(570) 20,000 -19,430 Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs 15,000 9,158 ---24,158 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 213,179 (194,983) 19,357 -37,553 Sobey
Road Culvert Repair 150,000 ---150,000 Storm Drain Upgrades 11,314 (11,314) ---Median Repairs(Landscape/Irrig.) 4,021 (1,383) -2 ,638 -Village Improvements 50,000 --5 0,000 -Village
Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 7,000 24,965 --31,965 Village Pedestrian Enhancement --115,000 -115,000 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade 24,392 (30,991) 75,643 6 9,044 -Prospect Road
Median 50,000 (30,492) -1 7,952 1,556 City Entrance Sign/Monument 13,467 -10,321 -23,788 Village-Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs) 737,846 (71,791) -1 25,390 540,665 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway
74,148 (74,148) 0 --Saratoga-Sunnyvale ADA Curb Ramps -(2,525) --(2,525) Storm Drain @El Camino /Mt Vista 85,321 --8 5,321 -Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk -57,224 --57,224 Total
Street Projects 2,141,646 (380,897) 860,765 6 65,517 -1,955,995 Parks & Trails Park Development 209,087 180,580 (145,026) 2 44,640 -Hakone Garden Kol Pond --50,000 -50,000 EL Quito Park
Improvement -(3,684) 125,000 3 ,106 118,209 Beauchamp Park Fund -13,362 -1 3,362 -Wildwood Park -Water Feature/Seating -7,199 --7,199 Historical Park Landscape -37,200 --37,200 Citywide
Tree Replanting -140,259 -1 0,693 129,566 Hakone Garden D/W 164,283 (1,454) -2 0,000 142,829 Wildwood Park Improvement -(4,543) --(4,543) Carnelian Glen Footbridge -(2,903) 18,000 1
5,097 -DeAnza Trail (184,219) 132,161 -2 5,744 (77,802) Kevin Moran Improvements 1,112,298 (70,032) -6 0,006 982,259 West Valley Soccer Field 155,868 (62,568) -1 51,808 (58,507) Park/Trail
Repairs 44,558 (23,429) --21,130 Heritage Orchard Path -24,971 -1 8,818 6,153 Trail Segment #3 Repair -7,912 --7,912 Teerlink Ranch Trail -22,242 --22,242 San Marcos OP Space Trail -981
-9 81 -CIP Allocation Fund 5,939 33,624 78,989 -118,552 Total Parks & Trails 1,507,815 431,877 126,963 5 64,256 -1,502,400 Facility Improvements Civic Center Landscape 63,703 (42,648)
-7 ,672 13,384 Warner Hutton House Improvements 25,000 (19,133) --5,868 Facility Projects -(27,766) 100,000 3 2,499 39,735 Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum 25,000 (6,912) -6 ,717 11,371
North Campus Improvements 322,025 870 490,000 3 69,700 443,195 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 6,262 (7,961) -(3,461) 1,762 Total Facility Improvements 441,991 (103,549) 590,000 4
13,127 -515,317 Administrative Projects Financial System Upgrade -10,674 -2 ,158 8,516 Document Imaging Project -92,731 -4 06 92,325 Total Administrative Projects -103,405 -2 ,564 -100,841
Total CIP Funds 4,091,452 50,836 1,577,728 1,645,465 -4,074,552 ATTACHMENT E 29
30
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Macedonio Nunez DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: 2006
Annual Concrete Project -Notice of Completion RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to accept the 2006 Annual Concrete Project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for
the construction contract. REPORT SUMMARY: All work for the 2006 Annual Concrete Project has been completed by the City’s contractor, George Bianchi Construction, and has been inspected
by Public Work’s staff. The scope of work this work included furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor to replace broken, lifted, and failed sections of concrete sidewalks, retaining
wall work, and curbs and gutters at various locations throughout the City. On October 18, 2006 Council awarded a construction contract in the amount of $487,000. Extensions to this contract
for additional work were approved by City Council totaling $289,700 for a total contract amount of $776,000. The final contract amount of $746,717.88 is with in the Council approved
budget. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one-year maintenance/warranty period, it is recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further,
it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30-day Stop Notice for the filing of
claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. FISCAL IMPACTS: This project was funded through the adopted CIP and grant funding. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED
ACTION: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as
complete. Page 1 of 2 31
Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contracts and release the contract sureties
and retentions thirty days thereafter. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion for the 2006 Annual Concrete Project. 32
Recording requested by, And to be returned to: City of Saratoga Public Works Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner
of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 11th day of June, 2008. Contract Number: N/A
Contract Date: October 18th, 2006 Contractor’s Name: Bianchi Amaker Construction Contractor’s Address: 775 A Mabury Road, San Jose, CA 95133 Description of Work: 2006 Annual Concrete
Project Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of
Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters
which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on___________________, 2008. CITY OF SARATOGA BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________
Dave Anderson Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk City Manager Gov. Code 40814 33
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 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 12651 Saratoga Avenue Owner: John Saich RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval
of tentative map application No. SUB 07-0002 for two lots located at 12651 Saratoga Avenue. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a Resolution, which, if adopted, will grant final map approval
for two lots located at 12651 Saratoga Avenue (APN 386-17-051). 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. 08-015, have been completed or 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 $1,126.56 in Engineering Fees and $20,700 in Park Development Fees. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: 34
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. 08-015 approving
the tentative map with conditions. 35
JOLENE PL. DR. DR. WAY DELL WOOD CT. EASTON CT. SUN BIARRITZ VALLEY LN. MELLON RADOYKA CT. BIARRITZ LN. BIARRITZ DR. GLEN CT. AVE. PL. PARK CIRCLE SARA SITE SITE MAP Application Number:
Location: APN: Owner: Date: SUB 07-0002 12651 Saratoga Avenue 386-17-051 John Saich October 15, 2008 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 -Feet SARATOGA 36
37
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF APPLICATION NO. SUB 07-0002 12651 SARATOGA 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 McGregor Land Surveys, dated June 2008, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga
on October 15, 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 regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 15th day of October, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 38
RESOLUTION NO. 08-015 APPLICATION NO. SUB07-0002 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA John Saich, 12651 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, application has been made to the
Planning Commission under the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California and under the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide
one existing parcel into two parcels, set forth in file no. SUB07-0002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions
for its design and improvements is consistent with the objectives, policies and general land use and programs specific in the General Plan and the Saratoga Municipal Code; and WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing on April 9, 2008 at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
and 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 findings
were not supported based on the following evidence. (1) That the proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The proposed map is consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that proposed parcels are consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RLD) defined as 2.18 dwelling
units per net acre. The proposed parcels meet the minimum lot size required by the municipal code for the R-1-10,000 zone district. Proposed lot dimensions including width, depth and
frontage meet or exceed the minimums required by the municipal code. (2) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are not consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan in that the design or improvements
of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The proposed parcel sizes, configuration, access and building envelopes are consistent with the zoning code and are
compatible with the existing density in the project vicinity. The proposed building envelopes are sufficient in size and dimension to accommodate a single-family residence. Building
envelopes provided on the proposed tentative map indicate required setbacks can be provided to meet the development regulations. Design review approval shall be required, as applicable
in the municipal code, for a new single-family residence. At the time an application to construct a single-family residence 1 39
on the proposed parcels is filed with the planning department the mass, bulk, view, privacy and compatibility issues of the proposed residence with the existing neighborhood and residences
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 in that 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.
The subdivision will not impose features on the proposed parcels regarding size or shape that may constrain future development on the site. Existing trees do not preclude development
on the proposed parcels. 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 of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that
the subdivision application may result in the construction of single-family residences on both parcels. Approximately two dwelling units per acre are permitted consistent with the general
plan maximum dwelling unit per acre designation of 2.18 residences per acre. The potential for the construction of a single-family home on the proposed parcel is consistent with the
surrounding uses and densities in the area. Densities in the immediate surrounding area are predominantly characterized by low-density single-family residential uses (5) That the design
of the subdivision are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the proposed project which includes subdivision of
one lot into two lots 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
can be 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 design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health or safety problems in that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations
in the Municipal Code and General Plan. The Tentative Map has been reviewed by West Valley Sanitation District, Saratoga Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, City Arborist,
Pacific Gas & Electric, School Districts, Planning Department and Public Works Engineers. All structural improvements to the property will be reviewed by the Community Development Department.
The project site is located in Zone X on the 2 40
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 subdivision will not conflict with easements for access or use. Sun Valley Court is a private driveway. Four properties on Sun Valley Court have an access easement along the south
side of the property. The future Parcel A will continue to have the same access easement used by the neighbors. Saratoga Avenue will provide access to Parcel B. (8) That a proposed subdivision
of land which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act. The proposed subdivision of land is not subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act
in that 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 discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would not result in violation of existing requirements
in that the Cupertino Sanitation District operates a sewer main located in Saratoga Avenue. This sewer main will provide adequate service to the parcels. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
the Planning Commission of the City of 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 07-0002 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL – None CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS – COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT House demolished. 1. The single family residence shall be demolished prior to final map approval. Acknowledged. 2. Applications for Design Review shall be submitted for any
proposed single-family homes to be constructed on the parcels. Acknowledged. 3. The project site is located within a Single Story Overlay therefore all future residential construction
is limited to 18 feet in height. Acknowledged. The applicant shall submit for an Arborist Review for any future Design Review application that includes proposed removals of any ordinance
sized trees per Saratoga Municipal Section 15-50. 3 41
CUPERTINO SANITATION DISTRICT Fees paid. 4. The developer is required to pay all applicable fees prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The fees will be determined upon submittal
of the improvement plan District approval will be in the form of sewer connection permits after payment of fees. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Survey completed. 6. 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. Map submitted. 7. 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
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. 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. f. One copy of the approved Tentative Map. Fees paid. 8. 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. 4 42
Completed. 9. 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. 10. 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, prior to Final Map approval. Plans submitted. 11. The owner (applicant) shall submit engineered improvement
plans to the City Engineer in conformance with the approved Tentative Map and in accordance with the design and improvement requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The improvement
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the appropriate officials from other public agencies having jurisdictional authority, including public and private utility
providers, prior to approval of the Final Map. Completed. 12. The following specific conditions shall be included on the improvement plans: a) Resurfacing of the private cul-de-sac.
The resurfacing shall be performed after the improvements on the parcel accessed from the cul-de-sac are completed and prior to the final occupancy of the residence on the same parcel.
The owner (applicant) shall pay a deposit to the City for 100% of the cost of the street resurfacing prior to Final Map approval. b) Area along Saratoga Avenue shall be landscaped. Landscape
final design shall be prepared prior parcel development or redevelopment and submitted to Public Works Department for approval. The owner (applicant) agrees to enter into the Landscape
and Lighting District established by the City or into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City as determined by the City at the time of submitting detailed plans showing improvements
in the public right-of-way. This condition shall be referenced in the Owner's Certificate on the Final Map. Acknowledged. 13. The owner (applicant) shall pay a Subdivision Improvement
Plan Checking fee, as determined by the Public Works Director, at the time Improvement Plans are submitted for review. Acknowledged. 14. An Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works
Department is required for all improvements in any portion of the public right-ofway or of a public easement. 5 43
Will-serve letters submitted. 15. 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. 16. 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. Fees paid. 17. The owner (applicant) shall pay the applicable Park and Recreation fee prior to Final
Map approval. Acknowledged. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. Owner and Applicant agree to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the
City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 6 44
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 14-20-080. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on this 9th day of April 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: HLAVA,
CAPPELLO, KUNDTZ, NAGPAL, ZHAO NOES: ABSENT: KUMAR, RODGERS ABSTAIN: 7 45
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 within the recommended
time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. ________________________________ Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 8 46
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, DEPT HEAD: Acting City
Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Measure A – Santa Clara County Issued Bonds to Seismically Retrofit Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt a resolution
in support of Measure A. REPORT SUMMARY: California law mandates that all hospitals in the State meet seismic safety standards which require that by 2013, hospital buildings are to remain
standing and occupants able to exit safely and, by 2030, buildings are to remain operational and capable of providing acute-care medical services to the public. Santa Clara Valley Medical
Center (SCVMC) has been serving the health care needs of the residents of Santa Clara County for over 130 years, and one in four residents of Santa Clara County receives medical care
from Santa Clara Valley Medical Center over a four year period. More than half of SCVMC’s 524 acute care patient beds are at risk of closure due to location in seismically non-compliant
buildings. Missing the mandated seismic standard deadline would result in SCVMC having to close half of its 524 patient beds; thereby reducing its capacity for trauma, burn treatment
and regional disaster response. If half of SCVMC’s bed capacity was reduced, it would mean that in 2013, approximately 11,000 people requiring hospitalization would be turned away, in
a community which already has an inadequate number of hospital beds. Santa Clara County already has among the lowest ratio of available hospital beds per 1,000 residents of any urban
region in the state or nation. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): N/A 47
2 of 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The City of Saratoga would not adopt resolution in support of Measure A. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): If Council adopts proposed resolution, retain a copy of signed
resolution for City archives. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the Agenda. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution in support of Measure A. 48
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE A WHEREAS, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) has been serving the health care needs
of the residents of Santa Clara County for over 130 years, and; WHEREAS, one in four residents of Santa Clara County receives medical care from Santa Clara Valley Medical Center over
a four year period; and; WHEREAS, Santa Clara County has only one safety net provider of medical care, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center; and; WHEREAS, SCVMC is one of only two burn-trauma
centers north of Los Angeles and is a high level trauma center for both adults and children; and; WHEREAS, last year, SCVMC delivered nearly 6,000 babies; and; WHEREAS, California law
mandates that all hospitals in the State meet seismic safety standards which require that by 2013, hospital buildings are to remain standing and occupants able to exit safely and, by
2030, buildings are to remain operational and capable of providing acute-care medical services to to the public; and; WHEREAS, more than half of SCVMC’s 524 acute care patient beds are
at risk of closure due to location in seismically non-compliant buildings, and; WHEREAS, without sufficient inpatient beds, emergency room wait-times and ambulance diversions throughout
the community would spike upward; and; WHEREAS, missing the mandated seismic standard deadline would result in SCVMC having to close half of its 524 patient beds; thereby reducing its
capacity for trauma, burn treatment and regional disaster response; and WHEREAS, having to reduce half of SCVMC’s bed capacity would mean that, in 2013, approximately 11,000 people requiring
hospitalization would be turned away, in a community which already has an inadequate number of hospital beds. Santa Clara County already has among the lowest ratio of available hospital
beds per 1,000 residents of any urban region in the state or nation; and; WHEREAS, SCVMC and its partners provided crucial medical services to 200,000 residents of Santa Clara County
in 2007 and will exceed that number in 2008 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saratoga hereby endorses Measure A, placed on the November 2008 general election ballot by
the County of Santa Clara. Measure A will, if approved by 2/3 of Santa Clara County Voters, raise $840,000,000 to prevent the state 49
mandated shutdown of more than half of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center’s (SCVMC) patient beds, including the trauma and burn center, by rebuilding, retrofitting and improving the earthquake
safety of the hospital to meet state seismic safety laws. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 15th
day of October 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 50
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, DEPT HEAD: Acting City
Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Proposition 1 – High Speed Rail Bond RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt resolution supporting Proposition 1 – High Speed Rail Bond. REPORT SUMMARY:
Government and industry in the Bay Area have an established commitment to providing an environmentally friendly, economically viable means of transportation for their residents, including
high-speed rail capable of speeds as much as 220 miles-per-hour. Proposition 1 enables the California High Speed Rail Authority to proceed to construct phase 1 of a high speed rail system
from San Francisco to Anaheim via San Jose, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale and Los Angeles, using matching federal, local and private funds. Proposition 1 and the California high-speed
rail project is projected to create economic opportunity with approximately 160,000 construction jobs and 450, 000 permanent jobs. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED
ACTION(S): N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): 51
2 of 2 If Council adopts proposed resolution, retain a copy of signed resolution for City archives and send a copy of signed resolution to the Santa Clara County Cities Association.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the Agenda. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution in Support of Proposition 1 52
RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA BALLOT PROPOSITION 1; THE SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER RAIL BOND ACT FOR
THE 21ST CENTURY WHEREAS, Government and industry in the Bay Area have an established commitment to providing an environmentally friendly, economically viable means of transportation
for their residents, including high-speed rail capable of speed as much as 220 miles-per-hour; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 enables the California High Speed Rail Authority to proceed
to construct phase 1 of a high speed rail system from San Francisco to Anaheim via San Jose, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale and Los Angeles, using matching federal, local and
private funds; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 guarantees that $950,000,000 of the $9,995,000,000 bond measure will be allocated to intercity, commuter and urban rail systems for direct connections
to high-speed rail; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 commences the building of high-speed rail with its attendant immediate benefits to California’s economic vitality, environmental sustainability,
air quality and increasing population; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 and the California high-speed rail project is projected to create economic opportunity with approximately 160,000 construction
jobs and 450, 000 permanent jobs; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 and the Project will provide a safe, timely, reliable mode of transportation for California’s projected 2030 population of
50,000,00 people. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the City Council does hereby declare support of Proposition 1 (1A) and urges all citizens
to vote for such measure on November 4, 2008. 53
The above and forgoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 15th day of October 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: __________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 54
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, DEPT HEAD: Acting City
Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Council Agency and Adhoc Committee Liaison Assignments RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 08-021 appointing Council
representatives to Committees, Agencies and Ad hoc Committees. REPORT SUMMARY: The City Council reorganized on December 4, 2007 for the coming year and assignments to various agencies
and ad hoc committees were adopted by Resolution No. 07-076. At the March 5, 2008 Council meeting Councilmember King requested to be appointed to a new Council Committee – the Tax Equity
Allocation (TEA) Adhoc. Councilmember King was appointed as the representative to this Adhoc and Mayor Waltonsmith as the Alternate. Council adopted Resolution No. 08-021 on April 2,
2008 in support of this request (a copy of this resolution is attached). At the October 1, 2008 Council meeting Council directed staff to end the TEA Adhoc until conditions once again
become favorable to passage of further TEA relief. The following changes to the Council Agency and Ad hoc Committee have been requested by the Mayor and are reflected in the attached
resolution: Agency Councilmember Alternate TEA King Waltonsmith FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Council Agency and Ad hoc Committee Liaison Assignments
would remain the same. 55
2 of 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction and retain a copy of signed proposed resolution for City archives. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC
CONTACT: Posting of the Agenda. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution Amending No. 08-021 56
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING RESOLUTION 08-021 APPOINTING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO COMMITTEES, AGENCIES AND AD HOC COMMITTEES WHEREAS,
representatives from the City Council serve on various committees, agencies, and Ad hoc committees; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for representing the City Council should be shared
by all its members; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-076 on December 19, 2007 appointing Council representatives to the agencies and adhoc committees through December
2008, or until replaced: WHEREAS, the City Council amended Resolution 07-076 on April 4, 2008 by adopting amended Resolution No. 08-021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following
changes be made to the TEA Adhoc. These changes expire December 2008, or until revised. Agency Councilmember Councilmember TEA Adhoc King Waltonsmith The above and foregoing resolution
was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of October 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____ Ann Waltonsmith,
Mayor ATTEST: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 57
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor, City Attorney DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Amendment to the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan ________________________
_______________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and adopt attached resolution amending the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the
City of Saratoga General Plan to implement the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission and Planning Commission. REPORT SUMMARY: The City Council directed staff to review bicycle
safety issues in Saratoga. Based on that review, staff, the Traffic Safety Commission, and the Planning Commission recommend that the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City
of Saratoga General Plan be amended to remove the bike route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way. This recommendation is based on a report from the City’s
Traffic Engineer; that report is attached together with a resolution approving the General Plan amendment. DISCUSSION: The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga’s
General Plan identifies the type and location of bicycle facilities within the City. The purpose is to identify bicycle connectivity throughout the City as part of the City’s existing
and proposed major thoroughfares and transportation routes. As part of the General Plan, the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element demonstrates how the various land uses in Saratoga
are served by various modes of transportation, including bicycle transportation. Fehr & Peers earlier this year completed an evaluation of the existing on-street bicycle facilities in
the City. The objective of the evaluation was to identify areas for improvement and to make recommendations to City staff. The review entailed field observations and measurements of
all existing bike lanes and routes. As part of this evaluation, Fehr & Peers recommended that the Class III bike route classifications on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin
Way be removed. With the exception of Big Basin Way through the Village, these three roadways are fairly narrow (20 to 24 feet), winding, hilly, and generally have 58
limited shoulders of two feet or less or no additional pavement. The roadway conditions in combination with the traffic volumes are not ideal for bicycle travel. Accordingly, Fehr &
Peers recommended that these bike route classifications be removed from the General Plan. These roadways are heavily used by recreational bicyclists, especially on weekends. Removal
of the bike route classification from these roadways would not restrict bicyclists from using these roadways. The General Plan amendment would only eliminate these streets as City-designated
bicycle routes/preferred paths of travel. Bicyclists would be free to continue to use these routes. The Fehr & Peers recommendation was reviewed by the City of Saratoga’s Pedestrian,
Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) which recommended that the classifications be retained to support possible future efforts to obtain grant funding to improve
the roads to make them suitable for the classification. Widening of these roadway sections to better better accommodate bicyclists or to add Class II bike lanes would involve some combination
of earthwork, retaining wall construction, right-of-way acquisition, and removal of numerous heritage oak trees amongst other species. In many cases, widening would be physically infeasible
and/or cost prohibitive, where grants would not begin to cover the cost of potential improvements. The Traffic Safety Commission reviewed the Fehr & Peers report and voted to support
the recommendation that the General Plan be amended to remove the designations. The Planning Commission considered the Fehr & Peers Report and the recommendations of the Traffic Safety
Commission and PEBTAC. At its meeting of September 24, 2008 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments by a 6-0 vote. A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution
and draft minutes are attached. ALTERNATIVES: Make no change to the route designations or remove only one or two of the three routes recommended for declassification. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Insert the amendment into the General Plan. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice was published in the Saratoga News on September 30, 2008 59
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. September 8, 2008 Report from Fehr & Peers to John Cherbone 3. Planning Commission Resolution 4. Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting September
24, 2008 60
61
62
Saratoga Ave. Fruitvale Ave. Allendale Ave. . dR oti uQ Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. Big Basin Wy. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Cox Ave. Prospect Rd. Pierce Rd. Prospect Rd. rel l iM Ave. Lawrence
Expwy. Bucknall Rd. Dagmar Dr. Scotland Dr. Reid Ln. Herriman Ave. . dR y e b o S Figure 6 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES MAP Bicycle Routes (Class III Facilities) Bicycle Lanes (Class
II Facilities) Expressway Segments (Bicycles Permitted) Bicycle Paths (Class I Facilities) -See Existing Trail Easements Note: Based on City designation. Some facilities do not include
signage or adequate bike lane width. City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
Page 18 85 85 9 9 Revised September 2008 63
City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Revised September 2008 Saratoga Ave. Fruitvale Ave. Allendale Ave. .dR otiuQ Saratoga-Los Gatos
Rd. Big Basin Wy. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Cox Ave. Prospect Rd. Pierce Rd. Prospect Rd. r e l liM Ave. Lawrence Expwy. Bucknall Rd. Dagmar Dr. Scotland Dr. Reid Ln. Herriman Ave. . dR
y e b o S Figure C-5 EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle Paths (Class I Facilities) -See Exising Trail Easements (Developed) Bicycle Lanes (Class II Facilities) Existing
Proposed Bicycle Lanes (Class II Facilities) Bicycle Paths (Class I Facilities) Expressway Segments (Bicycles Permitted) Expressway Segments (Bicycles Permitted) Bicycle Routes (Class
III Facilities) Bicycle Routes (Class III Facilities) N/A 85 85 9 9 64
MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 2008 To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga, Public Works Director From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Removal of Bike Route Classification from
Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way in the City of Saratoga, California 1025-446 The Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City of Saratoga’s General Plan identifies
the type and location of bicycle facilities within the City. The purpose is to identify bicycle connectivity throughout the City as part of the City’s existing and proposed major thoroughfares
and transportation routes. As part of the General Plan, the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element helps demonstrate how the various land uses in Saratoga are served by various modes
of transportation, including bicycle transportation. Fehr & Peers completed an evaluation of the existing bicycle facilities in the City of Saratoga. This memorandum summarizes the existing
bicycle facilities and recommendation for removing the bike route classification from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES Caltrans standards
(Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design of the Highway Design Manual, 2001) provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below and shown on the accompanying
figures. · Bike paths (Class I) are paved pathways separated from roadways that are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. In general, bike paths serve corridors
not served by streets and highways or where sufficient right-of-way exists to allow such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets and numerous vehicle
conflicts. · Bike lanes (Class II) are lanes for bicyclists adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike lanes
are usually constructed to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. 65
John Cherbone September 8, 2008 Page 2 of 3 · Bike routes (Class III) in general are located on low traffic volume streets that provide alternate routes for recreational, and in some
cases, commuter, and school-age cyclists. These facilities are designated Class III and are signed for bike use, but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Bike routes
serve either to: a) provide continuity to other bicycle facilities, or b) designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. The City of Saratoga has six roadways classified as
Class II bike lanes and seven roadways classified as Class III bike routes. Additionally, the City has several trail easements throughout the City that function as shared pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. The image below shows the location of Class II and Class III bicycle facilities currently identified in the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element (2000) in figures
6 (page 18) and C-5 (page 55). BICYCLE ROUTES EVALUATION In May 2008, Fehr & Peers completed an evaluation of the existing on-street bicycle facilities in the City. The objective of
the evaluation was to identify areas for improvement and to make recommendations to City staff. The review entailed field observations and measurements of all existing bike lanes and
routes. As part of this evaluation, Fehr & Peers recommended that the Class III bike route classifications on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Recommended removal of bike route classification
66
John Cherbone September 8, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Road, and Big Basin Way be removed. With the exception of Big Basin Way through the Village, these three roadways are fairly narrow (20 to
24 feet), winding, hilly, and generally have limited shoulders of two feet or less or no additional pavement. Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way serve an average daily traffic
(ADT) volume of approximately 1,660, 2,900, and 5,700 vehicles, respectively. The roadway conditions in combination with the traffic volumes are not ideal for bicycle travel; and therefore
we
recommend that the bike route classification be removed from the City of Saratoga’s General Plan. It is important to note that these roadways are heavily used by recreational bicyclists,
especially on weekends. By no means would the removal of the bike route classification from these roadways restrict bicyclists from using these roadways; rather this would eliminate
these streets as City-designated bicycle routes and preferred paths of travel, especially especially for novice or lessexperienced riders who may not be familiar with the area. The bicycle
improvement recommendations including removal of the bike route classifications were reviewed by the City of Saratoga’s Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee
(PEBTAC). The Committee recommended that the City retain the route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way in the General Plan. They requested that the classification
remain, so that these facilities would be eligible for any grant applications in the future. While some improvements such as pavement widening could be implemented along selected section
of these streets, various physical/environmental, topographic, and right-of-way constraints on these roadways would severely limit implementation of substantial route enhancements. Widening
of these roadway sections to better accommodate bicyclists or to add Class II bike lanes would involve some combination of earthwork, retaining wall construction, right-of-of-way acquisition,
and removal of numerous heritage oak trees amongst other species. In many cases, widening would be physically infeasible and/or cost prohibitive, where grants would not begin to cover
the cost of potential improvements. SUMMARY Fehr & Peers recommends that the bike route classification on Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road, and Big Basin Way be removed from the City of
Saratoga’s General Plan. The roadway conditions and existing traffic volumes are not ideal for bicycle travel and the physical constraints make any bicycle improvements to these roadways
costly and unlikely to be subsidized by any available future funding opportunities. 67
68
69
MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Cappello
called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioner Nagpal Staff: Director John Livingstone,
Public Works Director John Cherbone, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt, Contract Planner Heather Bradley and Planning Intern Rina Shah PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular
Meeting of September 10, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 10, 2008,
were adopted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Nagpal was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant
to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 18, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello announced that appeals are possible for any
decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b).
70
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #GPA08-0002 (City
Wide): The proposed general plan amendment would update the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element on the City of Saratoga General Plan to reflect recent findings concerning bicycle
safety by removing the bike route classification from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road and Big Basin Way in Saratoga. (John Cherbone/Richard Taylor) Mr. John Cherbone, Public Works Director,
presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that Council had asked staff to review the bike route plan to see if there were deficiencies. • Said that in the light of heavy traffic
on Pierce, Mount Eden and Big Basin Way, it was recommended that the City amend its Circulation Element and remove those streets as bicycle routes. • Added that this does not mean that
bicycle riders would not be allowed to use those roads/routes but that the City would not be advocating them as a preferred bike route. • Continued to say that this also does not mean
they might not be added back. At this time these streets are low on the priority-funding list. These projects are so far out into the future, if ever, due to prohibitive cost of environmental
review as well as need for the widening of roads to be prudent. • Said that it is better that they are struck from the Circulation Element at this time. Director John Livingstone pointed
out that a letter from Murray Hartman has been provided this evening. Commissioner Rodgers mentioned that that the area between Big Basin Way and Pierce Road and between Congress Spring
Road is just as dangerous although not a City road. PW Director John Cherbone said that this was an oversight when the Element was developed. The State of California dictates what is
right and/or available for their corridor. That is another reason to remove them. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing
for for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a General Plan Amendment to update
the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan to remove the bike route classification 71
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 3 from Mount Eden Road, Pierce Road and Big Basin Way in Saratoga, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava,
Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #PDR 08-0020 (397-20-096) DENNERLINE, 14781 Farwell Avenue: The applicant
requests Design Review approval to add a 1,559 square foot single-story addition (including garage) to the existing single-story residence. The proposal includes conversion of an approximately
900 square foot garage to a second living unit/guest house. The total proposed floor area would be approximately 6,214 square feet (including garage). The maximum height of the proposed
building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 35 percent of the net site area. The lot size is approximately 65,247
net square feet, located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather Bradley) Ms. Heather Bradley,
Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant seeks Design Review approval to remodel an existing house and build a single-story addition of
approximately 1,560 square feet including a garage, bedroom, laundry and mudroom addition and a basement under the garage. • Described the property as consisting of 1.5 acres located
near Highway 9. • Explained that Wildcat Creek bisects the property and a bridge provides access to an existing detached garage. This garage is proposed to be converted into a guesthouse
with exercise room. The exterior would be remodeled to match the main residence. The proposed guesthouse will technically meet the standards for a secondary dwelling unit and the applicant
has the option to record a deed restriction on the unit if they choose. • Said that no trees are proposed for removal. • Stated that all required Design Review findings can be made to
support this application. • Recommended that the Planning Commission approve this Design Review application. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the turnaround material is pervious. Planner
Heather Bradley said that a portion is made of pavers set in sand including within the drip line of some of the larger trees. Chair Cappello asked if there is a new resolution. Planner
Heather Bradley: • Said that the City Attorney has made some corrections that are minor not substantive. • Added that the changes are marked on the new copy. Chair Cappello opened the
public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. 72
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 4 Ms. Cindy Brozicevic, Project Designer: • Said that they have created the turnaround on the east side of the creek and
added a fourcar garage to replace the existing garage that would now become a secondary dwelling unit. Chair Cappello asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic if her client supports recording a deed
restriction liming the guesthouse as a low-income unit if it were ever to be rented. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the owner is considering such a deed restriction without changing
the project design or taking advantage of the allowance for additional square footage. Chair Cappello asked if her client would find it acceptable to have this requirement conditioned
in the resolution for approval. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said it would be acceptable. She distributed a material sample. Commissioner Hlava said that with the conversion of the detached
garage into a secondary dwelling unit there would probably no longer be cars crossing the bridge. She asked if the turnaround was asphalt or pavers. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that they
are all pavers set in sand to satisfy the arborist’s concern around the oak. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Cindy Brozicevic what is the architectural style of this house. Is it Spanish?
Contemporary? Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that it was Mid-Century Modern originally. This home now has Old World Style with elements of Tuscan design although not a literal interpretation.
Commissioner Rodgers pointed to a discrepancy between the plan sheets A-2 and A-5. One has a door and two windows and the other has three windows on the same portion of the house. Ms.
Cindy Brozicevic said the three windows as depicted on the floor plan are correct. Commissioner Rodgers said that this correction needs to be made to sheet A-5. Commissioner Hlava asked
Ms. Cindy Brozicevic to point out where the front door would be in relation to the windows in front. Commissioner Zhao asked what type of screening shrubs are proposed. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic
replied that the landscape architect is working on that but they anticipate evergreen native shrubs with a maximum six-foot high fence as allowed by Code. 73
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Rodgers suggested to Ms. Cindy Brozicevic that they consult with the Water District and cautioned that
the Fence Ordinance is subject to change soon. Ms. Barbara Sussman, Resident on Bella Vista: • Advised that her home is just across the creek from the main house. It is the closest property
to this site. During the site visit, the Commission saw how close it is to her property. • Added that the portion of this project on the Farwell side is of no concern. • Said that she
believes owners should be able to enjoy their homes as long as they don’t infringe on others. • Expressed concern about the conversion of the detached garage into a second dwelling unit.
• Distributed a photograph of recently cut back landscaping that includes redwoods. • Reported that the former owner of this property together with her father planted 11 redwood trees.
Her dad paid for the trees and bushes. • Stated that the current detached garage was constructed with her father’s approval in a hearing process much like tonight’s. • Said that it appears
that it is desirable to the Commissioners to designate this proposed secondary dwelling unit as an affordable unit. • Added that the Dennerlines have said that it is only to be used
by a nanny, family and guests and she believes them. • Asked that restrictions be imposed on future tenancy. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Sussman where she would like to see
the fence located along the length of the garage. Is it at the property line? Ms. Barbara Sussman said that she proposes installation of a living willow fence. She also stressed the
need for one visibility fence as to be without it would be dangerous. Commissioner Rodgers asked if she is asking for a higher fence. Ms. Barbara Sussman said she wants it to run the
length of the building and that it be high enough to hide the structure behind it. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Barbara Sussman what she is proposing for noise mitigation. Ms. Barbara
Sussman: • Replied trees and shrubs. • Added that the use pattern of the structure will be the noise originator, including activity and lights. • Suggested that the front door should
be facing forward to the main house on the Dennerline property. • Said that right now she is not sure where the front door is proposed. Ms. Deborah Brady, Resident on Farwell Avenue:
• Said that she is the neighbor on the left side. 74
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 6 • Reported that she is blindsided by this project and received no notification. • Said that she had been told of plans
for an exercise room and kitchen remodel and is shocked by the extent of this addition/remodel. • Stated that she is surprised that they are not building on the north side of their property
where it is flat. They are required to cut into the slope as proposed. • Explained that her house, which is on piers, is only five feet from this slope and she is concerned that cutting
into the slope would create instability and slippage. • Said that excavation and cutting into the slope would occur right near her property and advised that Tree #8 is on her property
line. • Stated that she does not understand what engineering will be done and requested that the necessary engineering be done by a licensed civil engineer with sufficient protections
so the slope won’t come down and damage her property. • Pointed out that the bore test was done in August in a very dry year. • Advised that a sump pump will be necessary for the basement
likely in use for much of the year. • Said that this addition is visually intrusive and crowded up to her property. • Said she joins in the comments made by her neighbor Ms. Barbara
Sussman. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Deborah Brady if she has experience with hillside slippage. Ms. Deborah Brady said she has 53 years of experience with her property but it has
never before been cut into or disrupted. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic: • Advised that a geotechnical report has been prepared for the basement excavation work. • Added that the amount of hillside
area with retaining wall is quite low. • Said that it is not unusual for a soils report to be done in summer. Borings are done all year long. Commissioner Kundtz pointed out that Ms.
Sussman’s request is that the front door faces the main residence. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic explained that the exercise room has one door facing the Sussman property but the front door faces
the Dennerline main residence. Commissioner Rodgers: • Asked about the use of the sump pump and where and how the water is drained. • Inquired if any drainage would be directed at the
bottom of the hillside. Ms. Cindy Brozicevic: • Said that there would be a perimeter drainage system. • Assured that the sump pump is very quiet and makes no noise when running. • Stated
that the drainage on site is tied into the perimeter drainage system. • Added that bioswales work very well. 75
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner Zhao asked for clarification regarding the door and windows on the front elevation, including a double
door. Which is the main front door? Ms. Cindy Brozicevic said that the main entrance is the double door on the creek side. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No.
2. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there has been a hydrologist report on the bioswales. Planner Heather Bradley replied that the information is included in the geotechnical report. She
said that perforated pipe would be used to funnel water into the drainage system. She added that plan sheet A-6-1 shows the amount of cut into the hillside as approximately two feet.
Commissioner Rodgers: • Reported that she has a couple of observations. • Informed that she likes to recognize architecturally significant structures in Saratoga. • Stated that this
is a lovely home albeit 60 years old. It is time for updating. • Said that the style is not a unified style style but that’s not a criterion for review. • Opined that the roof in front
seems bulky to her but she can probably live with that. • Said she can make the findings. Chair Cappello said that there is still the question of the deed restriction. He added that
the mitigation of the noise concern must be decided including whether a landscape plan or fence is preferred. Commissioner Rodgers said that the deed restriction on the secondary dwelling
unit is not required as the applicant is not seeking the bonus square footage. Chair Cappello said that it still should be included in the resolution as a permanent condition of approval.
He asked if other members of the Commission support that or prefer that it not be required. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that it is up to the applicant. If they are willing, she supports
that condition. • Suggested phrasing the fence condition to read “to a height permitted” to take into consideration the proposed changes to the Fence Ordinance. • Said that a new opaque
gate should be be installed across the intersection of the two driveways. • Stated that greenery or latticework between two properties as options to the satisfaction of the adjacent
neighbor to mitigate any noise and views impacts. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that if the applicant were willing she too would like to see the deed restriction for this second unit. 76
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 8 • Said that she reviewed Ms. Sussman’s letter in which she raised a concern over the possibility of a lot split in the
future separating this second unit from the main lot. • Assured Ms. Sussman that this second unit would never become a separate parcel. • Reminded that the second dwelling unit is the
exact same building as exists today. • Stated her support for fence and plantings to the extent possible. • Suggested that it might actually be quieter with the conversion of the garage
into a second unit. There would be no more cars coming back there. Commissioner Zhao agreed. She added that she does not see the language about the fence. Chair Cappello said it is Item
4 under Community Development. Commissioner Zhao asked if this would run all the way to the creek. Chair Cappello said that it does not require it to go all the way to the creek but
rather just the area near the neighbor’s meditation area, which is located near the existing garage. Commissioner Zhao said that she could make all the findings to support this project
and agrees on the concept of the deed restriction on the second unit if the applicant is willing. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he too can support this project. • Said that the issues
raised by Ms. Sussman have been addressed or accommodated. • Added that his only concern with the property is the road coming in to it. • Stated he could support this request. Commissioner
Kumar said that he could make all findings including geotechnical aspects and noise and privacy mitigations handled through fencing and plantings. Chair Cappello said he too can make
the findings and asked staff if there is language in the draft resolution relating to the deed restriction. Planner Heather Bradley: • Replied yes. • Read the added text, “Applicant
shall have a deed restriction recorded and shall provide documentation to the City of that recordation.” • Also recommended change to Condition 4 regarding fencing to move this as a
permanent condition of approval and add language “subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and installed prior to final building permit.” Director John Livingstone
said that he could work with the neighbors and Water District to come up with a landscaping/fencing solution. Commissioner Rodgers: • Suggested adding the word “then” current City Code
regulations. • Added that the City Attorney has standard language regarding geotechnical standards. 77
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 9 • Suggested amendments to Paragraphs 29 and 30 to read, “The plan shall be reviewed and shall be subject to approval
by the project geotechnical consultant.” • Said that this edit should be confirmed with the City Attorney. Commissioner Kumar said that placing a deed restriction on this second unit
simply reduces the City’s requirement for affordable units by just one unit. Chair Cappello replied that one climbs Mt. Everest one step at a time. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner
Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #PDR 08-0020) to add a 1,559 square foot single-story addition (including garage)
to the existing single-story residence and the conversion of an approximately 900 square foot garage into a second living unit/guest house on property located at 14781 Farwell Avenue,
with the following amendments: • Make Condition #4 a permanent condition of approval; • Change the language regarding the fence approval by the Community Development Director under “then”
City Fence Ordinance regulations; • Change Paragraphs 29 and 30 to read that, “The plan shall be reviewed and shall be subject to approval by the project geotechnical consultant;” •
Add a condition of approval that the applicant shall record a deed restriction for the second dwelling unit as a below market rate unit in the event it is ever rented; by the following
roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #PDR08-0027 (393-40-015) PRADHAN,
20295 Franklin Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing home located at 20295 Franklin Avenue. The proposed structure will be approximately
3,494 square feet and will be less than 26 feet tall. The gross lot size is 11,882 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. Exterior colors and materials consist of neutral color
stucco and brick accent and composition shingle roof material. Design Review is required pursuant to City Code section 15-45.060. (Rina Shah) Ms. Rina Shah, Planning Intern, presented
the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant has submitted a request for the remodel and addition for an existing single-family residence. • Described the additions as
being located to the rear and sides of the existing home with a new porch at the front. 78
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 10 • Added that the maximum height would be 19 feet. Materials include neutral colored stucco, carriage style doors and
a composition roof shingle. • Distributed a material sample board. • Advised that several neighbor templates have been submitted, mostly in favor. • Added that one additional comment
was provided that was received via email regarding height and included in the packet. • Said that one Ordinance tree would be removed. The arborist reviewed four trees. One will be relocated
and two others protected. • Said that the home is well designed and constructed of high quality materials. • Stated that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Informed that
there is a minimized perception of bulk and height and said that staff is recommending approval. • Added text to the conditions of approval to read, “The interior dimensions of the garage
shall be a minimum of 19 feet wide and 18 feet deep.” The 19-foot depth is required by Code. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the impact of this change on setbacks. Director John Livingstone
advised that minor alterations would have to be made to the site plan to meet the setbacks. The space would come out of the pantry. He added that the plans tonight are not accurate but
corrected plans have already been prepared. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Dan Winklebleck, Project Architect: • Said that modified plans to show
the garage at the appropriate width and depth are on file in the Planning Department. • Stated that the overall height of the building is about context. The existing roof pitch is 5
and 12. It made more sense to maintain that pitch which made the maximum height about 11 inches taller than the normal height limitation that could be approved administratively. • Said
that this remodeled home is in context with the surrounding homes. • Explained that the lot slopes slightly to the back. • Said that the house has a nice design that is in context with
the the overall neighborhood. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Rodgers said that the architect made the right decision to keep the roof pitch
the same. She added that she could make the findings for approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kumar, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review
approval (Application #PDR08-0027) to substantially remodel the existing home located at 20295 Franklin Avenue, as amended, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar,
Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal 79
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 11 ABSTAIN: None Director John Livingstone thanked Planning Intern Rina Shah for her work on this first project. He explained
that she is an unpaid volunteer intern who is already an architect and is currently in the Masters Program at San Jose State University. *** Commissioner Zhao recused herself for the
next item due to her husband’s professional affiliation with the property owner. She left the dais and chambers for the duration of this item. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION
#MOD08-0003 (397-18-071) THAKUR, 14900 Baranga Lane: The applicant requests Modification of Approved Plans (Application #MOD08-0003) to remove an existing tree near the eastern boundary
of the subject property located at 14900 Baranga Lane. Changes to the topography will be made. The gross lot size is 55,757 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (Shweta Bhatt)
Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking approval for the modification of approved plans for a new home that
was approved by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008. • Explained that a discrepancy was found between the grading and drainage plan and the site plans. • Advised that an existing
retaining wall was to be retained. At this time the removal of said retaining wall is requested as well as the removal of a Eucalyptus tree that is to be replaced with an Oak tree. This
has the support of the neighbors. • Said that no additional feedback has been provided. • Added that the item is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Recommended approval. Commissioner
Kumar asked if there is an arborist report on the tree removal. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied yes. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Thakur, Applicant
and Property Owner: • Said that access to the backyard would be improved somewhat with these modifications. • Said that the tree to be removed is not in the best of health. It was ranked
at 40 percent by the arborist. • Stated that he feels this is a stronger project that is better served with a 48-inch box native oak and his neighbor supports this. Chair Cappello closed
the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is always happy to rely on the recommendation of the City’s Arborist and is glad the City has one on staff.
80
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 12 Chair Cappello agreed. Planner Shweta Bhatt suggested modifying Condition 9 to add the language, “…to the maximum extent
reasonably feasible” and “An explanatory note shall be added on the plans and subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.” Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner
Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted a Modification of Approved Plans (Application #MOD08-0003) to remove an existing tree near the eastern property
line and removal of a retaining wall on property located at 14900 Baranga
Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: Zhao *** Chair Cappello advised that this is the last meeting
for Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt. He said that she has been a tremendous asset to this organization and handled many difficult projects. Commissioner Kundtz wished Planner Shweta Bhatt
good luck. Commissioner Hlava said that she would be missed. Commissioner Rodgers agreed. Commissioner Hlava said that Shweta would be working closer to home in her new job. Planner
Shweta Bhatt said that it has been nice working with a dedicated and smart Commission. She thanked them very much. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner
Rodgers asked when the Study Session on the Fence Ordinance would take place. Chair Cappello replied October 7th. COMMUNICATIONS 81
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2008 Page 13 There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner
Kumar, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:22 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 82
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: John
Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Review of the Heritage Preservation Commission’s proposed design for the Heritage Orchard Sign RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the proposed design for the Heritage
Orchard Sign and direct Staff accordingly. DISCUSSION: The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) discussed the proposed design for the Heritage Orchard Sign with the City Council during
a Joint City Council/Heritage Preservation Commission meeting on November 7, 2007. The City Council was generally supportive of the sign and directed the HPC to determine the costs to
erect the sign, clarify the choice of materials, and to review its design with the Library Commission. The Chair of the HPC presented the proposed design of the Heritage Orchard Sign
to the Library Commission at their meeting of June 11, 2008. The Library Commission was supportive of the design. The HPC again reviewed the design of the Heritage Orchard Sign with
the City Council at the September 3, 2008 Joint City Council/Heritage Preservation Commission. The HPC presented more details on the signs exterior materials and informed the City Council
that bids had been obtained to construct the sign and that the costs would be approximately $41,700. The City Council suggested that the HPC seek outside funding sources as a way to
defray the City’s costs to construct the sign. A copy of the signs construction budget is included as Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVES: None FISCAL IMPACTS: The estimated costs to construct
the Heritage Orchard Sign would be $41,700 and is currently an unfunded item in the 2008-2009 CIP budget. Direct costs to the City could be reduced by outside funding sources. Page 1
of 2 83
Page 2 of 2 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Construction Budget for the Heritage Orchard Sign 2. Reduced Plans,
Exhibit "A" 84
85
86
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works
Director Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1-Year Review of Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution establishing “No Parking or Stopping” along a portion of Herriman Avenue _______________________________________
______________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Receive report and provide direction to staff. REPORT SUMMARY: Background: At the April 4, 2007 City Council meeting, the
Council gave direction to staff to have the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) review safety and traffic issues surrounding Saratoga High School. The TSC reviewed a plan presented by the
City Traffic Engineer at the June 7, 2007 meeting (Attachment 1). As a result of the meeting the TSC made several recommendations: 1. Construct new pedestrian path on the south side
of Herriman Avenue between River Ranch Circle and Saratoga Avenue. 2. Construct a pedestrian refuge area (bulbout) and raised crosswalk at the Lexington/Herriman intersection. 3. Standardize
existing bicycle lanes. In order to construct the new pedestrian walkway, parking restrictions on the north side of Herriman Avenue from Saratoga Vista to Saratoga Avenue were established
to implement the Traffic Engineer’s plan. An option to construct the walkway outside of the travel way was rejected because of its high cost and the impact to mature trees and private
landscaping. On September 5, 2007, the City Council approved the parking restrictions via an MV Resolution (Attachment 2) and directed staff to move forward with the pedestrian and bicycle
safety improvements. The improvements constructed to date include the protected pedestrian walkway (River Ranch Circle to Saratoga Avenue), standardized bicycle lanes, and the pedestrian
refuge (bulbout) at the Lexington/Herriman intersection. The raised crosswalk was not constructed because of funding issues. 87
1-Year Follow-up Evaluation: Included with the adoption of the MV Resolution restricting parking, the City Council directed staff to report back in one year regarding the effectiveness
of the action. In August of 2008, the City’s Traffic Engineer, Fehr & Peers, conducted a follow-up evaluation (Attachment 3) connected to the implementation of the above mentioned safety
improvements. In summary, the Follow-Up Traffic Evaluation indicates that the improvements have met the goal of separating vehicles and pedestrians. Recommendations: On September 11,
2008, the TSC concurred with the recommendations in Traffic Engineer’s 1-Year Follow-up Review and formally recommended 5-0 that Herriman Avenue remain in its current configuration and
not be returned to its previous configuration. The TSC also recommended that the City move forward with constructing the raised crosswalk at Lexington Court and fund it through the newly
approved Traffic Safety CIP Project. In addition to the above recommendations, staff recommends recommends that the City fill in the new walkway section with asphalt to create a “level”
raised walkway and perform other minor improvements and maintenance including closing a small gap in the walkway at River Ranch Circle and overlay the section of walkway located along
the frontage of the High School to mitigate potential tripping hazards. Options: Staff has identified the following Options that City Council can choose that will provide direction to
staff regarding safety improvements on Herriman Avenue: • Option 1a: Herriman Avenue remains in its current configuration with no additional improvements. Estimate Cost: $0 • Option
1b: Option 1a + the addition of the raised crosswalk at Lexington Court. Estimated Cost: $25,000 (Raised Crosswalk at Lexington) • Option 1c: Option 1b + fill in the new walkway section
with asphalt to create a “level” raised walkway and perform other minor improvements and maintenance work. Estimated Cost: $25,000 (Raised Crosswalk at Lexington) $40,000 (Create Level
Walkway) $10,000 (Other Minor Walkway Improvements) $75,000 2 of 4 88
• Option 2: Direct staff to bring back a Motor Vehicle Resolution removing parking restrictions adopted on September 5, 2007, remove all walkway and bicycle improvements made in 2007,
and return the configuration of the road to its prior configuration. Estimated Cost: $10,000 (Remove Asphalt Berms and Restore Roadway) $15,000 (Remove and Replace Roadway Markings and
Signs) $25,000 FISCAL IMPACTS: The City Council has various funding sources available in which to fund the desired Option. Option 1b: This Option with an estimated cost of $25,000 can
be funded from the CIP under Traffic Safety. The TSC recommended the raised crosswalk at Lexington be a priority for funding at their September 11, 2008 Commission Meeting. Option 1c:
This Option with an estimated cost of $75,000 can be funded as follows: $25,000 (CIP -Traffic Safety) $40,000 (CIP -Streets) $10,000 (CIP – Streets) $75,000 Option 2: This Option with
an estimated cost of $25,000 can be funded from the CIP under Streets. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The configuration of Herriman Avenue would remain as it currently
is. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will move forward with the implementation of the desired Option chosen by City Council. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A letter was mailed on September 30, 2008 to the affected property owners on Herriman Avenue informing them of the 1-year evaluation (Attachment 4). In addition,
correspondences from residents over the past year regarding this issue are attached (Attachment 5). 3 of 4 89
4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Herriman Improvement Plan. 2. MV Resolution 3. 1-Year Follow-up Traffic Evaluation. 4. Letter to Residents. 5. Correspondence from Residents. 90
91
92
93
94
Herriman Avenue Parking Restriction 0 50 100 200 300 400Feet N Beaumont Ave. Herriman Avenue Requested Parking Restriction Ct. Saratoga Avenue Jerries Dr. Saratoga Vista Lannoy 95
! ! ! "#$ % & "' ( MEMORANDUM Date: October 6, 2008 To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga, Public Works Director From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Herriman Avenue and Lexington
Court Improvements Follow-up Review 1025-446-1 Fehr & Peers has completed a review of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements installed on Herriman Avenue in the City of Saratoga. In
July 2007, Fehr & Peers prepared the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan that included: · provision of a new pedestrian path on the south side of Herriman Avenue between River Ranch Circle
and Saratoga Avenue, · construction of a pedestrian refuge area (bulbout) and raised crosswalk at the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection, · and standardization of existing
bicycle lanes. This memorandum summarizes the results of implementing the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan and recommendations for maintaining or improving the pedestrian path and installing
a raised crosswalk across the east leg of the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection. BACKGROUND Herriman Avenue is a two-lane east-west collector street that connects Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road and Saratoga Avenue. Saratoga High School is located on the southeastern corner of the Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Herriman Avenue intersection and provides four driveways on Herriman Avenue.
Lexington Court is a north-south local roadway that forms a T-intersection with Herriman Avenue approximately 550 feet east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Avenue. One of Saratoga High Schools
main driveways is 40 feet off-set to the west of the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection, and as such Lexington Court is one of the major local roadways used by vehicles, bicyclists,
and pedestrians traveling to and from the school. Designated crosswalks are provided across Herriman Avenue on the east leg of the Lexington Court intersection and the west leg of the
Camino Rico intersection. These crosswalks are high visibility crosswalks with lateral striping and are marked with yellow paint to indicate that they are school crosswalks. In roadway
sings are provided in the middle of the crosswalks to highlight the presence of the crosswalks to vehicles and bicyclists traveling on Herriman Avenue. Herriman Avenue is approximately
39 feet wide, has a posted speed limit of 25 mile per hour (mph), and carries approximately 4,500 vehicles per day. Recently approved speed surveys indicate that the 85th percentile
speeds along the school frontage are approximately 35 mph. 96
John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Prior to implementation of the Improvement Plan, Herriman Avenue provided a sidewalk on both the north and south side of the roadway between
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Lexington Court. The sidewalk on the south side continued for another quarter mile east from Lexington Court until Oak Hallow Lane. No sidewalks were provided
on the north side of Herriman Avenue east of Lexington Court and on the south side east of Oak Hallow Lane (though there was a dirt path that extended another 150 feet east of Oak Hallow
Lane to River Ranch Circle). Herriman Avenue also included Class II bike lanes in both directions of travel for its entire length, although the width the lanes measured less than the
standard width at some locations. A parking lane was provided along the north side of Herriman Avenue but parking was restricted directly across from the high school during school hours.
During the school’s peak pick-up/drop-off times numerous pedestrians and bicyclists were observed traveling along the entire length of Herriman Avenue. At those locations where no sidewalks
were provided on Herriman Avenue, pedestrians were observed walking in either the bike lane or the parking/bike lane on the north side of the roadway. The Saratoga High School driveway
opposite Lexington Court is one of the more heavily used driveways during the school’s peak periods. Additionally, because Lexington Court is a major connector to the neighborhoods to
the north of Herriman Avenue, the crosswalk at this location is well-used. As discussed above, the driveway and Lexington Court are off-set from each other and form a non-standard intersection.
The combination of the geometry with the high pedestrian and vehicle volumes during peak periods results in numerous conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Many vehicles traveling
westbound on Herriman that make a left turn into the school’s driveway block the crosswalk and hinder pedestrians from crossing. Additionally, if pedestrians decided to walk around around
the vehicle to cross Herriman Avenue, the vehicles would block the visibility of pedestrians in the crosswalk for drivers in eastbound vehicles. HERRIMAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PLAN The
goal of the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan was to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and safety along Herriman Avenue and to improve the pedestrian crossing at Lexington Court.
To accomplish these goals, a pedestrian pathway was recommended for the south side of the street between River Ranch Court and Saratoga Avenue. Two options were considered in developing
the improvement plan: 1. A pathway could be incorporated into the existing curb-to-curb street width by modifying the existing vehicle, parking, and bicycle lane widths. 2. A sidewalk
could be added behind the curb of the existing roadway and utilize five feet of the City’s public right-of-way. This option would require the City to remove landscaping because many
residents had developed within the City right-of-way. 97
John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 3 of 5 To provide the least intrusive improvement, the first option was chosen for inclusion in the improvement plan. The pathway would be separated
from the roadway by a six-inch asphalt berm and would connect to the existing dirt path and sidewalks west of River Ranch Circle; this design would provide pedestrians with a continuous
walkway along the entire length of Herriman Avenue that was physically separated from the roadway. The proposed plan called for a five foot pathway along the south side of the roadway,
two approximate 12-foot travel lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes. A typical cross section of the Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Typical Cross Section
of Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan To incorporate the improvements, on-street parking on the north side of Herriman Avenue had to be removed between Saratoga Vista Avenue and Saratoga
Avenue. Most homes along Herriman Avenue do not front the roadway; therefore the removal of parking was not considered a major issue along most of the street. However, homes do front
onto Herriman Avenue between Beaumont Avenue and Saratoga Avenue and the removal of parking impacted seven residences. These homes would be required to park vehicles in their garages
and driveways or on adjacent side streets (such as Jerries Drive or Lannoy Court). To improve the pedestrian crossings at Lexington Court, the Herriman Improvement Plan included a pedestrian
refuge area at the northeast corner of Lexington Court and installation of a raised crosswalk across the east leg of the intersection. Because no sidewalks exist on Lexington Court,
the pedestrian refuge area would provide pedestrians with a protected waiting area to wait for a gap in vehicle traffic before crossing Herriman Avenue. The raised crosswalk would increase
the visibility of pedestrians crossing Herriman Avenue and serve as a traffic calming measure, since vehicles will have to slow down to cross the raised crosswalk. Figure 2 shows the
Lexington Court crosswalk improvement plan. 98
John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Figure 2: Proposed Crosswalk Improvements at Lexington Court FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION The pedestrian path and striping improvements along Herriman
Avenue, was well as the pedestrian refuge area on the northeast corner of Lexington Court were implemented in the summer of 2007. The Herriman Avenue Improvement Plan also recommended
the installation of a raised crosswalk at Lexington Court; however funding was not available at the time and this improvement was not installed as of September 2008. In August 2008,
Fehr & Peers conducted a follow-up evaluation of Herriman Avenue to determine if the improvements met the goals of the plan or if any modifications should be made. Fehr & Peers conducted
field observations in August 2008 before and after Saratoga High School’s bell schedule to capture peak utilization of the pathway. The field observations showed that pedestrians were
using the path and informal conversations with several pedestrians and students revealed that the pedestrian path was well-received and considered to be a substantial improvement. A
few pedestrians noted that they felt safer traveling in the path than having to walk in the bike lane as was the case before the plan was implemented. Most pedestrians traveling on Herriman
Avenue were observed using the path; though a few pedestrians were observed walking in the bike lane on the north side of the roadway. Presumably, these pedestrians had destinations
or origins in the neighborhood north of Herriman Avenue. Overall, the pedestrian pathway on the south side of Herriman Avenue was meeting its intended goal of providing a continuous
pathway that separates pedestrians from vehicles. Fehr & Peers also conducted follow-up field observations of the Herriman Avenue/Lexington Court intersection. This review showed that
99
John Cherbone October 6, 2008 Page 5 of 5 pedestrians are using the bulbout at the north eastern corner of the Lexington Court intersection and the bulbout is meeting the goal of providing
a safer refuge area for pedestrians before they cross Herriman Avenue. Because the recommended raised crosswalk has not been implemented, vehicles continue to block the crosswalk at
Lexington Court and reduce the visibility of pedestrians. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The pedestrian pathway is meeting the goal of providing a continuous walkway that separates
pedestrians from vehicles in the roadway and is a substantial improvement over the previous configuration. Thus, we recommend that the City either maintain the existing pathway or fill
in the gap between the berm and curb with concrete or asphalt to create an actual raised sidewalk. The raised sidewalk would increase the visibility of pedestrians and will likely encourage
pedestrians that walk in the bike lane of the north side of the roadway to use the sidewalk. Fehr & Peers also recommends that the City of Saratoga install the raised crosswalk across
the east leg of the Lexington Court intersection. Though the bulbout at the northeast corner of the intersection improves the visibility of pedestrians to drivers and provides pedestrians
with a refuge area, the raised crosswalk would further enhance the visibility of the crossing to drivers and would slow vehicles to a more reasonable speed closer to the posted limit.
100
CITY OF SARATOGA 1 37 7 7 F RU IT VAL E A VE NU E • SAR A T OG A , CAL IF ORNI A 9 507 0 Incorporated October 22, 1956 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Jill Hunter Aileen Kao Kathleen King Chuck Page
Ann Waltonsmith September 30, 2008 Re: City Council Review of Herriman Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Dear Home Owner: You are invited to attend the October 15, 2008 City Council
Meeting at which City Council will be conducting a one year review of the implementation of the pedestrian safety improvements on Herriman Avenue. This is an opportunity for residents
to provide input to the City Council regarding this project. As you may remember, the Traffic Safety Commission and the Traffic Engineer reviewed the traffic and pedestrian issues surrounding
Saratoga High School and recommended a continuous walkway on the south side of Herriman Avenue with standard bicycle lanes. City Council Meeting: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:00 p.m.
at the Civic Theatre 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Please visit the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us to view the Agenda. It will be available on the Friday before the meeting. Sincerely,
Kristin Borel Kristin Borel Public Works Analyst 4088681258 kborel@saratoga.ca.us 101
102
103
104