HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda Packet 2007-01-17AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 17, 2007
STUDY SESSION — 5:30 P.M. — ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
"Greening" the City — Discussion of Potential Environmental Initiatives
CLOSED SESSION— 6:30 P.M. — ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
CALL MEETING TO ORDER — 6:30 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Conference with Legal Counsel— Existing Litigation:
1 (Government Code section 54956.9(a))
Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Sullivan. (Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara Case No. 107CH000601).
REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 P.M. — CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
January 11, 2007)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non- A2endized 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.
J
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
None
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
IA. Commendation Honoring Boy Scout Troop 535
Recommended action:
Present commendation.
1B. Proclamation Declaring the Week of January 28- February 2, 2007 "Catholic
Schools Week"
Recommended action:
Present proclamation.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
2. Annual Audit for FY 2005 -06 and CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report) and Management Letter
Recommended action:
1. Receive audit and hear presentation by the independent audit firm of
Caporicci & Larson.
2. Adopt resolution to approve Budget Adjustment No. 33 to the FY 2006 -07
budget to carry over transfers from the Recreation and Teen Center Funds.
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.
3A. City Council Minutes — December 20, 2006
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
3B. Check Register for December 19, 2006
Recommended action:
Accept check register.
3C. Treasurers Report for Month Ended October 2006
Recommended action:
Accept report.
3D. Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Schedule
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution approving the revised meeting schedule.
3E. Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement for the General Plan Update
with Deborah Ungo - McCormick Consulting
Recommended action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an Amended Agreement with Ungo-
McCormick Consulting for planning and development services to prepare an
update of three of the City's General Plan Elements.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. City Initiated Negative Declaration, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and
Zoning Map Amendment relating to Eleven (11) Parcels
Recommended action:
1. Adopt resolution approving the Negative Declaration (solely as it pertains
to the subject parcels, not the ongoing review of the pending General Plan
Land Use Map Update).
2. Adopt resolution approving the purposed General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment for 8 of the 11 parcels.
/ 3. Open and conduct the public hearing, introduce the ordinance amending
;
V the zoning map for 3 of the 11 parcels, waive the first reading, and
schedule the item for second reading and adoption on consent calendar.
Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal of
Hazardous Vegetation
Recommended action:
Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution.
Ordinance Adopting Video Service Standards
Recommended action:
Conduct public hearing and introduce and waive first reading of ordinance
regarding video service standards and direct staff to place ordinance on consent
calendar for final adoption.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
7. Review Options for Ranfre Lane Refuge Pocket
Recommended action:
v Consider report, accept public testimony, and provide direction to staff.
8. Park Development and Sport Field Use — Public Discussion Options
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
• 9 Hidden Hills and Prospect Road - Outreach Options
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Aileen Kao
Association of Bay Area Government
Hakone Foundation
Recycling & Waste Reduction Commission of SCC
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association
City School AdHoc
Highway 9 Safety Project Committee
Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Hakone Foundation
Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board
KSAR
Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission
SASCC
• Sister City Liaison
Highway 9 Safety Project Committee
Prospect Road AdHoc
Councilmember Chuck Pace
Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara County Cities Association -Joint Economic Development Policy Committee
(JEDPQ
West Valley Sanitation District
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association
Village AdHoc
Councilmember Kathleen Kin>
County Cities Association Legislative Task Force
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities
Santa Clara County Cities Association
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
City School AdHoc
Prospect Road AdHoc
Councilmember Jill Hunter
• County HCD Policy Committee
Historic Foundation
Library Joint Powers Association
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
Village AdHoc
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
OTHER
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868 -1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title
II)
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on January 11,
2007, of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was
available fo ub " w at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's
websiteat - o a.ca.us
Cathleen Boer, CMC
City Clerk
L..J
Saratoga, California.
9
0
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2007
2/7 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with SASCC
2/21 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Historic Foundation
3/7 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association
3/21 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation
4/4 Regular Meeting — Joint meeting with Library Commission and Friends of
the Saratoga Libraries
4/18 Regular Meeting — Youth Commission
5/2 Regular Meeting — Joint meeting with Villa Montalvo and Mt. Winery
5/16 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission
6/6 Regular Meeting — Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
6/20 Regular Meeting
7/4 Holiday — Meeting Cancelled
7/18 Regular Meeting
8/1 Regular Meeting
8/15 Summer Recess
9/5 Regular Meeting
9/19 Regular Meeting
10/3 Regular Meeting
10/17 Regular Meeting
11/7 Regular Meeting
11/21 Regular Meeting
12/5 Regular Meeting - Reorganization
12/19 Regular Meeting
Gi
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office
PREPARED BY:
AGENDAITEM:
CITY MANAGER-
DEPT HE Q (
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: "Greening" the City — Discussion of Potential Environmental Initiatives
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss potential initiatives the City may undertake to promote environmental stewardship.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Awareness about negative environmental impacts that are occurring due to industrialization, population
growth, rapid economic expansion in developing countries and other factors are the subject of
increasing public awareness and concern. The City Council has scheduled an initial Study Session to
begin a discussion about initiatives the City may undertake to promote environmental stewardship.
The discussion may include:
Creating incentives for residents to "Go Green "; and
City practices (e.g. environmentally friendly purchasing policies, integrated pest management,
telecommuting, etc.) that can be developed and implemented.
Attached for your reference are:
• A recent newsletter published by Green Business Santa Clara County;
• Notice for an upcoming "Green Business Conference" scheduled for March 16, 2007; and
• A prototype "Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy".
Additional materials will be distributed by staff at the Study Session.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
To be determined, depending upon Council direction.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Green Business Santa Clara County Newsletter
2. Green Business Conference, March 16, 2007 registration
3. Prototype Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy
Santa Clara County
January 2007
FY 2007 UPDATE
We're off to a great start for the first half of fiscal year
2006 -07. Thirty -four (34) businesses have enrolled since
July 1 and 17 have been certified. We'd like to welcome
the latest addition to our staff — Ashish Dutt joined us in
December and will be assisting in the certification
process.
Your continued assistance in referring candidates to the
Green Business Program is always welcome and greatly
appreciated. For a complete list of certified businesses,
visit our updated web site at http: / /greenbiz.sccgov.org.
2nd ANNUAL GREEN BUSINESS CONFERENCE
We are looking forward to another exciting Green
Business conference that will take place March 16,
2007! The City of San Jose will host this year at the
Camden Community Center in San Jose. The primary
focus will be Pollution Prevention but we also invite all
cities to send a representative to host a table, providing
' nformation on commercial recycling options and other
.ervices your city officers to its commercial customers.
The conference will run from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Our target audience includes currently certified and
applicant businesses, prospective businesses, city
representatives and compliance partners. Participants
will enjoy a continental breakfast and have an
opportunity to network with peers and city staff.
BUSINESS OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE
PG &E offers classes on energy efficiency and
renewable energy presented by the Pacific Energy
Center (PEC). For a list of classes and descriptions, visit
http://www.pqe.com/pec/classe .
The Santa Clara Valley Water District still has High
Efficiency Toilets (HET) available! Both the toilet and
installation are free. For more information about this
and other programs, please contact Karen Morvay at
408 -265 -2607 x2707. Visit www.valleywater.org to learn
about other programs.
Free Waste Audits
Many cities offer free waste audits to assess your waste
stream and identify ways to reduce the amount of
garbage going to the landfill and possibly lower your
garbage costs. Knowledgeable staff can assist you in
vetting up additional recycling. Additionally some cities
offer more comprehensive assessments to assist you in
your environmental endeavors. For more information
and your city's contact, please call Gretchen at 408 -441-
4329.
In this Issue
• Fiscal Year 2006 -07 Update
• Green Business Conference
• Business Outreach and Assistance
• Recognition!
• Awards
Area Regional Program News
k Links Reference
Volume 4
RECOGNITION!
September 12 — Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
recognized the 41 businesses that were certified in fiscal
year 2006 with a noon time ceremony. Supervisor James T.
Beall, Jr. presented each business with a certificate. A light
lunch was served prior to the ceremony, giving business
representatives an opportunity to network and learn what
their peers had accomplished.
October 24 — The San Jose City Council recognized seven
businesses at the afternoon council meeting.
AWARDS
Applications are now being accepted for Acterra's Business
Environmental Awards (BEA) program. To apply, simply
download the application from Acterra's website at
www.Acterra.org/bea.
Application deadline: February 2, 2007. Contact Ariane
Erickson, at (650) 962 -9876 x350 or awards .acterra.org for
more information.
BAY AREA GREEN BUSINESS PROGRAM NEWS:
In early December, we launched the new regional Green
Business Program outreach campaign and sent 10
postcards and a Bay Area regional directory to all
businesses that had been certified through November 30.
We love the new look and design and the tagline
Environmental Values at Work. We would like to know if you
liked them, are you using them and any suggestions you
would have for future postcards and marketing items.
QUICK LINKS
Flex Your Power — www.fypower.com
PG &E — www.pge.com /biz /biztools.html
Right Lights — www.rightlights.org
Santa Clara Valley Water District — www.valleywater.org
Bay Area Green Business Program —
http://qreenbiz.abag.ca.gov
FreeCycle — www.freecycle.org
Recycling Hotline — www.recyclestuff.org
Green Citizen - www.greencitizen.com /classifieds
OUR CONTACT INFO:
Gretchen Hayes, Green Business Specialist
Santa Clara County - Green Business Program
1735 N 1®' Street, Suite 308, San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: 408 -441 -4329 Fax: 408 -437 -9209
email: gretchen.hayes @aem.sccgov.org
web: http: / /greenbiz.sccgov.org
200 / Green 16 Business, Conference
Register now at www.ReduceWaste.org
or call (408) 441 -1198
�� J
Green Business Santo Clara Volley QJ $20 per person for pre-registration by 5p.m. Friday, March 9
Santa Clara County Water District $25 after March 9 and at the door.
Registration
When: Friday, March 16, 2007
Time: 8:30 a.m.- 12:00 p.m.
Where: Camden Community Center
(Multi - purpose Room),
3369 Union Avenue, San Jose
Cost: $20 per person for pre- registration
by 5p.m. Friday, March 9
$25 after March 9 and at the door.
Checks orcash onlyplease; checks should be made
payable to Santa Clara County.
Who Should Attend?
Interested businesses, all currently certified and
enrolled Green Businesses and anyone interested
in learning more about the Green Business
Program. Participants will learn easy steps to
reduce waste and prevent pollution in their daily
business operations. Learn what you can do to
help the environment while improving your
business'bottom line.
Topics Include:
• Green Janitorial Products
• Pollution Prevention
• Waste Strategies
City representatives will also be available at booths
to provide information and answer questions.
Registration
Please fill out the following form and mail with your check to:
Santa Clara County Green Business Program
1735 North First Street, Suite 308
San Jose, CA 95112
Checks should be made payable to Santa Clara County.
For more information, please call the Santa Clara County Green Business
Program at (408) 441 -1198 or visit www.ReduceWaste.org.
Name
Business Name _
Address
Phone Number _
Number Attending
Amount Enclosed $
Email Address: —
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Policy Concerning Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
1.0 PURPOSE
This policy is intended to encourage the purchase and use of environmentally
preferable products and services by Town staff, elected officials, volunteers, consultants
and contractors.
This Policy is adopted in order to:
• Raise staff awareness about the environmental issues affecting procurement
by providing relevant information and training;
• Conserve natural resources;
• Minimize environmental impacts such as pollution and use of water and
energy;
• Eliminate or reduce toxics that create hazards to workers and our community;
• Support strong recycling markets;
• Reduce materials that are land filled;
• Increase the use and availability of environmentally preferable products that
protect the environment;
• Encourage suppliers and contractors to offer environmentally preferable
products and services at competitive prices;
• Encourage providers of services to consider environmental impacts of service
delivery; and
• Create a model for successfully purchasing environmentally preferable
products and services that encourages other purchasers in our community to
adopt similar goals.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
2.1 Environmentally Preferable: A product or service that has a lesser or
reduced negative effect on human health and the environment when
compared with competing products and services that fulfill the same
purpose. This comparison may consider raw materials acquisition,
production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation,
maintenance, and product disposal.
2.3 Practicable: Whenever possible and compatible with local, state and
federal laws, without reducing safety, quality, or effectiveness and where
the product or service is available at a reasonable cost in a reasonable
period of time.
2.4 Recyclable Product: A product that, after its intended end use, can be
diverted from the Town's solid waste stream for use as a raw materials in
the manufacture of another product.
2.5 Recycled Content Product: A product containing recycled material.
2.6 Reusable Product: A product, such as a washable food or beverage
container or a refillable ballpoint pen, that can be used several times for
an intended use before being discarded or recycled.
3.0 POLICY
3.1 General
3.1.1 It is the policy of the Town of Portola Valley to:
Purchase products and services that, to the greatest extent
practicable, minimize environmental impacts, toxics, pollution, and
hazards to workers and the community; and
Purchase products that include recycled content, are durable and
long- lasting, conserve energy and water, use agricultural fibers and
residues, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, use unbleached or
chlorine free manufacturing processes, are lead -free and mercury-
free and use wood from sustainably harvested forests.
3.1.2 Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring a
purchaser or contractor to procure products that do not perform
adequately for their intended use, exclude adequate competition, or
are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of
time.
3.1.3 Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring the
Town, purchaser or contractor to take any action that conflicts with
local, state or federal requirements.
3.2 Source Reduction
3.2.1 Whenever practicable and cost - effective, without reducing safety,
workplace productivity and /or effectiveness, the Town will reduce
waste, and purchase fewer products.
3.2.2 Whenever practicable, without reducing safety, workplace
productivity and /or effectiveness, the Town will purchase
remanufactured products such as laser toner cartridges, tires,
furniture, equipment and automotive parts.
3.2.3 Whenever practicable, the Town shall require all equipment bought
after the adoption of this policy to be compatible with source
reduction goals as referred to in section 3.1.
3.2.4 Prior to purchasing products or services, the Town will consider
their short and long -term costs in comparing alternatives. This
includes evaluation of total costs expected during the period of
ownership, including, but not limited to acquisition, extended
warranties, operation, supplies, maintenance, disposal costs and
expected lifetime compared to other alternatives.
3.2.4 Preference will be given to products that are durable, long lasting,
reusable or refillable.
3.2.5 Vendors will be encouraged to take back and reuse pallets and
packaging materials.
3.2.6 Whenever practicable, all documents shall be printed and copied
on both sides to reduce the use and purchase of paper.
3.3 Recycled Content Products
3.3.1 Copiers and printers will be compatible with recycled content
materials and supplies.
3.3.2 Whenever practicable, the Town will use recycled, reusable or
reground materials when specifying asphalt concrete, aggregate
base or Portland cement concrete for road construction projects.
3.3.3 Whenever practicable, the Town will specify and purchase recycled
content transportation products, including signs, cones, parking
stops, delineators, and barricades.
3.4 Energy and Water Savings
3.4.1 Where applicable, equipment will be purchased with the most up-
to -date energy efficiency functions. This includes, but is not limited
to, high efficiency space heating systems and high efficiency space
cooling equipment.
3.4.2 Whenever practicable, the Town will replace inefficient lighting with
energy- efficient equipment.
3.4.3 Whenever practicable, the Town will purchase products for which
the U. S. EPA Energy Star certification is available. When Energy
Star labels are not available, The Town will choose energy- efficient
products that are in the upper 25% of energy efficiency as
designated by the Federal Energy Management Program.
3.4.4 Whenever practicable, the Town will purchase water - saving
products.
3.5 Green Building - Construction and Renovations
3.5.1 Where appropriate, building and renovations undertaken by the
Town will follow Green Building design, construction, and operation
practices.
3.6 Landscaping
3.6.1 Whenever possible, all landscape renovations, construction and
maintenance undertaken by the Town, including workers and
contractors providing landscaping services, will employ Bay -
Friendly Landscaping or sustainable landscape management
techniques for design, construction and maintenance, including, but
not limited to, integrated pest management, grass cycling, drip
irrigation, composting, and procurement and use of mulch and
compost produced from regionally generated plant debris and /or
food waste programs.
3.6.2 Plants should be selected to minimize waste by choosing species
that are appropriate to the microclimate, can grow to their natural
size in the space allotted them, and are perennial rather than
annual. Native and drought - tolerant plants that require no or
minimal watering once established are preferred.
3.6.3 Wherever practicable, the Town will limit the amount of impervious
surfaces in the landscape. Hardscapes and landscape structures
constructed of recycled content materials are encouraged.
Permeable substitutes, such as permeable concrete, asphalt or
pavers are encouraged for walkways, patios and driveways.
3.7 Toxics and Pollution
3.7.1 Whenever practicable, no cleaning or disinfecting products (i.e. for
janitorial or automotive use) will contain ingredients that are
carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens. These include chemicals
listed by the U.S. EPA or the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health on the Toxics Release Inventory and those listed
under Proposition 65 by the California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment.
3.7.2 The use of chlorofluorocarbon - containing refrigerants, solvents and
other products will be phased out and new purchases will not
contain them.
3.7.3 All surfactants and detergents will be readily biodegradable and,
where practicable, will not contain phosphates.
3.7.4 Whenever practicable, the Town will manage pest problems
through prevention and physical, mechanical and biological
controls.
3.7.5 The Town will use products with the lowest amount of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), highest recycled content, and low or
no formaldehyde when purchasing materials such as paint,
carpeting, adhesives, furniture and casework.
3.7.6 Whenever possible, the Town will reduce or eliminate its use of
products that contribute to the formation of dioxins and furans. This
includes, but is not limited to:
3.7.6.1 Purchasing paper, paper products, and janitorial paper
products that are unbleached or that are processed without
chlorine or chlorine derivatives.
3.7.6.2 Prohibiting purchase of products that use polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) such as, but not limited to, office binders, furniture,
flooring, and medical supplies.
3.7.7 Whenever possible, the Town will purchase products and
equipment with no lead or mercury. For products that contain lead
or mercury, The Town will give preference to those products with
lower quantities of these metals and to vendors with established
lead and mercury recovery programs.
3.7.8 When replacing vehicles, The Town will consider less- polluting
alternatives such as compressed natural gas, bio -based fuels,
hybrids, electric batteries, and fuel cells, as available.
3.8 Forest Conservation
3.8.1 Whenever practicable, the Town will procure wood products such
as lumber and paper that originate from forests harvested in an
environmentally sustainable manner. When possible, the Town will
give preference to wood products that are certified to be
sustainably harvested by a comprehensive, performance -based
certification system. The certification system will include
independent third -party audits, with standards equivalent to, or
stricter than those of the Forest Stewardship Council certification.
3.9 Agricultural Bio -Based Products
3.9.1 Whenever practicable, vehicle fuels made from non -wood, plant -
based contents such as vegetable oils are encouraged.
3.9.2 Whenever practicable, paper, paper products and construction
products made from non -wood, plant -based contents such as
agricultural crops and residues are encouraged.
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 The Assistant Town Administrator shall implement this policy in
coordination with other appropriate personnel.
4.2 Implementation of this policy will be phased based on available
resources and Town priorities.
4.3 As applicable, successful bidders shall certify in writing that the
environmental attributes claimed in competitive bids are accurate.
Vendors shall be required to specify the minimum or actual
percentage of recovered and postconsumer material in their
products, even when such percentages are zero.
4.4 Vendors and contractors shall be encouraged to comply with
applicable sections of this policy for products and service provided
to the Town, where practicable.
4.5 If a vendor or contractor of the Town is no longer able to provide a
product or service that meets the policy requirements, it shall notify
the Assistant to the Town Administrator and provide written
justification for why compliance is not practical.
5.0 EVALUATION
5.1 The Assistant Town Administrator shall evaluate the success of this
policy's implementation on an annual basis.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: /
ORIGINATING DEP City Manage CITY MANAGER,_ i N
PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Commendation Honoring Boy Scout Troop 535
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present commendation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The attached commendation honors Boy Scout Troop 535. Troop 535 held an E -Waste
Recycling event on January 5, 2007 at the North Campus. Over 700 cars dropped off computers,
televisions, stereos, cell phone, etc.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
M2.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Copy of commendation
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: ,
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's O' ffice CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: iV DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring the Week of January 28- February 2, 2007 "Catholic
Schools Week"
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present proclamation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Allison Kline will be present to accept the proclamation on behalf of the San Jose Diocese.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
None
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Copy of the proclamation
CITY OF SARATOGA
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THE WEEK OF
JANUARY 28 — FEBRUARY 2, 2007
"NATIONAL CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WEEK"
WHEREAS, the students within the Diocese strive to be the best they can be
and the teachers and staff of the Diocese of San Jose are truly great role models of
Christian leadership; and
WHEREAS, the high standards of the teachers, staff and students within the
Diocese of San Jose is an outstanding example to other school systems; and
WHEREAS, Wednesday, February 2, 2007 is National Appreciation of
Catholic Schools and the theme, "Character. Compassion. Values." is supported by all
Catholic Schools in the nation; and
WHEREAS, the Diocese of San Jose consist of 30 elementary and 6 high
schools in the County of Santa Clara including Sacred Heart Catholic School in
Saratoga; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Aileen Kao, Mayor of the City of Saratoga, do hereby
proclaim January 28 through February 2, 2007
"NATIONAL CATHOLIC SCHOOLS WEEK"
and urge all of our citizens to recognize Diocese of San Jose and their outstanding
education program on this occasion and thank the teachers, staff, and students for their
many contributions to community.
WITNESS OUR HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on
this 17`h day of January 2007.
Aileen Kao, Mayor
Saratoga, California
Draft 1/11/07
City of
Saratoga
Saratoga, California
pLtl,�se ,Ia/--F rN ,jr wc, w5/tF ,ve�r
1464C TO
C fTrA /0^ /O/c TU
3 E -5-27v% /`b CouNcl
O"v
Recommendations to Management
For the year ended June 30, 2006 7N�er� �hgr,c'e—
Ir ,q d o %s
S ? ,� -ec,%r
�Yi'Ca�S
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGE?
/��-11 1
PREPARED BY:J�� J4=fa DEPT HEAD:
Sandra Sato, Interim Finance and Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Annual Audit for FY 2005 -06 and CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report) and Management Letter
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Receive audit and hear presentation by the independent audit firm of Caporicci & Larson.
2. Adopt a resolution to Approve Budget Adjustment No.33 to the FY 2006 -07 budget to
carry over transfers from the Recreation and Teen Center Funds.
REPORT SUMMARY:
City Policy and State law provides that an independent Certified Public Accountant selected by
the City Council will conduct an annual audit, which becomes part of the CAFR. The audit is
made up of several documents: (1) a CAFR containing an unqualified opinion prepared for the
2005/06 fiscal year on the financial condition of the City; (2) a second CAFR for the Saratoga
Public Financing Authority that is a legally separate agency wholly controlled by the City
Council, which acts as its board; (3) the TDA (Transportation Development Act) fund audit
report, which is required to be issued separately (even though the financial statements are
already contained in the City CAFR financial statements because the City Council is responsible
for TDA funds); and (4) the Management Letter, which incorporates the comments of staff on
the recommendations made by the auditors to improve internal control.
Staff believes that the financial statements meet the standards for a Certificate of Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of the
United States and Canada (GFOA). The City has been the recipient of a Certificate of
Achievement for the CAFR for more than five years.
I am happy to report that once again the City received an unqualified opinion on the financial
statements with no findings. In the Management Letter which is also attached to this staff report,
the City has received some excellent suggestions from the auditors for improving internal
control. The City staff response is incorporated in the Management Letter.
I would like to call your attention to two documents which are contained in the CAFR which are
attached to this report for your convenience, the Letter of Transmittal and the Management
Discussion and Analysis (MD &A). These documents summarize the CAFR.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
While this report shows the total picture for the "general" and other funds, there are some
limitations to the use of the information from the standpoint of management of the City budget
related to what the City refers to as the "General Fund No. 001 ", and is probably more accurately
referred to as the "General Purpose Fund ".
The General Fund No. 001 (the general purpose fund) is the primary operating fund of the City
and only one of several sub funds which are included in what is referred to as the "General
Fund" in the CAFR financial statements. These sub funds are the Development Services,
Environmental Services, Recreation, Teen, Facilities and Theater funds.
For the "General Purpose Fund ", (the General Fund No. 001, discussed above) the results of the
audit are encouraging. The General Fund's gross unreserved undesignated fund balance as of
June 30, 2006, the last day of the previous fiscal year, is $2,755,289. In addition to the
unreserved undesignated fund balance of $2,755,289 discussed above, the City has a $1,500,000
Reserve for Economic Uncertainty and a $2,554,150 Reserve for Operations. The City also
started the year with a special CIP Reserve of $614,997 which has been used to fund additional
General Fund No. 001 appropriations for CIP projects.
The gross "Unreserved Undesignated Fund Balance" of $2,755,289 discussed above will be
reduced in the current fiscal year by the obligations of the City which are not reflected in the
Financial Statements as of June 30, 2006. These are obligations which are either new or carry
over obligations to be financed in the current budget year from the ending fund balance as of
June 30, 2006.
Gross "Unreserved Undesignated Fund Balance" Per CAFR page 26
Add Construction In Progress Reserve per CAFR page 26
Total Available Fund Balance
Add Projected Revenues for 2006 -07 (prior to TEA)
Total Available to Fund the 2006 -07 Budget
Add Current Appropriations includes Op & CIP carry overs
Add projected additional CIP Expenditures to exhaust reserve
Add adjustment to Post Retirement Medical Payment Reserve
(authorized by Council but not yet posted)
Total Projected Uses of Fund Balance in 2006 -07
Projected Ending Fund Balance at June 30, 2007
$ 2,755,289
$ 614,997
$ 3,370,286
$11,029,800
$14,400,086
$13,814,930
$ 93,634
$ 62,500
$13,971,064
$ 429.022
Please note that the estimates of revenues and expenditures are in the process of being updated in
preparation for the FY 2007 -08 budget. Updated revenue and expense estimates to the extent
they can be estimated as of February 1, 2007 will be presented to Council at the City Council
retreat on February 2, 2007.
Budget Adjustment No. 33 to the FY 2006 -07 budget will need to be approved by the City
Council to carry over appropriations to cover the transfers authorized in the 2005 -06 budget to
the Recreation and Teen funds. The transfer was not made in 2005 -06 because the exact amount
of the transfer was unknown until the completion of the audit. The actual amount to be
transferred is less than the amount budgeted and is included in the gross undesignated fund
balance above.
2 of 3
Account Description
Account#
Gen Fd -Gen Svcs -Trfs -Out to Recreation
001 - 9050 -597 -1005
Gen Fd -Gen Svcs -Trfs -Out to Teen Center
001 - 9050 -597 -1006
Total Trf -Out from the General Fund No. 001
Recreation -Fd- Trfs -In from Gen Fd
290 - 1040 - 490 -1001
Teen Center - Trfs -In from Gen Fd
291 - 1040 - 490 -1001
Total Tr}_In to Recreation & Teen Center Funds
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Budget will not be adjusted as recommended by staff.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Take no action.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Staff will post the budget adjustment.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Amount
+$31,782.79
+$38,728.15
+$70,511
- $31,782.79
- $38,728.15
-$70,511
Attachment A Resolution Approving Budget Adjustment No. 33
Attachment B Management Letter incorporating staff response
Attachment C Letter of Transmittal and Management Discussion and Analysis from the FY
2005 -06 City CAFR (The entire report and the separate Saratoga Financing Authority and TDA
funds audit report has already been sent under separate cover).
3 of 3
Attachment "A'
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NO. 33 TO FY 2006 -07 TO CARRY OVER
TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED IN FY 2005 -06 BUDGET BASED ON THE AUDITED
FUND BALANCE OF THE RECREATION AND TEEN CENTER FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City Council annually budgets a transfer to the Recreation and Teen
Center Funds; and
WHEREAS, based upon the audited balances of FY 2005 -06 the amount needed for the
transfer is less than the amount budgeted; and.
WHEREAS, the necessary appropriations must now be carried over to FY 2006 -07; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is needed for Budget Adjustment No.
33 to Fiscal
Year 2006 -07 as follows:
Account Description
Account#
Amount
Gen Fund -Trf -Out to Recreation Fund
001 - 9050 -597 -1005
+$31,782.79
Gen Fund - Trf -Out to Teen Center Fund
001 - 9050 -597 -1006
+$38,728.15
Recreation Fund - Trf -In from Gen Fund
290 -1040- 490 -1001
- $31,782.79
Teen Center Fund - Trf -In from Gen Fund
291 - 1040 - 490 -1001
- $38,728.15
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby authorizes Budget Adjustment No. 33 to FY 2006 -07.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 17`h day of January 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Attachment "C"
C I Y • f = ARAT4GA
1:;777 FIOTIWALE AVENVE • SARATUGA, CAM ORNIA 951170 . l }U8) 868 -1800
Incorporated October 22, 19561
December 6, 2006
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
c en:Ntu. n1 eairselzs_
Aileen Kao
Kathleen King
Chuck Page
Jill Hunter
Ann Waltonsmith
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the City of Saratoga for the year
ended June 30, 2006 is hereby submitted as mandated by applicable statutes. These
statutes require that the City of Saratoga annually issue a report on its financial position
and activity, and that an independent firm of certified public accountants audit this report.
Responsibilities for both the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of
the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the City's management. The
information in this report is intended to present the reader with a comprehensive view of
the City's financial position and the results of its operations for the fiscal year ending June
30, 2006, along with additional disclosures and financial information designed to enable
the reader to gain an understanding of the City's financial activities.
This report was prepared as prescribed in Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GAAP) Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussions
and Analysis -for State and Local Govemments (GASB 34).This GASB Statement
requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to
accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management's Discussion and
Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement MD&A and should
be read in conjunction with it.
This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is organized into three sections:
Introductory Section - The introductory section, includes the table of contents,
letter of transmittal, a list of the City of Saratoga's elected officials and City
administrative personnel, an organization chart and the Government Finance
Officers Association's (GFOA's) of the United States and Canada Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Saratoga for its
CAFR for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.
2. Financial Section — The financial section includes the independent auditors'
opinion, management's discussion and analysis, the basic financial statements,
notes to the financial statements, combining statements of non -major funds, and
required supplemental information.
Frnied on ref.YJed Pape,
3. Statistical Section — The statistical section includes both financial and non - financial
data about the City. This information has been updated in accordance with the
new GASB 44.
THE REPORTING ENTITY AND ITS SERVICES
The City, incorporated in 1956, is located 40 miles south of San Francisco in the Santa
Clara Valley. The City currently covers a land area of approximately 12 square miles and
contains a population of 30,835 as reported by the State of California Department of
Finance. The City is a general law city of the State of California and operates under a
council- manager form of government. Policymaking and legislative authority are vested
in the City Council, which consists of a Mayor, Vice Mayor and three additional council
members. City Council members are elected at -large for staggered four -year terms. The
Mayor is selected annually by the City Council. The City Council is responsible for,
among other things, passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing members to the
City's eight advisory commissions and hiring the City Manager and City Attorney. The City
Manager is responsible for implementing the policies and ordinances of the City Council,
overseeing the daily operations of the City, and recommending appointments of the City's
department directors to the City Council.
The City provides a limited range of services including public safety, development
regulation, public works, community and recreation activities and events, and general
administrative functions. The City supports privatization and has supplemented its work
force through numerous contracts with others. Contracted services include, but are not
limited to, public safety, infrastructure maintenance, engineering services, legal services
and recreation activities. The City is also committed to citizen participation in the
evaluation, expansion and enhancement of services.
Saratoga residents who wish to assist the City Council informing government policy may
do so by serving on an advisory commission. The commissions all act in an advisory
capacity to the City Council, and are comprised of the Finance Commission, Heritage
Preservation Commission, Library Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission,
Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission, Arts Commission and Youth
Commission. The Commission process is expected to be reviewed by the City Council
and improvements are expected to be enacted by the City Council during the coming
fiscal year.
The financial reporting entity (the City) includes all the fund activity of the primary
government, as well as all of its component units. Component units are legally separated
entities for which the City is fully accountable. Blended component units, although legally
separate entities, are in substance, part of the City's operations and data from these units
are combined with data of the City. Accordingly, the operations of the Landscaping and
Lighting Assessment District #1 and the agency cash flows and cash balances of the
Saratoga Public Finance Authority are reported in the City's financial statements.
Vi
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK
For the past four years the City and the nation faced an economy in recession, triggering
significant City budget shortfalls resulting from cost increases that outpace revenue
growth and funding takeaways by the State of California. The financial structure of
Saratoga with its mostly built -out residential neighborhoods and limited commercial
development means that the two largest sources of revenue for cities — property tax and
sales tax — account for a smaller proportion of revenue than in other cities.
During 2005 -06 the City of Saratoga's revenue picture was eased somewhat by long
overdue actions at the State level. Proposition 1A affords some protection to City
revenues and it halts State takeaways by specifying how and when the State can take
future funding. The measure also provided for repayment of the VLF Backfill Gap Loan of
$516,000 which was repaid to the City in 2005 -06. These additional funds were treated as
one time revenues and appropriated separately from on -going expenditures in the 2005-
06 budget.
In September, 2006 the City received a significant increase in new property tax revenues
on an annual basis due to the passage of Assembly Bi11117. This legislation effective with
the 2006 -07 fiscal year increases the amount of property taxes allocated to the City as a
result of the TEA (Tax Equity Allocation formula). Assembly Member Cohn sponsored the
bill which resulted from a joint effort of the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County and the 3
other affected cities – Cupertino, Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills. These cities are
referred to as "no/low tax cities" and will have restored a proportionate share of the
property taxes which they lost to special legislation in 1989. This will result in a permanent
increase in general fund property taxes of $785,777.
Financial Information and Major Initiatives
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control
structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or
misuse and to ensure that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow for the
preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not
absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance
recognizes that: (1) the cost of a control should not exceed benefits likely to be derived,
and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by
management.
As a recipient of federal, state and local financial assistance, the City is also responsible
for guaranteeing that an adequate internal control structure is in place to ensure and
document compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to these programs.
This internal control structure is subject to periodic evaluation by the City's management.
The City has practiced a passive approach to investments and maintains flexibility by
managing a pooled cash system. Under the pooled cash concept, the City invests the
cash of all funds with maturities planned to coincide with cash needs. Idle cash is
Vii
invested in certain eligible securities as constrained by law and further limited by the City's
investment policy. The goals of the City's investment policy are safety, liquidity and yield.
In addition, the City maintains extensive budgetary controls. The objective of these
controls is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual
appropriated budget approved by the City Council. Activities of the general fund, special
revenue funds, capital projects funds and debt service funds are included in the annual
appropriation.
The level of budgetary control (i.e., the level at which expenditures cannot exceed the
appropriated amount) is at the fund level. The City also maintains an encumbrance
accounting system as another method of maintaining budgetary control. Encumbered
amounts lapse at year -end with the exception of the Capital Improvements Projects,
which are multiple -year projects. However, outstanding encumbrances of a material
nature are reviewed by the responsible department and in some cases a
recommendation is made to the City Council to take action by Resolution to re-
appropriate these funds into the following year's budget.
OTHER INFORMATION
Independent Audit. California law requires cities to prepare an annual audit by an
independent certified public accountant. In addition to meeting the requirements set forth
in statutes, the audit was also designed to meet the requirements of the federal Single
Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the related U.S. Office of Management and Budget's
Circular. Generally accepted auditing standards set forth in the General Accounting
Office's Government Auditing Standards were used by the auditors in conducting the
engagement. The auditor's unqualified report is included in the financial section of this
report. Caporicci & Larson, CPA's, performed the City's fiscal year 2005 -2006 audit.
Awards. The City was awarded a certificate for its early implementation of GASB 34.
Additionally, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States
and Canada awarded a Certificate of Achievement to the City for its Excellence in
Financial Reporting on the CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. In order to be
awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City published an easily readable and
efficiently organized financial report. This report satisfied both generally accepted
accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.
The Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. We believe our current
CAFR continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement program's requirements, and
plan on submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate.
Acknowledgements. This CAFR represents the culmination of numerous hours of hard
work expended by many individuals in the Accounting Division of the Administrative
Services Department. In particular, we would like to express our appreciation to Vivian
Gong, Accounting Supervisor and our staff members, Julie Ingraham, Karen Caselli and
Rey Foronda. Furthermore, we would like to thank Caporicci & Larson, CPA's for their
helpful and timely assistance in the preparation of this report. Finally, we would like to
viii
give credit to the City Council for their ongoing interest and support in planning,
conducting and advising on the operations of the City in a responsible and progressive
manner.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Anderson
City Manager
i%
Sandra Sato
Interim Finance and Administrative
Services Director
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
Introduction
The following provides a narrative overview and analysis of the fiscal operations during the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 for the City of Saratoga. The Management Discussion and
Analysis is to be read in conjunction with the annual Transmittal Letter and the Basic Financial
Statements.
Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 Financial Highlights
• The City's total net assets were $122,425,495 (reference pg #17).
• Total City revenues, including program and general revenues were $19,389,877
(reference pg #18 & 19), while total expenses were $16,026,590 (reference pg #18 & 19).
• Governmental program revenues were $7,464,152 (reference pg #18), while
Governmental program expenses were $16,026,590 (reference pg #18 & 19).
• General Fund revenues were $ 15,349,927 (reference pg #26), while General Fund
expenditures were $12,058,792 (reference pg #26).
The Basic Financial Statements
The Basic Financial Statements are comprised of City -wide Financial Statements and Fund
Financial Statements. These two sets of financial statements provide the reader two different
viewpoints of the City's financial activities and financial position.
The Government -Wide Financial Statements provide a longer -term view of the City's activities as
a whole, and comprise the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities. The Statement
of Net Assets provides information about the financial position of the City as a whole, including
all its capital assets and long -term liabilities on a full accrual basis, similar to that used by
corporations. The Statement of Activities provides inforn-ation about all the City's revenues and
all its expenses, also on a full accrual basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues and /or
expenses for each of the City's programs. The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change
in Net Assets for the fiscal year.
All of the City's activities are required to be grouped into government activities and business -type
activities. The entire amount in the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities are
also required to be separated into governmental activities or business -type activities in order to
provide a summary of these two activities of the City as a whole. In the case of the City of
Saratoga, there are no business -type activities as of June 30, 2006.
The Fund Financial Statements report the City's operations in more detail than the government -
wide statements and focus primarily on the short -term activities of the City's general fund and
other major funds. The Fund Financial Statements measure only current revenues and
expenditures and fund balances; they exclude capital assets, long -term debt, and other long -term
amounts.
Major funds account for the major financial activities of the City and are presented individually,
while the activities of non -major funds are presented in summary, with subordinate schedules
presenting the detail for each of these other funds. Major funds are explained below.
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
The Government - Wide Financial Statements
The Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities present information about the
following:
Governmental activities - All of the City's basic services are considered to be governmental
activities, including general government, community development, public safety, transportation,
and, culture and leisure. These services are supported by general City revenues such as taxes,
and by specific program revenues such as developer fees.
Business -type activities - Enterprise activities are reported here; they would include activities
such as water, sewer, and utilities. Unlike governmental services, these services are supported by
charges paid by users based on the amount of services they use. The City of Saratoga does not
have any business -type activities at this time.
Government -wide financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis, which means they
measure the flow of all economic resources of the City as a whole.
Fund Financial Statements
Fund financial statements provide detailed information about each of the City's most significant
funds, called major funds. The concept of major funds, and the determination of which are major
funds, was established by GASB Statement 34 and replaces the concept of combining like funds
and presenting them in total. Instead, each major fund is presented individually, with all non-
major funds summarized and presented only in a single column. Subordinate schedules present
the detail of these non -major funds. Major funds present the major activities of the City for the
fiscal year, and may change from year to year as a result of changes in the pattern of the City's
activities.
Governmental fund financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis, which means
they measure only current financial resources and uses. Capital assets and other long -lived
assets, along with long -term liabilities are not presented in the governmental fund financial
statements. Unlike the government -wide financial statements, governmental fund financial
statements focus on near -term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on
balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be
useful in evaluating the City's near -term financing requirements.
Internal Service Funds - the City had no internal service funds as of June 30, 2006.
Enterprise Funds - the City had no enterprise funds as of June 30, 2006.
Fiduciary Funds - These funds are used to account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity
or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governmental units, and /or other
funds. The City maintains two such funds:
— Community Access Television Trust Fund - acts as a trustee for the CATV Foundation Board
for investment purposes.
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
— Assessment District Bonds - acts as an agent for bondholders for Village Parking
District #3 which had its final fiscal transaction in FY 2004 -05, the Leonard Road Improvement
District and the Saratoga Public Financing Authority.
Notes to the Financial Statements
Notes to the Financial Statements provide additional information that is essential to a full
understanding of the data provided in the government -wide and fund financial statements. The
notes can be found immediately following the fund financial statements
Required Supplementary Information
Required supplementary information follows the basic financial statements and includes a
budgetary comparison schedule that includes reconciliation between the statutory fund balance
for budgetary purposes and the fund balance for the General Fund as presented in the
governmental fund financial statements.
Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules
Combining and individual fund statements and schedules provide information for non -major
govemmental funds, and special revenue funds.
Government-Wide Financial Analysis
Net assets may serve over time as an indicator of the City's financial position. The total City's
assets increased by $3,363,287 or 2.8% to $122,425,495 in FY 2005 -06 from $119,062,208 in FY 2004-
05.
The most significant portion of the City's net assets $107,100,370 or 87% accounts for its
investment in capital assets, (e.g., land, buildings, general government infrastructure, equipment,
etc.; less any related debt used to acquire those assets that are still outstanding. The City uses
these capital assets to provide services to the citizens, consequently, these assets are not available
for future spending.
$9,955,339 or 8% of the City's net assets is unrestricted and may be used to meet the City's
ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors.
$5,369,786 or 4% of the City's net assets are subjected to external restrictions on how they may be
used. Of these restricted net assets, $3,585,428 is restricted for capital projects, $865,378 is for
repayment of long -term debt and $918,980 is restricted for housing activities.
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
Current Assets
Non - Current Assets
Capital Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Long -term Debt
Total Liabilities
Net Assets:
Investment in capital assets, net of related debt
Restricted for Capital Projects
Restricted for Debt Service
Restricted for Special Projects
Unrestricted
Total Net Assets
Governmental Activities
2006 2005
$ 18,439,042 $ 16,116,321
111,670 -
121, 270, 370 120, 224,434
139,821,082 136,340,755
3,278,189
2,863,253
14,117,398
14,415,294
17, 395, 587
17, 278, 547
107,100, 370
105, 784,434
3,585,428
5,321,217
865,378
539,890
918,980
466,619
9,955,339
6,950,048
$ 122,425,495 $ 119,062,208
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
Statement of Changes in Net Assets
Expenses
General and Intergovernmental Services
Governmental Activities
4,159,852
Functions /Programs
2006
2005
Inc /(Dec)
Program Revenues
Environmental Services
464,681
378,539
Charge for Services
4,348,173
3,683,098
665,075
Operating Grants & Contributions
1,549,441
968,213
581,228
Capital Grants & Contributions
1,566,538
864,553
701,985
Total Program Revenues
7,464,152
5,515,864
1,948,288
General Revenues
Total Expenses
16,026,590
16,761,854
Property Taxes
5,652,244
4,841,022
811,222
Special Assessments
348,803
328,185
20,618
Voter Approved lndebtness Property Taxes
1,020,681
1,174,484
(153,803)
Sales Taxes
988,132
1,011,721
(23,589)
Local Taxes
1,287,363
1,143,089
144,274
Franchise Fees
1,040,424
994,798
45,626
Intergovernmental - Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees
717,737
281,625
436,112
Intergovernmental - Other Unrestricted
-
138,595
(138,595)
Investment Earnings
708,551
282,823
425,728
Other Revenues
161,790
192,607
(30,817)
Total Revenues
11,925,725
10,388,949
1,536,776
Expenses
General and Intergovernmental Services
3,472,679
4,159,852
(687,173)
Public Safety Services
3,426,766
3,735,516
(308,750)
Environmental Services
464,681
378,539
86,142
Public Works
4,286,737
3,450,245
836,492
Community Services
1,395,064
1,929,480
(534,416)
Community Development Services
2,226,317
2,347,383
(121,066)
Interest on Long Term Debt (unallocated)
754,346
760,839
(6,493)
Total Expenses
16,026,590
16,761,854
(735,264)
Increase(Decrease) in Net Assets
3,363,287
(857,041)
Net Assets, July 1, 2005
119,062,208
119,919,249
Net Assets, June 30, 2006
$ 122,425,495
$ 119,062,208
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
Chart of Increase or (Decrease) in Revenues by Type
The net change in revenues for governmental activities from general revenues was an increase
of $1,536,776. The net change in program revenues was an increase of $1,948,288 for a total
increase in program revenues of $3,485,064 which is equal to an approximate 22% net increase.
A brief analysis by revenue type of significant events follows:
Increases in Revenues
o $811,222 Property Taxes: There are two major components to the increase in
property tax revenues. The first is a reclassification of VLF (Vehicle License
Fees) fees and triple flip to property tax revenues by the State and the second is
due to growth in assessed property values in the City due to new homes and
remodels.
o A $701,985 increase in capital grants & contributions was due to the sidewalk
relinquishment cooperative agreement in the Village.
o $665,075 in charges for services was mostly due to increased planning and
arborist activity and an increase in both the building fees and the number of
building permits.
o $581,228 of the increase in operating grants and contributions was due to the
receipt a traffic congestion relief grant and a VTA (Valley Transportation
Authority) grant.
o The $436,112 net variance of In Lieu VLF is due to two factors: the continuing
impact of the reclassification of VLF fees from intergovernmental to property
11 1. 11. 1
:111 111
111 1/ 1
`"
ss - 'r .en s^x�`xt �`w Y
.•�
• 111 1 11
k
���,, % � e ,xv � r�ri �
� 2 11
_
WIN
111 111
i t u� t
The net change in revenues for governmental activities from general revenues was an increase
of $1,536,776. The net change in program revenues was an increase of $1,948,288 for a total
increase in program revenues of $3,485,064 which is equal to an approximate 22% net increase.
A brief analysis by revenue type of significant events follows:
Increases in Revenues
o $811,222 Property Taxes: There are two major components to the increase in
property tax revenues. The first is a reclassification of VLF (Vehicle License
Fees) fees and triple flip to property tax revenues by the State and the second is
due to growth in assessed property values in the City due to new homes and
remodels.
o A $701,985 increase in capital grants & contributions was due to the sidewalk
relinquishment cooperative agreement in the Village.
o $665,075 in charges for services was mostly due to increased planning and
arborist activity and an increase in both the building fees and the number of
building permits.
o $581,228 of the increase in operating grants and contributions was due to the
receipt a traffic congestion relief grant and a VTA (Valley Transportation
Authority) grant.
o The $436,112 net variance of In Lieu VLF is due to two factors: the continuing
impact of the reclassification of VLF fees from intergovernmental to property
C1
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
taxes as a consequence of actions taken by the State and the $516,892 VLF
Repayment to reimburse the City for an earlier State "take- away'.
o $425,728 in Use of Money and Property occurred because interest
rates went up and rental income ($96,434) was received from cell phone
towers.
• Decreases in Revenues
o $138,977 of the decrease in revenues from voter approved taxes resulted from a
decrease in the tax rate on the library bond in order to draw down accumulated
fund balance.
art or increase or tiwecrease) in
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Function
Expenditures 2005 -05 & 2004 -05
,CO
aG 5a Fe �0 0 �0 r
�°
NOQ� �mc°`
\o
The net change in expenditures for Governmental Activities was a decrease of
$735,264. A brief analysis by expenditure function of significant events follows
a 2005
■ 2006
• Increases in Expenditures
o The $836,492 increase in public works expenditures is due to the City's
increased emphasis on pavement management. Also during 2005 -06 a major
portion of the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road project was completed.
9
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
• Decreases in Expenditures
o Expenditures decreased for general and intergovernmental services by
$687,173 due to the City Council re- prioritizing expenditures in a series of
public meetings because of budgetary considerations.
o A $5,44,416 decrease in community services is due to the re- prioritization of
City services such as after school teen programs and other non revenue
generating programs as a result of budgetary considerations as discussed
above.
o $ 308,750 public safety services - This expenditure has decreased for two
reasons: contract costs were lower than the previous year because the City
received a credit from the Santa Clara County's Sheriff's Office against the
current year's contract and animal control services ($155,000) were placed
under General Services during the last fiscal year.
Change in Fund Balance
Included in the Major Funds are the General Fund, the Capital Improvement Fund and the
Other Governmental Funds, which are a group of seven funds. They are the Local Law
Enforcement, Streets and Roads, Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District, Community
Development Block Grant, Library Bond, Park Development and Library Expansion funds. The
net change of the fiscal year transactions is a net increase in the ending fund balance for the
Major Funds of $2,233,499.
Major Funds
Net Change in Fund Balance $ 3,020,322 $ (1,440,670) $ 653,847
General Fund - As shown in the prior table the net change in the General Fund was an increase
of $3,020,322. This occurred because revenues were more than $3 million greater than
expenditures.
Revenues are budgeted conservatively based upon the prior year experience while expenditures
are adjusted to be in line with revenues. Between 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 revenues increased by
$2,790,652. Some of the major reasons for the increases in revenues are as follows:
10
Other
Capital
Governmental
General
Improvement
Funds
Fund Balance Beginning of Year, as restated
$ 7,358,951
$ 4,230,848
$ 1,925,761
Total Revenues
15,349,927
1,423,768
2,724,645
Total Expenditures
12,058,792
2,787,358
2,418,691
Transfer In
114,080
22,000
362,893
Transfer Out
(384,893)
(99,080)
(15,000)
Fund Balance End of Year
$ 10,379,273
$ 2,790,178
$ 2,579,608
Net Change in Fund Balance $ 3,020,322 $ (1,440,670) $ 653,847
General Fund - As shown in the prior table the net change in the General Fund was an increase
of $3,020,322. This occurred because revenues were more than $3 million greater than
expenditures.
Revenues are budgeted conservatively based upon the prior year experience while expenditures
are adjusted to be in line with revenues. Between 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 revenues increased by
$2,790,652. Some of the major reasons for the increases in revenues are as follows:
10
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
o $817,667 over the prior year was received as a result of general increases in
assessed property values for secured and unsecured property taxes and a
reclassification of property tax revenues due to the State's treatment of VLF
fees and the "triple flip ".
o Other local taxes increased by $413,061. The net increase was only $113,061
since approximately $300,000 of this was later reclassified to business license
fees. While there was some decline in sales taxes ($56,825), other local taxes
such as construction ($69,000) increased. The net increase was $113,061.
o $516,892 was due to the receipt of a one time repayment from the State to
reimburse the City for an earlier State "take- away ", the VLF Gap Loan.
o Increased interest rates resulted in an additional $75,948 overall from the use of
money and property.
o A decrease in current services charges of $455,950 represents the net difference
between a reclassification of a grant to other revenues and the increase in
service charges, which was mainly attributable to more than $600,000 in
community development fees. This occurred because more planning and
arborist services were provided. In addition, building fees increased as did the
number of building permits.
o The City received $1,702,270 in other revenues which included several grants.
o The $253,197 decrease in franchise fees is due to the reclassification of $300,000
in local taxes discussed above.
While revenues increased almost $2.8 million over the previous year, the base level of
expenditures was reduced due to the City Council re- prioritizing expenditures in a series of
public meetings because of budgetary considerations. The $991,131 increase in expenditures
over the prior year was largely due to one time expenditures and the net result was
expenditures of only $12,443,685, which created a positive budget variance of $2,805,919. After
adjusting for the transfers discussed above the actual variance is $1,636,619. Much of this
positive budget variance is due to one time money that has since been re- appropriated in 2006-
07.
Capital Improvement Project Fund - As shown in the table above, the net change in the Capital
Improvement Fund was a decrease of $1,440,670. Capital projects in the City of Saratoga do not
have a distinct funding source, therefore as project expenditures are paid the existing fund
balances are depleted. Major projects during FY 2005 -06, were the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Gateway Project, Blaney Plaza and the De Anza Trail Project.
Other Governmental Funds - As shown in the table above there was a net increase of $653,847
in this group of seven funds. The Streets and Roads Fund accounted for the bulk of the increase
in fund balance. There was an overall decrease in expenditures from last year where much more
of the existing fund balance of the Streets and Roads Fund was used to pay for capital projects.
In the current year revenues exceeded expenditures in the Streets and Roads fund by $334,509.
Transfers to the Streets and Roads fund from the General Fund made up another $270,000 of the
increase in fund balance.
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
General Fund Budgetary Highlights
Changes from the City's original budget to the final budget are detailed in the Required
Supplementary Information Section along with a comparison to actual activity for the year
ended. Changes to the City's budget that increase or decrease the bottom line must be
approved by a resolution of the City Council. Modifications to the budget that are a
realignment of fiscal activities with no impact to the bottom line may be proposed by
Department Heads and approved by the City Manager.
The following table compares the General Fund budget to actual. With respect to transfers it
shows a significant negative variance. In actuality, there was a small positive variance between
budget and actual. The significant negative variance is a result of restating the budgetary
information to comply with generally accepted accounting principles. For budgetary purposes
the "General Fund" is comprised of a number of sub funds. This includes what is popularly
referred to as the "General Fund" (Fund No. 001) which is more accurately referred to as the
"General Purpose Fund ". In addition to the aforementioned fund, examples of other sub funds
included are the "Development Services Fund" (Fund No. 250), the Environmental Services
Fund (Fund No. 260) and the Recreation, Teen, Facilities and Theater Funds (Fund Nos. 290,
291, 292 and 293).
During 2005 -06, $1,169,300 in transfers between funds included within the general fund were
included in the budget. However, in order to comply with generally accepted accounting
principles, the City eliminated these transfers from the "actual amounts ". This resulted in a
budget variance for the General Fund transfers. if this eliminations had not been made the
transfers would have been as follows:
Original
Budget
Transfers in $636,600
Transfers -out $ -0-
Final
Actual
Positive
Budget
Amounts
(Negative)
Variance
$1,357,680
$1,283,380
$74,300
$1,581,802
$1,554,193
$27,609
As the following table shows, the final budget revenue estimates were more than estimated due
to the City's policy of budgeting revenues conservatively. In addition expenditures were all less
than budgeted, many of them significantly so with the result that fund balance increased by
$3,020,322 as a result of expenditures not being made.
As shown in the column for actual financial transactions the use of fund balance was not
necessary.
IN
Source of Funds:
Property taxes
Other local taxes
Licenses & permits
Fines & forfeitures
Intergovernmental - State
Intergovernmental - Other
Franchise fees
Use of money & property
Other revenue
Current Service Charges
Transfers In
Total Source of Funds
Use of Funds:
General and intergovt.
Public safety
Environmental services
Public works
Community services
Community development
Capital outlay
Transfers out
Total Use of Funds
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
Adopted Final
Budget Budget Actual
5,216,000
2,367,000
17,000
120,100
318,700
735,700
280,400
15,000
3,802,100
638,600
$ 13,510,600
3,478,800
3,645,600
446,200
2,309,000
$ 5,054,800
2,156,400
17,000
120,100
810,300
102,500
946,300
554,400
15,000
4,056,855
1,357,680
$ 15,191,335
3,840,355
3,777,600
466,200
2,145,447
1,171,400
1,222,600
1,951,600
1,966,600
47,000
249,000
-
1,581,802
$ 13,049,600
5 15,249,604
$ 5,652,244
2,275,495
79,098
259,256
877,688
112,587
1,040,424
681,805
1,702,270
2,669,060
114,080
$ 15,464,007
$ 3,345,474
3,323,045
462,265
1,974,672
1,061,679
1,824,723
66,934
384,893
$ 12,443,685
Variance
Final to Actual
$ 597,444
119,095
62,098
139,156
67,388
10,087
94,124
127,405
1,687,270
(1,387,795)
(1,243,600)
$ 272,672
$ 494,881
454,555
3,935
170,775
160,921
141,877
182,066
1,196, 909
$ 2,805,919
Capital Assets
The City of Saratoga elected to use the "Modified Approach" as defined by GASB Statement
No. 34 for infrastructure reporting in which eligible infrastructure capital assets are not required
to be depreciated if the following requirements are met.
The City manages the assets using an asset management system which requires that the
City (1) perform an up -to -date inventory; (2) perform condition assessments and
summarize the results using a measurement scale; and (3) estimate the annual amount to
preserve the assets at the established condition assessment level.
The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved
approximately at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level.
The City policy is to achieve an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 70 for all
streets. The City achieved the 70 rating with 86% of streets rated as Excellent to Good, 13% of
streets are rated as "Poor ", and 1% of streets are rated as "Very Poor ". The City spent
$1,030,682 to maintain and preserve eligible infrastructure assets. For more detailed
information on Capital Assets activity, please refer to Note F in the section entitled "Notes to
the Basic Financial Statements" and "Required Supplementary Section ".
13
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
As of June 30, 2006, the City had $121,270,370 invested in a variety of capital assets, as reflected
in the following schedule, which represents an increase of $1,045,936 or less than I % above the
prior year.
Capital Assets at Year End
Net of Depreciation
Governmental Activities
The following reconciliation summarizes the change in Capital Assets.
Changes in Capital Assets
2006
2005
Land
$ 9,887,095
$ 11,118,030
Builidng & Structures
17,282,484
16,649,809
Machinery & Equipment
213,102
262,466
Infrastructure
85,366,868
86,513,324
Construction in Progress
8,520,821
5,680,805
2,840,015
$ 121,270,370
$ 120,224,434
The following reconciliation summarizes the change in Capital Assets.
Changes in Capital Assets
Debt Administration
The net change in outstanding debt for the City of Saratoga is a decrease of $186,690. During
the fiscal year, the City did not enter into any new debt structures.
14
Governmental Activities
2006
2005
Beginning Balance
$ 120,224,434
$ 118,999,460
Addition
Land
Building and Structures
-
-
Construction in Progress
2,840,015
1,777,491
Infrastructure
-
Machinery & Equipment
66,933
Retirements
Construction in Progress
-
(321,164)
Inventory Adjustments
1,528,246
Depreciation
(1,861,012)
(1,759,599)
Ending Balance
$ 121,270,370
$ 120,224,434
Debt Administration
The net change in outstanding debt for the City of Saratoga is a decrease of $186,690. During
the fiscal year, the City did not enter into any new debt structures.
14
City of Saratoga
Management's Discussion and Analysis
June 30, 2006
Outstanding Debt, at year -end
Governmental Activities
2006 2005
2001 General Obligation Bond $ 14,170,000 $ 14,440,000
Claims Payable 92.'957
Compensated Absences 235,647 245 294
Total $ 14,498,604 _L 14.685,294
The current portions of long -term debt ($280,000 and $ 270,000 for 2006 and 2005, respectively)
are classified as current liabilities in the City's Statement of Net Assets.
2001 General Obligation Bond - During the fiscal year, the City made debt service payments
that include a principal reduction of $ 270,000 on the City's $15,000,000 2001 General Obligation
Library bonds.
Claims Payable - The City is fully funded through their membership in a pooled liability
assurance network with the Association of Bay Area Governments.
Economic Factors
In September, 2006 the City received a significant increase in new property tax revenues on an
annual basis due to the passage of Assembly Bill 117. This legislation effective with FY 2006 -07
increases the amount of property taxes allocated to the City as a result of the TEA (Tax Equity
AIlocation formula). Assembly Member Cohn sponsored the bill which resulted from a joint
effort of the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County and the 3 other affected cities - Cupertino,
Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills. These cities are referred to as "no /low tax cities" and will
have restored a proportionate share of the property taxes which they lost to special legislation
in 1989. This will result in a permanent increase in general fund property taxes of $785,777.
The economy of the City and its major initiatives for the coming year are discussed in detail in
the accompanying Transmittal Letter.
Request for Financial Information
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City of Saratoga's finances
for all of Saratoga's residents, taxpayers, customers, investors, and creditors. This financial
report seeks to demonstrate the City's accountability for the money it receives. Questions
concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional information
should be addressed to the Administrative Services Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California 95070.
15
71
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office
(-) �
PREPARED BY: �J
Cathleen Boyer, Ci Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
v
DEPT HEAD:
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting — December 20, 2006
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
=11
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Minutes December 20, 2006
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
20, 2006
The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:00 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a)
of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Giberson v. City of Saratoga (real parties Byrd, Oak Creek Partners LLC
and Maston) Santa Clara County Superior Court 106CV- 072297.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION - Alburez v. City
of Saratoga et al. (Santa Clara County Sup. Ct. Case No. 10CV065839) (Gov't Code
54956.9(a).)
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Kao reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken.
Mayor Kao called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Jill Hunter, Kathleen King, Chuck Page,
Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith Mayor Aileen Kao,
ABSENT: None
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
PRESENT: Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Sandra Sato, Interim Administrative Services Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 20,
2006
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2,
the agenda for the meeting of December 20, 2006, was properly posted on December 14,
2006.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting:
Citizen Ray commended the Council on the December 6 1 meeting noting that there were
over 300 people in attendance. Citizen Ray also reminded Council of the next Highway 9
Safety meeting.
Howard Miller thanked the Council for their continued support of the soccer leagues.
Mr. Miller also presented the Council with a check in the amount of $15,000 for their
annual maintenance fee. Also Mr. Miller stated that AYSO would contribute $10,000
towards improvements at Congress Springs Park.
Bob Hopkins noted that he represented the VIP league of AYSO. Mr., Hopkins
explained that the VIP league caters to children with disabilities. Mr. Hopkins presented
the City with a check in the amount of $5,000 towards improvements at Congress Springs
Park.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith reminded everyone that Boy Scout Troop 535 would be
sponsoring an E -Waste Recycling event at the North Campus on January 54, 2007.
Councilmember King announced the "Grand Opening on Monday" celebration at the
Saratoga Library on January 8, 2007.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
IA. COMMENDATIONS HONORING MEMBERS OF THE KEVIN MORAN
PARK TASK FORCE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present commendations.
Mayor Kao read the proclamations and presented them to Elaine Clabeaux, Marty
Goldberg, Howard Miller, and Paul Jacobs.
Mary Ann Escobar, Brigitte Ballingall and Peter Pryns were unable to attend
tonight's meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
2A. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES —DECEMBER 6, 2006 SPECIAL MEETING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES
FROM DECEMBER 6, 2006 — SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2B. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES —DECEMBER 6, 2006 REGULAR MEETING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes
City Council Minutes 2 December 20, 2006
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE COUNCIL MINUTES
FROM DECEMBER 6, 2006 — REGULAR MEETING. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2C. APPROVAL OF 2007 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CALENDAR
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the 2007 meeting calendar.
KING/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2007 MEETING CALENDAR.
MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2D. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COUNCIL AGENCY AND ADHOC
APPOINTMENTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
RESOLUTION: 06 -093
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith requested that item 2D be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that an according to the KSAR bylaws an
alternate representative is not necessary.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AS
AMENDED CONFIRMING COUNCIL AGENCY AND ADHOC
APPOINTMENTS. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2E. CITY OF SARATOGA PERSONNEL RULES AND POLICIES — PART I
OF II
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution approving the City of Saratoga Personnel Rules and Policies
— Part I of II.
RESOLUTION: 06 -095
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE CITY OF SARATOGA PERSONNEL RULES AND
POLICIES — PART I OF II. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2F. AMENDMENT TO TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONTRACT WITH FERH
& PEERS — SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Amend the Traffic Engineering contract with Fehr & Peers to increase total
compensation for Speed Zone Survey Analysis on various City streets.
Councilmember Hunter requested that item 2F be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
City Council Minutes 3 December 20, 2006
Councilmember Hunter asked how a street gets placed on the list to be included in
the speed study.
Director Cherbone responded that some streets get placed on the speed study list
from results taken by radar checks from the Sheriff s Office and others are
requests brought to the Traffic Safety Commisison.
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
CONTRACT WITH FEHR & PEERS TO INCREASE TOTAL
COMPENSATION FOR SPEED ZONE SURVEY ANALYSIS ON
VARIOUS CITY STREETS. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2G. AMENDMENT TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
WITH REPUBLIC ITS — PIERCE ROAD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Amend recently approved contract with Republic ITS to increase total compensation
for the traffic signal modification work associated with the improvements to the
intersection of Pierce Road and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road.
WALTONSMITH /KING MOVED TO AMEND RECENTLY APPROVED
CONTRACT WITH REPUBLIC ITS TO INCREASE TOTAL
COMPENSATION FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION
OF PIERCE ROAD AND SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD. MOTION
PASSED 5 -0.
2H. AGREEMENT CONCERNING JOINT USE OF CAMPBELL UNION
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY (PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL) —
REVISIONS TO AGREEMENT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve revised Joint Use Agreement with Campbell Union High School District
and authorize City Manager to execute the same.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO APPROVE REVISED JOINT USE
AGREEMENT WITH CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME.
MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2I. MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
INSTALLATION OF A STOP SIGN ON MARILYN LANE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF RAVENSWOOD DRIVE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
RESOLUTION: MV -256
City Council Minutes 4 December 20, 2006
Councilmember Hunter requested that item 2I be removed from the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Hunter asked how the City become aware that a stop sign is
needed on a certain street.
Director Cherbone responded that most stop sings are requests are generated by
the public and brought to the Traffic Safety Commission.
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT MOTOR VEHICLE (MV)
MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2J. NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) ADOPTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the adoption of the National Incident
Management System and its integration into the City's Standardized Emergency
Management System.
RESOLUTION: 06 -096
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM AND ITS INTEGRATION INTO THE CITY'S STANDARDIZED
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2K. SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD REHABILITATION & OVERLAY
PROJECT (FEDERAL PROJECT STPL -5332 -088) - AWARD OF
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Move to declare Top Grade Construction, Inc. of Livermore to be the lowest
responsible bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to Top Grade Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $518,340.
3. Move to authorize additional work in the amount of $80,327.
4. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to
$25,000.
5. Adopt Budget Resolution.
RESOLUTION: 06 -099
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO MOVE TO DECLARE TOP GRADE
CONSTRUCTION, INC. OF LIVERMORE TO BE THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE PROJECT: AWARD A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO TOP GRADE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $518,340.; AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL WORK IN
THE AMOUNT OF $80.327; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE
CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $25,000; ADOPT
BUDGET RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
City Council Minutes 5 December 20, 2006
2L.. 2006 STORMDRAIN REPAIR AND UPGRADE PROJECT - AWARD OF
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Move to declare Furlo & Furlo of Los Gatos to be the lowest responsible
bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a construction contract to Furlo & Furlo in the amount of
$181,900.
3. Move to authorize additional work in the amount of $10,000.
4. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to
$36,000.
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO DECLARE FURLO & FURLO OF
LOS GATOS TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE
PROJECT; AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO FURLO &
FURLO IN THE AMOUNT OF $181,900; AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL
WORK IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $36,000.
MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
2M. 2007 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT
RESOLUTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
RESOLUTION: 06 -097
WALTONSMITH/KING MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE 2007 HAZARDOUS
VEGETATION PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE ADDING
SECTION I1- 05.053 ALLOWING SIGNS IN CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct Public Hearing and introduce and waive first reading of ordinance
regarding signs in Congress Springs Park and direct staff to place ordinance on
consent calendar for final adoption.
Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report.
The following people spoke in support o f the ordinance amendment:
Howard Miller
Judy Goldman
Bill Baumel
City Council Minutes 6 December 20, 2006
Debbie Hanks
Scott Emery
KING/PAGE MOVED TO WAIVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
REGARDING SIGNS IN CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK AS AMENDED
AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE ORDINANCE ON CONSENT
CALENDAR FOR FINAL ADOPTION.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
4. REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR THE 2007 MUSTARD WALK
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt budget resolution.
RESOLUTION: 06 -094
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report.
The following people requested to speak on this item:
Norman Koepemik stated that he was the Chair of the Heritage Preservation
Commission. Chair Koepemik asked the City if they would be willing to sponsor
the event this year.
Nancy Anderson stated that she was the Chair of t he 6th Annual Mustard Walk
and requested that the funding from the City be in given in perpetuity.
Council discussion in regards to adding the funds in the budget cycle so the
committee would not have to request it from the City every year.
WALTONSMITH/HUNTER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AS
AMENDED APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NO. 31 TO THE 2006-
THE 61" ANNUAL MUSTARD WALK TO BE FUNDED BY A
REDUCTION IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINGENCY BUDGET OF
$2,550. MOTION PASSED 5 -0.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
None
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Page requested that a discussion of the City's purchasing policy be
agendized.
City Council Minutes 7 December 20, 2006
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith noted that she supported the request.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Under the City's Code City Manager Anderson explained that he had to ask permission
form the Mayor to leave town. City Manager Anderson requested permission to leave
town over the holiday furlough.
Mayor Kan granted City Manager Anderson's request.
City Attorney Taylor announced that the 2001 lawsuit with the Saratoga Union School
District against the City has been dismissed and no damages brought against the City.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Mayor Kline adjourned the regular meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Minutes 8 December 20, 2006
SARATOGA
MEETING DATE: 01/17/2007
ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin. Svc
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT: Check Register for 12/19/2006
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDAITEM:
CITY MANAGER / I
DEPT HEAD: �5�2�( � /(. J
Sandra Sato, Interim Finance & A.S. Director
That the City Council accepts the Check Register for 12/19/2006.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the Check Register for 12/19/2006. The checks were released on 12/20/2006. Payroll checks were
released on 12/07/2006. The prior Check Register for 11/28/2006 ended with check number 103785.
Type of Checks
Date
Starting
Checks #
Ending
Check #
Total
Checks
Amount
Accounts Payable
12/19/06
103792
103962
171
$760,818.00
Payroll
12/07/09
32025
32055
21
$149,166.15
103845
El Camino Paving, Inc
General
Public Works
TOTAL
$909,984.15
The following is a list of checks issued for more than $10,000.00, and a brief description of the expenditure:
Check
Issued to
Fund
Dept
Purpose
Amount
103807
Bay City Mechanical
Others
Public Works
Library Expansion
$24,000.00
103837
David J. Powers
Various
Various
Legal Services
$16,057.52
103845
El Camino Paving, Inc
General
Public Works
Pavement Mgt Pro ram
$159,003.27
103853
Gachina Landscape
Various
Various
Landscape Maintenance
$13,428.27
103855
Graham Contractors
Others
Public Works
Pavement Mgt Program
$12,495.00
103857
Granicus
General
City Clerk
Prof. Service /Hardware
$21,872.68
103860
Harris Company
Others
Various
Electrical Upgrade
$14,060.00
103884
Los Gatos Chevrolet
Internal
Service
Public Works
Vehicle Purchase
$20,189.99
103908
Pacific Gas & Electric
Various
Various
Electric Bills
$12,620.03
103919
Republic ITS
Various
Various
Traffic Signal Maint
$10,154.25
103920
Romano Construction
General
Recreation
McWilliam Hsg Project
$27,211.05
103928
Santa Rosa Chevrolet
Internal
Service
Public Works
Vehicle Purchase
$19,075.82
Check#
Issued to
Fund
Dept
Purpose
Amou._-
103943
Deborah Ungo McCormick
Various
Various
Professional Services
$17,180.00
103944
Union Pacific Railroad
Other Funds
Public Works
Cox Road Project
$126,963.68
103945
Universal Sweeping Services
Special
Public Works
Sidewalk Maintenance
$11,492.75
103947
Valleycrest Tree Care
Various
Park Maintenance
$12,355.00
103949
Victory Chevrolet
Service
EV
rks
Veh icle Purchase
$33,428.86
The following is a list of voided checks and checks issued manually.
Check#
Amount
Vendor
Purpose
103662
$289.80
West Valley Mission Advancemi
Voided to correct vendor account
103772
$342.00
Steve Silver Productions
Voided due to double payment
103786
$289.80
West Valley - Mission
Manually issued check to replace voided check
103787
$100.00
SCC Asso of City Managers
Manually issued check to pay CM Office bills
103788
$480.00
SCC Cities Association
Manually issued check to pay CM Office bills
The following is a list of cash reductions by Fund.
Fund #
Fund Description
A/P Total
Ply Total
Total
001
General
319,645.04
18,687.80
338,332.84
150
Streets & Roads
10,019.05
16,841.49
26,860.54
202
Fredericksbur a Landscape
289.90
289.90
203
Greenbriar Landscape
559.37
559.37
204
Quito Lighting
1,207.10
1,207.10
205
JAzule Lighting
664.18
664.18
206
Sarahills Lighting
287.94
287.94
207
Village Lighting
3,269.89
3,269.89
209
McCartysville Landscape
426.55
426.55
210
Tricia Woods Landscape
117.63
117.63
211
Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape
302.30
302.30
212
Leutar Court Landscape
167.77
167.77
215
113onnet Way Landscape
446.84
446.84
216
Beaucham s Landscape
133.75
133.75
222
Prides Crossing Landscape
733.33
733.33
226
Bellgrove Landscape
3,473.09
3,473.09
227
Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape
291.82
291.82
228
Kerwin Ranch Landscape
340.00
340.00
229
Tollgate LLD
283.24
283.24
231
Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting
506.52
506.52
232
Gateway Landscape
730.23
730.23
250
Development Services
27,586.76
62,458.84
90,045.60
260
Environmental Program SRF
6,917.35
5,365.93
12,283.28
270
CDBG - Federal Grants
16,889.50
16,889.50
290
Recreation
28,063.21
41,312.85
69,376.06
291
Teen Services
973.11
3,423.69
4,396.80
320
Park Dev Capital Project
31,645.50
31,645.50
352
Infrastructure
325.00
325.00
501
Equipment Re lacementISF
80,185.81
80,185.81
604
Planning Deposit Pre 2006
24,689.51
24,689.51
605
Planning Deposit FY 2006
9,078.43
9,078.43
701
Traffice Safety
5,410.90
5,410.90
706 ISidewalk
Annual Project
3,800.63
3,800.63
707 JAJoha
Street Safety Improvement
5,682.50
5,682.50
728
Highway 9 /Oak Pedestrian
7,818.38
768.25
8,586.63
731
Storm Drain Upgrades
8,371.00
8,371.00
732
Median Landscape/Irrigation
1,052.19
1,052.19
734
Civic Center Landscape
3,184.64
3,184.64
738
Cox Ave Railroad Crossing
126,963.68
126,963.68
741
Blaney Plaza Improvements
263.91
263.91
743
Blaney Plaza Improvements/Construction
-
307.30
307.30
744
Village Sidewalk, curb, Gutter
4,960.00
4,960.00
746
Satatoga-Sunnyvale Gateway
177.74
177.74
755
Warner Hutton House Improvement
6,503.19
6,503.19
758
Civic Center - CDD Offices
10,900.00
10,900.00
762
North Cam us/19848 Prospect
3,979.52
3,979.52
791 IKevin
Moran
1,500.00
1,500.00
TOTAL
760,818.00
149,166.15
909,984.15
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Register in the Expenditure Approval List format.
PREPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29
PROGRAM: CM339L
CITY OF SARATOGA
--------- ------ ------------------- - - - - -'
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT
NO � NO NO DATE NO
0000003 A S M MOTOR SUPPLY
,EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/08 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ITEM EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
----------------------------- ------------ ------
194338
002731
00
12/13/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
EQ11JI•VEHICLE SUPPLIES
202.75
194377
002860
00
12/14/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.35
-22
EQ11RF•TRUCK REPAIR
83.57
VENDOR TOTAL -
286.32
0000004
A RENTAL CENTER
AR143200
002864
00
12/22/2006
001- 3030 - 532.51
-72
PK11RF•SOD CUTTER
297.00
M143340
002865
00
12/30/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.51
-72
PK11RF•SOD CUTTER
346.00
0000010
ABAG POWER PURCHASING
POOL
VENDOR TOTAL *
643.00
8000328
002853
00
01/01/2007
001- 1060 - 513.41
-02
FM12KC•GAS SVC - DEC 2006
1,418.89
0002928
ABLE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTIONS INC
VENDOR TOTAL *
1,418.89
112906 -11
-1 002863
00
12/30/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.54
-42
PK11RF•PUMP TNK -GLEN BRAE
300.00
0004202
ADVANCED LISTING SERVICES
VENDOR TOTAL •
300.00
2080
002861
00
12/02/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-41
ZAIIRF•07 -096 OWNR LISTNG
221.20
VENDOR TOTAL •
221.20
0002645
ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUPPLY
19606
002796
00
12/22/2006
001- 1060 - 513.32
-51
FM11KC•JANITORIAL SUPPLY
520.54
19046
002795
00
12/27/2006
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
WH11KC-FLOOR MAT -WHH
38.34
VENDOR TOTAL
558.8B
0004009
AHN, RYUNG
71543 -1
002838
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12XC +INSTRUC -ART
231.00
71539 -1
002901
00
12/08/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC -FMM DSG
171.50
71547 -1
002902
00
12/08/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC -FASHN DSG
329.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
731.50
0001964
ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS
- PLAN #SA94
JAN 2007
002810
00
12/19/2006
001 -0000- 210.20
-07
PR01KC•DNTL INSUR -DMO JAN
374.80
VENDOR TOTAL •
374.80
0001963
ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS-
PLAN#30710
JAN 2007
002809
00
12/19/2006
001 -0000- 210.20
-07
PROIKC-DNTL INSUR-DPO JAN
4,401.76
VENDOR TOTAL +
4,401.76
0002535
ALLIED ENGINEERING
COMPANY
0618 -3
002862 22372
00
12/24/2006
707 -1707- 622.50
-00
CPIIRF*ENG'G SV -RT9 /ALOHA
4,250.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
4,250.00
0001523
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN
SPRING
WATER CO.
06K0019822873 002723
00
12/06/2006
001- 1060 - 513.56
-14
FM11KC +WTR CPYHLI0 /7 -11/6
27.21
VENDOR TOTAL •
27.21
0002581
AT 6 T/ MCI
PAGE
HAND- ISSUED
---------------
P EPMED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29
P
DO
RAM GM339L
C TY OF SARATOGA
___________________________
V NO NO VENDOR NAME
NVOICE VOUCHER P.O.
NO______________ NO NO
ENE CHECK /DUE
DATE
0 02581 AT 6
T/ MCI
00
12/17/2006
835990
003161
00
12/17/2006
854392
003166
00
12/17/2006
. 5854410
1
003169
00
12/17/2006
. 5836909
003172
00
12/17/2006
. 5836916
003173
00
12/17/2006
. 5836917
003174
00
12/17/2006
11/20/06
003177
00
12/17/2006
807698057
003178
00
12/17/2006
5719089
002478
00
12/18/2006
5854389
003164
00
12/17/2006
T5854409
003168
00
12/17/2006
.T5836696
003170
00
12/17/2006
.T5854411
003175
00
12/17/2006
5836658
003162
00
12/17/2006
5854358
003163
00
12/17/2006
T5854390
003165
00
12/17/2006
T5854395
003167
00
12/17/2006
.T5836904
003171
00
12/17/2006
.IT5854412
003176
00
12/17/2006
0004058
AT SYSTEMS WEST,
INC
176 - 567706 002953
I
00
01/01/2007
J000040
BANDA, MASANKHO
71400 -1 A
002715
00
11/28/2006
11400 -1 B
002716
00
11/28/2006
0001116
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
INQ64
002871
00
12/20/2006
0004220
BAY CITY MECHANICAL, INC
600109
002868 22292
00
12/30/2006
600110
002869 22292
00
12/30/2006
600111
002870 22292
00
12/30/2006
001078
BAY TELECOM
40265
002905
00
12/18/2006
0004052
BERGREN, JILLIAN
12/11/06
002985
00
12/11/2006
0003048 BEST, LOURDES
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ACCOUNT ITEM
NO DESCRIPTION
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
001 - 1050 - 513.41 -03
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
001 - 1050 - 513.41 -03
001 - 1050 - 513.41 -03
001 - 1050 - 513.41 -03
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
001 - 2005 - 521.41 -03
001- 2005 - 521.41 -03
001- 2005 - 521.41 -03
001- 2005 - 521.41 -03
001 - 2005 - 521.41 -03
001- 3030- 532.41 -03
001- 3030- 532.41 -03
001- 3030 - 532.41 -03
001 - 3030 - 532.41 -03
001 - 3030- 532.41 -03
001- 3030 - 532.41 -03
GSIIRF *NOV -MO RECURR CHG
GS11RF•NOV -XEROX MACHINE
GS11RF *NOV -MEASD BUS LINE
GS11RF•NOV -ALRM SYSTM PH
GS11RF *NOV- SUPERTRUNK
GS11RF *NOV -SR CIA ALARMS
GS11RF•NOV- LIBRARY PAY PH
GS11RF•NOV -LONG DISTANCE
CM10RF *OCT -EMERG RESPONSE
CM11RF *NOV-EMP EMERGENCY
CM11RF *NOV-BMGCY -CM OFF
CM11RF *NOV- 9MRGCY RESPNS
CM11RP *NOV -AM RADIO SARA
PK11RF•NOV -NORTH CAMPUS
PK11RF *NOV -GTWAY IRK CTRL
PK11RF *NOV -PH LINES &PRKS
PK11RF•NOV- BLANEY MODEM
PK11RF *NOV -CRP YD -EMCY LN
PKIIRF *NOV- CNGRSS SPRG PK
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1040 - 513.50 -63 FN12KC *MNTHLY SVC 12/06
VENDOR TOTAL
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC11KC- INSTRUC - DANCE
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC11KC *LEVY -FTB ST OF CA
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 - 1035 - 512.50 -10 EQ11RF•ANNL PRMIT RENEWAL
VENDOR TOTAL *
320 - 9010 - 522.52 -41 CP09RF•LBRARY -HVAC CNTRL
320- 9010 - 522.52-41 CPIORF•LBRARY -HVAC CNTRL
320- 9010 - 522.52 -41 CP11RF *LBRARY -HVAC CNTRL
VENDOR TOTAL *
755- 3755- 622.52 -41 WH11KC *FIRING - WHH
VENDOR TOTAL
291 - 6010 - 564.51 -45 TN12KC•STAFF - 12/8 DANCE
VENDOR TOTAL -
PAGE 2
EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
AMOUNT
176.65
14.65
38.03
89.42
596.85
30.37
77.06
46.22
210.88
14.65
14.95
209.80
14.95
14.95
14.95
22.17
14.95
39.36
44.06
1,684.92
205.20
205.20
120.00
30.00-
90.00
102.79
102.79
12,000.00
9,600.00
2,400.00
24,000.00
2,083.26
2,083.26
45.00
45.00
PR PARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3
PR GRAM: GM339L AS OF: 01/08 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CI Y OF SARATOGA
__ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________
VE D NO VENDOR NAME
I OICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE NAND - ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________
00 3046 BEST, LOURDES
12,,11/06 002986 00 12/11/2006 291 - 6010 - 564.51 -45 TN12KC•STAFF - 12/8 DANCE 50.00
0040050 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS
274659 002732 00 12/30/2006
274701 002908 00 12/30/2006
0002048 SOREL, KRISTIN
11/11/06 002766 00 12/06/2006
VENDOR TOTAL -
250- 4015 - 542.32 -21 IS11JI•EQUIP SERVICE CALL
250 - 4015 - 542.35 -21 IS11JI•SUPPLS /MICROFICHE
VENDOR TOTAL
001 - 3035 - 532.32 -21 EG11JI•USB JUMP DRIVES
VENDOR TOTAL
0002049
BOYER, CATHLEEN
NOV 2006
002813
00
12/05/2006
001- 1030 - 511.36
-71
CKIIKC•REG FEE -NCCCA MTG
DEC 2006
002906
00
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.34
-62
CK12KC +REIMB- MILEAGE
VENDOR TOTAL
0040005
BURKE, BERNADSTTH
35016
002829
00
12/06/2006
290- 6005- 445.03
-00
RC12KC•CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
00
0593
CAL PERE LONG TERM
CARE PROGRAM
50 3796
002811
00
12/19/2006
001 - 0000 - 210.20
-18
PR12KC•PR120706 DEDUC
VENDOR TOTAL
0001513
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
594644
002979
00
12/14/2006
250 - 2010 - 522.51
-48
CE11RF•FINGERPRINTING FEE
596644A
002980
00
12/14/2006
290- 6005- 564.51
-48
RC11RF•FINGERPRINTING FEE
0000902 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS
06112803 002873 00 12/28/2006
0002632 CALTRANS
175799 003023 00 12/20/2006
0004302 CAPITOL BARRICADE, INC.
61997 002733 00 12/01/2006
0002905 CDWG, INC.
CPM2499 003024 00 12/20/2006
001- 1040 - 513.50 -90 FN11RF•ANNL FINC -L REPORT
VENDOR TOTAL
150- 3015 - 532.50 -92 GT10RF•SIGNS 6 LIGHTS
VENDOR TOTAL
701 -1701- 622.35 -22 CPIIJI•CURBS /REFLECTORS
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1065 - 513.31 -69 IT11RF•SONICWALL MAINTNCE
VENDOR TOTAL
0002941 CHANG, JOHN TAI
73511 -1 002787 00 12/06/2006 290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC- KARATS
73512 -1 002788 00 12/06/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC - KARATE
50.00
160.00
335.58
495.58
64.99
64.99
40.00
163.10
203.10
84.00
84.00
50.40
50.40
96.00
64.00
160.00
425.00
425.00
266.40
266.40
1,577.74
1,577.74
383.49
383.49
804.60
625.80
P SPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:25
PLiOGRAM: GM339L
CFTY OF SARATOGA
4 ____ ______ _______ ______
Np NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O.
NO NO NO
0 02991 CHANG, JOHN TAI
7513 -1 OO27B9
7 515 -1 002790
7 516 -1 002791
7 517 -1 002792
7[519 -1 002793
0 00005 CHARI, PADMA
616070 002]6]
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM
DATE NO DESCRIPTION
00 12/06/2006 290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC - KARATE
00 12/06/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC - KARATE
00 12/06/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC - KARATE
00 12/06/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC - KARATE
00 12/06/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC - KARATE
VENDOR TOTAL -
00 12/05/2006 290 -0000- 260.00 -00 RC12KC•nENTAL DEP REFUND
0009222
CHBNG, BEN
VENDOR TOTAL -
DEC 2006
002896
00
12/19/2006
001 - 1065 - 513.36
-71
FN11KC•PROJ MGT I" 11 /1B
0000005
CHRIST THE KING CHURCH
VENDOR TOTAL
0281
002828
00
12/07/2006
290 -0000- 260.00
-00
RC12KC•RENTAL DEP REFUND
0002800
CIENSGA LANDSCAPING
VENDOR TOTAL -
2999
002876
00
12/27/2006
001- 3025 - 532:54
-34
MP11RF•NOV MAINT - ALLENDL
3001
002879
00
12/27/2006
231 - 3231 - 532.59
-36
LL11RF•NOV MAINT-HRSRSHO
3000
002875
00
12/27/2006
231- 3231 - 532.54
-36
LL11RF•N0V MAINT- FOOTHILL
0001861
CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION
OF CALI PORN
VENDOR TOTAL
11/14/06
A 002726
00
12/14/2006
001- 1020 - 511.31
-91
MG11KC•06/07 DUES- SULLLVA
11/14/06
002725
00
12/14/2006
001- 1030 - 511.31
-91
CK11KC +06/07 DUES- C.BOYER
0000682
CITY OF BARATOGA-
PETTY CASH
VENDOR TOTAL
12/11/06
002960
00
12/11/2006
290- 6005 - 564.35
-22
RC12KC +OFFICE SUPPLY
VENDOR TOTAL •
0000162
COAST OIL COMPANY,
LLC
76900
002734
00
12/18/2006
001- 1035- 512.41
-01
EQ1IJI +FUEL
75671
002735
00
11/29/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.41
-01
EQ11JI•FUEL
VENDOR TOTAL •
0000005
COSTA, SHEILA
0196
002825
00
12/07/2006
290 - 0000 - 260.00
-00
RC12KC•RENTAL DEP REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
0000434
COTTON,iSHIRES AND
ASSOCIATES INC
110991
003088
00
12/21/2006
250- 4020 - 542.56
-02
DR10RF•06 -037 MT VISTA RD
110991A
003089
00
12/21/2006
250 -4020- 493.20
-00
DR10RF•06 -037 MT VISTA RD
110992
003103
00
12/21/2006
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
DR11RF•07 -101 MONTE VISTA
110993
003104
00
12/21/2D06
250- 4020 - 542.56
-02
DRIIRF•07 -162 KITTRDGE RD
110994
003105
00
12/21/2006
250 - 4020 - 592.56
-02
DR11RF•07 -075 MT EDEN RD
EXPENDITURE
AMOUNT
609.60
641.40
334.80
190.80
669.60
3,9]6.60
300.00
300.00
345.00
345.00
300.00
300.00
200.00
320.00
1]8.00
698.00
95.00
95.00
190.00
58.20
58.20
3,360.91
3,621.43
6, 982.34
300.00
300.00
1,022.75
1,278.43-
1,349.00
437.50
2,043.75
PAGE 4
RAND- ISSUED
PREPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29
PROGRAM: GM339L
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO
VENDOR NAME
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
BNK CHECK /DUE
NO
--------------------------------------
NO NO
ASSOCIATES, INC.
DATE
- - - - --
0000434
COTTON, :SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES INC
110995
003106
00
12/21/2006
110995A
003107
00
12/21/2006
110996
003109
00
12/21/2006
110996A
003110
00
12/21/2006
110995B
003108
00
12/21/2006
110996B
003111
00
12/21/2006
1109918
003090
00
12/21/2006
0004310
COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA
00 12/11/2006
11/28/06
A 003010
00
12/28/2006
11/28/06
003009
00
12/28/2006
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/00/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE
NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------- ----------- - - - - --
250 - 4020 - 542.56 -02
250 -4020- 443.20 -00
250 -4020- 542.56 -02
250 -4020- 443.20 -00
604 -4604- 444.50 -12
604 -4604- 444.50 -12
605 - 4605 - 444.50 -12
DR11RF *SDOO -004 MT EDEN
DR11RF *SDOO -004 MT EDEN
DRIIRF +DROO -051 PIERCE RD
DRIIRF *DR00 -051 PIERCE RD
PDIIRF *SDOO -004 MT EDEN
PDIIRF *DROO -051 PIERCE RD
PDIIRF *06 -037 MT VISTA RD
VENDOR TOTAL +
001- 1020 - 511.31 -91 MG11KC *HOMELESS CNT /SRVY
250 - 4010 - 542.31 -91 ZA1IKC +HOMELESS CNT /SRVY
0002768 COVAD COMMUNICATIONS
43815719 002884 22429 00 12/05/2006
0002805 CREEK MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE
2527 003018 22400 00 12/19/2006
0001604 CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
AT07 -00011 002738 00 12/16/2006
1
0000108 DATA TICKET, INC.
19186 002889 00 12/08/2006
19395 003028 00 12/12/2006
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03 GS11RP *MONTHLY CHARGE
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 - 3030 - 532.54 -42 PK10RF *TREE MAINT -N CMPUS
VENDOR TOTAL
260 - 5015 - 552.57 -07 SW11JI *CREEK /STRM EDU PEG
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 2015 - 523.50 -08 PS11RF *PRKG PROCSSNG FEES
001 - 2015 - 523.50 -08 PS11RP *OCT CIT /APPL FEES
VENDOR TOTAL
0000097
COUNTY OF SANTA
CLAM -DEPT OF REV
ASSOCIATES, INC.
09/30/06
002736
00 12/06/2006
001 - 1040- 452.01
-00
FN09JI *SEPT PROCESS FEES
10/31/06
002737
00 12/06/2006
001- 1040 - 452.01
-00
FN10JI *OCT PROCESS FEES
643A
003113
00
12/22/2006
250 -4010- 444.59
VENDOR TOTAL +
0000999
COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA -FIRE DEPT
562
003115
00
71005 -1
002898
00 12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC- INSTRUC - CPR
71004 -1
003006
00 12/11/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC- INSTRUC -CPR
0002768 COVAD COMMUNICATIONS
43815719 002884 22429 00 12/05/2006
0002805 CREEK MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE
2527 003018 22400 00 12/19/2006
0001604 CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
AT07 -00011 002738 00 12/16/2006
1
0000108 DATA TICKET, INC.
19186 002889 00 12/08/2006
19395 003028 00 12/12/2006
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03 GS11RP *MONTHLY CHARGE
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 - 3030 - 532.54 -42 PK10RF *TREE MAINT -N CMPUS
VENDOR TOTAL
260 - 5015 - 552.57 -07 SW11JI *CREEK /STRM EDU PEG
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 2015 - 523.50 -08 PS11RF *PRKG PROCSSNG FEES
001 - 2015 - 523.50 -08 PS11RP *OCT CIT /APPL FEES
250.00
312.50-
1,007.50
1,259.37-
312.50
1,259.37
1, 27B.43
6,110.50
717.50
717.50
1,435.00
310.00
335.00
645.00
80.00
27.00
107.00
CHECK #: 103790
.00
600.00
600.00
349.26
349.26
145.50
243.10
388.60
6,865.72
9,268.72-
9,191.80
12,408.92-
9,268.72
12,408.92
16,057.52
PAGE 5
HAND- ISSUED
--------- - - - -'-
759.95
759.95
VENDOR TOTAL +
0002978
DAVID J. POWERS 6
ASSOCIATES, INC.
643
003112
00
12/22/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-38
ZAlORF *OCT-
03 -106
QUITO
643A
003113
00
12/22/2006
250 -4010- 444.59
-00
ZAlORF•OCT-
03 -106
QUITO
562
003115
00
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-38
ZA08RF +AUG-
03 -106
QUITO
562A
003116
00
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 444.59
-00
ZAOBRF *AUG -
03 -106
QUITO
643B
003114
00
12/22/2006
604 -4604- 444.59
-00
PD10RF *OCT-
03 -106
QUITO
5628
003117
00
12/19/2006
604- 4604- 444.59
-00
PDOBRF *AUG-
03 -106
QUITO
VENDOR TOTAL +
0003068
DEHAVEN, ELIZABETH
250.00
312.50-
1,007.50
1,259.37-
312.50
1,259.37
1, 27B.43
6,110.50
717.50
717.50
1,435.00
310.00
335.00
645.00
80.00
27.00
107.00
CHECK #: 103790
.00
600.00
600.00
349.26
349.26
145.50
243.10
388.60
6,865.72
9,268.72-
9,191.80
12,408.92-
9,268.72
12,408.92
16,057.52
PAGE 5
HAND- ISSUED
--------- - - - -'-
759.95
759.95
PREPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND - ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003068 DEHAVEN, ELIZABETH
71255 -1 003001 00 12/11/2006
0002331 DELL MARKETING L.P.
840018580 003144 00 12/19/2006
0004115
DEPARTMENT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
E948337
002877
00
12/19/2006
E039272
002978
00
12/19/2006
E039271
002879
00
12/19/2006
E373169
002880
00
12/19/2006
0003050 DOMINQUEZ, PAUL E.
12390195911306 002724 00 11/27/2006
0002766 DRAKE WELDING, INC.
107196 003037 00 01/08/2007
0002785
ECS IMAGING, INC
4803
002804
00
12/19/2006
4799
002805
00
12/19/2006
4957
002806
00
12/19/2006
4958
002807
00
12/19/2006
4961
'002808
00
12/19/2006
0004268
EIC SOLUTIONS, INC
8607
002890 22378
00
12/14/2006
8607A
002891
00
12/14/2006
0000143 EL CAMINO PAVING, INC.
00016622 002886 22375 00 12/21/2006
0000150 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY
0047833 002867 00 12/30/2006
0047899 002872 00 12/14/2006
0001524 EYERS HITCH CENTER, INC
14445 002885 00 12/19/2006
0002791 FAST SIGNS
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC- INSTRUC- SIGNING
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 1030 - 511.56 -76 CKIORF•XEON PROCSSOR 5130
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1035 - 512.35 -22 EQ11RF*DUPTITLE -RADR TRLR
001- 1035 - 512.35 -22 EQIIRF +OUP TITLE -VEHCL 94
001- 1035 - 512.35 -22 EQ11RF *DUP TITLE -VEHCL 93
001- 1035 - 512.35 -22 E011RF -DUP TITLE -VEHCL 81
VENDOR TOTAL *
291 - 6010 - 564.51 -47 TN11KC *DJ -11/3 DANCE
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 - 1035 - 512.35 -22 EQ12RF*RPR BUCKET JCB LDR
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 1030 - 511.56 -11 CKOSKC *DOC DESTRUC JOB 49
001- 1030 - 511.56 -11 CK06KC *SCAN DOC CIY CLRK
001- 1030 - 511.56 -11 CK08KC *SCAN DOC -CTY MGR
001 - 1030 - 511.56 -11 CKOBKC *SCAN DOC -PW
001- 1030 - 511.56 -11 CK08KC *SCAN DOC -CTY MGR
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 2005 - 521.56 -09 CM11RF*VHP COMM SYS CABNT
001 - 2005 - 521.56 -09 CM11RF *SHPPNG 6 HNDLNG
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 3005 - 532.54 -31 ST10RF*PVNNT MGMT FROG
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 3030 - 532.55 -33 PK11RF *NOV -TURF SPRAYING
001 - 3030 - 532.55 -33 PK11RF *TURF SPRAYING
VENDOR TOTAL
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05 IS11RF *VCL #115 HITCH RPR
VENDOR TOTAL *
24.00
24 . DO
4,849.05
4,849.05
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
64.00
250.00
250.00
529.20
529.20
71.01
773.16
137.87
1, 03B.75
267.50
2,288.31
6,900.00
450.29
7,350.29
159,003.27
159,003.27
3.800.00
2,200.00
6, 000.00
363.79
363.79
PREPARED
12/14/2006, 15:13:29
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
PAGE 7
PROGRAM:
GM339L
0000161
FURLO & FURLO
AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE:
12/19/2006
CITY OF
SARATOGA
00
01/06/2006
26051
001021 22426
VEND NO
VENDOR NAME
0001794
GACHINA LANDSCAPE
MANAGEMENT
______ _____ _______ ___ ____ __ __________
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
12/31/2006
BNK CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT ITEM
EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO
NO
NO
DATE
NO DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0002791
FAST SIGNS
12/16/2006
19471M
002928
00
43822
002739
002915
00 12/27/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35 -22 PK11JI.18 "X24" SIGNS
97.54
0001767 FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES INC.
44052 002892 22371 00 12/10/2006
44052A 002893 00 12/10/2006
0002588 FLINT TRADING, INC.
79884 002894 00 12/17/2006
0000005
FUJITA, SHIGEKI
34874
002712
00
11/28/2006
0000161
FURLO & FURLO
26050
003020 22383
00
01/06/2006
26051
001021 22426
00
01/06/2006
0001794
GACHINA LANDSCAPE
MANAGEMENT
20210
002931
00
12/31/2006
A20312
002932
00
12/16/2006
19471L
002927
00
12/11/2006
A20349
002933
00
12/16/2006
19471M
002928
00
12/11/2006
19471
002915
00
12/19/2006
19471A
002916
00
12/11/2006
194718
002917
00
12/11/2006
19471C
002918
00
12/11/2006
19471D
002919
00
12/11/2006
A20165
002934
00
12/13/2006
19471E
002920
00
12/11/2006
19471F
002921
00
12/11/2006
19471G
002922
00
12/11/2006
19471H
002923
09
12/11/2006
194711
002924
00
12/11/2006
1947IJ
002925
00
12/11/2006
19471K
002926
00
12/11/2006
19471N
002929
00
12/11/2006
194710
002930
00
12/11/2006
VENDOR TOTAL •
001 - 3035 - 532.57 -02 ST11RF•NTMP 9/30- 10/27/06
707 -1707- 622.52 -41 CP11RF•NTMP 9/30- 10/27/06
VENDOR TOTAL
701- 1701- 622.35 -22 CP11RF•PAINT
VENDOR TOTAL
290 -6005- 445.04 -00 RC13KC +CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL •
731 -2731- 622.52 -41 CP12RF•SCUPPER /GRATE EXT
731- 2731 - 622.52 -41 CP12RF•STORM DRAIN RPAIR
VENDOR TOTAL -
001 - 3005 - 532.54 -32
001 - 3005- 532.54 -32
001- 3025 - 532.54 -34
001- 3025 - 532.57 -36
001 - 3030 - 532.54 -06
202- 3202 - 532.54 -36
203 - 3203 - 532.54 -36
209- 3209 - 532.54 -36
210 - 3210 - 532.54 -36
211- 3211 - 532.54 -36
211- 3211 - 532.56 -16
212 - 3212 - 532.54 -36
216 - 3216 - 532.54 -36
222 - 3222 - 532.54 -36
226- 3226 - 532.54 -36
227 - 3227 - 532.54 -36
228- 3228 - 532.54 -36
229- 3229 - 532.54 -36
232- 3232 - 532.54 -36
352- 9201- 622.52 -41
STIIRP +NOV -ALOHA WALL &SS
ST1IRF +NOV -ALOHA WALL&SS
MP11RF•N0V- MEDIANS
MPI1RF +FALL ANNUAL COLOR
MP11RF•NOV -NORTH CAMPUS
LL11RF•NOV- FREDRCKSBURG
LL11RF•NOV- GREENBR /A2ULE
LL11RF•NOV- MCCARTYSVILLE
LL11RF•NOV- TRICIA WOODS
LL11RF•NOV- ARROYO DE SARA
LL11RF•IRRGN REPAIR
LLIIRF•NOV- LEUTAR CT
LL11RF•NOV- BEAUCHAMPS
LL11RF•NOV- PRIDES CRSSNG
LL11RF•NOV- BELLGROVE
LL11RF•NOV- CUNGHM /GLASGOW
LL11RF•NOV- KERWIN RANCH
LL11RF•NOV- TOLLGATE
MP11RF•NOV- GATEWAY LLC
CP11RF•NOV- GATEWAY MEDIAN
VENDOR TOTAL +
0000164 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT
567180 002740 00 12/13/2006 001 - 3030 - 532.35 -22 PK11JI•EQUIPMENT OIL
568520 002909 00 12/28/2006 001- 3030 - 532.35 -22 PKIIJI +GLOVES
97.54
4,587.33
232.50
4.819.83
639.29
639.29
60.00
60.00
3,039.00
4,942.00
7,981.00
390.00
3,150.00
3,555.00
582.99
1,045.00
265.00
220.00
215.00
75.00
85.00
95.28
85.00
85.00
450.00
1,985.00
145.00
340.00
90.00
245.00
325.00
13,428.27
35.90
43.25
VENDOR TOTAL + 79.15
0004227 GRAHAM CONTRACTORS, INC
PREPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
PAGE B
PROGRAM: GM339L
AS OF:
01/08/2007 CHECK DATE:
12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O.
BNK CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT
ITEM
EXPENDITURE
HAND - ISSUED
NO NO NO
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0004227 GRAHAM CONTRACTORS,
INC
018992 002914 22385
00
12/19/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.54
-31
STlIRF•06 PVMT MAINT FROG
12,495.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
12,495.00
0002547 GRAINGER
9243699437 002798
00
12/30/2006
001- 1060 - 513.32
-51
PM1IRC +FACILITIES SUPPLY
63.72
9243041689 002799
00
12/29/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.32
-51
FM11KC•FACILITIES SUPPLY
43.23
9243041671 002800
00
12/29/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.32
-51
FM11KC•SANITORIAL SUPPLY
97.43
9243095990 002801
00
12/29/2006
001- 1060 - 513.32
-51
FM11KC•,7ANITORIAL SUPPLY
50.33
VENDOR TOTAL •
254.71
0009242 GRANICUS
2453 001912 22306
00
12/28/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-76
CK11RF•1ST MO SRVCE -DEC06
1,450.00
2452 002913 22306
00
12/28/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.56
-76
CK11RF•PROF SRVCE /MRDWRE
20,422.88
VENDOR TOTAL +
21,872.88
0004313 GREENFIELDS TURF,
INC
150663 003092 22399
00
12/21/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
PK11RF•RTF SOD -QUITO PRK
1,895.89
VENDOR TOTAL •
1,895.89
0002448 GREGORIAN, AGNES
71413 -1 002839
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-30
RC12KC•INSTRUC- DANCE
292.50
71415 -1 002840
00
12/06/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- DANCE
225.00
71417 -1 002841
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- DANCE
300.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
817.50
0004235 HARRIS COMPANY
2006 -10101 002959 22345
00
01/06/2007
728 -2728- 622.52
-91
CP12RF +ELEC UPGRDE- ALLNDL
2,270.00
2006 -10102 002903
00
01/06/2007
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
WH12KC +COUNTER TOP NNE
700.00
2006 -10105 002904
00
01/07/2007
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
NH12KC•ELECTRICAL RPR WHH
190.00
2006 -10089 002961 22343
00
01/08/2007
758 -3758- 622.52
-41
CP12RF +IMPRV PLANNG AREA
10,900.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
14,060.00
0004286 HATCH, STEPHANIE "ORA
71061 -1 002948
00
12/11/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- PARENTING
68.00
71062 -1 002950
00
12/11/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- PARENTING
44.01
VENDOR TOTAL •
112.01
0002720 HTE VAR, LLC
SARA102506 002881 22407
00
12/05/2006
001 - 1065 - 513.50
-17
IT10RF•SRVCSUITE MAINTNCE
CHECK
N: 103789
1,530.00
SARA102506A 002882 22407
00
12/05/2006
001 - 1065 - 513.50
-18
IT10RF•SRVCSUITE MAINTNCE
CHECK
8: 103789
1,150.00
SARA102506B 002883 22407
00
12/05/2006
001 - 1065 - 513.50
-9E
IT10RF•SRVCSUITE MAINTNCE
CHECK
N: 103789
361.83
VENDOR TOTAL +
.00
3,041.83
0001027 HUMAN BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATES
5664 002849
00
01/01/2007
001- 1045 - 513.51
-68
HR11KC•EAP COUNSELING
32.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
32.00
0004279 HUNG, C}}I-GHING
73535 -1 002830
00
12/08/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC -MRTL ARTS
198.00
PREPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 01/00/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
bITY OF SARATOGA
j NO VEND
______________ _____________ _________ _________ _ _- _____________________ - -_
VBND OR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
b004279 HUNG, CHI -CHING
73532 -1 002831
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC- INSTRUC -MRTL ARTS
148.50
VENDOR TOTAL •
396.50
b000198 NYDROTBO IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS
26424 002946
00
12/08/2006
001 - 3025 - 532.57
-36
PK11RF *NOV- BACKFLOW RPAIR
149.46
26426 002947
00
12/19/2006
001 - 3030- 532.57
-36
PK11RF•NOV- BACKFLOW RPAIR
129.95
26488 002958
00
12/29/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57
-36
PK11RF *NEW SDWLK SPRNKLR
66.58
26425 003007
00
12/06/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.57
-36
PK11RF *BACKFLOW REPAIR
160.50
26420 002957
00
12/08/2006
732 -2732- 622.52
-41
CP11RF *SNPABLO IRRGN RPR
1,052.19
26428 002954
00
12/08/2006
741 -2741- 622.52
-41
CP11RF *TREE BBLR -BLNY PLZ
161.27
26427 002955
00
12/OB/2006
741 -2741- 622.S2
-41
CP11RF *TREE RLAY -BLNY PLZ
102.64
0001817 I. M.P.A.C. CARD
SERVICES
VENDOR TOTAL *
1,822.59
10 /18 /06 -BOYER 003069
X10
00
12/12/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
-61
CC10JI *CC MTG FOOD
184.75
/1B /06- BOYERC003072
i0 /18 /06- BOYERE003074
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.36
-77
CC11JI *DECORATIONS
89,99
00
12/12/2006
001- 1005 - 511.35
-21
CC11JI *BROWN ACT BOOKS
94.00
10/24/06 -ANN 003078
00
12/12/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
-61
CC10JI *MTG SUPPLIES
171.68
10/24/06 -ANN E 003083
00
12/12/2006
001- 1005 - 511.35
-21
CC10JI *PHOTO FRAMING
95.25
10/3/06- SHAHEEN002254
00
01/01/2007
001- 1020 - 511.32
-23
MG10JI.50TH /GIFT CARDS /PW
450.00
10 /3 /6V- SHAHEEN002447
00
01/01/2007
001- 1020 - 511.32
-23
MG10JI *50TH /GIFT CARDS /PW
450.00
-
30/22/06-BORELA003046
00
12/12/2006
001- 1020 - 511.32
-23
MG10JI *HALLOWEEN GIFTS
110.00
11 /09 /06- POWELL003075
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.32
-23
MG11JI *2 GIFT CARDS
100.00
41 /09 /06POWELLAO03076
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.34
-61
MG11JI*LUNCH MTGS
123.84
10/24/06 -ANN A 003079
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.34
-61
MG10JI *WVMM MTG SUPPLIES
778.66
10/24/06 -ANN B 003080
00
12/12/2006
001- 1020 - 511.35
-51
MG10JI *FED EX TO ATTY
155.23
}}0/24/06 -ANN C 003081
00
12/12/2006
001- 1020- S11.35
-21
MG10JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
107.40
110/24/06 -ANN D 003082
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.32
-23
MG10JI *GIFT CARD
100.00
1 10/19/06 -DAVE 003084
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.34
-61
MG10JI *LUNCH MTGS
76.37
10/18/06- BOYERAO03070
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.35
-21
CK10JI *OFFICE SUPPLIES
290.58
10/18/06- BOYERB003071
10/18/06- BOYERDD03073
00
12/12/2006
001- 1030 - 511.36
-72
CK10JI *NCCCA MTG
117.66
00
12/12/2006
001- 1030 - 511.36
-76
CK11JI *BRONZE PLAQUE
258.64
10/28/06 -RICK A00304B
00
12/12/2006
001- 1035 - 512.54
-33
EQIOJI *WHEEL ALIGNMENT
124.68
10/26/06 -JESUS 003058
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.35
-22
EQ10JI *VEHICLE SUPPLIES
36.24
10/20/06- VIVIAN003087
00
12/12/2006
001- 1040 - 513.36
-71
FNIOJI•FINANCE CONFERENCE
430.00
11 /01 /06- MONICA003085
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1045 - 513.34
-61
HR11JI *LUNCH MTGS
52.92
11/01/06MONICAA003086
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1045 - 513.36
-71
HR11JI *CALPELRA 11/14 -16
1,002.67
10/26/06- JESUSS003061
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.35
-22
GS10JI *COFFEE SUPPLIES
8.30
10/25/06 -JOAN A000065
00
12/12/2006
001- 1050 - 513.35
-21
GS10JI *COFFEE SUPPLIES
24.97
11 /20 /06SHAHEEN003060
00
12/12/2006
001- 1050 - 513.34
-61
GS11JI *TRAILS MTG TREATS
3.49
11/02/06 -SCOTT 003041
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.36
-71
FMIIJI *TRAINING PKG FEE
9.00
11 /09 /06POWELLB003077
00
12/12/2006
001- 2005 - 521.34
-61
MG11JI•CERT MTGS
21.57
10/28/06 -RICK B003049
00
12/12/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
ST10JI *1/2" STAPLES
4.32
10/26/06- JESUSA003059
00
12/12/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
ST10JI *CELL PHONE CASE
27.05
10/25/06 -JOAN 003063
00
12/12/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-21
ST10JI *OFFICE SUPPLIES
46.53
10/28/06 -RICK 003047
00
12/12/2006
001- 3020 - 532.35
-22
FD10JI *VOLUNTEER TREATS
6.93
10/25/06 -JOAN B003067
00
12/12/2006
001 - 3025- 532.35
-21
MP10JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
157.09
11/07/06 -MEEK 003DSO
00
12/12/2006
001- 3030- 532.35
-22
PK11JI *SEALANT
140.74
11 /08 /06-SHAWN 003053
00
12/12/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-21
PK11JI•CREDIT /SUPPLIES
69.99-
PR�PARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29
PR RAM: GM339L
CI _ OF SARATOGA
__ ___.................................
VE NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE
NO NO NO DATE
0001613 I.M.P.A.C. C
CARD SERVICES
11 /08 /06- SHANNA003054 0
00 1
12/12/2006
11//08/06- S
SHANNB003056 0
00 1
12/12/2006
1022 /
/06 -BOREL 0
003045 0
00 1
12/12/2006
10 2
20/06 -LORI 0
003042 0
00 1
12/12/2006
30 2
23/06 -ABBY 0
003043 0
00 1
12/12/2006
10 2
23/06 -ABBY A
A003044 0
00 1
12/12/2006
10 2
24/06 -KIM 0
003038 0
00 1
12/12/2006
10%24/06 -
-KIM A 0
003039 0
00 1
12/12/2006
1102/06 -
-ADAM 0
003040 0
00 1
12/12/2006
00 0
0200 ICE C
CENTER OF C
CUPERTINO
74312 -1 0
002899 0
00 1
12/05/2006
74304 -1 0
002900 0
00 1
12/05/2006
0002922 IIMC
113/21/06 0
002803 0
00 1
12/21/2006
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ACCOUNT ITEM
NO DESCRIPTION
001- 3030 - 532.35 -21
001 - 3030 - 532.36 -71
001 - 3035 - 532.32 -21
250 - 4010 - 542.35 -21
250- 4010 - 542.34 -61
250 - 4010 - 542.35 -21
290- 6005 - 564.35 -22
290- 6005 - 564.51 -74
291 - 6010 - 564.35 -22
PKIIJI +OFFICE SUPPLIES
PKIIJI•TRAINING PKG FEE
EG10JI +CAMERA 6 BAG
ZA10JI +OFFICE SUPPLIES
ZA10JI•PC STUDY SUPPLIES
ZA10JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
RC10JI•COLOR PRINTER INK
RCIOJI•SR TRIP ADMISSIONS
TNIIJI•11 /2 DANCE SUPPLE
VIW QZ: 1v.lR
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC -ICE SKTNG
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC -ICE SKTNG
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1030 - 511.31 -91 CK1IKC +MBRSHP TO 3/31/08
VENDOR TOTAL -
00 1745 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS
106759 002742 00 12/22/2006 150 - 3015 - 532.35 -22 GTIIJI•REFLECTIVE VESTS
106697 002964 00 12/20/2006 150- 3015 - 532.35 -22 GT11RF•STREET SIGNS
106758 002741 00 12/22/2006 701 -1701- 622.35 -22 CPIIJI +STREET SIGNS
O+0209 JAMELLO, NANCY PORTUGAL
711316 -1 A 002718 00 11/28/2006
71317 -1 A 002719 00 11/28/2006
0001987 JOE A. OONSALVES 6 SON, INC.
11/27/06 002895 22339 00 12/27/2006
uT9u ZI:iZ ➢i:R
290- 6005- 564.53 -10 RC11KC•INSTRUC - YOGA
290- 6005 - 564.53 -30 RC1IKC +INSTRUC - YOGA
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1005 - 511.57 -09 CCIIRF•DEC SERVICES
VENDOR TOTAL
0004176 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC
11124315 002743 00 12/15/2006 001- 3005 - 532.35 -22 STIIJI +SHOVELS
VENDOR TOTAL -
0400005 JOHNSTON, MELODY
0252 002827 00 12/07/2006 290 - 0000 - 260.00 -00 RC12KC•RENTAL DEP REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL +
0600220 JOSHI, SHARATI
71205 -1 003003 00 12/11/2006 290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC- COOKING
VENDOR TOTAL
0002260 JUST FOR KICKS, INC.
73912 -1 002832 00 12/07/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC +INSTRUC - SOCCER
PAGE 10
EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
AMOUNT
____ _____ ______________________
76.83
17.00
171.01
169.45
133.66
26.77
248.95
928.33
78.11
6.730.75
96.00
48.00
144.00
150.00
150.00
77.94
572.37
1,039.20
1,689.51
363.00
347.40
710.40
3,000.00
3,000.00
85.52
85.52
300.00
300.00
22.50
22.50
220.50
uT9u ZI:iZ ➢i:R
290- 6005- 564.53 -10 RC11KC•INSTRUC - YOGA
290- 6005 - 564.53 -30 RC1IKC +INSTRUC - YOGA
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1005 - 511.57 -09 CCIIRF•DEC SERVICES
VENDOR TOTAL
0004176 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC
11124315 002743 00 12/15/2006 001- 3005 - 532.35 -22 STIIJI +SHOVELS
VENDOR TOTAL -
0400005 JOHNSTON, MELODY
0252 002827 00 12/07/2006 290 - 0000 - 260.00 -00 RC12KC•RENTAL DEP REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL +
0600220 JOSHI, SHARATI
71205 -1 003003 00 12/11/2006 290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC- COOKING
VENDOR TOTAL
0002260 JUST FOR KICKS, INC.
73912 -1 002832 00 12/07/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC +INSTRUC - SOCCER
PAGE 10
EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
AMOUNT
____ _____ ______________________
76.83
17.00
171.01
169.45
133.66
26.77
248.95
928.33
78.11
6.730.75
96.00
48.00
144.00
150.00
150.00
77.94
572.37
1,039.20
1,689.51
363.00
347.40
710.40
3,000.00
3,000.00
85.52
85.52
300.00
300.00
22.50
22.50
220.50
J7,REPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 11
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OP: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. SNK CHBCK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002260
JUST FOR KICKS,
INC.
002937
71710 -1
002938
71711 -1
73913 -1
002833
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC- INSTRUC- SOCCER
p3914 -1
002834
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC- INSTRUC- SOCCER
93915 -1
002835
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005- 564.53
-10
RC12KC'INSTRUC- SOCCER
3916 -1
002836
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC *INSTRUC- SOCCER
3917 -1
002837
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC'INSTRUC- SOCCER
VENDOR TOTAL '
0000224
KELEX SECURITY
223046
002722
00
12/17/2006
001- 1060 - 513.50
-11
FM11KC•ALARM REPAIR
0000929 KOEHLER, PETER
71555 -1 002945
0003526
KOZUBOV, ELLA
71705 -1
002937
71710 -1
002938
71711 -1
002939
71721 -1
002940
71723 -1
002941
71724 -1
002942
71725 -1
002943
71726 -1
002944
71712 -1
00J000
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
00 12/11/2006
DO 12/11/2006
0000005 LEON, CARLA
0197 002823 00 12/06/2006
0000772 LIEBERT CASSIDY NHITMORE
71510 002858 00 12/19/2006
0003046 LIGHTHOUSE INSTALLATIONS
128 002965 00 12/12/2006
0004311
LINE -X OF SANTA CLARA
3223
003093
22416
00
12/27/2006
3219
003094
22416
00
12/21/2006
3233
003095
22416
00
01/04/2007
3231
003096
22416
00
01/04/2007
45081
003097
22416
00
12/28/2006
45082
003098
22416
00
12/28/2006
45089
003099
22416
00
01/04/2007
4IRJ Z]:i�KdYAT.
290 - 6005- S64.53 -10 RC12KC'INSTRUC- ASTRONOMY
VENDOR TOTAL *
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10
290 - 6005 - 564.53 -10
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10
RC12KC *INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC•INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC•INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC *INSTRUC - GYMNASTICS
RC12KC- INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC *INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC *INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC- INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
RC12KC *INSTRUC- GYMNASTICS
VENDOR TOTAL -
290 -0000- 260.00 -00 RC11KC*RENTAL DEP REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1045 - 513.54 -02 HR10KC *PERSNL RULES -OCT
VENDOR TOTAL -
207 - 3207 - 532.56 -16 LL11RF *DONNTN LGHT MAINT
VENDOR TOTAL *
501 - 1091 - 532.60 -05
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
501 - 1091 - 532.60 -05
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
IS11RF'BEDLINER -VEH #116
IS11RF'BEDLINER -VEH #115
IS11RF'BEDLINER -VEH #117
IS11RF- BEDLINER -VEH #118
IS11RF•LUMBR RACK- VEH#II(
IS11RP'NTHERGRD -VEH #118
IS11RF *TOOL BOX -VEH #117
330.75
404.25
808.50
441.00
110.25
2,315.25
305.00
305.00
150.00
150.00
232.00
72.50
72.50
253.75
253.75
246.50
362.50
364.00
43.50
1,901.00
300.00
300.00
1,011.50
1,011.50
800.00
800.00
490.00
979.19
490.00
465.00
569.34
458.87
343.15
VENDOR TOTAL • 3,795.55
0002858 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC.
PREPARED
12/14/2006, 15:13:29
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
PROGRAM:
GM339L
AS OF:
01/08/2007 CHECK DATE:
12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEND NO
VENDOR NAME
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
BNK CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT
ITEM
EXPENDITURE
NO
NO NO
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0002858
LORAL LANDSCAPING,
INC.
41545
002866
00
12/01/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.54
-42
PK11RF +NOV- GRBAGE PICKUP
500.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
500.00
O604169
LOS GATOS CHEVROLET
12/15/06
003014 22404
00
12/15/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
IS11RF +2007 SILVERADO TRK
20,189.99
VENDOR TOTAL +
20,189.99
0004225
MANPAED I, KIM
71526 -1
002956
00
12/11/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - PAINTING
150.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
150.00
0000005
MARTINA, GINA
0259
002624
00
12/07/2006
290 - 0000 - 260.00
-00
RC12KC +RENTAL DEP REFUND
300.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
300.00
0004149
MASON, �AISHAN
13/11/06
002984
00
12/11/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
TN12KC +STAFF - 12/8 DANCE
50.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
50.00
0001570
McNAPFHY, JOHN
13/06/06
002821
00
12/06/2006
001- 1005 - 511.20
-04
CC12KC +REISS CK86595 9/01
250.00
I
VENDOR TOTAL +
250.00
0003081
MBNA, DEXTER
12/11/06
002983
00
12/11/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
TN12KC+STAFF - 12/8 DANCE
50.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
50.00
0002501
METSORA TfiCHN0LOGIHS
GROUP, INC.
1691
002720
00
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.55
-BO
RC11KC +WINTER SCHEDULE
300.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
300.00
0000273
MEYER, GREG
72304 -1
002847
00
12/06/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - EXPEDITION
150.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
150.00
0004305
MG CONSTRUCTORS &
ENGINEERS,
INC.
06 -7 -89
003019 22344
00
12/19/2006
728 -2728- 622.52
-41
CP10RF +VILLGE LIBRARY RPR
5,54B.38
VENDOR TOTAL +
5,548.38
0000277
MIKE'S GARDENING
794
003030
00
01/01/2007
203- 3203- 532.54
-36
LL12RF +DEC- GREEMBRIER
210.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
210.00
0002972
MILLMAN & INDUSTRIAL
CARPENTERS
12/07/06
002822
00
12/07/2006
001 -0000- 210.20
-16
PR12KC- PRI20706 DEDUC
300.00
VENDOR TOTAL '
300.00
0002585
MITY -LITE, INC.
IN- 454962
002794
i
00
12/22/2006
762 -3762- 622.35
-22
NC11KC +TABLES -N0. CAMPUS
3,979.53
PAGE 12
HAND - ISSUED
PREPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
PAGE 13
ROGRAM: GM339L
AS OF:
01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
gITY OF SARATOGA
{ ----------------
_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEND NO
VENDOR NAME
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
ENK CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT
ITEM
EXPENDITURE
HAND- ISSUED
NO
________________________________
NO NO
DATE
___ ___ ___ ___________
NO
__ _________
DESCRIPTION
____-- ___- ___-- __________
AMOUNT
_
0002585
MITY -LITE, INC.
VENDOR TOTAL •
3,979.53
002269
MJB ASSOCIATES
11166
1002289
002744
00
12/09/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
PKSIJI•TRASH LOCK KEYS
36.06
VENDOR TOTAL •
36.06
MOORE, KAREN
V1201 -1
002949
00
12/11/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- COOKING
44.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
44.00
0000005
MORTON D LENSKE
11/9/06
002888
00
12/09/2006
001- 2015 - 523.50
-08
PS11RF•PRKG CTATION REFND
35.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
35.00
0002606
MPA DESIGN, INC.
0100637
002966
00
12/11/2006
791 -4791- 622.51
-50
PK10RF +OCT SRVC -KEV MORAN
1,500.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
1,500.00
0002160
MUSICALME, INC.
71900 -1 A
002]]1
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
423.15
71901 -1 A
002772
00
12/05/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
241.90
71903 -1 A
002773
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
362.70
71904 -1 A
002774
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
483.60
71905 -1 A
002775
00
12/05/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
362.70
,71906 -1 A
002776
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
302.25
71907 -1 A
002777
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
362.70
71909 -1 A
002778
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
423.15
71909 -1 A
002779
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
302.25
.71910 -1 A
002780
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
483.60
71911 -1 A
002781
00
12/05/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12XC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
544.05
11912 -1 A
002782
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
302.25
71914 -1 A
002783
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
60.45
71915 -1 A
002784
00
12/05/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC - MUSIC
302.25
.71916 -1 A
002785
00
12/05/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
302.25
71917-1 A
002786
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC +INSTRUC - MUSIC
302.25
VENDOR TOTAL •
5,561.40
0004159
MY FIRST ART CLASS
71561 -1
002713
00
11/27/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC1IKC +INSTRUC - ART
540.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
540.00
0004165
NORTH BAY BUILDING
MAINTENANCE
1966
002721
00
12/18/2006
001- 1060 - 513.53
-40
FM11KC•JNTRL SVC- 11/12 -18
418.00
19606
002797
00
12/25/2006
001- 1060- 513.53
-40
FM11XC•JNTRL SVC - 11/19 -25
228.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
646.00
0004194
NUNEZ, MACEDONIO
11/08/06
002745
00
12/06/2006
001- 3005 - 532.34
-62
ST11JI•PARKING FEES /MTG
8.00
11/08/06 A 002746
00
12/06/2006
001- 3005 - 532.34
-62
ST11JI•MILEAGE /MTG
44.03
PREPARED 12/,/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 14
PIF DORAN: GM339L AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
_ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ _________ _____ _ ___
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICS VOUCHER P.O. ENK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO I NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Og04194 NUNEZ, MACEDONIO
VENDOR TOTAL •
52.03
0 01997 OFFICE DEPOT,
INC.
3 2590196 -001
002816
00
12/20/2006
001- 1040 - 513.35
-21
FN11KC -MMIN OFFICE SPLY
41.23
3 2056638 -001
002750
00
12/20/2006
001- 3035- 532.35
-21
EG1IJI�OFFICE SUPPLIES
11.37
3 1832458 -001
002751
00
12/20/2006
001- 3035 - 532.35
-21
E011JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.63
360696806 -001
002752
00
12/13/2006
001 - 3035 - 532.35
-21
EG11JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
69.79
365090688 -001
002987
00
01/03/2007
001- 3035 - 532.35
-21
EG12JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
27.92
362904503 -ODIA
002748
00
12/20/2006
250 -4010- 542.35
-21
ZA11JI•OFFICE SUPPLIES
54.52
362809163 -001
002749
00
12/20/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
ZA11JI•OFFICE SUPPLIES
8.28
359322804 -001
002753
00
12/06/2006
250- 4010 - 542.35
-21
ZAIIJI *OFFICE SUPPLIES
128.17
39579364 -001
002754
DO
12/06/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
ZA1IJI•OFFICE SUPPLIES
10.92
360751227 -001
002755
00
12/13/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
ZA11JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.39
362904503 -001
002747
00
12/20/2006
250 -4015- 542.35
-21
IS11JI.OFFICE SUPPLIES
49,49
364101538 -001
002962
00
01/04/2007
290 - 6005- 564.35
-21
RC12KC•OFFICE SUPPLY
80.65
0002999 GKIN,
LENA
VENDOR TOTAL •
508.36
71504 -1
002714
00
11/28/2006
290 -6005- 564.53
-10
RC11KC•INSTRUC - CRAFTS
22.00
0 00302 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDNARE
VENDOR TOTAL •
22.00
1E/26/06 A
002936
00
12/21/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.32
-51
FM11KC•FACILITY SUPPLIES
292.66
10/04/06A
002757
00
11/20/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
ST10JI•STREETS SUPPLIES
295.02
11/26/2006A
003033
00
12/26/2006
001- 3005- 532.35
-22
STIIRF•STREETS SUPPLIES
122.59
10/04/06
002756
00
11/20/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
PK10JI•PARKS SUPPLIES
361.15
11/26/2006
003032
00
12/26/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
PK11RF•PMKS SUPPLIES
274.68
11/26/06
002935
00
12/21/2006
290- 6005 - 564.35
-22
RC11XC•REC SUPPLIES
321.47
0009172 OROZ,
DIANE
VENDOR TOTAL •
1,667.57
71610 -1
002842
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KCtINSTRUC- ETIQUETTE
320.00
71608 -1
002843
00
12/07/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- ETIQUETTE
267.00
71606 -1 ,002844
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC'INSTRUC- ETIQUETTE
17B.00
71612 -1
002845
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC•INSTRUC- ETIQUETTE
276.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
1,041.00
0000307 PACIPIC GAS 6
ELECTRIC
12/08/06
003179
00
12/26/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-02
EQ12RP- DEC -NATL GAS VHCL
509.50
12/08/06A
003180
00
12/26/2006
001- 1060 - 513.41
-02
FM12RF•DEC- BUILDINGS
4,827.71
12/08/06B
003181
00
12/26/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.41
-02
PK12RF *DEC- PARR /OPN SPACE
456.68
12/06/06C
003182
00
12/26/2006
150- 3015 - 532.41
-02
GT12RF•DEC- TRAFFIC SIGNAL
1,078.48
12/08/06D
003183
00
12/26/2006
150- 3015 - 532.41
-02
GT12RF +DEC-CTYND ST LGHTS
787.50
12,/08/06E
003184
00
12/26/2006
204- 3204 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF•DEC -QUIT0 LIGHTING
1,207.10
12/08/06F
003185
00
12/26/2006
205- 3205 - 532.41
-02
LL32RF *DEC -AZULE LIGHTING
263.61
12/08/06G
003186
00
12/26/2006
206 - 3206 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF•DEC- SARAHLS LORTNG
287.94
12/08/06H
003187
00
12/26/2006
207 - 3207 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF +DEC - VILLAGE LGHTNG
636.95
12J08 /06N
003193
00
12/26/2006
207 - 3207 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF•DEC- VILLAGE COMML
1,715.05
12/08/06I
003188
00
12/26/2006
209- 3209 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF-DEC- MCCARTHYSVILLE
15.98
*EPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 15
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OP: 01/08 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
-_ -------- -------- ----------- ------ - - - - -- -_ __ --------__-----------___----------__-----
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. ENK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAM- ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000307 PACIFIC GAS 6 ELECTRIC
12/08/06)
003189
00
12/26/2006
210- 3210 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF•DEC- TRICIA WOODS
1.80
12/OB/06K
003190
00
12/26/2006
215- 3215 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF *DEC - BONNET WAY
376.25
12/08/06L
003191
00
12/26/2006
216 - 3216 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF *DEC- HEAUCHAMPS
48.75
12/08/06M
003192
00
12/26/2006
222- 3222 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF *DEC- PRIDES CROSSNG
46.07
12/08/060
003194
00
12/26/2006
227 - 3227 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF *DEC- CUNGHM /GLSGOW
6.19
12/08/06P
003195
00
12/26/2006
229- 3229 - 532.41
-02
LL12RF *DEC- TOLLGATE
168.21
12/08/060
003196
00
12/26/2006
231 - 3231 - 532.41
-02
LL12RP *DEC -HSHOE LNDSCAPE
8.52
IR /06/06R
003197
00
12/26/2006
746 -2746- 622.41
-02
CP12RP *DEC- GATEWAY SBRVCE
177.74
0002574
PACIFIC PRODUCTS S
SERVICES
VENDOR TOTAL *
12,620.03
6191
002758
00
12/13/2006
701 -1701- 622.35
-22
CP11JI *PIERCE RD CROCKER
2,083.28
0004309
PAUL HENRY JOLLY
VENDOR TOTAL *
2,063.28
11/22/06
003013
00
12/22/2006
755- 3755- 622.52
-41
WH11KC *BLDG REPAIR
3,491.59
0009207
PAXTON, SUSAN ANN
VENDOR TOTAL *
3,491.59
71223 -1
002897
00
12/05/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC- INSTRUC - COOKING
240.00
0000933
PENINSULA BVILDING
MATBRIALS
VENDOR TOTAL *
240.00
6257921
002910
00
12/29/2006
701 -1701- 622.35
-22
CP11JI *7/8" SPLINE BIT
71.39
0003992
PBNINSVLA COMMUNICATIONS
VENDOR TOTAL •
71.39
1940
003100 22406
00
12/28/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
IS11RF *COMM EQUIP&ACCESSO
1,675.08
0003037
PESONBN, LYNN
VENDOR TOTAL *
11675.08
71111 -1
002846
00
12/07/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC12KC *INSTRUC- COMPUTER
36.00
VENDOR TOTAL *
36.00
0000979
PETROTEK
20061145
002967
00
12/30/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.54
-33
E011RF *NOV- RECORDER SRVC
200.00
VENDOR TOTAL *
200.00
0002890
PRECZSION CONCRETE
CUTTING
A42021
003031 22401
00
12/21/2006
706- 1706- 622.52
-41
CP11RF *TRIP HZRD REMOVAL
3,800.63
VENDOR TOTAL *
3,800.63
0002893
RATRA, RICK
827681
002759
00
12/15/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
EQ11JI•PROPANE
30.74
82762B
003035
00
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
E012RF *PROPANE
36.71
906444
003036
00
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
EQ12RF *PROPANE
19.97
VENDOR TOTAL *
87.42
0000339 REED 6 GRAHAM, INC.
PREPARED
12/,,2006, 15:13:29
002760
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 16
PR1YXHZAM:
GM339L
-22
AS OF: 01/08 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CI P Y OF
SARATOGA
00
12/31/2006
__ _
VS D NO
________________________________________________________________________________________________
VENDOR NAME
00
___________ ____ ____ __ _ ___ __
I MOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
BNK CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND - ISSUED
NO
NO
NO DATE
NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
006334 REED 6 GRAHAM, INC
624116
SAN JOSE WATER
002760
00
12/29/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.35
-22
ST11JI•ASPHALT
11/30/06B
003147
00
12/31/2006
11 /30 /06A
003146
00
VENDOR TOTAL
00
2329
REPUBLIC ITS
12/31/2006
11/30/06D
003149
00
12/31/2006
35
9
002972
00
12/27/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.54
-31
ST11RF•LOOP REPLACEMNT
06
0961
003969
00
12/11/2006
150- 3015 - 532.57
-36
GT10RF•TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT
06
0962
002970
00
12/11/2006
150 -3015- 532.50
-97
GT10RF•TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT
35
2
002971
00
12/15/2006
150- 3015 - 532.57
-36
GT11RF•REPAIR TRFC SIGNAL
35
8
002973
00
12/27/2006
150- 3015 - 532.57
-36
GT11RF•LOOP REPLACEMNT
34
0
002968
00
12/13/2006
207- 3207 - 532.56
-16
LLIIRF•RPLACED PHOTOCELL
00
4253
ROMANO CONSTRUCTION,
INC
VENDOR TOTAL -
12
07/06
003025 22299
00
01/07/2007
001 - 1060 - 513.54
-39
FM12RF•MCWILLIAM HSE PROJ
12107/06A
003026 22300
00
01/07/2006
270 - 7015 - 572.51
-28
CG12RF•MCWILLIAM ADA WORK
oob0005
12/05/06
00 2005
73052
0000341
11/17/06
00]4307
71 26 -1
71 25 -1
0004203
10/05/06
0000344
7908388
7911638
ROOF CO'!OF SILICON VALLEY
002802 00 12/05/2006
ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT CO.
002974 22397 00 12/02/2006
S.A.S.C.C.
002978
SAFUL CONSULTING
003004
003005
00 12/17/2006
VENDOR TOTAL •
001- 1040 - 413.05 -00 FN12KC•DUP BUS LIC -REIMB
VENDOR TOTAL -
734 - 2734 - 622.35 -22 CP11RF•RECEPT W /SHIELD
VENDOR TOTAL -
270- 7015 - 572.51 -24 CG11RF•ADLT CARE- SEP /OCT
VENDOR TOTAL -
00 12/11/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC -YOGA
00 12/11/2006 290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC•INSTRUC -YOGA
VENDOR TOTAL
SAMORANOS, CLIFFORD CARPO
001810 00 12/19/2006
SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT
002761 00 12/27/2006
002975 00 12/11/2006
0000346
SAN JOSE WATER
COMPANY
11/30/06
003145
00
12/31/2006
11/30/06B
003147
00
12/31/2006
11 /30 /06A
003146
00
12/31/2006
11/30/06C
003148
00
12/31/2006
11/30/06D
003149
00
12/31/2006
291 - 6010 - 564.51 -45 TMIOKC•AUDIO SVC- 12/22
VENDOR TOTAL •
001- 3005 - 532.35 -22 ST11JI•HAYMEADOW DELIVERY
250- 4010 - 542.55 -43 ZA11RF•PRINTG SRVCS
VENDOR TOTAL
001- 1060 - 513.41 -04 FM11RF•MOV- BUILDINGS
001- 3025 - 532.41 -04 MP11RF•NOV- MDIANS /PRKWYS
001- 3030 - 532.41 -04 PK11RF•MOV- PRKS /OPN SPACE
202 - 3202 - 532.41 -04 LL11RF•NOV- FREDRCKS8URG
203 - 3203 - 532.41 -04 LL11RF•NOV- GREENBRIAR
136 .24
136.24
2,800.00
1,456.36
1, oso.0o
250.00
4,480.00
117.89
10,154.25
15,821.55
11,389.50
27,211.05
60.00
60.00
3,184.64
3,184.64
5,500.00
5,500.00
78.40
259.60
338.00
400.00
400.00
36.07
31.61
67.68
537.55
1,402.31
2,407.24
24.90
129.37
REPARED
12/14/2006, 15:13:29
ROGRAM:
GM339L
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CITIES ASSOC
ITY OF SARATOGA
__________
VEND NO
_______________________________
VENDOR NAME
12/04/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
SHE
CHECK /DUE
NO
___________
NO
_______________________________
NO
DATE
000346
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
1/30/06E
003150
00
12/31/2006
1/30/06F
003151
00
12/31/2006
1/30/06G
003152
00
12/31/2006
1/30/068
003153
00
12/31/2006
1/30/062
003154
00
12/31/2006
1/30/06J
003155
00
12/31/2006
H1/30/06K
003156
00
12/31/2006
11/30/06L
003157
00
12/31/2006
11/30/06M
003158
00
12/31/2006
P
003159
00
12/31/2006
1/30/06M
/30/060
003160
00
12/31/2006
0004095
12/14/06
12/14/06
A
0004147
112/13/06
1004178
01/05/07
0000342
12/06/06
12/20/06
12/13/06
12/27/06
11/22/06 P
12/27/06 P
0000005
34872
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/08 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE
NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
205 - 3205 - 532.41 -04
209 - 3209 - 532.41 -04
210 - 3210 - 532.41 -04
211 - 3211 - 532.41 -04
212- 3212 - 532.41 -04
215- 3215 - 532.41 -04
222- 3222 - 532.41 -04
226 - 3226 - 532.41 -04
227- 3227 - 532.41 -04
229 - 3229 - 532.41 -04
232- 3232 - 532.41 -04
LLIIRF +NOV-AZULE LIGHT
LL1IRF +NOV- MCCMTYSVILLE
LL1IRF +NOV- TRICIA WOODS
LLI1RF +NOV- ARROYO DE SARA
LL1IRF +NOV-LEWM CT
LL1IRF +NOV- BONNET WAY
LL1IRF +NOV- PRIDES CROSSNG
LL1IRF +NOV- BELLGROVE
LL1IRF +NOV- CUNGHM /GLSGOW
LL1IRF +NOV- TOLLGATE
LL1IRF +NOV- GATEWAY PROJ
SARKISIAN, SHELLY VENDOR TOTAL +
002770 00 12/05/2006 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 RC12KC *CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL +
0004285 SATO, SANDRA REPOSH J
DEC 2006 002817 00 12/05/2006
0003055 SHIMODA, MICHIKO
71512 -1 002848 UO 12/07/2006
i
0002474 SIERRA PACIFIC TURP SUPPLY
0242494 -IN 002988 00 12/30/2006
001 - 1040 - 513.36 -72 FN12KC +TEMP HOUSING -DEC
VENDOR TOTAL +
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC- INSTRUC- IKEBANA
VENDOR TOTAL +
001- 3025 - 532.35 -22 MP1IJI +FERTILIZER
400.57
195.57
40.83
122.02
82.77
70.59
237.26
1,488.09
140.63
25.03
485.23
7.789.96
CHECK #: 103788
CHECK #: 103791
.00
CHECK q: 103787
.00
19,075.82
19,075.82
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00 -
500.00-
000.00
30.00
30.00
700.00
700.00
150.00
150.00
73.88
PAGE 17
HAND- ISSUED
400.00
60.00
540.00
100.00
100.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CITIES ASSOC
002819
00
12/04/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
-61
CC12KC *12/14 LUNCHEON
003022
00
12/12/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.34
-61
MG12KC +12/14 LUNCHEON
VENDOR TOTAL +
SANTA CLARA COUNTY / CITIBS MANAGERS
002820
00
12/04/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.34
-61
CM12KC +12/13 LUNCHEON
VENDOR TOTAL +
SANTA ROSA CHEVROLET -ISUZU
003015 22402
00
01/05/2007
501 - 1091 - 532.60
-05
ISIIRF +2006 CHEVY C1500
VENDOR TOTAL +
SARATOGA COMMUNITY
ACCESS TV
002602
00
12/31/2006
001- 7030 - 572.53
-71
GT12KC +12/6/06 CC MEETING
002603
00
12/31/2006
001 - 7030 - 572.53
-71
GT12KC +12 /20/6 CC MEETING
002618
00
12/31/2006
001 - 7030 - 572.53
-72
GT12KC +12 /13/6 PC MEETING
002619
00
12/31/2006
001- 7030 - 572.53
-72
GT12KC +12/27/6 PC MEETING
002857
00
12/31/2006
001- 7030 - 572.53
-72
GTIIKC +OVR PMT- 11 /22PC MT
003008
00
12/31/2006
001- 7030 - 572.53
-72
GT12KC +12/27 PC MTG CX
SARKISIAN, SHELLY VENDOR TOTAL +
002770 00 12/05/2006 290- 6005- 445.04 -00 RC12KC *CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL +
0004285 SATO, SANDRA REPOSH J
DEC 2006 002817 00 12/05/2006
0003055 SHIMODA, MICHIKO
71512 -1 002848 UO 12/07/2006
i
0002474 SIERRA PACIFIC TURP SUPPLY
0242494 -IN 002988 00 12/30/2006
001 - 1040 - 513.36 -72 FN12KC +TEMP HOUSING -DEC
VENDOR TOTAL +
290- 6005 - 564.53 -10 RC12KC- INSTRUC- IKEBANA
VENDOR TOTAL +
001- 3025 - 532.35 -22 MP1IJI +FERTILIZER
400.57
195.57
40.83
122.02
82.77
70.59
237.26
1,488.09
140.63
25.03
485.23
7.789.96
CHECK #: 103788
CHECK #: 103791
.00
CHECK q: 103787
.00
19,075.82
19,075.82
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00 -
500.00-
000.00
30.00
30.00
700.00
700.00
150.00
150.00
73.88
PAGE 17
HAND- ISSUED
400.00
60.00
540.00
100.00
100.00
PAGE 18
HAND- ISSUED
342.00-
342.00-
PREPARED
12/14/2006, 15:13:29
EXPENDITURE
APPROVAL LIST
PROGRAM:
GM339L
AS OF:
01/08/2007 CHECK DATE:
12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEND NO
VENDOR NAME
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
BNK CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT
ITEM
EXPENDITURE
NO
NO NO
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0002474
SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY
0241657-IN
002981 22412
00
12/15/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
PK11RF +TURF SUPPLIES
2,101.68
0242493 -IN
001091 22413
00
12/30/2006
001- 3030- 532.35
-22
PK1IRF- NITREX FERTILIZER
922.84
VENDOR TOTAL +
3,098.40
0000272
SILICON VALLEY COMMVNITY
817521115
002730
00
12/20/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.36
-77
CC11KC +AD -TREE LIGHTII /24
1,083.00
82!1561122
002812
00
12/27/2006
001- 1005 - 511.36-77
CC1IKC +VILLAGE LGHTNG AD
1,083.00
39377
002727
00
11/20/2006
001- 1030 - 511.35
-21
CK10KC +LGL AD ORD 246
416.00
39378
002728
00
11/20/2006
001- 1030- 511.35
-21
CK10KC +LGL AD- LBRY COMM
273.00
39246
002729
00
11/11/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.35
-21
CK10KC +LGL AD -PBL ERG11 /1
139.50
39443
002887
00
12/27/2006
001 - 3005- 532.31
-02
ST10RF +AD -CITY LEGALS
614.25
39339
002762
00
11/18/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.31
-02
ZA10JI +PC HEARING NOTICE
113.75
39168
002763
00
11/04/2OD6
250- 4010 - 542.31
-02
ZAIOJI +PC HEARING NOTICE
198.25
11/1/06
003029
00
12/19/2006
731 -2731- 622.31
-02
CP11RF -CTY LEGALS AD
390.00
0000005
SNIPFEN, NEE LING
VENDOR TOTAL
4,310.75
01.,83
002626
00
12/07/2006
290- 0000- 260.00
-00
RC12KC +RENTAL DEP REFUND
300.00
0002843
STATE OF CA FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD
VENDOR TOTAL +
300.00
71400 -1 B
002717
00
11/28/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
RC11KC +CSE4286860518BANDA
30.00
0000690
STEVE SILVBR PRODUCTIONS, INC
VENDOR TOTAL +
30.00
5691033926 B 002530
00
11/28/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.51
-74
RC12KC +TICKETS /TRIP -12/13
CHECK 9: 103772
0001569
STREIT, NICK
VENDOR TOTAL +
00
11/30/06
002951
00
12/11/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
-61
CC1IKC +MEETINGS
140.10
11/30/06 A 002952
00
12/11/2006
001- 1005 - 511.20
-04
CCIIKC +MILEAGE
156.42
0009269
T. BENNETT SERVICES, INC
VENDOR TOTAL +
296.52
3101
002994 22342
00
12/29/2006
320- 9010 - 522.53
-18
CP1IRF +LIBRARY SIGNS
7,645.50
0002239
TMT SNTlIRPRIS85, INC.
VENDOR TOTAL +
7,645.50
24867
002764
00
12/15/2006
001- 3025- 532.35
-22
MP1IJI +RDWD SAWDUST
330.16
25159
002989
00
12/29/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
PK11JI +SAND
111.03
25034
002990
00
12/22/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
PKISJI +REDWOOD SAWDUST
330.16
VENDOR TOTAL +
]]1.35
0009197
TOMASSO, VANHSSA MARIE
12/11/06
002982
00
12/11/2006
291 - 6010 - 564.51
-45
TN12KC +STAFF - 12/8 DANCE
50.00
VENDOR TOTAL +
50.00
0009306
TRANSFER PLOW INC.
164692
003011 22405
00
12/21/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
ISIIRF +RFUEL TNK6PUMP KIT
1,546.71
PAGE 18
HAND- ISSUED
342.00-
342.00-
PREPARED
12/14/2006, 15:13:29
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
PAGE 19
PROGRAM: GM339L
AS OF:
01/00 /2007 CHECK DATE:
12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO
VENDOR N AMS
-------------------------------------""'-------------
INVOICE
VOUCHER P.O.
BNK
CHECK /DUE
ACCOUNT
ITEM
EXPENDITURE
HAND- ISSUED
NO
NO NO
DATE
NO
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
0004306
TRANSFER FLOW INC.
164692A
003012
00
12/21/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
IS11RF•RFUEL TNKSPUMP KIT
110.01
VENDOR TOTAL *
1,656.72
0000411
U SAVE ROCKERY
92397
002991
00
12/21/2006
001 - 3005- 532.35
-22
ST11JI•SMD
487.13
VENDOR TOTAL *
487.13
0003116
UNGO- MCCORMICK, DEBORAH
12 -06 -34
003131
00
12/25/2006
250 -0000- 207.05
-00
AP11RF•06 -00148 9/1 -11/30
9,980.00
12- 06 -34A
003132
00
12/25/2006
250- 4005- 444.13
-00
AP11RF *06 -00148 9/1 -11/30
9,980.00
-
12-06-34B
003133 22276
00
12/25/2006
250- 4005 - 542.52
-43
AP11RF•06 -00148 9/1 -11/30
9,900.00
12 -06 -37
003118
00
12/26/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.55
-36
ZA11RF *05 -035 SV9 /1 -11/30
900.00
12- 06 -37A
003119
00
12/26/2006
250- 4010 - 444.53
-06
ZA11RF•05 -035 SV9 /1 -11/30
1,200.00-
12-06-39
003121
00
12/26/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.55
-36
ZA11RF *07 -033 SV9 /1 -11/30
270.00
12 -06 -40
003122
00
12/26/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.55
-36
ZA11RF *05 -034 SV9 /1 -11/30
180.00
12- 06 -40A
003123
00
12/26/2006
250 -4010- 444.53
-06
ZA11RF•05 -034 SV9 /1 -11/30
240.00-
12-06-38
003125
00
12/26/2006
250- 4010 - 542.55
-36
ZA11RF *06 -247 SV9 /1 -11/30
720.00
12- 06 -38A
003126
00
12/26/2006
250- 4010 - 444.53
-06
ZA11RF *06 -247 SV9 /1 -11/30
960.00-
12-06-36
003128
00
12/26/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.55
-36
ZAl1RF *06 -017 SV9 /1 -11/30
5,130.00
12- 06 -36A
003129
00
12/26/2006
250 - 4010 - 444.53
-06
ZA11RF *06 -017 SV9 /1 -11/30
6,840.00-
12-06-378
003120
00
12/26/2006
604 - 4604- 444.50
-06
PD11RF *05 -035 SV9 /1 -11/30
1,200.00
12- 06 -40B
003124
00
12/26/2006
604 -4604- 444.50
-06
PD11RF *05 -034 SV9 /1 -11/30
240.00
12 -06 -388
003127
00
12/26/2006
605- 4605 - 444.51
-06
PD11RF•06 -247 SV9 /1 -11/30
960.00
12 -06 -368
003130
00
12/26/2006
605- 4605- 444.51
-06
PDIIRF•06 -017 SV9 /1 -11/30
6,840.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
17,180.00
0003099
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
882629
003101 22384
00
12/19/2006
738 -2738- 622.52
-41
CP07RF *COX AVE- PROGRS43
33,890.42
886809
00102 22384
00
12/19/2006
738 -2738- 622.52
-41
CP08RF *COX AVE- PROGRS44
93,073.26
VENDOR TOTAL *
126,963.68
0000413
UNIVERSAL SWEEPING
SERVICE
IWO600123
002976 22312
00
12/10/2006
260- 5015 - 552.54
-37
SWIORF *CITY ST SWEEP SVC
6,532.75
060013543
003027 22414
00
12/15/2006
744 -2744- 622.52
-41
CP11RF *PRSSRE WASH SDWLKS
4,960.00
VENDOR TOTAL •
11,492.75
0002682
VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE
46495
002995
00
12/22/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57
-04
PK11RF *TREE RMVL -WLDWD PK
480.00
49922
002996
00
12/30/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57
-04
CP11RF *TREE RMVL- HAKONE
2,520.00
48188
002997
00
12/20/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.57
-04
PK11RF *TREE PRUNING
2,675.00
48495B
003052
00
12/22/2006
001- 3030 - 443.53
-00
PK10RF *TREE RMVL -WLDWD PK
480.00-
499220
003057
00
12/30/2006
001 - 3030 - 443.53
-00
CP11RF•TREE RMVL- HAKONE
2,520.00-
481885
003062
00
12/20/2006
001 - 3030 - 443.53
-00
PK11RF *TREE PRUNING
2,675.00
-
48495A
003051
00
12/22/2006
250- 0000- 207.01
-00
PK10RF *TREE RMVL -WLDWD PK
480.00
49922A
003055
DO
12/30/2006
250 -0000- 207.01
-00
CP11RF *TREE RMVL- HAKONE
2,520.00
46189A
003060
00
12/20/2006
250 -0000- 207.01
-00
PK11RF•TREE PRUNING
2,675.00
VENDOR TOTAL *
5,675.00
0004138
VALLEYCREST TREE CARE
SERVICES
PR PARED 12/. 4006, 15:13:29
PR GRAM: GM339L
CI Y OF SARATOGA
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/00 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ACCOUNT ITEM
NO DESCRIPTION
--------------------------- - - - - --
001 - 3030 - 532.57 -04 PK1IRF +TREE CARE WLDWD PK
001- 3030 - 443.53 -00 PK11RF *TREE CARE -WLDWD PK
250- 0000- 207.01 -00 PK11RF *TREE CARE -WLDWD PK
001- 1020 - 511.41 -03
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
001- 1060 - 513.57 -91
001 - 3005 - 532.41 -03
001 - 3030 - 532.41 -03
001- 3035- 532.41 -03
250- 2010 - 522.41 -03
250 - 4010 - 542.41 -03
250 - 4015 - 542.41 -03
260 -5015- 552.41 -03
VENDOR TOTAL *
MG12RF *DEC -CITY MANAGER
GS12RF +DEC - GENERAL SVCS
FM12RF *DEC- FACILITIES
ST12RF *DEC -PW STREETS
PK12RF *DEC-PW PARKS
EG12RF *DEC-PW ENGINEER
CE12RF *DEC -CODE ENFORCMT
GS12RF *DEC -CDD
GS12RF *DEC-CDD INSPECTORS
SW12RF *DEC-PW ENGINEER
0001401 VICTORY CHEVROLET VENDOR TOTAL *
12/29/06 003016 22403 00 12/29/2006 501- 1091 - 532.60 -05 IS11RF *2006 SILVERADO
12/30/06 .00017 22403 00 12/30/2006 501- 1091 - 532.60 -05 IS11RF *2006 COLORADO TRK
0000005 WEIDERT, STEPHANIE
34071 002769 00 12/05/2006
0004244 WESCO GRAPHICS INC
2204 002977 22010 00 12/22/2006
0000426 WEST COAST BLDG, SERVICE
32824 003002 22396 00 12/01/2006
0000427 WEST COAST FENCE COMPANY, INC.
6368 002999 22395 00 12/20/2006 001- 3030 - 532.57 -04 PK11RF *CHAIN LNK WLDWD PK
VENDOR TOTAL
290- 6005- 445.04 -00 RC12KC *CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
290 - 6005 - 564.55 -81 RC11RF *07 WNTER SPEWS
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 - 3030 - 532.56 -18 PK11RF *NOV-PRKS JAN SRVCS
VENDOR TOTAL
0001582
WEST VALLEY -
MISSION
3,862.00
PS -1064 A
002815
VEND
NO VENDOR NAME
PS -1064
002814
00
I
DICE
VOUCHER
P.O.
BNX CHECK /DUE
NO
------------------------------------------
NO
NO
289.80-
DATE
00
4138 VALLEYCREST
TREE
CARE
SERVICES
48
86
002998
22334
00
12/20/2006
40
86B
003066
00
12/20/2006
48186A
003064
00
12/20/2006
00
0179 VERIZON WIRELESS
20
5051248
003198
00
12/30/2006
20
5051248A
003199
00
12/30/2006
20
5051248I
003207
00
12/30/2006
20
5051248E
003203
00
12/30/2006
20RS051248F
003204
00
12/30/2006
2095051248G
003205
00
12/30/2006
2095051248D
003202
00
12/30/2006
209505124BC
003201
00
12/30/2006
20950512488
003200
00
12/30/2006
2095051248H
003206
00
12/30/2006
EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST
AS OF: 01/00 /2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
ACCOUNT ITEM
NO DESCRIPTION
--------------------------- - - - - --
001 - 3030 - 532.57 -04 PK1IRF +TREE CARE WLDWD PK
001- 3030 - 443.53 -00 PK11RF *TREE CARE -WLDWD PK
250- 0000- 207.01 -00 PK11RF *TREE CARE -WLDWD PK
001- 1020 - 511.41 -03
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
001- 1060 - 513.57 -91
001 - 3005 - 532.41 -03
001 - 3030 - 532.41 -03
001- 3035- 532.41 -03
250- 2010 - 522.41 -03
250 - 4010 - 542.41 -03
250 - 4015 - 542.41 -03
260 -5015- 552.41 -03
VENDOR TOTAL *
MG12RF *DEC -CITY MANAGER
GS12RF +DEC - GENERAL SVCS
FM12RF *DEC- FACILITIES
ST12RF *DEC -PW STREETS
PK12RF *DEC-PW PARKS
EG12RF *DEC-PW ENGINEER
CE12RF *DEC -CODE ENFORCMT
GS12RF *DEC -CDD
GS12RF *DEC-CDD INSPECTORS
SW12RF *DEC-PW ENGINEER
0001401 VICTORY CHEVROLET VENDOR TOTAL *
12/29/06 003016 22403 00 12/29/2006 501- 1091 - 532.60 -05 IS11RF *2006 SILVERADO
12/30/06 .00017 22403 00 12/30/2006 501- 1091 - 532.60 -05 IS11RF *2006 COLORADO TRK
0000005 WEIDERT, STEPHANIE
34071 002769 00 12/05/2006
0004244 WESCO GRAPHICS INC
2204 002977 22010 00 12/22/2006
0000426 WEST COAST BLDG, SERVICE
32824 003002 22396 00 12/01/2006
0000427 WEST COAST FENCE COMPANY, INC.
6368 002999 22395 00 12/20/2006 001- 3030 - 532.57 -04 PK11RF *CHAIN LNK WLDWD PK
VENDOR TOTAL
290- 6005- 445.04 -00 RC12KC *CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL *
290 - 6005 - 564.55 -81 RC11RF *07 WNTER SPEWS
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 - 3030 - 532.56 -18 PK11RF *NOV-PRKS JAN SRVCS
VENDOR TOTAL
0001582
WEST VALLEY -
MISSION
3,862.00
PS -1064 A
002815
00
12/22/2006
PS -1064
002814
00
12/22/2006
PS -1056
002816
00
12/04/2006
0002895 WEST VALLEY - MISSION ADVANCEMENT
PS -1058 A 001946 00 11/14/2006
0003120 WHEEL WORKS
VENDOR TOTAL *
001- 1020- 511.35 -21 AP11KC *SARA LETTERHEAD
250 - 4005 - 542.35 -21 AP11KC *LETTERHEAD /BNV
250- 4010 - 542.35 -21 ZA10KC *ENVELOPES
VENDOR TOTAL *
250- 4010 - 542.35 -21 ZAIOKC *ENVRLOPES
VENDOR TOTAL
PAGE 20
EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
AMOUNT
------------------------------- - - - - --
12,355.00
12,355.00-
12,355.00
12,355.00
344.48
323.64
192.38
126.52
223.54
172.93
53.89
87.03
185.62
35.34
1,745.57
16,634.86
16,794.00
33. 42B. B6
30.00
30.00
4,026.95
4,026.95
695.00
695.00
3,862.00
3,862.00
429.00
385.20
CHECK #: 103786
289.80
814.20
289.80
CHECK #: 103662
289.80-
.00
289.80
-.
I
PMEPARED 12/14/2006, 15:13:29 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 21
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 01/08/2007 CHECK DATE: 12/19/2006
CITY OF SARATOGA
_- - -___-
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. BNK CHECK /DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND- ISSUED
NO . NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0003120 WHEEL WORKS
12/08/2006 003034 00 01/08/2007
0001798 WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALLE
12/05/06 002859 00 12/19/2006
01004304 WILLIAM JEFFREY HEID
12/01/06 002963 00 01/01/2007
0000005 WITKOWSKI, PAUL
34875 002768 00 12/05/2006
0004183 WITTWER 6 PARKIN, LLP
CM975 003134 00 12/03/2006
CM977 003135 00 12/03/2006
CM988 003136 00 12/03/2006
0004177 WOHLFORD CONSULTING
6 002993 22284 00 12/25/2006
0000440 XEROX CORPORATION
021662167 002850 00 01/01/2007
021662179 002851 00 01/01/2007
021662178 002652 00 01/01/2007
0002633 YAMAGAMI'S NURSERY
11/21/06 002765 00 12/21/2006
423982 002992 00 12/28/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.54 -33 EQ12RF *RPR TIRE -VEHC #95
VENDOR TOTAL •
001 - 7030 - 572.56 -70 GT12KC•CONTRIB -MOSQ SCRN
VENDOR TOTAL *
707 -1707- 622.51 -50 CP12RF *LNDSCPE -ALOHA
VENDOR TOTAL *
290- 6005 - 445.04 -00 RC12KC•CLASS REFUND
VENDOR TOTAL -
250- 4010 - 542.51 -41 ZA11RF *06 -430 LEGAL SVCS
250- 4010 - 542.51 -41 ZA11RF *03 -254 LEGAL SVCS
250- 4010 - 542.51 -41 ZA11RF•07 -096 LEGAL SVCS
VENDOR TOTAL *
001 -1050- 513.52 -05 GS11RF•BILL MLESTNESB 55C
VENDOR TOTAL •
001- 1050 - 513.51 -71 GS11KC *COPIERS LEASE -NOV
001- 1050 - 513.51 -71 GS11KC *COPIER SPLY /SV -NOV
001- 1050 - 513.51 -71 GS11KC *COPIER SPLY /SV -NOV
VENDOR TOTAL -
001 - 3030 - 532.35 -22 PK11JI•FLOWERS /FERTILIZER
001- 3030 - 532.35 -22 PK11JI *COMM CNTR FLOWERS
VENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ••••
GRAND TOTAL •c••• * *** *•
507.20
507.20
4,500.00
4,500.00
1,200.00
1,200.00
Bo. 00
80.00
122.00
512.40
170.80
805.20
2,985.00
2,985.00
912.85
15.00
79.53
1,007.38
153.83
54.14
207.97
760,618.01
4,099.78
764,917.79
�REPAREDI2,__,2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE CHECK
REGISI'_-
PAGE
1
ROGRAM:
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
CITY OF
ARATOG
REPORT NUMBER
13
-- ---- --
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
_________________
_______________________________
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
NO
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
*__3,
__________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________
103662*
2895
WEST VALLEY - MISSION ADVAN
001946
11/14/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
289.80-
1
289.80-
*
VOIDED
103772*
690
STEVE SILVER PRODUCTIONS,
002530
11/28/2006
290- 6005 - 564.51
-74
342.00-
1
342.00-
*
VOIDED
103786+
1582
WEST VALLEY - MISSION
002818
12/04/2006
250 -4010- 542.35
-21
289.80
289.80
*
289.80
103787*
4147
SANTA CLARA COUNTY /CITIES
002820
12/04/2006
001- 1020 - 511.34
-61
100.00
100.00
+
100.00
103788*
4095
SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES
002819
12/04/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.34
-61
480.00
480.00
+
480.00
103789*
2720
HIE VAR, LLC
002881
22407
12/05/2006
001- 1065 - 513.50
-17
1,530.00
002882
22407
12/05/2006
001- 1065 - 513.50
-18
1,150.00
002883
22407
12/05/2006
001- 1065 - 513.50
-98
361.83
3,041.83
*
3,041.83
103790*
2768
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS
002BB4
22429
12/05/2006
001- 1050 - 513.41
-03
759.95
759.95
759.95
103791*
4095
SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES
003022
12/12/2006
001- 1020- 511.34
-61
60.00
60.00
*
60.00
103792
3
A 6 M MOTOR SUPPLY
002731
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
202.75
002860
12/19/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.35
-22
83.57
286.32
*
286.32
103793
4
A RENTAL CENTER
002864
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.51
-72
297.00
002865
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.51
-72
346.00
643.00
*
643.00
103794
10
ABAG POWER PURCHASING POO
002853
12/19/2006
001- 1060- 513.41
-02
1,418.89
!
1,418.89
*
1,418.89
103795
2928
ABLE UNDERGROUND CONSTRUC
002863
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.54
-42
300.00
300.00
*
300.00
103796
4202
ADVANCED LISTING SERVICES
002861
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-41
221.20
221.20
*
221.20
103797
2645
ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUPP
002795
12/19/2006
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
38.34
002796
12/19/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.32
-51
520.54
-
558.88
*
558.88
103798
4009
ANN, KYUNG
002838
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
231.00
002901
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
171.50
-
002902
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
329.00
731.50
*
731.50
PREPAREDI2 /18/200, 13:51:50
PROGRAM: GM346L
CITY OF SARATOGA
--------------------------------------
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NO NO NAME
103799 1964 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER PAGE 2
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
REPORT NUMBER 13
VOUCHER P.O.
NO NO
P 002810
103800 1963 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS- PL 002809
DATE
2535
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
12/19/2006
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
12/19/2006
001 -0000- 210.20 -07
374.80
374.80 *
374.80
12/19/2006
001 -0000- 210.20 -07
4,401.76
*
4,250.00
103802
4,401.76 *
4,401.76
103801
2535
ALLIED 13NGINERRING COMPAN 002862
22372
12/19/2006
707 -1707- 622.50
-00
4,250.00
4,250.00
*
4,250.00
103802
1523
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING
002723
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.56
-14
27.21
27.21
*
27.21
103803
2581
AT S T/ MCI
002978
12/19/2006
001- 2005 - 521.41
-03
210.88
003161
12/19/2006
001- 1050 - 513.41
-03
176.65
003162
12/19/2006
001-3030 - 532.41
-03
14.95
003163
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.41
-03
14.95
003164
12/19/2006
001- 2005 - 521.41
-03
14.65
003165
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.41
-03
22.17
003166
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.41
-03
14.65
003167
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.41
-03
14.95
003168
12/19/2006
001-2005 - 521.41
-03
14.95
003169
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.41
-03
38.03
003170
12/19/2006
001 - 2005 - 521.41
-03
209.80
003171
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.41
-03
39.36
003172
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.41
-03
89.42
003173
12/19/2006
001- 1050 - 513.41
-03
596.85
003174
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.41
-03
30.37
003175
12/19/2006
001- 2005 - 521.41
-03
14.95
003176
12/19/2006
001 - 3030- 532.91
-03
99.06
003177
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.41
-03
77.06
003178
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.41
-03
46.22
1,684.92
•
1,684.92
103804
4058
AT SYSTEMS WEST, INC
002953
12/19/2006
001- 1040 - 513.50
-63
205.20
205.20
*
205.20
103805
40
BANDA, MASANKHO
002715
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
120.00
002716
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
30.00-
90.00
*
90.00
103806
1116
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY
002871
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.50
-10
102.79
102.79
*
102.79
103607
4220
BAY CITY MECHANICAL, INC
002868
22292
12/19/2006
320- 9010 - 522.52-41
12,000.00
002869
22292
12/19/2006
320- 9010 - 522.52
-41
9,600.00
002870
22292
12/19/2006
320- 9010 - 522.52
-41
2,400.00
24,000.00
*
24,000.00
103808
107B
BAY TELECOM
002905
12/19/2006
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
2,083.26
2,083.26
*
2,083.26
PREPARED1, ,/2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGIS'__,
PROGRAM:
PAGE
3
.CITY OF
SARATOGA
ARATOG
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
REPORT
NUMBER
13
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O. DATE
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
--- ....
HECK
NO
NO
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
103809
4052
BERGREN, JILLIAN
002965
12/19/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
45.00
45.00
+
45.00
103810
3048
BEST, LOURDES
002986
12/19/2006
291 - 6010 - 564.51
-45
50.00
50.00
*
50.00
103811
50
BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS
002732
12/19/2006
250 - 4015 - 542.32
-21
160.00
002908
12/19/2006
250- 4015 - 542.35
-21
335.58
495.58
495.58
103812
2048
BOREL, KRISTIN
002766
12/19/2006
001 - 3035 - 532.32
-21
64.99
64.99
+
64.99
103813
2049
BOYER, CATHLEEN
002813
12/19/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.36
-71
40.00
002906
12/19/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.34
-62
163.10
203.10
+
203.10
103814
$
9URKE, BERNADETTE
002829
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 445.03
-00
84.00
84.00
+
84.00
103815
593
CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE P
002811
12/19/2006
001 -0000- 210.20
-18
50.40
50.40
*
50.40
103816
1513
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
002979
12/19/2006
250- 2010 - 522.51
-48
96.00
002980
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.51
-48
64.00
160.00
+
160.00
103817
902
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STAT
002873
12/19/2006
001 -1040- 513.50
-90
425.00
425.00
+
425.00
103818
2632
CALTRANS
003023
12/19/2006
150- 3015 - 532.50
-92
266.40
266.40
+
266.40
103819
4302
CAPITOL BARRICADE, INC.
002733
12/19/2006
701- 1701- 622.35
-22
1,577.74
1,577.74
1,577.74
103820
2905
CDWG, INC.
003024
12/19/2006
001- 1065 - 513.31
-69
383.49
383.49
*
383.49
103821
2941
CHANG, JOHN TAI
002787
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-30
804.60
002788
12/19/2006
290-6005 - 564.53
-10
625.80
002789
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
609.60
002790
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
641.40
002791
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
334,80
002792
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
190.80
-
002793
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
669.60
3,876.60
+
3,876.60
103822
5
CHARI, PADMA
002767
12/19/2006
290 - 0000- 260.00
-00
300.00
1
300.00
+
300.00
PREPAREDI2 /18 /2006, 13:51:50 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER PAGE 4
PROGRAM:
GM346L
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
_ CHECK
ACCOUNT
.---------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF
----
SARATOGA
TOTAL
001- 1065 - 513.36
-71
---------
j CHECK
- - -
VENDOR
- -" -
VENDOR
----------
VOUCHER
- - - - -'
P.O. DATE
NO
-----------------------.---------_---------------------------_------------
NO
NAME
NO
NO
103823
4222
CHENG, BEN
002896
12/19/2006
103824
5
CHRIST THE KING CHURCH
002828
12/19/2006
I
103825
2800
dIENEGA LANDSCAPING
002874
12/19/2006
002875
12/19/2006
178.00
002876
12/19/2006
103826
1861
.tp
yITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION O
002725
12/19/2006
698.00
002726
12/19/2006
103827
682
CITY OF SARATOGA- PETTY C
002960
12/19/2006
103828
162
COAST OIL COMPANY, LLC
002734
12/19/2006
002735
12/19/2006
103829
5
COSTA, SHEILA
002825
12/19/2006
103830
434
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCI
003088
12/19/2006
58.20
003089
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
003090
12/19/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.41
003103
12/19/2006
003104
12/19/2006
6,982.34
*
6,982.34
003105
12/19/2006
-00
300.00
003106
12/19/2006
300.00
003107
12/19/2006
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
003108
12/19/2006
250- 4020 - 443.20
003109
12/19/2006
003110
12/19/2006
1,278.43
003111
12/19/2006
103831
4310
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
003009
12/19/2006
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
437.50
003010
12/19/2006
103832
97
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA -DEP
002736
12/19/2006
250 - 4020 - 542.56
002737
12/19/2006
103833
996
b
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA -FIR
002898
12/19/2006
312.50-
003006
12/19/2006
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
REPORT NUMBER 13
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
_ CHECK
ACCOUNT
.---------------------------------------------------------
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
001- 1065 - 513.36
-71
345.00
345.00
*
345.00
290- 0000- 260.00
-00
300.00
300.00
*
300.00
231- 3231 - 532.54
-36
320.00
231- 3231 - 532.54
-36
178.00
001- 3025 - 532.54
-34
200.00
698.00
*
698.00
001- 1030 - 511.31
-91
95.00
001 - 1020 - 511.31
-91
95.00
190.00
*
190.00
290- 6005 - 564.35
-22
58.20
58.20
*
58.20
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
3,360.91
001 - 1035 - 512.41
-01
3,621.43
6,982.34
*
6,982.34
290 - 0000- 260.00
-00
300.00
300.00
300.00
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
1,022.75
250- 4020 - 443.20
-00
1,278.43-
605 -4605- 444.50
-12
1,278.43
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
1,349.00
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
437.50
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
2,043.75
250 - 4020 - 542.56
-02
250.00
250 -4020- 443.20
-00
312.50-
604 -4604- 444.50
-12
312.50
250- 4020 - 542.56
-02
1,007.50
250 -4020- 443.20
-00
1,259.37-
604- 4604 - 444.50
-12
1,259.37
6,110.50
*
6,110.50
250 - 4010 - 542.31
-91
717.50
001- 1020 - 511.31
-91
717.50
1,435.00
*
1,435.00
001 - 1040 - 452.01
-00
310.00
001- 1040- 452.01
-00
335.00
645.00
*
645.00
290 - 6005- 564.53
-10
80.00
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
27.00
107.00
*
107.00
PREPARED).., .8 /2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGIS+..R
PAGE
5
PROGRAM:
GM346L
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
CITY OF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"______---___-----
SARATOGA
REPORT NUMBER
13
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
----------------------------------------------------
NO
NAME
NO
NO
_--------------------
_----------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
103834
2805
CREEK MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPE
003018
22400
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.54
-42
600.00
600.00
•
600.00
103835
1604
QUPERTINQ UNION SCHOOL DI
002738
12/19/2006
260- 5015 - 552.57-07
349.26
349.26
•
349.26
103836
108
DATA TICKET, INC.
002689
12/19/2006
001- 2015 - 523.50-08
145.50
003028
12/19/2006
001 - 2015 - 523.50
-08
243.10
388.60
•
388.60
103837
2978
DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIA
003112
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-38
6,865.72
003113
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 444.59
-00
9,268.72-
003114
12/19/2006
604 - 4604 - 444.59
-00
9,268.72
003115
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-38
91191.80
003116
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 444.59
-00
12,408.92-
003117
12/19/2006
604 - 4604 - 444.59
-00
12,408.92
16,057.52
+
16,057.52
103838
3068
DEHAVEN, ELIZABETH
003001
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
24.00
24.00
+
24.00
103839
2331
DELL MARKETING L.P.
003144
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-76
4,849.05
4,849.05
-
4,849.05
103840
4115
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHIC
002877
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
16.00
002878
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
16.00
002879
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
16.00
002880
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
16.00
64.00
•
64.00
103841
3050
DOMINQUEZ, PAUL E.
002724
12/19/2006
291 - 6010 - 564.51
-47
250.00
250.00
•
250.00
103842
2766
DRAKE WELDING, INC.
003037
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.35
-22
529.20
529.20
529.20
103843
2785
ECS IMAGING, INC
002804
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-11
71.01
002805
12/19/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.56
-11
773.18
002806
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-11
137.87
002807
12/19/2006
001 - 1030 - 511.56
-11
1,038.75
002808
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-11
267.50
2,288.31
*
2,288.31
103844
4268
EIC SOLUTIONS, INC
002890
22378
12/19/2006
001 - 2005 - 521.56
-09
6,900.00
002891
12/19/2006
001 - 2005 - 521.56-09
450.29
7,350.29
•
7,350.29
103845
143
EL CAMINO PAVING, INC.
002886
22375
12/19/2006
001-3005 - 532.54
-31
159,003.27
159,003.27
•
159,003.27
103846
150
EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY
002867
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.55
-33
3,800.00
PREPAREDI2 /18/20061, 13:51:50
PROGRAM: GM346� p
CITY OF SARATOGA
----------------- ----------------------
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NO NO NAME
103846 150 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY
103847 1524 EYERS HITCH CENTER, INC
103848 2791 PAST SIGNS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER PAGE 6
VOUCHER P.O. DATE
NO NO
002872 12/19/2006
002885 12/19/2006
002739 12/19/2006
103849
1767
FEHR 6 PEERS ASSOCIATES 1
002892
22371
12/19/2006
REMITTANCE
AMOUNT
002893
12/19/2006
103850
2588
FLINT TRADING, INC.
002894
001- 3030 - 532.55
12/19/2006
103851
5
FUJITA, SHIGEKI
002712
12/19/2006
103652
161
FURLO 6 FURLO
003020
22383
12/19/2006
363.79
003021
22426
12/19/2006
103653
1794
GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM
002915
001 - 3030 - 532.35
12/19/2006
97.54
002916
12/19/2006
97.54
*
97.54
002917
001- 3035 - 532.57
12/19/2006
4,587.33
002918
707 -1707- 622.52
12/19/2006
232.50
002919
12/19/2006
4,819.83
•
4,819.83
002920
701 -1701- 622.35
12/19/2006
639.29
j..
002921
12/19/2006
639.29
•
639.29
002922
290- 6005- 445.04
12/19/2006
60.00
002923
12/19/2006
60.00
60.00
002924
731- 2731- 622.52
12/19/2006
3,039.00
002925
731 -2731- 622.52
12/19/2006
4,942.00
002926
12/19/2006
7,981.00
•
7,981.00
002927
202 - 3202 - 532.54
12/19/2006
265.00
002928
203- 3203 - 532.54
12/19/2006
220.00
002929
209- 3209 - 532.54
12/19/2006
215.00
002930
210- 3210 - 532.54
12/19/2006
75.00
002931
211- 3211 - 532.54
12/19/2006
85.00
002932
212 - 3212 - 532.54
12/19/2006
85.00
002933
216 - 3216 - 532.54
12/19/2006
85.00
002934
222 - 3222 - 532.54
12/19/2006
103854
164
GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMEN
002740
226- 3226 - 532.54
12/19/2006
1,985.00
002909
227- 3227 - 532.54
12/19/2006
103855
4227
GRAHAM CONTRACTORS, INC
002914
22385
12/19/2006
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
REPORT NUMBER
13
--------------------------------------------------------------
REMITTANCE
AMOUNT
CHECK
ACCOUNT
(NST OF DISC
/RETAIN)
TOTAL
001- 3030 - 532.55
-33
2,200.00
6,000.00
•
6,000.00
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
363.79
363.79
•
363.79
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
97.54
97.54
*
97.54
001- 3035 - 532.57
-02
4,587.33
707 -1707- 622.52
-41
232.50
4,819.83
•
4,819.83
701 -1701- 622.35
-22
639.29
639.29
•
639.29
290- 6005- 445.04
-00
60.00
60.00
60.00
731- 2731- 622.52
-41
3,039.00
731 -2731- 622.52
-41
4,942.00
7,981.00
•
7,981.00
202 - 3202 - 532.54
-36
265.00
203- 3203 - 532.54
-36
220.00
209- 3209 - 532.54
-36
215.00
210- 3210 - 532.54
-36
75.00
211- 3211 - 532.54
-36
85.00
212 - 3212 - 532.54
-36
85.00
216 - 3216 - 532.54
-36
85.00
222 - 3222 - 532.54
-36
450.00
226- 3226 - 532.54
-36
1,985.00
227- 3227 - 532.54
-36
145.00
228- 322E - 532.54
-36
340.00
229 - 3229 - 532.54
-36
90.00
001 - 3025 - 532.54
-34
3,555.00
001- 3030 - 532.54
-06
1,045.00
232 - 3232 - 532.54
-36
245.00
352- 9201- 622.52
-41
325.00
001- 3005 - 532.54
-32
390.00
001- 3005 - 532.54
-32
3,150.00
001- 3025 - 532.57
-36
SB2.99
211- 3211 - 532.56
-16
95.28
13,428.27
•
13,428.27
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
35.90
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
43.25
79.15
79.15
001- 3005 - 532.54
-31
12,495.00
12,495.00
+
12,495.00
PREPAREDI.,_6 /2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGIS',,
PAGE
7
PROGRAM:
CITY OF
CM346L
SARATOGA
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT
NUMBER
13
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
-------- ---------
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
-- - - - - --
CHECK
NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
------ ----------------
TOTAL
--- - - ---
103856
2547
GRAINGER
002798
12/19/2006
001-1060 - 513.32
-51
63.72
002799
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.32
-51
43.23
002800
12/19/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.32
-51
97.43
002801
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.32
-51
50.33
254.71
•
254.71
103857
4242
GRANICUS
002912
22306
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-76
1,450.00
002913
22306
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.56
-76
20,422.88
21,872.88
•
21,872.88
103858
4313
GREENFIELDS TURF, INC
003092
22399
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
1,895.89
11895.89
*
1,895.89
103859
2448
GREGORIAN, AGNES
002839
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
292.50
002840
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
225.00
002841
12/19/2006
290- 6005- 564.53
-10
300.00
817.50
+
817.50
103860
4235
HARRIS COMPANY
002903
12/19/2006
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
700.00
002904
12/19/2006
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
190.00
002959
22345
12/19/2006
728 -2720- 622.52
-41
2,270.00
1
002961
22343
12/19/2006
758 -3758- 622.52-41
10,900.00
14,060.00
•
14,060.00
103861
4286
HATCH, STEPHANIE MAURA
002948
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
68.00
002950
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
44.01
112.01
+
112.01
103862
1027
HUMAN BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATES
002849
12/19/2006
001- 1045 - 513.51
-68
32.00
32.00
+
32.00
103863
4279
HUNG, CHI -CHING
002830
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
198.00
002831
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
148.50
346.50
+
346.50
103864
198
HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP
002946
12/19/2006
001- 3025 - 532.57
-36
149.46
002947
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.57
-36
129.95
002954
12/19/2006
741 - 2741 - 622.52
-41
161.27
002955
12/19/2006
741 -2741- 622.52
-41
102.64
002957
12/19/2006
732 -2732- 622.52
-41
1,052.19
002958
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.57
-36
66.58
003007
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57
-36
160.50
1,822.59
+
1,822.59
103865
1813
I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES
VOIDED
103866
1813
t.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES
002254
12/19/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.32
-23
450.00
002447
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.32-23
450.00-
003038
12/19/2006
290- 6005- 564.35
-22
248.95
003039
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.51
-74
928.33
003040
12/19/2006
291 - 6010 - 564.35
-22
78.11
003041
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.36
-71
9.00
PREPAREDI2 /18/2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGISTER
PAGE B
PROGRAM: GM346L
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
CITY OF SARATOGA
-------------------------------------------
REPORT NUMBER 13
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
- - - - --
VOUCHER
P.O. DATE
- - --
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO NO NAME
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
103866 1813 T.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES
003042
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.35
-21
169.45
003043
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.34
-61
133.66
003044
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
26.77
003045
12/19/2006
001- 3035 - 532.32
-21
171.01
003046
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.32
-23
110.00
003047
12/19/2006
001 - 3020 - 532.35
-22
6.93
003048
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.54
-33
124.68
003049
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
4.32
003050
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
140.74
003053
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-21
69.99-
'
003054
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-21
76.83
003056
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.36
-71
17.00
003058
12/19/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.35
-22
36.24
003059
12/19/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.35
-22
27.05
003061
12/19/2006
001- 1050 - 513.35
-22
8.38
003063
12/19/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.35
-21
46.53
003065
12/19/2006
001 - 1050 - 513.35
-21
24.97
003067
12/19/2006
001- 3025 - 532.35
-21
157.09
003068
12/19/2006
001- 1050 - 513.34
-61
3.49
003069
12/19/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
-61
184.75
003070
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.35
-21
290.58
003071
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.36
-72
117.66
003072
12/19/2006
001- 1005 - 511.36
-77
89.99
003073
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.36
-76
258.64
003074
12/19/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.35
-21
94.00
003075
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.32
-23
100.00
003076
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.34-61
123.84
003077
12/19/2006
001 - 2005 - 521.34
-61
21.57
003078
12/19/2006
001- 1005 - 511.34
-61
171.68
003079
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.34
-61
778.66
003080
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.35
-51
155.23
003081
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.35
-21
107.40
003082
12/19/2006
001 - 1020 - 511.32
-23
100.00
0030B3
12/19/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.35
-21
95.25
003084
12/19/2006
001- 1020 - 511.34
-61
76.37
003085
12/19/2006
001- 1045 - 513.34
-61
52.92
003086
12/19/2006
001- 1045 - 513.36
-71
1,002.67
003087
12/19/2006
001 - 1040 - 513.36
-71
430.00
6,730.75
*
6,730.75
103867 200 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO
002899
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
96.00
002900
12/19/2006
290 -6005- 564.53
-30
48.00
144.00
144.00
103868 2922 IIMC
002803
12/19/2006
001- 1030 - 511.31
-91
150.00
1
150.00
*
150.00
103869 1745 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTRO
002741
12/19/2006
701 -1701- 622.35-22
1,039.20
002742
12/19/2006
150- 3015 - 532.35
-22
77.94
i
002964
12/19/2006
150 - 3015 - 532.35
-22
572.37
1,689.51
+
1,689.51
PREPAREDI2,- „/2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGISI _..
PAGE
9
PROGRAM:
GM346L
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
CITY OF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SARATOGA
REPORT
NUMBER
13
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
103890
209
JAMELLO, NANCY PORTUGAL
002718
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
363.00
002719
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
347.40
710.40
•
710.40
103871
1987
JOE A. GONSALVES 6 SON, I
002895
22339
12/19/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.57
-09
3,000.00
3,000.00
.
31000.00
103872
4176
JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, IN
002743
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
85.52
-
85.52
•
85.52
103873
5
JOHNSTON, MELODY
002827
12/19/2006
290- 0000- 260.00
-00
300.00
300.00
•
300.00
103874
220
JOSHI, BHARATI
003003
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
22.50
22.50
•
22.50
103875
2260
JUST FOR KICKS, INC.
002832
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
220.50
002833
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
330.75
002834
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-30
404.25
002835
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
808.50
002B36
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-30
441.00
002837
12/19/2006
290- 6005-564.53
-10
110.25
2,315.25
W
2,315.25
303876
224
KELEX SECURITY
002722
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.50
-11
305.00
1
305.00
-
305.00
103877
929
90EHLER, PETER
002945
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
150.00
150.00
•
150.00
303878
3526
KOZUBOV, ELLA
002937
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
232.00
002938
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
72.50
002939
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-30
72.50
002940
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
253.75
002941
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
253.75
002942
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
246.50
002943
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
362.50
002944
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
364.00
003000
12/19/2006
290- 6005- 564.53
-10
43.50
1,901.00
+
1,901.00
103879
S
11SON, CARLA
002823
12/19/2006
290- 0000 - 260.00
-00
300.00
300.00
+
300.00
103880
772
LIESERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
002858
12/19/2006
001- 1045 - 513.54
-02
1,011.50
1,011.50
+
1,011.50
103881
3046
LIGHTHOUSE INSTALLATIONS
002965
12/19/2006
207 - 3207 - 532.56
-16
800.00
800.00
•
800.00
103882
4311
LINE -X OF SANTA CLARA
003093
22416
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
490.00
PREPAREDI2 /18/2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE CHECK
REGISTER
PAGE
10
PROGRAM:
GM346L
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
CITY OF
SARATOGA
__ "---------- -----
REPORT
NUMBER
13
CHECK
-----
VENDOR
- - - -
VENDOR
"_
VOUCHER
_--------------__-------------------------_----------------
P.O.
DATE
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
NO
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
103882
4311
LINE -X OF SANTA CLARA
003094
22416
12/19/2006
501 - 1091 - 532.60
-05
979.19
003095
22416
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
490.00
003096
22416
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
465.00
003097
22416
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
569.34
003098
22416
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
458.87
003099
22416
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
343.15
3,795.55
*
3,795.55
103883
2858
LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC.
002866
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.54
-42
500.00
500.00
*
500.00
103884
4169
LOS GATOS CHEVROLET
003014
22404
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
20,189.99
20,189.99
*
20,189.99
103885
4225
MANFREDI, KIM
002956
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
150.00
150.00
*
150.00
103886
5
MARTINA, GINA
002824
12/19/2006
290- 0000- 260.00
-00
300.00
300.00
*
300.00
103887
4149
MASON, AISHAN
002984
12/19/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
50.00
50.00
*
50.00
103888
1570
MEHAFFEY, JOHN
002821
12/19/2006
001- 1005 - 511.20
-04
250.00
2SO.00
*
250.00
1038B9
3081
MENA, DEXTER
002983
12/19/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
50.00
50.00
*
50.00
103890
2501
METEORA TECHNOLOGIES GROU
002720
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.55
-80
300.00
300.00
*
300.00
103891
273
JEYER, GREG
002847
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
150.00
150.00
*
150.00
103892
4305
MG CONSTRUCTORS & ENGINEE
003019
22344
12/19/2006
728 -2728- 622.52
-41
5,548.38
5, 548.3B
*
5,548.38
103893
277
MIKE'S GARDENING
003030
12/19/2006
203-3203 - 532.54
-36
210.00
210.00
*
210.00
103894
2972
MILLMAN & INDUSTRIAL CARP
002822
12/19/2006
001 -0000- 210.20
-16
300.00
300.00
*
300.00
103895
2585
MITY -LITE, INC.
002794
12/19/2006
762-3762-622.35
-22
3,979.53
3,979.53
*
3,979.53
103896
2269
MJB ASSOCIATES
002744
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
36.06
36.06
*
36.06
103897
2289
MOORE, KAREN
002949
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
44.00
PREPAREDI_. ./2006, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGIS- _
PAGE 11
PROGRAM:
CITY OF
GM346L
SARATOGA
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2009/06
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT NUMBER 13
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O. DATE
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
-----------
NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
--------- --------- -------------
TOTAL
- - - ---
103897
2289
MOORE, KAREN
44.00
•
44.00
103898
5
MORTON D LENSKE
002888
12/19/2006
001- 2015 - 523.50
-08
35.00
35.00
35.00
103899
2606
MPA DESIGN, INC.
002966
12/19/2006
791 -4791- 622.51
-50
1,500.00
1,500.00
•
1,500.00
103900
2160
MUSICALME, INC.
002771
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
423.15
002772
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
241.80
002773
12/19/2006
290-6005 - 564.53
-10
362.70
002774
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
483.60
002775
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
362.70
002776
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
302.25
002777
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
362.70
002778
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
423.15
002779
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
302.25
002780
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
483.60
002781
12/19/2006
290- 6005- 564.53
-10
544.05
002782
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
302.25
002783
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
60.45
002784
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
302.25
002785
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
302.25
002786
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
302.25
5,561.40
•
5,561.40
103901
4159
MY FIRST ART CLASS
002713
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
540.00
540.00
+
540.00
103902
4165
NORTH BAY BUILDING MAINTE
002721
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.53
-40
418.00
002797
12/19/2006
001- 1060 - 513.53
-40
228.00
646.00
•
646.00
103903
4194
NUNEZ, MACEDONIO
002745
12/19/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.34
-62
8.00
002746
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.34
-62
44.03
52.03
+
52.03
103904
1997
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.
002747
12/19/2006
250- 4015 - 542.35
-21
49.49
002748
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
54.52
002749
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.35
-21
8.28
002750
12/19/2006
001- 3035-532.35
-21
11.37
002751
12/19/2006
001 - 3035 - 532.35
-21
21.63
002752
12/19/2006
001- 3035 - 532.35
-21
69.79
002753
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.35
-21
128.17
002754
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.35
-21
10.92
_
002755
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.35
-21
4.39
002816
12/19/2006
001- 1040 - 513.35
-21
41.23
002962
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.35
-21
80.65
002987
12/19/2006
001- 3035 - 532.35
-21
27.92
508.36
*
508.36
PREPAREDI2 /18/2006, 13:51:50
REGISTER
PROGRAM:
GM346L
PAGE 12
CITY OF
SARATOGA
ACCOUNTING
-------------------------------------
CHECK
VENDOR
- - - -
VENDOR
-'
VOUCHER
NO
-------------------------------------------------
NO
NAME
NO
103905
2994
OKIN, LENA
002714
103906
302
ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE
002756
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
002757
002935
22.00
*
002936
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
003032
12/19/2006
003033
103907
4172
OROZ, DIANE
002842
002843
002844
002845
103908 307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 003179
003180
003181
003182
003183
003184
003185
003186
003187
003188
003189
003190
003191
003192
003193
003194
003195
003196
003197
103909 2574 PACIFIC PRODUCTS & SERVIC 002758
103910 4309 PAUL HENRY JOLLY 003013
103911 4207 PAXTON, SUSAN ANN 002897
103912 933 PENINSULA BUILDING MATERI 002910
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGISTER
PAGE 12
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
REPORT NUMBER 13
P.O. DATE
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
22.00
22.00
*
22.00
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
361.15
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
295.02
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.35
-22
321.47
12/19/2006
001- 1060- 513.32
-51
292.66
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
274.68
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
122.59
1,667.57
•
1,667.57
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
320.00
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
267.00
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
178.00
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
276.00
1,041.00
•
1,041.00
12/19/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.41
-02
509.50
12/19/2006
001- 1060- 513.41
-02
4,827.71
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.41
-02
456.68
12/19/2006
150- 3015 - 532.41-02
1,078.48
12/19/2006
150- 3015- 532.41
-02
787.50
12/19/2006
204- 3204 - 532.41
-02
1,207.10
12/19/2006
205- 3205 - 532.41
-02
263.61
12/19/2006
206- 3206 - 532.41
-02
287.94
12/19/2006
207 - 3207 - 532.41
-02
636.95
12/19/2006
209- 3209 - 532.41
-02
15.98
12/19/2006
210- 3210 - 532.41
-02
1.80
12/19/2006
215- 3215 - 532.41
-02
376.25
12/19/2006
216 - 3216 - 532.41
-02
48.75
12/19/2006
222 - 3222 - 532.41
-02
46.07
12/19/2006
207 - 3207 - 532.41
-02
1,715.05
12/19/2006
227-3227 - 532.41
-02
6.19
12/19/2006
229 - 3229 - 532.41
-02
168.21
12/19/2006
231- 3231 - 532.41
-02
8.52
12/19/2006
746 -2746- 622.41
-02
177.74
12,620.03
12,620.03
12/19/2006
701- 1701- 622.35
-22
2,083.28
2,083.28
2,083.28
12/19/2006
755 -3755- 622.52
-41
3,491.59
3,491.59
*
3,491.59
12/19/2006
290 - 6005- 564.53
-10
240.00
240.00
*
240.00
12/19/2006
701 - 1701 - 622.35
-22
71.39
71.39
*
71.39
103913 3992 PENINSULA COMMUNICATIONS 003100 22406 12/19/2006 501- 1091-532.60 -05 1,675.08
1
I L
l
PREPAREDI. ,/2006, 13:51:50
CHECK
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGIS-
TOTAL
PROGRAM
: GM346L
11675.08
36.00
CITY OF
------------------,--__----__----__-----___-----___----__-----
SARATOGA
36.00
200.00
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O.
__----- "_------
DATE
____------
- - "___
NO
-------------------------------
NO
NAME
_-------------------------------------------------------------
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
103913
3992
PENINSULA COMMUNICATIONS
19.97
103914
3037
PESONEN, LYNN
002846
136.24
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-30
103915
979
PETROTEK
002967
117.89
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.54
-33
103916
2840
R I RECISION CONCRETE CUTTIN
003031
22401
12/19/2006
706- 1706- 622.52
-41
103917
2893
RATRA, RICK
002759
2,800.00
12/19/2006
001 - 1035 - 512.41
-01
4,480.00
003035
10,154.25
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
15,821.55
003036
11,389.50
12/19/2006
001- 1035 - 512.41
-01
103918
334
REED 6 GRAHAM, INC.
002760
60.00
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
103919
2329
REPUBLIC ITS
002968
3,184.64
12/19/2006
207- 3207 - 532.56
-16
3,184.64
•
3,184.64
002969
5,500.00
12/19/2006
150 - 3015 - 532.57
-36
5,500.00
*
5,500.00
002970
78.40
12/19/2006
150 - 3015 - 532.50
-97
259.60
002971
338.00
12/19/2006
150- 3015 - 532.57
-36
400.00
002972
400.00
12/19/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.54
-31
36.07
002973
31.61
12/19/2006
150- 3015 - 532.57
-36
103920
4253
ROMANO CONSTRUCTION, INC
003025
22299
12/19/2006
001 - 1060 - 513.54
-39
003026
22300
12/19/2006
270 - 7015 - 572.51
-28
103921
5
ROOF CO OF SILICON VALLEY
002802
12/19/2006
001 -1040- 413.05
-00
103922
2005
ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT
002974
22397
12/19/2006
734 -2734- 622.35
-22
103923
341
S.A.S.C.C.
002978
12/19/2006
270 - 7015 - 572.51
-24
103924
4307
SAFUL CONSULTING
003004
12/19/2006
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
003005
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
103925
4203
SAMORANOS, CLIFFORD CARPO
001810
12/19/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
103926
344
SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT
002761
12/19/2006
001- 3005 - 532.35
-22
002975
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.55
-43
PAGE 13
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
REPORT NUMBER 13
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
(NET OF DISC
--------------------
/RETAIN)
----------------
TOTAL
1,675.08
•
11675.08
36.00
36.00
•
36.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
3,800.63
3,800.63
•
3,800.63
30.74
36.71
19.97
87.42
•
87.42
136.24
136.24
*
136.24
117.89
1,456.36
1,050.00
250.00
2,800.00
4,480.00
10,154.25
•
10,154.25
15,821.55
11,389.50
27,211.05
•
27,211.05
60.00
60.00
•
60.00
3,184.64
3,184.64
•
3,184.64
5,500.00
5,500.00
*
5,500.00
78.40
259.60
338.00
•
338.00
400.00
400.00
*
400.00
36.07
31.61
67.68
•
67.68
PREPAREDI2 /10/2006,
13:51:50
PROGRAM:
GM346L
12/19/2006
CITY OF
SARATOGA
ACCOUNTING
-----------------------------
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
NO
NO
NAME
----------------------------------
VOUCHER P.O. DATE
NO NO
----------------------------------
F
103927 346' dAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 003145 12/19/2006
003146 12/19/2006
003147 12/19/2006
003148 12/19/2006
003149 12/19/2006
003150 12/19/2006
003151 12/19/2006
003152 12/19/2006
003153 12/19/2006
003154 12/19/2006
003155 12/19/2006
003156 12/19/2006
003157 12/19/2006
003158 12/19/2006
003159 12/19/2006
003160 12/19/2006
103928 4178 SANTA ROSA CHEVROLET -ISUZ 003015 22402 12/19/2006
103929
342
SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS
002602
12/19/2006
ACCOUNTING
002603 -
12/19/2006
- - ----
REPORT NUMBER 13
002618
12/19/2006
REMITTANCE AMOUNT -
- - - -- CHECK
ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------------------
002619
12/19/2006
TOTAL
001- 1060 - 513.41
-04
002657
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.41
-04
003008
12/19/2006
103930
5
SARKISIAN, SHELLY
002770
12/19/2006
103931
4285
SATO, SANDRA REPOSE J
002817
12/19/2006
103932
3055
SHIMODA, MICHIKO
002848
12/19/2006
103933
2474
SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPL
002981 22412
12/19/2006
209- 3209 - 532.41
-04
002988
12/19/2006
210- 3210 - 532.41
-04
003091 22413
12/19/2006
103934
272
SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY
002727
12/19/2006
212 - 3212 - 532.41
-04
002728
12/19/2006
215- 3215 - 532.41
-04
002729
12/19/2006
222 - 3222 - 532.41
-04
002730
12/19/2006
226 - 3226 - 532.41
-04
002762
12/19/2006
227 - 3227 - 532.41
-04
002763
12/19/2006
229- 3229 - 532.41
-04
002812
12/19/2006
232 - 3232 - 532.41
-04
002887
12/19/2006
rcc�i�ierc
PAGE 14
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
---------------
- - ----
REPORT NUMBER 13
REMITTANCE AMOUNT -
- - - -- CHECK
ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------------------
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
001- 1060 - 513.41
-04
537.55
001- 3030 - 532.41
-04
2,407.24
001 - 3025 - 532.41
-04
1,402.31
202 - 3202 - 532.41
-04
24.90
203- 3203 - 532.41
-04
129.37
205- 3205- 532.41
-04
400.57
209- 3209 - 532.41
-04
195.57
210- 3210 - 532.41
-04
40.83
211- 3211 - 532.41
-04
122.02
212 - 3212 - 532.41
-04
82.77
215- 3215 - 532.41
-04
70.59
222 - 3222 - 532.41
-04
237.26
226 - 3226 - 532.41
-04
1,488.09
227 - 3227 - 532.41
-04
140.63
229- 3229 - 532.41
-04
25.03
232 - 3232 - 532.41
-04
4B5.23
7,789.96
*
7,789.96
501 -1091- 532.60
-05
19,075.82
19,075.82
*
19,075.82
001- 7030 - 572.53
-71
500.00
001 - 9030 - 572.53
-71
500.00
001 - 7030 - 572.53
-72
500.00
001 - 7030 - 572.53
-72
500.00
001 - 7030 - 572.53
-72
500.00-
001- 7030 - 572.53
-72
500.00-
1,000.00
*
1,000.00
290- 6005 - 445.04
-00
30.00
30.00
*
30.00
001 - 1040 - 513.36
-72
700.00
700.00
*
700.00
290 - 6005 - 564.53
-10
150.00
150.00
*
150.00
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
2,101.68
001- 3025 - 532.35
-22
73.88
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
922.84
3,098.40
*
3,098.40
001- 1030 - 511.35
-21
416.00
001 - 1030 - 511.35
-21
273.00
001-1030 - 511.35
-21
139.50
001- 1005 - 511.36
-77
1,083.00
250- 4010 - 542.31
-02
113.75
250 - 4010 - 542.31
-02
198.25
001- 1005 - 511.36
-77
1,083.00
001- 3005 - 532.31
-02
614.25
PREPAREDI2,_d /200A, 13:51:50
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK
REGIS',-
PROGRAM:
GM346L
PAGE
15
CITY OF
SARATOOA
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD 2007/06
NUMBER
13
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
___ ____________REPORT
REMITTANCE
AMOUNT
CHECK
NO
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
NO
NAME
NO
NO
ACCOUNT
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
_____ _______ ______
TOTAL
_____________
103934
272
SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY
003029
12/19/2006
731- 2731- 622.31
-02
390.00
4,310.75
*
4,310.75
103935
5
SNIFFEN, NEE LING
002826
12/19/2006
290- 0000- 260.00
-00
300.00
300.00
•
300.00
103936
2843
STATE OF CA FRANCHISE TAK 002717
12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.53
-10
30.00
30.00
•
30.00
103937
1569
STREIT, NICK
002951
12/19/2006
001 - 1005 - 511.34
-61
140.10
002952
12/19/2006
001- 1005 - 511.20
-04
156.42
296.52
*
296.52
103938
4269
T. BENNETT SERVICES, INC
002994
22342
12/19/2006
320 - 9010 - 522.53
-18
7,645.50
7,645.50
*
7,645.50
103939
2239
TNT ENTERPRISES, INC.
002764
12/19/2006
001- 3025 - 532.35
-22
330.16
002989
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
111.03
002990
12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.35
-22
330.16
771.35
*
771.35
103940
4197
TOMASSO, VANESSA MARIE
002982
12/19/2006
291- 6010 - 564.51
-45
50.00
50.00
•
50.00
103941
4306
TRANSFER FLOW INC.
003011
22405
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
1,546.71
003012
12/19/2006
501- 1091 - 532.60
-05
110.01
1,656.72
*
1,656.72
103942
411
It SAVE ROCKERY
002991
12/19/2006
001 - 3005 - 532.35
-22
487.13
487.13
*
487.13
103943
3116
UNGO- MCCORMICK, DEBORAH
003118
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.55
-36
900.00
003119
12/19/2006
250- 4010- 444.53
-06
1,200.00-
003120
12/19/2006
604 - 4604 - 444.50
-06
1,200.00
003121
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.55
-36
270.00
-
003122
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 542.55
-36
180.00
003123
12/19/2006
250 - 4010 - 444.53
-06
240.00-
003124
12/19/2006
604 - 4604- 444.50
-06
240.00
003125
12/19/2006
250- 4010-542.55
-36
720.00
003126
12/19/2006
250- 4010- 444.53
-06
960.00-
003127
12/19/2006
605 -4605- 444.51
-06
960.00
003128
12/19/2006
250- 4010 - 542.55
-36
5,130.00
003129
12/19/2006
250 -4010- 444.53
-06
6,840.00-
003130
12/19/2006
605- 4605 - 444.51
-06
6,840.00
003131
12/19/2006
250 -0000- 207.05
-00
9,980.00
003132
12/19/2006
250- 4005 - 444.13
-00
9,980.00
-
003133
22276
12/19/2006
250 - 4005 - 542.52
-43
9,980.00
17,180.00
•
17,180.00
103944
3099
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO
003101
22384
12/19/2006
738 -2738- 622.52
-41
33,890.42
003102
22384
12/19/2006
738- 2738- 622.52
-41
93,073.26
PREPAREDI2 /18/2006, 13:51:50 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER
PROGRAM: GM346L
CITY OF SARATOGA
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
126,963.68
NO
NO
NAME
NO
NO
4,960.00
ACCOUNT
103944
3099
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO
11,492.75
480.00
103945
413
UNIVERSAL SWEEPING SERVIC
002976
22312
12/19/2006
260 - 5015 - 552.54
-37
480.00
003027
22414
12/19/2006
744 -2744- 622.52
-41
103946
2682
VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE
002995
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57
-04
2,675.00
002996
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57
-04
5,675.00
*
002997
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 532.57-04
12,355.00
003051
12/19/2006
250 -0000- 207.01
-00
12,355.00
-
003052
12/19/2006
001- 3030- 443.53
-00
323.64
003055
12/19/2006
250- 0000- 207.01
-00
87.03
003057
12/19/2006
001- 3030 - 443.53
-00
126.52
003060
12/19/2006
250 -0000- 207.01
-00
172.93
003062
12/19/2006
001- 3030- 443.53
-00
103947 4138 VALLEYCR£ST TREE CARE SER 002998 22334 12/19/2006
003064 12/19/2006
003066 12/19/2006
- p
103948 179 VERIZON WIRELESS 003198 12/19/2006
003199 12/19/2006
003200 12/19/2006
003201 12/19/2006
003202 12/19/2006
003203 12/19/2006
003204 12/19/2006
003205 12/19/2006
003206 12/19/2006
003207 12/19/2006
103949 1401 VICTORY CHEVROLET 003016 22403 12/19/2006
003017 22403 12/19/2006
001 - 3030 - 532.57 -04
250 -0000- 207.01 -00
001- 3030 - 443.53 -00
001 -1020- 511.41 -03
001- 1050 - 513.41 -03
250- 4015 - 542.41 -03
250 - 4010 - 542.41 -03
250- 2010 - 522.41 -03
001- 3005 - 532.41 -03
001- 3030 - 532.41 -03
001- 3035 - 532.41 -03
260 - 5015 - 552.41 -03
001- 1060 - 513.57 -91
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
501- 1091 - 532.60 -05
103950 5 WEIDERT, STEPHANIE 002769 12/19/2006 290- 6005- 445.04 -00
103951 4244 WESCO GRAPHICS INC 002977 22010 12/19/2006
103952 426 WEST COAST BLDG, SERVICE 003002 22396 12/19/2006
103953 427 WEST COAST FENCE COMPANY, 002999 22395 12/19/2006
103954 1582 WEST VALLEY - MISSION 002814 12/19/2006
290- 6005 - 564.55 -81
001- 3030 - 532.56 -18
001 - 3030 - 532.57 -04
250 -4005- 542.35 -21
PAGE 16
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2009/06
REPORT NUMBER 13
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
------------------------------------
_
TOTAL
126,963.68
126,963.68
6,532.75
4,960.00
11,492.75
-
11,492.75
480.00
2,520.00
2,675.00
480.00
480.00-
2,520.00
2,520.00-
2,675.00
2,675.00-
5,675.00
*
5,675.00
12,355.00
12,355.00
12,355.00-
12,355.00
-
12,355.00
344.48
323.64
185.82
87.03
53.89
126.52
223.54
172.93
35.34
192.38
1,745.57
•
1,745.57
16,634.86
16,794.00
33,428.86
+
33,428.86
30.00
30.00
30.00
4,026.95
4,026.95
*
4,026.95
695.00
695.00
695.00
3,862.00
3,862.00
*
3,862.00
385.20
PREPARED- _8/2006, 13:51:50 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGIc -_A PAGE 17
PROGRAM: CM346L
CITY OF SARATOGA
CHECK
VENDOR
VENDOR
VOUCHER
P.O.
DATE
NO
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NO
NAME
NO
NO
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
103954
1562
WEST VALLEY - MISSION
002815
12/19/2006
103955
3120
WHEEL WORKS
003034
•
12/19/2006
103956
1798
WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICO 002859
507.20
12/19/2006
103957
4304
WILLIAM JEFFREY HEID
002963
507.20
12/19/2006
103958
5'
WITKOWSKI, PAUL
002768
4,500.00
12/19/2006
103959
4183
WITTWER 6 PARKIN, LLP
003134
4,500.00
12/19/2006
4,500.00
707 -1707- 622.51
003135
1,200.00
12/19/2006
003136
1,200.00
12/19/2006
103960
4177
WOHLFORD CONSULTING
002993
22204
12/19/2006
103961
440
XEROX CORPORATION
002850
80.00
12/19/2006
80.00
250- 4010 - 542.51
002851
122.00
12/19/2006
250-4010 - 542.51-41
002852
512.40
12/19/2006
103962
2633
YAMAGAMI'S NURSERY
002765
170.80
12/19/2006
002992
805.20
12/19/2006
ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2007/06
-------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT NUMBER
13
REMITTANCE AMOUNT
CHECK
ACCOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------
(NET OF DISC /RETAIN)
TOTAL
001- 1020 - 511.35
-21
429.00
814.20
•
814.20
001- 1035 - 512.54
-33
507.20
507.20
507.20
001- 7030 - 572.56
-70
4,500.00
4,500.00
•
4,500.00
707 -1707- 622.51
-50
1,200.00
1,200.00
-
1,200.00
290- 6005- 445.04
-00
80.00
80.00
80.00
250- 4010 - 542.51
-41
122.00
250-4010 - 542.51-41
512.40
250 - 4010 - 542.51
-41
170.80
805.20
•
805.20
001- 1050 - 513.52
-05
2,985.00
2,985.00
•
2,985.00
001- 1050 - 513.51
-71
912.85
001 - 1050 - 513.51
-71
15.00
001 - 1050 - 513.51
-71
79.53
1,007.38
•
1,007.38
001- 3030 - 532.35
-22
153.83
001 -3030- 532.35
-22
54.14
207.97
207.97
BANK /CHECK TOTAL 764,917.79 765,549.59
ALL BANKS /CHECKS TOTAL 764,917.79 765,549.59
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITE
ORIGINATING DEPT: Ad/miinistrative vcs CITY MANAGE
PREPARED BY: (/ DEPT HEAD/1444�, R7 J/ h
Vivi G n Sandra Sato, Interim Finance &
Accounting Supervisor Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Treasurer's Report for the Month Ended October 2006
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council accepts the monthly Treasurer's Report.
REPORT SUMMARY
California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code
of the City of Saratoga, Article 2 -20, Section 2- 20.035, designates the City Manager as the City
Treasurer) submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all
receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.
41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city
clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.
He shall file a copy with the legislative body.
Additionally with the passage of Chapter 687, Statutes of 2000 (AB 943 Dutra), effective
January 1, 2001 cities are now required to forward copies of their second and fourth quarter
calendar year investment portfolio reports to the California Debt and Investment Advisory
Commission ( CDIAC) within 60 days.
The CDIAC will use the report as an additional opportunity to examine public investment
practices in a more consistent basis than before.
Cities, such as the City of Saratoga, that are 100 percent invested in the Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF) are exempt from the new investment portfolio reporting requirements and are only
required to send a letter to CDIAC indicating the total and composition of their investments.
This Treasurer's Report will satisfy our reporting requirement to the CDIAC.
The following pages in the attachment provide various financial data and analysis for the City of
Saratoga's Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City's General (Operating) Fund,
including an attachment from the State Treasurer's Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1"
Quarter of 1977 to present.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City will not be in compliance with Government Code Section 53891 and Section 40804.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION
11011
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
A - Cash and Investments by fund
B - Change in total fund balances by fund
C - Cash and Investments by CIP project
D- Change in total fund balances by CIP project
E - Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates
CC
cdiae—invesnnents@treasurer.ca.gov (June & December reports only, within 60 calendar days)
ATTACHMENT A
CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCE BY FUND
As of October 31, 2006, the City had $94,101 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, $14,045,100 on
deposit with LAIF, $1,767 in cash that are restricted for the CDBG loan repayments and $1,061
in cash with fiscal agents for the Public Financing Authority bonds. The bank reconciliations are
completed thru the month of August 2006. The Council Policy on operating reserve funds
adopted on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid the necessity of dry
period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be reduced below $2,000,000. The total
pooled cash balance as of October 31, 2006 is $14,139,201 and exceeds the limit required.
Comerica Bank 94,101
Deposit with LAIF 14,045,100
estricted Cash
San Jose National Bank 1,767
Fiscal Agents 1,061
1
I he Tollowing table summarizes the Ult 's total cash and investment balances by Fund.
Cash & Investment
Fund Tvoes Fund Deserintinn Rahn,. nt n.-f manna
Designated Reserves:
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
$
Petty Cash
$
1,300
Tree, Bench, & Plaque Dedication Program
$
1,678
Library Exterior Walls Maintenance
$
15,000
Theater Ticket Surcharge
$
20,556
CIP
$
93,634
Economic Uncertainty
$
1,500,000
Operations
$
2,554,150
Special Revenue
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
$
100,000
Highway Users Gas Tax
$
603,895
Landscape and Lighting
$
148,032
Development Services
$
1,768,113
Designated Reserves:
Tree Preservation Ordinance 226
$
186,308
General Plan Update
$
11,312
Enviromental Programs
$
950,625
Development Fees
$
113,293
Community Development Block Grant
$
(26,676)
SHARP loan
$
79,658
Recreation Services
$
(116,287)
Teen Services
$
(70,793)
CDD Deposits - Planning Deposit Pre FY2006
$
193,692
CDD Deposits - Planning Deposit FY2006
$
290,780
Capital Project
Park Development
$
137,401
Library Expansion
$
696,097
Public Safety
$
505,977
Infrastructure
$
2,392,905
Facility
$
603,493
Park and Trails
$
430,143
Debt Service
Library Bond
$
219,424
Internal Service
Equipment Replacement
$
35,089
Information Technology
$
400,625
Facility Improvement
$
53,546
Trust/Agency
Leonard Road
$
(11,309)
Public Financing Authority
$
1,061
KSAR - Community Access TV
S
At .ri99
ATTACHMENT B
CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE
The following table presents the ending Fund Balances for the City's major fund types at October
31, 2006. 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
06130106
Fund Balance
UNAUDITED
Incrl(Decr)
Sept
Revenues
Expenditures Transfers
10131106
Fund
Balance
General
General Fund
2,825,799
(2,230,806)
799,854
(1,380,016)
14,831
Designated Reserves:
Petty Cash
1,300
-
1,300
Tree, Bench, & Plaque Dedication Program
28
1,650
-
1,678
Library Exterior Wall Maintenance
15,000
-
-
15,000
Theater Ticket Surcharge
17,286
3,270
-
20,556
CIP
614,997
(521,363)
-
93,634
Economic Uncertainty
1,500,000
-
1,500,000
Operations
2,554,150
-
2,554,150
Special Revenue
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
-
100,000
100,000
Highway Users Gas Tax
604,509
(58,807)
98,778
(41,083)
603,397
LandscapelLighbng I'd
250,320
(96,117)
13,565
(19,736)
148,032
Development Services
1,339,563
263,624
220,685
(197,530)
1,626,342
Designated Reserves:
Tree Preservation Ordinance 226
186,644
480
-
(816)
186,308
General Plan Update
7,065
(3,051)
7,342
(44)
11,312
Environmental Programs
909,759
(34,243)
117,302
(42,193)
950,625
CDBG
(11,137)
(15,539)
-
(26,676)
SHARP Loan
75,287
3,460
1,112
79,859
Recreation Services
(31,783)
(64,364)
36,598
(73,742)
(133,291)
Teen Services
(38,728)
(24,588)
943
(9,220)
(71,593)
Capital Project
Park Development
91,246
49,289
1,519
(4,653)
137,401
Library Expansion
704,004
(1,110)
(2,280)
700,614
Public Safety
554,077
(32,986)
(15,114)
505,977
Infrastructure
1,942,934
195,917
60,000
(22,468)
2,176,383
Facility
96,280
523,894
(16,682)
603,492
Park and Trails
161,685
(35,193)
52,412
(36,196)
142,708
Debt Service
Library Bond
865,379
(1,015,908)
5,074
(145,455)
Internal Service Fund
Equipment Replacement
247,149
(228,088)
16,028
35,089
Technology Replacement
403,520
(2,896)
400,624
Facility Improvement
53,546
53,546
Total City
15,939,879
3,326,745
1,534,482
1,861,773
12,285,843
ATTACHMENT C
CASH AND INVESTMENTS BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
The following table the details the cash balances for each project in the Public Safety,
Infrastructure, Facility, and Park and Trails Capital Improvement Project Funds.
Investment
Balance at Oct
i rarricsarery
57,694
Highway 9 Safety project
100,000
Hakone ADA Improvement
(4,926)
Sidewalk - Yearly Project
185,001
Aloha Street Safety Improvement
(59,529)
Bridges @ 4th Street
100,000
Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign
545
Quito Road Bridge Replacement
127,192
Total Public Safety $
505,977
Infrastructure
45,402
Two Solar Power Radar Feedbacks
15,000
El Quito Area Curb Replacement
459,403
Book Go Round Drainage
59,710
Sobey Road Culvert Repair
150,000
Storm Drain Upgrades
220,000
Median Repairs(Landscape /Irrig.)
16,658
Civic Center Landscape
104,325
Village Lights (Zone 7A)
50,000
Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets
7,000
Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade
220,958
City Entrance Sign /Monument
13,467
Blaney Plaza Improvement- Constructions
9,149
Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter
738,624
Saratoga - Sunnyvale /Gateway
228,611
Storm Drain @ El Camino /Mt Vista
100,000
Total Infrastructure $ 2.392.905
Warner Hutton House Improv
62,305
Civic Center -CDD Offices
10,900
Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Book Go Round
25,000
North Campus - 19848 Prospect Road
498,745
Historical Park Fire Alarm System
6,543
Total Facility $
603,493
Parks & Trails
Hakone Garden D/W
168,433
Union Pacific Railroad (Deanza) Trail
(48,840;
Kevin Moran Park
45,402
Alternative Soccer Field
250,000
Park/Trail Repairs
15,148
Total Parks & Trails $
430.143
ATTACHMENT D
FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
The following table details the fund balances for each project in the Public Safety, Infrastructure,
Facility, and Park and Trails Capital Improvement Project Funds.
06130106 Fund
Balance Incr /(Decr)
Revenues
Traffic Safety
67,568
(8,452)
(1,422)
Highway 9 Safety Project
100,000
-
(4,100)
Hakone ADA Improvement
-
25,000
(4,926)
Sidewalks Yearly Project
185,001
500,000
(1,255)
Aloha Street Safety Improvement
(57,529)
-
(2,000)
Bridges @ 4th Street
100,000
523,894
(16,682)
Highway 9 and Oak Place Pedestrian Sign
31,845
(24,534)
(6,766)
Quito Road Bridge Replacement
127,192
-
Total Public Safety
554,077
(32,986)
(15,114)
drastructure
46,468
(64) -
(1,002)
Two Solar Power Radar Feedbacks
-
20,000
-
EI Quito Area Curb Replacement
460,264
- -
(861)
Book Go Round Drainage
-
60,000
(290)
Sobey Road Culvert Repair
-
150,000 -
Storm Drain Upgrades
167,864
52,136
Median Repairs(Landscape /Irrig.)
20,000
(1,646)
(1,696)
Civic Center Landscape
104,325
Village Lights (Zone 7A)
-
50,000
Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets
7,000
-
Cox Ave Railroad Crossing Upgrade
-
(564)
Signage @ City Entrance
13,467
Blaney Plaza Improvement - Contruction
99,787
(73,032)
(17,605)
Village- Streetscape Impv (Sidewalk, Curbs)
738,624
Saratoga- Sunnyvale /Gateway
231,603
(977)
(2,016)
Storm Drain @ El Camino / Mt Vista
100,000
Total Infrastructure
1,942,934
195,917 60,000
(22,468)
WHH Improvements
74,737
(1,106)
(11,327)
Civic Center - COD Offices
15,000
-
(4,100)
Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Book Go Round
-
25,000
North Campus -19848 Prospect Road
-
500,000
(1,255)
Historical Park Fire Alarm System
6,543
-
Total Facility
96,280
523,894
(16,682)
arks & Trails
Hakone Garden D/W
164,283
-
Union Pacific Railroad (Deana) Trail
(49,066)
(35,129) 52,412
(35,194)
Kevin Moran Improvements
46,468
(64) -
(1,002)
Alternative Soccer Field
-
250,000
Parkfrrail Repairs
35,202
-
Total Parks & Trails
161,685
(35,193) 52,412
(36,196)
112,412
10131106 Funq
Transfers Balance
57,694
100,000
(4,926
185,001
(59,529
100,000
545
127,192
RM on
20,000
459,403
59,710
150,000
220,000
16,658
104,325
50,000
7,000
13,467
9,150
738,624
228,610
62,304
10,900
25,000
498,745
164,283
45,402
250,000
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2006 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGE • (����
PREPARED BY: ' Y" � L� � DEPT HEAD: ng
Kristin Borel. Administrative Analyst .Tohn Cherbone. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Schedule
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Adopt resolution approving revised meeting schedule.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Backgro und:
On February 16, 2005, staff presented a report to Council that outlined preliminary budget
concerns for 2005 -06 and asked for direction regarding possible modification of staff support to
Saratoga's Commissions. As a result the Public Safety Commission was renamed the Traffic
Safety Commission (TSC)and was directed to focus only on traffic issues. The meeting schedule
was reduced from monthly meetings to quarterly meetings.
Other recommended changes were to reduce number of Commissioners from 7 to 5 by attrition,
fixed meeting start and end times (i.e., limit meeting duration to 2 hours), and prepare "action
minutes" instead of detailed meeting minutes.
Discussion:
The TSC has been meeting quarterly since May 2005 and has expressed a need to meet more
often. The number of traffic concerns brought before the Commission has increased and meeting
times are extended well beyond the recommended two hour limit. To help alleviate long
meetings and promote the resolution of traffic concerns in a timely and thorough manner, the
TSC is requesting to hold meetings every other month. To approve the new meeting schedule
the City Council must approve the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Additional staff time would be required to facilitate the new meeting schedule.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The TSC would continue to meet quarterly.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Notify the Traffic Safety Commission.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 05 -032 & Resolution No. 06 -020
2. New Resolution
2 of 2
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -032
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA REGARDING THE
STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF CITY
COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has a strong tradition of community
participation in City administration; and
WHEREAS, Commissioners and volunteers assist the City in administration of
many programs and provide valuable policy recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, severe budgetary limitations arising from the State legislature's
reallocation of property tax and other revenue sources away from local governments have
required significant reductions in City staff and programs; and
WHEREAS, reductions in staff interfere with the City's ability to effectively
support the work of City Commissions and reductions in programs reduce the need for
Commission policy guidance; and
WHEREAS, the City is working with other local governments and state officials
to increase the City's share of local property tax and other revenue sources to restore
important City programs and staffing levels and expects that when this occurs there will
be an increased need for Commission policy advice; and
WHEREAS, in light of these circumstances it is prudent to reduce the obligations
of the Commissions commensurate with the reductions in City staff and programs and to
retain a Commission structure that will readily allow restoration of Commission activities,
to their prior levels as increased funding becomes available.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
The Arts Commission shall suspend all operations and not have any meetings
until at July 1, 2006. In light of this suspension, the term of each member of
the Arts Commission shall be extended by one year and that year shall not be
considered in determining the length of a term for the purposes of determining
compliance with the Commissioner term limits established in the City Code.
2. The Finance Commission shall meet once each year and at such other times as
the City Council or City Manager (or his designee) deems necessary. The
mission of the Finance Commission shall be to respond to specific requests for
advice from the City Council and City Manager (or his designee) with respect
to financial matters, the use of fiscal resources, and the development of
technology for the City. The Finance Commission is currently defined as
consisting of seven members; effective June 1, 2005 the Finance Commission
shall consist of five members.
3. The Library Commission shall meet once each quarter. The Library
Commission is currently defined as consisting of seven members; effective
November 1, 2005 the Library Commission shall consist of five members.
4. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall suspend all operations and not
have any meetings until September 1, 2006. In light of this suspension, the
term of each member of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be
extended by one year and that year shall not be considered in determining the
length of a term for the purposes of determining compliance with the
Commissioner term limits established in the City Code.
5. The Public Safety Commission shall be renamed as the Traffic Safety
Commission. The exclusive mission of the Traffic Safety Commission shall
be to investigate, review and analyze issues, and make recommendations to
the City Council and City staff regarding traffic safety. The Commission shall
work to increase awareness of, and attention to, the traffic safety needs of the
community by improving communications and involvement between the
community, and the City government on services, needs and programs. The
Traffic Safety Commission is currently defined as consisting of seven
members; effective June 1, 2005 the Traffic Safety Commission shall consist
of five members.
6. There is hereby established the Saratoga Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian
Trails Advisory Committee. The number of Committee members and their
terms shall be determined by the Public Works Director. Committee members
shall be appointed by the Public Works Director. The Pedestrian, Bicycle,
and Equestrian Trails Advisory Committee shall advise the Public Works
Director with respect to the planning, acquisition, development, and
maintenance of trails in Saratoga.
7. All City Commissions except the Planning Commission shall plan their
agendas in a manner designed to limit the expected duration of Commission
meetings to two hours or less. Agendas, staff reports, and other materials
shall be distributed electronically except in those cases where it is not
practical to do so and where distribution of physical copies is required by law.
8. The provisions of this resolution shall supersede any provisions of any prior
resolution that are in conflict with this resolution
This resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City
Council held on the 18a' day of May, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith,
Vice Mayor Norman Kline, Mayor Kathleen King
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
�. I�tiiLa
A�/t �/// .
Kathleen M. King, Mayor
ATT (�
Ca ~ yer, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO 06 -020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA EXTENDING RESOLUTION 05 -032 REGARDING THE
STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF CITY COMMISSIONS
FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2005 the City Council adopted resolution 05 -032 which
changed the structure of certain City Commissions and suspended others.
WHEREAS, Resolution 05 -032 was unanimously adopted by Council due to severe
budget limitations and reduction in staff; and
WHEREAS, the suspension of the Arts Commission shall be amended to July 1, 2007,
the Parks and Recreation Commission to September 1, 2007, and the Finance Commission shall
continue to meet once each year; and
WHEREAS, all other aspects of Resolution 05 -032 shall continue until otherwise
directed by the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, State of California, on
this 15ffi day of March 2006 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Kathleen King, Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith,
Vice Mayor Aileen Kao, Mayor Norman Kline
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
r
N
CMC, City Clerk
l
r
ll �:
Norman Kline, Mayor
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION TO AMEND ITS MEETING SCHEDULE
FROM QUARTERLY TO EVERY OTHER MONTH
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commissions mission is to investigate, review and
analyze issues and make recommendations to the City Council and City staff regarding traffic
safety; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission shall work to increase awareness of, and
attention to, the traffic safety needs of the Community and the City on services, needs and
programs; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission will increase its meeting frequency from
quarterly to every other month: and
WHEREAS, all other aspects of Resolution 05 -032 and Resolution 06 -020 shall continue
until otherwise directed by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby amends the Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission's meeting schedule.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga City Council, State of California, the 17h day of
January, 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Aileen Kao, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
3E
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community DevP'opmentCITY MANAGE : �J�(
PREPARED BY: Therese M. SchmiBt, Associate Planner DEPT HEAD: `f
John F. L ivinQ tone
SUBJECT: Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement for the General Plan Update
with Deborah Ungo- McCormick Consulting
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an Amended Agreement with Ungo - McCormick Consulting
for planning and development services to prepare an update of three of the City's General Plan
Elements.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The Planning Department is in the process of updating three Elements of the City's General Plan:
the Land Use Element, Conservation Element and the Open Space, Recreation and Trails Element.
The Land Use Element was last updated in 1983, the Conservation Element in 1988, and the Open
Space Element in 1993. On December 8, 2005, the consulting firm of Ungo - McCormick Consulting
entered into an Agreement with the City to provide consulting services to prepare a technical update
of the three Elements with a maximum budget of $80,000.00 phased in two Fiscal Years, 05/06 and
06/07.
The original Scope of Services and anticipated budget for the preparation of the Draft was based on
an expected number of meetings including: up to six (6) advisory committee meetings and up to four
(4) public hearings (two Planning Commission hearings and two City Council meetings) for a total
of ten (10) meetings. In actuality, the following meetings were held: two (2) Land Use Advisory
Committee meetings; three (3) Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails Advisory Committee
meetings; four (4) Planning Commission Study Session Workshops; and one (1) Planning
Commission Hearing for a total of ten (10) meetings.
Staff is anticipating an additional Planning Commission hearing as well as two City Council
meetings prior to completing this project that were not part of the initial Scope of Service. In
addition, the four Planning Commission Study Session Workshops resulted in numerous revisions to
the Draft Document, which were not anticipated. To cover the additional meetings as well as the
cost of preparing the Final Document with appropriate graphics the Consultant has requested an
addendum to the contract for $9,025.00.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Revenue is created to fund ongoing General Plan Maintenance through a 1% fee on building permits.
There are adequate funds available for additional services.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Without a contract planner, the City will have difficulty updating the General Plan to meet State
mandates.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Select another option to meet City's needs.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Execute the contract agreement.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement.
2. Original Contract.
2
Attachment 1
CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDMENT TO
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
THIS Amendment Agreement is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
municipal corporation ( "City "), and Deborah Ungo McCormick, ( "Contractor "), who agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City and Contractor entered into an independent contractor agreement dated December 1, 2005
( "Original Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, City and Contractor wish to amend the Original Agreement in order to change the payment
terms by entering into this Amendment to the Original Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Amended term. The term of this Agreement commences on December 1, 2005 and extends through
June 30, 2007, or the completion of the project, whichever occurs first, unless it is extended by
written mutual agreement between parties, provided that the parties retain the right to terminate this
Agreement as provided in Exhibit D at all times.
2. Amended Payment Terms. The payment terms included in Exhibit B to the Original Agreement are
hereby replaced in their entirety with the payment terms attached as Exhibit B to this Amendment
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
City of Saratoga
Contractor
By:
Date
By:
_
Dave Anderson,
City Manager
Deborah Ungo - McCormick
Date
Attest:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Date
Approved as to Form:
Richard S. Taylor, City Attorney
Date
Approved as to budget authority
Date
Mary Furey
Accounting Supervisor
Attachments
Exhibit B -- Contract Payment and Reporting Schedule
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT
1. TOTAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Contractor an amount not to exceed
the total sum of eighty nine thousand twenty five dollars ($89,025) for work to be performed and
reimbursable costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement. The total sum stated above shall be the
total which City shall pay for the work product to be provided by Contractor pursuant to this
Agreement. The contractor shall bill the City at a rate of $95.00 per hour.
2. INVOICES Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during
the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for work performed and reimbursable expenses
incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
a. Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1;
b. The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
C. A summary containing the total contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the
total due this period, and the remaining balance available for all remaining billing
periods.
3. MONTHLY PAYMENTS City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices,
for satisfactory progress in completion of the Scope of Work, and for authorized reimbursable
expenses incurred.
4. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES There shall be no right to reimbursement of
expenses incurred by Contractor.
Attachment 2
CITY OF SARATOGA
STANDARD
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California -by and between the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ( "City"), and Deborah Ungo-McCormick,
( "Contractor "), who agree as follows:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide the work product
described in Exhibit A of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City lacks the qualified personnel to provide the specified work product; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is duly qualified to provide the required work product; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is agreeable to providing such work product on the'terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. RESULTS TO BE ACHIEVED Subject to the terms and conditions set forth
in this Agreement, Contractor shall provide to City the work product described in Exhibit A
( "Scope of Work "). Contractor is not authorized to undertake any efforts or incur any costs
whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of a fully executed Purchase
Order from the Finance Department of the City of Saratoga.
2. TERM The term of this Agreement commences on December 1, 2005, and extends
through December 20, 2006, or the completion of the project, whichever occurs first, unless it
is extended by written mutual agreement between the parties, provided that the parties retain
the right to terminate this Agreement as provided in Exhibit D at all times.
3. PAYMENT City shall pay Contractor for work product produced pursuant to this
Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B ( "Payment "). The payments
specified in Exhibit B shall be the only payments to be made to Contractor in connection with
Contractor's completion of the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall
submit all billings to City in the manner specified in Exhibit B; or, if no manner is specified
in Exhibit B, then according to the usual and customary procedures and practices which
Contractor uses for billing clients similar to City.
M
4. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT Except as set forth in Exhibit C ( "Facilities
and Equipment "), Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and
equipment, which may be required for completing the Scope of Work pursuant to this
Agreement. City shall furnish to Contractor only the facilities and equipment listed in
Exhibit C according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C.
5. GENERAL PROVISIONS City and Contractor agree to and shall abide by the
general provisions set forth in Exhibit D ( "General Provisions "). In the event of any
inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this
Agreement, the other term or condition shall control insofar as it is inconsistent with the
General Provisions.
6. EXHIBITS All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached hereto and are
by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement.
7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION This Agreement shall be administered on
behalf of City by Michele Braucht ( "Administrator "). The Administrator has complete
authority to receive information, interpret and define City's policies consistent with this
Agreement, and communicate with Contractor concerning this Agreement. All
correspondence and other communications shall be directed to or through the Administrator
or his or her designee.
8. NOTICES All notices or communication concerning a party's compliance with
the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given either personally, by
certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight express carrier. The notice shall be
deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered in person or the date upon
which the postal authority or overnight express carrier indicates that the mailing was
delivered to the address of the receiving Party. The Parties shall make good faith efforts to
provide advance courtesy notice of any notices or communications hereunder via
telefacsimile. However, under no circumstances shall such courtesy notice satisfy the notice
requirements set forth above; nor shall lack of such courtesy notice affect the validity of
service pursuant to the notice requirement set forth above. Any Party hereto, by giving ten
(10) days written notice to the other, may designate any other address as substitution of the
address to which the notice or communication shall be given. Notices or communications
shall be given to the Parties at the addresses set forth below until specified otherwise in
writing:
Notices to Contractor shall be sent to:
Deborah Ungo - McCormick, AICP
1057 Glen Echo Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125-4316
Notices to (/- CiZa
o:
k
An F. Livingston AICP
Community Development Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
With a copy (which copy shall not constitute notice) to:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements,
either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to Contractor's completion of
the Scope of Work on behalf of City and contains all of the covenants and agreements
between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever.
Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises
or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf
of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement or
promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid• or binding. No amendment,
alteration, or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing
and signed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR:
By:
Print Nam
/e:
�
�ebo rw h u� Wo- M� rvrii cL
Position: V-; n cU t��A
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
By: ,�,.'„' 44�G Date:
Name:
V�-4t--
Title:
Date: 11-7-06
,4ti' f, Loo C
DoN
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date: l lL
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO BUDGET AUTHORITY AND INSURANCE:
By; ,� Date:
-�A
Administrative Services Director
Attachments
Exhibit A -- Scope of Work
Exhibit B - Contract Payment and Reporting Schedule
Exhibit C Facilities and Equipment
Exhibit D -- General Provisions
Exhibit E -- Insurance Requirements
EXHIBIT A `
SCOPE OF WORK
Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work as outlined in the attached Focused General
Plan Update Proposal, prepared by Ungo - McCormick Consulting, dated September 22, 2005,
and on file in the Planning Department. (Exhibit F)
0
0
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT
1. TOTAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Contractor an amount not to exceed the
total sum of Fifty- Thousand dollars $50,000.00) in fiscal year 2005 /06 and Thirty-
Thousand dollars ($30,000.00) in fiscal year 2006/07 for work to be performed and
reimbursable costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement. The total sum stated above shall
be the total which City shall pay for the work product to be provided by Contractor
pursuant to this Agreement. The contractor shall bill the City at an hourly rate of $95.00,
after receiving written authorization from the City, to perform service out of the scope of
work as defined in Exhibit A.
2. INVOICES Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month
during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for work performed and reimbursable
expenses incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
a. Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1;
b. The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
C. A summary containing the total contract amount, the amount of prior billings,
the total due this period, and the remaining balance available for all remaining
billing periods.
3. MONTHLY PAYMENTS City shall make monthly payments, based on such
invoices, for satisfactory progress in completion of the Scope of Work, and for authorized
reimbursable expenses incurred.
4. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES There shall be no right to reimbursement of
expenses incurred by Contractor except as specified in Exhibit A to this Agreement. .
EXHIBIT C
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desk, filing cabinets, and conference
space, as may be reasonably necessary for Contractor's use while consulting with City
employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of City. The location,
quantity, and time of furnishing said physical facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City.
In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility, which may involve incurring any
direct expense, including, but not limiting the generality: of this exclusion; long- distance
telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Contractor
shall not use such services, premises, facilities, supplies or equipment for any purpose other
than in the performance of Contractor's obligations under this Agreement.
U
a
7 ..f i a
u
n.....
EXHIBIT D
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR At all times during the term of this
Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of
City. Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work hereunder in accordance with currently
approved methods and practices in Contractor's field. City shall have the right to control
Contractor only with respect to specifying the results to be obtained from Contractor pursuant
to this Agreement. City shall not have the right to control the means by which'Contractor
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Likewise, no relationship of
employer and employee is created by this Agreement between the City and Contractor or any
subcontractor or employee of Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as limiting the right of Contractor to engage in Contractor's profession separate and
apart from this Agreement so long as such activities do not interfere or conflict with the
performance by Contractor of the obligations set forth in this Agreement. Interference or
conflict will be determined at the sole discretion of the City.
2. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work
required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed
by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Contractor is engaged in the
geographical area in which Contractor practices its profession. All work product of
whatsoever nature, which Contractor delivers to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be
prepared in a substantial, first class and workmanlike manner and conform to the standards of
quality normally observed by a person practicing in Contractor's profession.
3. TIME Contractor shall devote such time to the Scope of Work pursuant to
this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Contractor's
obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
4. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT Except as City may specify in writing,
Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any
capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied,
pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
5. BENEFITS AND TAXES Contractor shall not have any claim under this
Agreement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave,
personal time off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits,
social security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any
kind. Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes,
including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes, and in connection therewith
Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability that City may
incur because of Contractor's failure to pay such taxes." City shall have no obligation
whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No party to this Agreement may assign any right
or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any
right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. However, with
the consent of the City given in writing, Contractor is entitled to subcontract such portions of
the work to be performed under this Agreement as may be specified by City.
PERSONNEL
a. Qualifications. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to complete the
Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole
discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the removal of
any such persons, Contractor shall, immediately upon receiving notice from city
of such desire of City, cause the removal of such person or persons.
b. Employment Eligibility. Contractor shall ensure that all employees of
Contractor and any subcontractor retained by Contractor in connection with this
Agreement have provided the necessary documentation to establish identity and
employment eligibility as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986. Failure to provide the necessary documentation will result in the
termination of the Agreement as required by the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986.
8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
a. In General. Contractor represents and warrants that, to the best of the
Contractor's knowledge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances
which could give rise to a conflict of interest on the.part of Contractor, or that the
Contractor has already disclosed all such relevant information.
b. Subsequent Conflict of Interest. Contractor agrees that if an actual or potential
conflict of interest on the part of Contractor is discovered after award, the
Contractor will make a full disclosure in writing to the City. This disclosure shall
include a description of actions, which the Contractor has taken or proposes to
take, after consultation with the City to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or
potential conflict. Within 45 days, the Contractor shall have taken all necessary
steps to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of
the City.
c. Interests of City Officers and Staff. No officer, member or employee of City
and no member of the City Council shall have any pecuniary interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Neither Contractor nor any
member of any Contractor's family shall serve on any City board or committee or
hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates,
recommends, or supervises Contractor's operations or authorizes funding to
P.M a.d 7A
Contractor.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
a. In General. Contractor shall observe and comply with all laws, policies, general
rules and regulations established by City and shall comply with the common law
and all laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of governmental agencies,
(including federal, state, municipal and local governing bodies) applicable to the
performance of the Scope of Work hereunder, including, but not limited to, all
provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1979 as amended.
b. Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants to City that it has all
licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are
legally required for Contractor to practice its profession. Contractor represents
and warrants to City that Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in
effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and
approvals which are legally required for Contractor to practice its profession.
c. Funding Agency Requirements. To the extent that this Agreement may be
funded by fiscal assistance from another entity, Contractor shall comply with all
applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terns of such fiscal
assistance program.
_ Dn rt� 1ll of 10
M
d. Drug -free Workplace. Contractor and Contractor's employees and
subcontractors shall comply with the City's policy of maintaining a drug -free
workplace., Neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees and subcontractors
shall unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess or use controlled
substances, as defined in 21 U.S. Code Section 812, including marijuana, heroin,
cocaine, and amphetamines, at any facility, premises or worksite used in any
manner in connection with performing services pursuant to this Agreement. If
Contractor or any employee or subcontractor of Contractor is convicted or pleads
nolo contendere to a criminal drug statute violation occurring at such a facility,
premises; or worksite, the Contractor, within five days thereafter, shall notify the
City.
e. Discrimination Prohibited. Contractor assures and agrees that Contractor will
comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws prohibiting
discrimination and that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color,
disability, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, religion, Vietnam era
veteran's status, political affiliation, or any other non -merit factors be excluded
from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under this Agreement.
10. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS
a. Property of City. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys,
photographs, memoranda or other written documents or materials prepared by
Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of City upon
completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of this
Agreement.
b. Retention of Records. Until the expiration of five years after the furnishing of
any services pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor shall retain and make
available to the City or any party designated by the.City, upon written request by
City, this Agreement, and such books, documents and records of Contractor (and
any books, documents, and records of any subcontractor(s)) that are necessary or
convenient for audit purposes to certify the nature and extent of the reasonable
cost of services to City.
c. Use Of Recycled Products. Contractor shall prepare and submit all reports,
written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is
available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.
d. Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract
administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design
specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed
and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design
preparation. The stamp /seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of
Registered Professional with report/design responsibility" as per the sample
below.
Sea] and Signature of Registered Professional with
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Contractor shall hold any confidential
information received from City in the course of performing this Agreement in trust and
confidence and will not reveal such confidential information to any person or entity, either
during the term of the Agreement or at any time thereafter. Upon expiration of this
Agreement, or termination as provided herein, Contractor shall return materials which
contain any confidential information to City. Contractor may keep one copy for its
confidential file. For purposes of this paragraph, confidential information is defined as all
information disclosed to Contractor which relates to City's past, present, and future activities,
as well as activities under this Agreement, which information is not otherwise of public
record under California law.
12. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall take all responsibility
for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to Contractor,
to any subcontractor, to the City, to City officers and employees, or to parties designated by
the City, on account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties,
accidents, occurrences or other causes predicated on active or passive negligence of the
Contractor or of any subcontractor.
13. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor and City agree that City, its employees,
agents and officials shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be fully protected from any
loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys fees, litigation costs, defense
costs, court costs or any other cost arising out of or in any way related to the performance of
this Agreement. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are intended by the
parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the fullest protection possible under the law
to the City. Contractor acknowledges that City would not enter into this agreement in the
absence of the commitment of Contractor to indemnify and protect City as set forth below.
a. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless City, its employees, agents and officials, from any
liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative
proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind
whatsoever without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a
consequence of or arising out of or in any way attributable actually, allegedly or
impliedly, in whole or in part, to the performance of this Agreement. All
obligations under this provision are to be paid by Contractor as they are incurred
by the City.
b. Limitation on Indemnity. Without affecting the rights of City under any
provision of this agreement or this section, Contractor shall not be required to
indemnify and hold harmless City as set forth above for liability attributable to
the sole fault of City, provided such sole fault is determined by agreement
between the parties or the findings of a court"of competent jurisdiction. This
exception will apply only in instances where the City is shown to have been
solely at fault and not in instances where Contractor is solely or partially at fault
or in instances where City's fault accounts for only a percentage of the liability
involved. In those instances, the obligation of Contractor will be all- inclusive
and City will be indemnified for all liability incurred, even though a percentage
of the liability is attributable to conduct of the Cjty:
c. Acknowledgement. Contractor acknowledges that its obligation pursuant to this
section extends to liability attributable to City, if that liability is less than the sole
fault of City. Contractor has no obligation under this agreement for liability
proven in a court of competent jurisdiction or by written agreement between the .
parties to be the sole fault of City.
d. Scope of Contractor Obligation. 'The obligations of Contractor under this or
any other provision of this Agreement will not be limited by the provisions of any
workers' compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its
statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its employees and
officials.
e. Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements
with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and
every subcontractor, sub tier contractor or any other person or entity involved by,
for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance or subject matter of this
Agreement. In the event Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity obligations
from others as required here, Contractor agrees to be fully responsible according
to the terms of this section.
f. In General. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements
imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of
any rights hereunder. This obligation to'indemnify and defend City as set forth
herein is binding on the successors, assigns, or heirs of Contractor and shall
survive the termination of this agreement or this section. For purposes of Section
2782 of the Civil Code the parties hereto recognize and agree that this Agreement
is not a construction contract. By execution of this Agreement, Contractor
acknowledges and agrees that it has read and understands the provisions hereof
and that this paragraph is a material element of consideration. City approval of
the insurance contracts required by this Agreement does not relieve the
Contractor or subcontractors from liability under this paragraph.
14. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure and maintain
for the duration of the contract insurance as set forth in Exhibit E. The cost of such insurance
shall be included in the Contractors bid.
15. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
a. Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default
hereunder:
Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach immediately upon receiving notice of such breach, if the breach
is such that the City determines the health, welfare, or safety of the public is
immediately endangered; or
2. Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such breach, if the
breach is such that the City determines that the health, welfare, or safety of
the public is not immediately endangered, provided that if the nature of the
breach is such that the City determines it will reasonably require more than
fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in default if Contractor
promptly commences the cure and diligently proceeds to completion of the
cure.
b. Remedies upon default. Upon any Contractor default, City shall have the right
to immediately suspend or terminate the Agreement, seek specific performance,
contract with another party to perform this Agreement and/or seek damages
including incidental, consequential and/or special damages to the full extent
allowed bylaw.
c. No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default hereunder shall not
constitute a waiver of any other rights hereunder or any right to seek any remedy
for any subsequent default.
16. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without
cause by providing 10 days notice in writing to the other party. The City may terminate this
Agreement at any time without prior notice in the event that Contractor commits a material
breach of the terms of this Agreement. Upon termination, this Agreement shall become of no
further force or affect whatsoever and each of the parties hereto shall be relieved and
discharged here-from, subject to payment for acceptable, services rendered prior to the
expiration of the notice of termination. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this
Agreement concerning retention of records, City's rights to material produced, confidential
information, contractor's responsibility, indemnification, insurance, dispute resolution,
litigation, and jurisdiction and severability shall survive termination of this Agreement.
17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties shall make a good faith effort to settle any
dispute or claim arising under this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve such disputes or
claims, they shall submit them to non - binding mediation in California at shared expense of
the parties for at least 8 hours of mediation. If mediation does not arrive at a satisfactory
result, arbitration, if agreed to by all parties, or litigation
may be pursued. In the event any dispute'resolution processes are involved, each party shall
bear its own costs and attorneys fees.
18. LITIGATION If any litigation is commenced between parties to this Agreement
concerning any provision hereof or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto,
each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
-1 .--- via., 77 . .f. A. t Pace 14 of 18.
19. JURISDICTION AND SEVERABILITY This Agreement shall be
administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of
litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in that state and venue shall be in Santa Clara
County, California. If any part of this Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws,
such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the
remainder of this Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
20. NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL Contractor understands and agrees that there is
no representation, implication, or. understanding that the City will request that work product
provided by Contractor under this Agreement be supplemented or continued by Contractor
under a new agreement following expiration or termination of this Agreement. Contractor
waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing' respecting any failure by City, to continue to
request or retain all or any portion of the work product from Contractor following the
expiration or termination of this Agreement.
21. PARTIES IN INTEREST This Agreement is entered only for the benefit
of the parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity
or person.
22. WAIVER. Neither the acceptance of work or payment for work pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any rights or obligations arising under this
Agreement. The failure by the City to enforce any of Contractor's obligations or to exercise
City's rights shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.
Din. l4 of 1A
EXHIBIT E
INSURANCE
Please refer to the insurance requirements listed below. Those that have an "X" indicated in
the space before the requirement apply to Contractor's Agreement (ignore any not checked).
Contractor shall provide its insurance broker(s) /agent(s) with a copy of these requirements
and request that they provide Certificates of Insurance complete with copies of all required
endorsements to: Administrative Services Officer, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
Contractor shall furnish City with copies of original endorsements affecting coverage
required by this Exhibit E. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that
insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements and certificates are to be received
and approved by City before work commences. City has the right to require Contractor's
insurer to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including
endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.
X Commercial General/Business Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
X $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate limits for bodily injury and
property damage
$ per occurrence bodily injury/$ per occurrence
property damage
Coverage for X, C, U hazards MUST be evidenced on the Certificate of
Insurance
If the standard ISO Form wording for "OTHER INSURANCE ", or other
comparable wording, is not contained in ' Contractor's liability insurance
policy, an endorsement must be provided that said insurance will be primary
insurance and any insurance or self - insurance maintained by City, its officers,
employees, agents or volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance
and shall not contribute to it.
X Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
X $1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
$ per person/$ per accident for bodily injury
$ per occurrence for property damage
$ 500,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
Garage keepers extra liability endorsement to extend coverage to all vehicles
in the care, custody and control of the contractor, regardless of where the
vehicles are kept or driven.
Professional/Errors and Omissions Liability with coverage as indicated:
$1,000,000 per loss/ $2,000,000 aggregate
$5,000,000 per loss/ $5,000,000 aggregate
Contractor must maintain Professional/Errors & Omissions Liability coverage for a
period of three years after the expiration of this Agreement. Contractor may satisfy
this requirement by renewal of existing coverage or purehase of either prior acts or tail
coverage applicable to said three year period.
Workers' Compensation Insurance
Including minimum $1,000,000 Employer's Liability
X Contractor represents and warrants that it is a sole proprietor, has no employees, is
not required to maintain workers compensation insurance, and that the nature of
contractor's work for City does not require City to maintain workers compensation
insurance for Contractor. Contractor further represents and warrants that the
individuals listed in Exhibit F are not employees of Contractor and have separate
independent contractor agreements with Contractor and that the nature of their work
for Contractor and City does not require City or Contractor to maintain workers
compensation insurance on their behalf. Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend, and
hold City harmless from any and all liability that City may incur if the foregoing
representations are not accurate.
The Employer's Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of subrogation as
respects the City, its employees or agents.
The Contractor makes the following certification, required by section 1861 of the California
Labor Code:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700. of the Labor Code which require every
employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self -
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract The contractor, is
an independent contractor in the performance of this agreement and is not an employee of the
City of Saratoga. The Contractor shall not have any claim under this agreement or otherwise
against City for any social security, workers composition or employee benefits extended to
employees of the City. This Agreement is solely for the term specified above there is no
representation, implication, or understanding that the City will request that work product
provided by Contractor under this agreement be supplemented or continued by the Contractor
under a new agreement following expiration of termination of this agreement.
X Additional Insured Endorsement(s) for Commercial General/Business Liability
coverage naming the City of Saratoga, its officers, employees and agents as
additional insured.
(NOTE: additional insured language on the Certificate of Insurance is NOT
acceptable without a separate endorsement such as Form CG 20 10)
X The Certificate of Insurance MUST provide 30 days notice of cancellation, (10 days
notice for non - payment of premium). NOTE: the following words must be crossed
out or deleted from the standard cancellation clause: "... endeavor to ..." AND ".. .
but failure to
mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the
company, its agents or representatives."
All subcontractors used must comply with the above requirements except as noted
below:
As to all of the checked insurance requirements above, the following shall apply:
a. Deductibles and Self - Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self - insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the
City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or
self - insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees;
or (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of .losses and
related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
b. City as Additional Insured. The City,, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed
operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the
Contractor, or automobiles owned, ]eased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor.
The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of the protection
afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
c. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to
contain, the following provisions:
1. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not
affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
2. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the
insurers liability.
3. Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in
coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior_ written_ notice by
certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
d. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests'
rating of no less than A: VII.
EXHIBIT F
City of Saratoga
Focused General Plan Update
Proposal
September 22, 2005
Un p -�V5CCoirrvic& Cons itinrg
pond Use and Environmental Planning
s 057 G ?en Echo Avenue
San Jose, GA 95125-4316--- - -
408/297 -8763 408,/286 -7840 (fax)
ur.gomcc@reigate.net
Lingo.]We'ormick Consulting
Land Use and Environmental Planning
September 22, 2005
Ms. Theresa Schmidt, Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Proposal for a Focused General Plan Update
Dear Ms. Schmidt:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the City of Saratoga's need to update
elements of the General Plan. On behalf of my team, I am very pleased to present
this proposal to the City to undertake this assignment.
The proposal includes a description of the City's needs in terms of updating the
General Plan, a scope of services, a project budget, an estimated schedule, and a
description of the project team.
Project Understanding
Based on the Request for Proposal and discussions with the City staff, it is our
understanding that portions of the City's current General Plan require updating to
reflect current conditions in the City and the vision for future growth of Saratoga.
As stated in the Request for Proposals, "the City of Saratoga, which incorporated in
1983, has a low- density residential land use pattern that is well established and is
unlikely to change." Thus, it is also our understanding that no significant changes
are anticipated in the land use pattern of the City of Saratoga. Rather, the main
purpose of this assignment is to create a document that is updated to meet current
State Guidelines, is internally consistent and is generally a more user - friendly
document.
Specifically, the land use element is now over 20 years old and many changes have
been made in the content of land use elements by the State legislature. In addition,
new development, annexations and land use - related citizen initiatives, which have
occurred during this time period that need to be reflected in the General Plan.
The Conservation Element and Open Space Elements are also dated and must be
revised to be consistent with current State Guidelines, the updated Land Use
Element and current desires of the residents of Saratoga. In addition, the City is
looking at merging these documents to create a single element. The City is also
looking at the potential of incorporating the City Parks and Trails Master Plan into
City of Saratoga GP Update Proposal p. 2
September 2005
this document. However, based on follow up conversations with key staff, it is our
understanding that portions of the Master Plan are currently undergoing
modifications related to the De Anza Trail, and the anticipated timeline for this
change may be in conflict with the anticipated timeline for this focused update. Thus,
the City is now considering maintaining it as a separate document. The scope of
services included below is based on this understanding.
Although much of an updated General Plan has been recently prepared, the task
remains of finalizing an updated Land Use Element and an updated
Conservation/ Open Space Element, preparing necessary CEQA documentation and
shepherding the revised document through the citizen review and public hearing
process.
Scope of Services
The following scope of services is proposed.
Task 1: Proiect Organizati on
This task will include a preliminary meeting in City Hall with all affected project
participants, including, but not limited to, the City's project manager, Community
Development Director and the consultant team. The purpose of the meeting will be
to review and finalize the scope of services, the schedule and to allow the consultant
team to gather all relevant background material to allow the remainder of the scope
of services to be completed.
Task 2: Cify Coordination
A series of bi- monthly meetings between the City staff, appointed advisory
committee and consultant project manager will be scheduled. The purpose of the
meetings will be to discuss on -going progress of the General Plan update, review
completed work products and to discuss any identified issues or problems that
would affect the project schedule. We anticipate that the update of both elements
will be done concurrently to the greatest extent possible.
Task 3: Finalize Land Use and Open Space/ Conservation Elements
As identified in the RFP, several key components of the two updated Elements have
already been drafted. These components of the element include: Introduction, goals
and polices statement, land use densities and intensities, a summary of citizen
initiatives affecting planning, single story limitations for Saratoga Woods, a
summary of existing land use acreages, annexation policies, hillside development
policies, public and quasi -public facilities, office development standards, General Plan
land use categories and standards, cellular facility policies, historic resources, arbor
resources, second dwelling unit policies and code enforcement policies.
City of Saratoga GP Update Proposal p• 3
September 2005
Remaining tasks include goals, policies and standards dealing with area plans,
Williamson Act contracts, sustainability and watershed areas and park dedication
standards.
Task 4: Community Outreach
The consultant will work with the Citizen Advisory Committee to review the Land
Use and Open Space/ Conservation Element. It is anticipated that six meetings will
be held, including up to three community meeting in key areas of the City intended
to inform and engage the community regarding the proposed Land Use and Open
Space/ Conservation Element updates. The consultant will work with the Citizen
Advisory Committee to schedule community meetings. Preliminarily, these
meetings would include:
Meeting One: Background and Orientation - Advisory Committee
Meeting Two: Discussion of Key Issues - Advisory Committee)
Meeting Three: Review Draft Policies - Community Meeting
Meeting Four: Review Draft Policies - Community Meeting
Meeting Five: Review Draft Policies - Community Meeting
Meeting Six: Finalize Draft Elements - Advisory Committee (possible joint
meeting with Planning Commission and City Council)
The consultant team will be responsible for preparing meeting agendas, supplying
discussion materials and preparing meeting summaries. City staff will be
responsible for providing meeting facilities and notification of the Advisory
Committee and Community -wide Meetings, and posting of information on the
City's Web Site.
The above meeting schedule is a suggestion and other topics may be discussed.
However, the project budget provides for a maximum of six Advisory Committee
meetings.
As part of the community outreach effort, this task also includes preparation of
required public hearing notices for Planning Commission and City Council
meetings.
Task 5: CEOA Compliance
Since the proposed General Plan Update—is a project that is subject to CEQA, the
consultant team will prepare an Initial Study analyzing the project. It is anticipated
that the Initial Study will lead to the certification of a Negative Declaration.
City of Saratoga GP Update Proposal p.4
September 2005
The Initial Study will include a project description, completion of the standard CEQA
checklist and a text description to support each of the findings. No specialized
studies (traffic, air quality etc.) are proposed to be undertaken as part of this task If
these are required, a contract amendment would be negotiated. It is anticipated that
the City will provide a standard Initial Study format. If not, the consultant team will
use their standard format.
Five copies of an administrative draft IN/ND will be submitted to the City. City
comments and edits will then be incorporated into a final document and 50 copies
will be printed and delivered to the City. An additional fifteen copies will be
delivered to the State Clearinghouse.
CEQA compliance also includes drafting the Notice of Availability and a Notice of
Completion for transmittal to the State Clearinghouse.
Task 6: phlic Hearines
The consultant project manager will attend up to four public hearings, a
combination of Planning Commission and City Council hearings, to review the draft
updated Elements and respond to questions posed by elected officials and /or the
public.
Task 7: Document Finalizati on
Following approval by the City Council, the consultant team will prepare 50 printed
copies of the final two General Plan elements and provide electronic copies of each
to the City. It is anticipated that all revisions of the City's Land Use Diagram will be
prepared by the City staff.
Project Budget
The budget to complete the above scope of work would not exceed $80,000. This
includes all professional labor and materials, including printing of the documents
identified above. It does not include environmental filing fees, labor to prepare a
Land Use Diagram or any specialized environmental consultants. The estimated
budget is included as Attachment A.
Services beyond the scope of work will be billed at an hourly rate of $95.
Preliminary Schedule
Based on the RFP, it is our understanding that the City's goal is to complete the
update effort within one year of the adoption of the consultant contract. Based on
this, we have prepared an estimated project schedule as follows:
City of Saratoga GP Update Proposal
September 2005
P. 5
Project Team
The project team will consist of Deborah Ungo - McCormick, Jerry Haag and Jan
Maxwell. Ms. Ungo- McCormick and Mr. Haag each bring to this project over 25
years of experience in the area of project management, land use and environmental
planning and community outreach. Both Ms. Ungo - McCormick and Mr. Haag
specialize in providing staff support services to municipalities throughout California,
which makes them especially qualified for this job because they understand the
importance of creating documents that are workable tools for the use of staff and
decision makers. Additionally, Ms. Ungo - McCormick has recent experience with the
City of Saratoga as a contract planner, which allows her to bring a hands -on
knowledge of community issues, resources and expectations to the project. We
believe that our experience will allow us to make this a true collaborative effort
between our project team and your project team, as we appreciate the value of
utilizing city's staff resources and expertise regarding the community's expectations
in this effort.
Team responsibilities will be as follows:
Tasks
Estimated Timeline
Task 1:
Project Organization
December 2005
Task 2:
City Coordination
On -going December 2005 through Dec.
2006
Task 3:
Finalize Land Use and Open
January 2006 through July 2006
Space/ Conservation
(works concurrently with Task 4)
Elements
and leading to consensus approval of
draft elements
Task 4:
Community Outreach
April 2006 through July 2006
Task 5:
CEQA Compliance
Negative Declaration issued 30 days
upon consensus approval of draft
documents — August 2006
Task 6:
Public Hearings
September 2006 — October 2006
Task 7:
Document Finalization
December 1, 2006
Project Team
The project team will consist of Deborah Ungo - McCormick, Jerry Haag and Jan
Maxwell. Ms. Ungo- McCormick and Mr. Haag each bring to this project over 25
years of experience in the area of project management, land use and environmental
planning and community outreach. Both Ms. Ungo - McCormick and Mr. Haag
specialize in providing staff support services to municipalities throughout California,
which makes them especially qualified for this job because they understand the
importance of creating documents that are workable tools for the use of staff and
decision makers. Additionally, Ms. Ungo - McCormick has recent experience with the
City of Saratoga as a contract planner, which allows her to bring a hands -on
knowledge of community issues, resources and expectations to the project. We
believe that our experience will allow us to make this a true collaborative effort
between our project team and your project team, as we appreciate the value of
utilizing city's staff resources and expertise regarding the community's expectations
in this effort.
Team responsibilities will be as follows:
City of Saratoga GP Update Proposal p.6
September 2005
Deborah Ungo- McCormick will be the project manager and will provide primary
interface with the Saratoga City staff and the Advisory Committee. She will also
guide the preparation of final General Plan Elements.
Jerry Haag will serve as the assistant project manager and will be responsible for
providing support to the project manager and authoring the revised elements. He
will also have the responsibility of completing the required CEQA review. Mr. Haag
and Ms. Ungo - McCormick have collaborated in similar capacity on other projects,
most recently in the City of Fremont's two -year effort which resulted in the
implementation of several key strategies of the Housing Element.
Jane Maxwell is a local Bay Area independent graphic artist who will assist Mr. Haag
with Element graphics as needed. She has collaborated with Jerry Haag on
numerous projects over the past 12 years.
Summary
In summary, we are very excited about the opportunity to assist the City of
Saratoga in the focused update of the selected elements of the General, Plan, and
look forward to working with you and your project team in a true collaborative
fashion. We feel that we bring to this project the special qualifications required to
complete this effort in a manner that meets the distinct needs of the City of
Saratoga, and in the time frame that you have outlined in your Request for
Proposals.
Please call me at (408) 297 -8763 if any of the information presented in the proposal
requires amplification or additional material is needed to evaluate my experience
and skills.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerelly��
Deborah Ungo- MCCormick
Principal
Ungo - McCormick Consulting
City of Saratoga
Focused General Plan Update
Statement of Qualifications
Deborah Ungo- McCormick
General Plan Qualifications
Town of Los Altos Hills
Housing Element Update
Deborah Ungo- McCormick assisted staff in the update of the Housing Element. This
involved working with the Town's Advisory Committee to identify policies and
implementation strategies that addressed comments from the State Housing and
Community Development staff, and which led to the ultimate adoption and certification
of the Housing Element in Spring 2004.
Contact: Carl Cahill, Planning Director,
It n. IWA11110041014111 n
Deborah Ungo- McCormick assisted the City of Fremont staff in the two -year
implementation of several strategies of the 2004 Housing Element. This effort included
the redesignation and rezoning of over 400 acres of land throughout the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Fremont, as well as other general plan and ordinance
amendments as required to implement said strategies. This project included a city -wide
outreach program.
Contact: Kathleen Livermore, Senior Planner, 510/494 -4438
Town of Los Q210
-T
Deborah Ungo - McCormick served as project manager for the Los Gatos General Plan
Implementation Program. The Los Gatos General Plan 2000 includes approximately 143
strategies that are targeted for implementation within a 3 to 5 year cycle. Responsibilities
include development of work program for the 143 strategies, management of teams
responsible for related implementing programs and activities, development of tools for
tracking and reporting to the Town Council on the status of activities and actions.
Contact: Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner (408) 354 -6874
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose
Project Manager — Guadalupe River Master Plan Update
Deborah Ungo - McCormick served as a project manager for the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of San Jose. Responsibilities included development and implementation of
budgets, work programs and coordination of project teams for several projects. In
addition, she served as project manager for the update of the Guadalupe River Master
Plan, which included selection and coordination of consultants and coordination of
outreach programs.
Contact: Ken Talbot, Deputy Project Management Division (former)
City of San Bruno
General Plan Implementation Program
Deborah Ungo - McCormick assisted the city staff with the preparation of a Specific Plan
for multi -use, transit- oriented development of U.S. Navy Western Division Site, San
Bruno, CA. She was responsible for preparation of document text, coordination of
document layout and graphics and community outreach program through final adoption.
Contact: George Foscardo, ACIP — Community & Economic Development Director
(former)
Jerry Haag
General Plan Qualifications
City o f Latfu °°
General Plan Update
Jerry Haag is assisting the City of Lathrop staff in the update an older (1992) General
Plan that no longer reflects current conditions within the community. Lathrop, located in
San Joaquin County, has experienced significant growth in the past 5 years and is
anticipating extending their planning area
Contact: Marilyn Ponton, Principal Planner, 209/942 7200 x7292
City of Fremont, •n
A.
Jerry Haag prepared various environmental documents as required in the processing of
redesignation and rezonings throughout the City of Fremont, as part of the
implementation of the 2002 Housing Element.
Contact: Kathleen Livermore, Senior Planner, 510/494 -4438
City of New
General Plan Environmental Impact Repel
In the early 1990's Jerry Haag prepared an Environmental Impact report to assess the
impacts of approving a comprehensive general plan update for this community of about
40,000 people in southern Alameda County. The General Plan focused on preservation
of their extensive Bay shoreline and development of an industrial employment base.
Contact: John Becker, Community Development Director, 510/790 7272
City of San Leandro
General Plan Land Use Diagram
Jerry Haag prepared a draft city -wide land use diagram based on a series of community
outreach meetings and existing land use conditions.
Contact: Norm Weisbrod (former)
City of Saratoga
Focused General Plan Update
Attachment A
= Project Budget =
Proposed Budget
Saratoga Focused General Plan Update
Deborah Ungo-
McCormick
Jerry Haag
Subs
Direct
Costs
Total
Task 1: Project Organization 20
Task 2: City Coordination 120
Task 3: Final Elements 140
Task 4: Community Outreach 120
Task 5: CEQA 24
Task 6: Hearings 60
Task 7: Final Docs 8
Subtotal (hrs.) 404
Billing Rate $95
Total Costs $38,380
8
16
$0
200
$8,000
$0
16
$0
100
$0
16
20
$2,000
332
N/A
0
$95
N/A
0
$31,540
$10,000
$0
$79,920
Deborah Ungo- McCormick
Ms. Ungo - McCormick is an urban planner with over 25
years of professional experience in land use and environ-
mental planning, and project management. She has pro-
vided contract planning and planning consultation serv-
ices to a number of planning agencies in the Bay Area
Her extensive project experience, working with both
public and private sector clients, has afforded her oppor-
tunities to participate in all phases of the planning proc-
ess and has involved working with public agencies at the
local, regional and state levels. Ms. Ungo-McCormick's
project management experience covers a broad range of
projects from small -scale site - specific land use feasibility
studies to large -scale multi -use projects and environ-
mental assessments. Ms. Ungo - McCormick's project
management experience includes the preparation and co-
ordination of work programs, budgets and implementa-
tion plans and public outreach efforts. Ms. Ungo-
McCormick is fully bilingual in Spanish and English.
Prior to beginning independent practice, Ms. Ungo -
McCormick served as Planning Manager at Ruth and
Going, Inc., a South Bay planning and engineering firm.
Ms. Ungo - McCormick also served as Project Manager in
the (former) Project Management Division of the Redo-
velopment Agency of the City of San lose. She has also
served as a planner for the California cities of Norwalk,
LaVeme and Livermore.
Selected Experience: Specific Plans, Master
Plans and General Plans
Ms. Ungo- McCormick has a wide range of experience
completing a number of land use and special planning
projects, including:
Housing Element Update - Town of Los Altos
Hills. Ms. Ungo - McCormick assisted staff in the
update of the Housing Element. This involved work-
ing with the Town's Advisory Committee to iden-
tify policies and implementation strategies that ad-
dressed comments from the State Housing and
Community Development staff, and which led to the
ultimate adoption and certification of the Housing
Element in Spring 2004.
Contact: Carl Cahill, Planning Director 650/941-
7222 x224
City of Fremont — Housing Element Implementa-
tion Program. Ms. Ungo - McCormick assisted the
City of Fremont staff in the two -year effort for the
implementation of several strategies of the Fremont
Housing Element. This effort included the redesigna -
tion and rezoning of lands throughout the jurisdic-
tional boundaries of the City of Fremont, as well as
other general plan and ordinance amendments as to-
quired to implement said strategies. This project in-
cluded coordination of a city-wide outreach effort
Contact: Kathleen Livermore, Senior Planner
510/494 -4438
Town of Los Gatos - General Plan Implementation
Program. Ms. Ungo - McCormick served as project
manager for the Los Gatos General Plan Implemen-
tation Program. The Los Gatos General Plan 20DO
includes approximately 143 strategies that are tar-
geted for implementation within a 3- to 5 -year cycle.
Her responsibilities included the development of a
work program for the 143 strategies, management of
teams responsible for related implementing pro-
grams and activities, development of tools for trad-
ing and reporting to the Town Council on the status
of activities and actions.
Contact: Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner 408/354
6873
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose
- Guadalupe River Master Plan. As project manager
for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Jose, one of Ms. Ungo- McCormick's key
assignments was to manage the update of the
Guadalupe River Master Plan. This included the
selection and coordination of consultants, and the
coordination of outreach programs, in addition to
coordination with numerous agencies at the local,
state and federal levels.
Contact: Ken Talbot, Deputy Project Management
Division (former)
City of San Bruno U.S. Navy WestDiv Site Spe-
cific Plan. Ms. Ungo - McCormick assisted the city
staff with the preparation of a Specific Plan for
multi -use, transit- oriented development of U.S.
Navy West Div Site, San Bruno, CA. Responsible
for preparation of document text, coordination of
document layout and graphics and community out-
reach program through final adoption.
Contact: George Foscardo, ACIP - Community &
Economic Development Director (former)
Selected Experience: Project Management
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose.
As project manager for the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of San Jose, Ms. Ungo-McCormick was
responsible for the development and implementation
of work programs, budgets and consultant coordina-
tion activities for several capital construction pro-
jects related to the implementation of the City's Re-
development Plan and Guadalupe River Master Plan.
Contact: Ken Talbot, Deputy Project Management
Division (former)
Deborah Ungo - McCormick
Ruth and Going, Inc. Ms. Ungo - McCormick served
as Planning Manager of this local multi - disciplinary
fine. Ms. Ungo- McCormick's responsibilities in-
cluded management and coordination of project
teams, budgets and workprograms as required for the
processing of numerous institutional, commercial
and residential development projects and master
plans.
Contact: Gerry De Young, President 408/235 -2400
Staff Support
Ms. Ungo - McCormick's experience in municipal plan-
ning can assist cities short of staff by extending staff
Typical duties might include management of complex
development projects, reviewing design review applica-
tions, working with citizen groups and fulfilling other
typical staff functions.
Experience includes:
• City of Saratoga: Ms. Ungo - McCormick provides
contract staff support services to assist with design
review application, general plan amendments, rezon-
ing and other applications as assigned.
Contact: John Livingstone, Community Develop-
ment Director, 408/868 -1231
• City of Sunnyvale: Ms. Ungo - McCormick provided
contract planning services to assist with develop-
ment review, ordinance amendments, and environ-
mental review. Projects for which she was responsi-
ble included an environmental audit to determine
CEQA requirements resulting from changes in pro-
jected uses and densities for the North Washington
Area of the Downtown Specific Plan, zoning text
and map amendments to Title 19 of the Zoning Or-
dinance and processing various projects that required
development review.
Contact. Trudi Ryan Planning Officer 408n30 -7440
City of Los Altos: Ms. Ungo- McCormick provided
contract planning services, including development
review, residential design review, zoning confor-
mance review. Responsibilities included project
management as required for processing of a multi-
use development project for the Tree Farm property.
The project consisted of a three -story office building,
a Residence Inn and affordable housing units.
Contact: Jim McKenzie, Senior Planner (former)
City of Belmont: Ms. Ungo - McCormick provided
staff support services for development review, resi-
dential design review, zoning map and text amend-
ments, and plan checking. She was responsible for
project coordination and staff preparation as required
for processing of full range of development review
applications.
Contact: Carlos De Melo, Senior Planner 650/637-
5440
City of Dublin: Ms. Ungo- McCormick served as
contract staff responsible for processing of two ma-
jor mixed -use projects and a 100 unit residential do-
velopment project. This included multi- agency coor-
dination efforts and the processing of planned dis-
tricts, mitigated negative declarations, site develop-
ment plans and parcel maps for both projects.
Contact: Jeri Ram, Dublin Community Develop-
ment Director 925/833 -8617
City of Menlo Park: Ms. Ungo - McCormick served
as project manager for the City of Menlo Park. He
responsibilities included the preparation of a work
program for the Belle Haven Redevelopment Ana
projects and coordination of work efforts related to
its implementation, editing the Belle Haven Neigh-
borhood quarterly newsletter, preparation of site fea-
sibility and reuse studies, and development review.
Contact: Don de la Peiia, AICP — Redevelopment
and Housing Director (former)
• Other Staff Support: Ms. Ungo - McCormick has
also served as a contract planner for the cities of
Belmont, Cupertino, San Mateo, Los Altos and
Fremont.
Education
B.S. Urban Planning - California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona
Graduate Studies, Regional Planning - California
State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Landscape Architecture Certificate Program -
university of California Extension, Berkeley, CA
Affiliations
American Planning Association, South Bay RAC
Coordinator, APA Northern Section, 1995 — 1998
American Institute of Certified Planners
Jerry P. Haag
b d v' tat 1 r with Housing Element Update: For the City of
Mr. Haag is an ur an an en ronmen panne
over thirty -three years experience divided between the
public and private sector. Areas of expertise include
management of large -scale projects, staff support
planning, environmental documentation and special
planning projects. His wide range of experience in a
number of California communities allows him to work
effectively with city staff and the public to ensure
thorough work products within established time frames.
Prior to beginning independent practice, Mr. Haag
served as Northern California Planning Division
Manager for Wilson Associates, a major California-
based planning and engineering firm. Mr. Haag was also
Northern California office manager and Vice President
of P &D Technologies (formerly PRC Toups), an
international planning, engineering and professional
services organization. He has also served as a planter
for the cities of Orange, Ontario and Garden Grove, CA.
Selected Experience: Specific Plans and General
Plans
Mr. Haag has a wide range of experience completing a
number of special planning projects, including:
• General Plan Land Use Map: Mr. Haag worked
with the San Leandro Development Services
Department to prepare a Land Use Map as part of
the General Plan. This involved extensive outreach
with various community groups
Contact: Steve Emslie, Planning Manager (former),
5101577 -3325.
• General Plan Update: Jerry Haag is assisting the
City of Lathrop staff in the update an older (1992)
General Plan that no longer reflects current
conditions within the community. Lathrop, located
in San Joaquin County, has experienced significant
growth in the past 5 years and is anticipating
extending their planning area.
Contact: Marilyn Ponton, Principal Planner,
209/942 7200
• Housing Element Implementation Program: Jerry
Haag prepared various environmental documents as
required in the processing of redesignation and
rezonings throughout the City of Fremont, as part
of the implementation of the Fremont Housing
Element.
Contact: Kathleen Livermore, Senior Planner,
510/494 -4438
• Industrial Area Specific Plan: Mr. Haag authored a
specific plan for a 300 -acre industrial area for the
City of Newman, located near Modesto.
Contact: Steve Hollister, City Manager
Healdsburg, Mr. Haag completed an amendment to
the Housing Element, working with the Mayor and
City Manager to devise a new method for providing
affordable housing. Completion of the Element
revision involved a significant amount of
community outreach and allowed settlement of a
three year lawsuit brought against the City by a
housing advocacy group. The revised Element
received HCD certification in July, 1994.
Contact: Mike Wilson, City Manager (former)
General Plan Environmental Impact Report: In the
early 1990's Jerry Haag prepared an Environmental
Impact report to assess the impacts of approving a
comprehensive general plan update for this
community of about 40,000 people in southern
Alameda County. The General Plan focused on
preservation of their extensive Bay shoreline and
development of an industrial employment base.
Contact: John Becker, Community Development
Director, 5101790 7272
Other Specfc Plans and General Plans:
Mr. Haag has prepared been a member of teams
which have prepared large -scale master plans for
Rancho Santa Margarita in southern Orange
County, a 3000 -acre master plan for residences and
a ski resort in Steamboat Springs Colorado, a
1500 -acre mixed use plan in Mesa Arizona, a
master plan for a 20,000 -acre property on the
outskirts of Colorado Springs. He also served as
the staff consultant to the City of Ontario for the
update of the General Plan in 1989.
Arques Campus Specific Plan: Mr. Haag authored a
specific plan for a 35 -acre R &D project in the City
of Sunnyvale for Applied Materials, Inc. The
project will include a state -of- the -art Tech Center
for testing chip fabrication equipment and prototype
lab space. The total amount of development is 1.14
million square feet of floor space
Contact: Wei Chiu, Senior Director, Global Real
Estate and Facilities 408 /986 3940
East Dublin Specific Plan: Mr. Haag commenced
preparation of a major specific plan and EIR on
7,200 acres located in East Dublin. The planning
area involved numerous large and small property
owners. Mr. Haag's role included conducting initial
meetings with all owners and authoring an
opportunities and constraints report.
Contact: Larry Tong, Planning Director, 510/833-
6610
Jerry Haag Page 2
Selected Experience: Project Management and
Staff Support
Mr. Haag's experience in municipal planning has assist
cities which are short of staff by extending staff.
Typical duties have included managing complex
environmental projects, reviewing development
applications, working with citizen groups, and fulfilling
other typical staff functions.
Experience includes:
• Ontario Mills Specific Plan and EIR: Mr. Haag
was selected by the City of Ontario to serve as a
special project manager for the review of a 1.9
million square foot discount regional shopping
center and ancillary development. The project
included a specific plan, EIR, site development plan
and parcel map. He is currently completing the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program under
CEQA.
Contact: Otto Kroutil, Ontario Community
Development Director, 909 /391 -2510.
• Shearwater Specific Plan and EIR: Mr. Haag was
recently selected to provide consulting support
services for a retail and hotel complex adjacent to
San Francisco Bay where major issues include on-
site wetlands, traffic and hazardous materials.
Contact: Bob Beyer, Community Development
Director, 650/877 -3990.
• South Schulte Specific Plan: Mr. Haag is currently
working with the City of Tracy to review a mixed
use specific plan for a 1200 -acre plan which
includes a mix of residential densities and a
community center. He will also be the principal
author of the EIR for the project.
Contact: Bob Conant, Tracy Senior Planner,
209/836 2665
• Residential Master Plans. Mr. Haag served the City
of Tracy as a consulting planner to review five
residential plans totaling over 3,000 lots scattered
throughout Tracy. He also completed annexations
for each of the properties.
Contact: Bob Conant, Senior Planner, City of
Tracy
• City of Healdsburg. Mr. Haag as served as a
consulting planner to the City for nearly three
years, providing a variety of services, including
general plan amendments, project reviews,
Planning Commission staff support and many
other services.
Contact: Richard Pusich, Public Works Director
(former), 707/431 3346
Other Staff Support: Mr. Haag has served as a
contract planner for the cities of Windsor, Palo
Alto, Cupertino, Pleasant Hill, South San
Francisco, Brentwood, Dublin, Sebastopol,
Healdsburg, Ontario (CA), Belmont, Lake Elsinore,
and Saratoga
Selected Experience: Ordinances and Special
Projects
• Ordinance Preparation: Mr. Haag has recently
completed comprehensive Development Codes for
the Cities of Healdsburg and Ontario (CA).
• Annexations and Spheres of Influence: Mr. Haag
has extensive experience processing municipal
annexation requests and analyzing spheres of
influence.
Selected Experience: Environmental Planning
Experience includes preparation of initial studies,
negative declarations and environmental impact reports,
including:
• Gateway Business Park EIR. Mr. Haag completed a
full EIR for the development of a high -tech
business park in the City of Newark. Proposed by
the landowner, the Cargill Company, the site is
envisioned to accommodate 2.1 million square feet
of floor space. Major issues includes treatment of
on -site wetlands and relationship to the adjacent
San Francisco Bay.
Contact: Jim Reese, Community Development
Director, 510(190 -7214.
• La Vista Quarry EIR: Mr. Haag completed an EIR
for the annexation and development of a large active
quarry area near the City of Hayward. Issues
included visual impacts, traffic, provision of
services and noise. This was done in 2003.
Contact: Gary Calame, Senior Planner, 510 583
4226
• Fairfield Mixed Use Residential. Mr. Haag authored
a mitigated negative declaration in 2003 fbr
approximately 300 rental units and a significant
commercial project adjacent to the SSF BART
station.
Contact: Mike Lappen, Senior Planner, 650 877
8535
• Other EIRs: Mr. Haag has supervised the
completion of Environmental Impact Reports for
the cities of South San Francisco, Vallejo, Half
Moon Bay, unincorporated Calaveras County and
St. Helena, California.
Jerry Haag Page 3
Education
M. Public Administration, California State University,
Fullerton.
B.A. Political Science, University of California,
Berkeley.
Certificate, Light Construction Management,
University off California, Irvine.
Affiliations
American Planning Association, Communication
Director, APA Northern Section, 1998 - present
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17 2007 AGENDA ITEM: q
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community DevelqpmqitCITY MANAGER.-,, !
Dave And on (((
PREPARED BY: Therese M. Schmidt, ssociate Planner DEPT HEAD:
ohn F. Livi gstone
SUBJECT: City initiated Negative Declaration, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment,
and Zoning Map Amendment relating to eleven (11) parcels.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Adopt the attached resolution approving the Negative Declaration (solely as it pertains to the
subject parcels, not the ongoing review of the pending General Plan Update).
2. Adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Amendment for 8 of the 11 parcels.
3. Open and conduct the public hearing, introduce the ordinance amending the zoning for 3 of
the 11 parcels, waive the first reading, and schedule the item for second reading and adoption
on consent calendar.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Staff is proposing a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Map designation on eight (8)
parcels from Residential Low Density (RLD) to Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) and a
Zoning Ordinance Amendment consisting of three (3) parcels being rezoned from R -1- 40,000 to R-
1- 20,000 to correct discrepancies between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (See table
below for further clarification).
APN
Address
Current
GP
Proposed
GP
Current
Zone
Proposed
Zone
Lot Size
517 -12 -020
20500 Lomita Ave
RLD
No Change
R- 1- 40,000
R -1- 20,000
29,199 s . ft.
517 -12 -021
20568 Lomita Ave
RLD
No Change
R- 1- 40,000
R -1- 20,000
20,744 s . ft.
517 -12 -022
20550 Lomita Ave
RLD
No Change
R -1 -40,000
R -1- 20,000
23,450 s . ft.
517 -18 -018
14931 Vickery Lane
RLD
RVLD
R- 1- 40,000
No Change
35,107 s . ft.
517 -19 -082
28010 Audrey Smith
RLD
RVLD
R- 140,000
No Chan a
51,946 s . ft.
517 -19 -083
28020 Audrey Smith
RLD
RVLD
R- 140,000
No Change
46,362 s . ft.
517 -19 -084
28021 Audrey Smith
RLD
RVLD
R -1- 40,000
No Change
44,892 s . ft.
517 -19 -085
28011 Audrey Smith
RLD
RVLD
R- 1- 40,000
No Change
40,000 s . ft.
517 -20 -016
20161 Hill Ave
RLD
RVLD
R -1 -40,000
No Change
42,803 s . ft.
517 -20 -021
20170 Bonnie Brae
RLD
RVLD
R -1- 40,000
No Change
42,837 s . ft.
517 -22 -004
20152 Hill Ave
RLD
RVLD
R- 1- 40,000
No Change
74,033 s . ft.
The density allowed in the RVLD Designation is 1.09 DU /net acres with maximum intensity of
building and impervious surface coverage of no more than 35% of the site, which is compatible with
Application No. 07 -140: City GP/ZA Amendments —11 -lots
the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R -1- 40,000 District. The R -1- 40,000 District
typically requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. net.
The density allowed in the RLD Designation is 2.18 DU /net acres with maximum intensity of
building and impervious surface coverage of no more than 45% of the site which is compatible with
the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R -1- 20,000 District. The R -1- 20,000 District
typically requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. net.
Staff is recommending a Zoning Amendment on three (3) parcels from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 20,000
because the current zoning for the parcels differs from the General Plan's Land Use Map, which
designates the land use as RLD. In addition, the Zoning Amendment would correct three non-
conforming parcels. All three parcels are currently non - conforming because they are below the
minimum required lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. net in the R -1- 40,000 Zoning District.
Staff is recommending a General Plan Amendment on eight (8) lots from RLD to RVLD. In this
instance the General Plan allows for a minimum net lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. Seven (7) of the eight
(8) subject parcels have more than 40,000 sq. ft., which means many of the parcels could be
subdivided even though the existing zoning requires a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. net. By changing
the land use designation to a more restrictive designation of RVLD the parcels would not have
enough land to subdivide further; thereby preventing intensification of density or use.
The eighth parcel has approximately 35,000 sq. ft. and is currently non - conforming with respect to
the City's zoning because it has less than the minimum required lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. in the R -1-
40,000 Zoning District. Generally, staff would recommend a zoning amendment to correct the non-
conformity to a less restrictive zone, which would be in compliance with the parcel's current General
Plan Land Use Designation of RLD. However, staff is concerned that if the parcels' zoning is
changed to R -1 -20,00 there may be potential for future subdivision if a lot line adjustment was
processed to add additional acreage to the parcel. Therefore, staff is recommending that the General
Plan Land Use Designation be amended to RVLD, which would require a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft.
net.
HISTORY:
This proposal was originally considered as part of the pending General Plan Update, which includes
updating the Land Use, Conservation, and Open Space Elements and was discussed by the Planning
Commission during one of the General Plan Update Study Sessions. However, staff wanted to
ensure that the inconsistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the City's Zoning Map is
corrected as quickly as possible since State law requires consistency. Therefore, this item was
brought forth independently from the rest of the General Plan Update process and was presented to
the Planning Commission as an independent project.
The attached environmental document was part of the overall process; therefore, it covers a much
broader review and includes information beyond the eleven (11) parcels. Since the environmental
review did include the eleven (11) parcels it can be used for this action independent of the rest of the
general plan update.
2
Application No. 07 -140: City GP/ZA Amendments —11 -lots
ENwRoNMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposal to change the General Plan Land Use Designation for the eight (8) subject parcels from
Residential Low Density (RLD) to Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) was analyzed through an
Initial Study (IS) prepared for the City's pending General Plan Update of the Land Use Element and
the Open Space /Conservation Elements. Based on that IS, a Negative Declaration (ND) was
prepared and circulated and recommended for adoption of only that portion of the Negative
Declaration pertaining to the specific action of amending the Land Use Map for the eight (8) subject
parcels by the Planning Commission at their November 8, 2006, hearing. In addition, the Planning
Commission determined that the change in land use designations is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305, "Minor Alterations in
Land Use Limitations," Class 5 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for
minor alterations in land use limitations, which do not result in any changes in land use or density.
The proposed Amendments would allow continued single - family land uses consistent with existing
land uses on the subject parcels, would not increase the allowed density, and would not provide an
opportunity for creation of new parcels.
The proposal to change three (3) of the parcels from an R -1- 40,000 zoning designation to R -1- 20,000
zoning designation is also Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 because the proposed Amendments would allow continued
single - family land uses consistent with existing land uses on the subject parcels, would not increase
the allowed density, and would not provide an opportunity for creation of new parcels.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this project during a General Plan Update Study session and
considered the proposed Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning at the
regular meeting of November 8, 2006. There was no public testimony in opposition of the proposed,
Negative Declaration, Amendment and Rezoning. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed amendment and rezoning to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Revenue is created to fund ongoing General Plan Maintenance through a 1 % fee on building permits.
Funds will be removed from the General Plan Maintenance account to pay for the City initiated
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, which are being processed to meet State law.
Sufficient funds are available in the General Plan Maintenance account to process this proposal.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The discrepancy between the City's General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map would remain.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Do not approve the proposed General Plan Amendment for the eight (8) lots and instead approve a
Zoning Amendment from R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 20,000, which would be consistent with the current
Residential Low Density Land Use Designation. This action may result in future subdivisions within
the City and would require further environmental review.
FOLLOW -UP ACTIONS:
Adopt Ordinance by consent calendar action at the next City Council meeting.
3
Application No. 07 -140: City GP/ZA Amendments — 11-lots
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The public hearing notice for the proposed Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and Re-
zoning was published in the December 27, 2006 edition of the Saratoga News. A notice of the
January 17, 2007 City Council hearing was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the
subject parcels. In addition, property owners were notified of the pending action as part of a letter
campaign to all property owners affected by the General Plan Update earlier last fall.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving Negative Declaration for This Action Only (With Negative
Declaration, IS, and Notice of Intent attached as Exhibits "A," `B," and "C').
2. Resolution Approving General Plan Land Use Map Designation Amendment.
3. Ordinance Approving the Zoning Map Amendment.
4. Planning Commission Minutes — November 8, 2006
n
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 07-
A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD) TO RESIDENTIAL
VERY LOW DENSITY ON EIGHT (8) PARCELS (APNS: 517 -18-
018; 517 -19- 082, 083, 084 and 085; 517 -20- 016; 517 -20 -021; & 517 -22-
004)
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed Public
Hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence regarding the proposed redesignation from Residential Low Density
(RLD) to Residential Very Low Density on the eight parcels listed above (the "Project');
and,
WHEREAS, An Initial Study (IS), attached hereto as Exhibit B, was prepared for
the Project and for other proposed amendments to the General Plan being considered in
separate proceedings pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, The IS did not identify any potential environmental impacts for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, The IS and a notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration (ND)
(Exhibit C hereto) were circulated for public review from August 25, 2006 through
September 25, 2006; and
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the ND (including the IS) at which oral and
written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the ND were presented to
the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the
information in the IS and ND, administrative record, and Staff Reports for completeness
and compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and any City CEQA requirements
and recommended that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration with respect to the
Project.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information
included in the Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", ; the information
included in the Initial Study prepared for the Negative Declaration attached hereto as
Exhibit `B" together with all public testimony and evidence presented in connection with
the public hearing held January 17, 2007 at which time all interested persons had an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there are no significant
environmental impacts related to the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby does hereby resolve as follows:
1. Notice of intention to adopt the ND was given as required by law and due
consideration of the ND was given pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and any
City CEQA requirements; and
2. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the proposed ND were given
the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the ND prior to
the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council; and
3. All comments raised during the public comment period and at the public
hearings on the ND were duly considered.
4. The ND has been prepared in compliance with the intent and requirements
of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and any City CEQA requirements, and the City Council is
exercising its independent judgment with regard thereto after duly considering the
information contained in the IS, the ND and the administrative record in considering the
ND, the Project and any and all related actions; and
5. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no substantial evidence of any
fair argument that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and
6. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which the Planning
Commission's recommendation that the City Council adopt the ND is based are located
in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development, are maintained by the
Director of that Department, and have at all relevant times been available to the members
of the City Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the
Negative Declaration dated August 23, 2006, and attached hereto as Exhibit A, for a
General Plan Amendment to redesignate from Residential Low Density (RLD) to
Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) the eight parcels identified as follows:
20152 & 20161 Hill Ave., 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020, 28021, & 28011 Audrey
Smith Lane, and 14931 Vickery Ave.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga City Council, State of California, this 17s'
day of January, 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approved:
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Aileen Kao, Mayor
N E G A T I V E D E C L A R T 10 N
CITY OF SARATOGA
Declaration That An Environmental
Impact Report Is Not Required
Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the General Plan
The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby
determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act, and the City's
independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial
adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
Project Location:
City -wide application
Applicant and Lead Agency:
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Property Owner:
Various
Contact:
Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner
Phone: (408) 868 -1230 / email: tschmidt@saratoga.ca.us
Project Description:
The project includes an amendment to the Saratoga General Plan to adopt updated Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan. These Elements establish City goals and
policies related to the location, type, density and intensity of development in the City (the Draft Land Use
Element), as well as the location of parks, trails, open space and natural resource areas in Saratoga and
protection and preservation of these resources in the City (the Draft Open Space/Conservation Element).
Finding:
A finding is proposed that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Explanation of Reasons for findings for a Negative Declaration:
The proposed Draft Elements, in conjunction with other General Plan Elements, contain goals and
strategies to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Public Hearing: Study Session (September 27, 2006): Planning Commission Hearing (October 11,
2006). Planning Commission meetings are held in the City Council chambers at the City Hall located at
13777 Fruitvale Avenue. All environmental documents are available for review at the Community
Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
The comment period begins on August 25, 2006 and ends on September 25, 2006. Any comments on
the Negative Declaration /Initial Study for this project shall be submitted in writing by 5:00 pm on
September 25, 2006.
Posted on:
Executed at Saratoga, California this 2 day of 2006.
J6h F. Livingstone, CP
Community Development Director
Page 2 Negative Declaration
Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements
INITIAL, STUDY
CITY OF SARATOGA
1. Project Title:
Update of the Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the Saratoga
General Plan.
2. Project Location:
City-wide applicability.
3. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Saratoga, Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
4. Contact Person & Phone Number:
Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner (408) 868 -1230
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Saratoga Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
6. General Plan Designations:
Varies, includes all General Plan designations.
7. Zoning:
Varies, includes all zoning districts.
8. Description of Project:
The proposed project includes an update of the City's Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan to meet requirements of
current State Law, correct technical inconsistencies, reformat for ease of use and
combine elements. These Elements establish City goals and policies related to the
location, type, density and intensity of development in the City (the Draft Land Use
Element), as well as the location of parks, trails, open space and natural resource
areas in Saratoga and protection and preservation of these resources in the City (the
Draft Open Space/Conservation Element).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The proposed project includes the regulation of land use, parks, open spaces, trails
and resource areas in the Saratoga Planning Area, including the incorporated portions
of the City as well as the City of Saratoga's Sphere of Influence.
10. Other Agencies whose approval is required
None
EXHIBIT
Table of Contents
I.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................
..............................1
11.
Determination ................................................................
..............................2
III.
Background .........................................................:..........
..............................3
Project Location and Context ...............................................................
............................... 3
ProjectDescription ...............................................................................
............................... 3
IV.
Environmental Checklist ...............................................
.............................23
1.
Aesthetics ......................................................................
.............................24
2.
Agricultural Resources ..................................................
.............................26
3.
Air Quality ....................................................................
.............................27
4.
Biological Resources ....................................................
.............................29
5.
Cultural Resources ........................................................
.............................32
6.
Geology and Soils .........................................................
.............................34
7.
Hazards ...................:.....................................................
.............................37
8.
Hydrol ogy .....................................................................
.............................39
9.
Land Use .......................................................................
.............................42
10.
Mineral Resources ........................................................
.............................43
11.
Noise .............................................................................
.............................43
12.
Population and Housing ................................................
.............................45
13.
Public Services ..............................................................
.............................46
14.
Recreation .....................................................................
.............................47
15.
Traffic and Transportation ............................................
.............................49
16.
Utilities and Service Systems ........................................
.............................52
17.
Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................
.............................54 ,
InitialStudy Preparer ............................................................................
.............................55
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................................................
.............................55
References.......................................................................................
.............................55
AppendixI
.......................................................................................
.............................56
I. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors listed below were evaluated to determine if any would be
potentially affected by this project. No impact has been identified that is a "Potentially
Significant Impact ", as indicated by the Environmental Checklist on the following pages:
11. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology /Soils
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/ Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/
Circulation
Utilities/Service
S stems
Mandatory Findings of
Si nificance
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
11. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze onl the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required
�e�e��:� -1✓ �� 23 -0�
John Livingstone, MCP Date
Community. Development Director
nitial AUW
AP 2 City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use 6 Open space/COnsOrM ion Elenw &
August 2006
III. BACKGROUND
Project Location and Context
The City of Saratoga is located in the westerly portion of Santa Clara County, just
southwest of the major metropolitan community of San Jose and approximately 35 miles
south of San Francisco. Saratoga is found at the southerly end of the San Francisco
Peninsula.
The north, east and southerly portion of the community is sited on an historic alluvial
plain shared with the adjacent communities of Cupertino, San Jose, Los Gatos and Monte
Sereno. The westerly portion occupies low -lying foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains
and is adjacent to unincorporated properties within Santa Clara County.
Major regional access to the community is provided by State Route 85 (SR -85), a six -
lane freeway linking to US 101 to Mountain View and to US 280 in Cupertino to the
north, to US 101 south in San Jose, to SR 17 north to San Jose and southwest to Santa
Cruz County. Local roadways linking Saratoga to surrounding communities include:
Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Saratoga Avenue, Highway 9, and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
Exhibit 1 shows the regional setting of Saratoga.
Saratoga's Planning Area
Saratoga's Planning Area consists of all properties located within the incorporated
boundary of the City. As of 2006, this includes approximately 12.8 square miles. State
law also allows general plans to include lands outside of its boundaries which, in the
community's judgment, bear relation to its planning. The Planning Area also includes
approximately 4 square miles in the City's Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence
consists of unincorporated lands that ultimately will annex to an incorporated jurisdiction.
Exhibit 2 depicts Saratoga's Planning Area.
Project Description
Background
The existing Land Use and Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan were
adopted by the Saratoga City Council in 1983. The Open Space Element was adopted in
1983 and updated inl994.
Based on changes in State law and the need to ensure that all Elements of the General
Plan are internally consistent, the City has undertaken this update of the Land Use, Open
Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan. Upon adoption of the proposed
Elements through the General Plan amendment process specified in the California
Government Code, the existing Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements would
be rescinded
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use d Open Spacs Conservation Elements
August 2008
1
i
HwYr
burg
fly.
Iam�
, to
an
I1e.11
flMaon0 �l
O a sw Q
ne r4 4 a q
ro
A
Q �t
n
w,
Yo01�o
vIY
Ab
� de11
n a
SARATOCA
8m0Y �
MI YYa0
dYi V
n
a1A
P
lM a111p1
P
Ilo.b
albl
YOga1y
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
0 b b A b 91Y
Draft Land use a
SOURCE CRyaf Samurai JUIy2U06.
Exhibit 2
SARATOGA PLANNING AREA
city urnR
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Urban Services Boundary
Dreg Lend Use 6 Open
A Vision for Saratoga
A valid and useful General Plan needs to provide a common goal to which the
community strives. This vision then becomes the touchstone by which future land use and
other decisions are made. The City's existing vision includes a series of statements that
serve as basis for the Draft Updates, as follows:
• Where the common good prevails;
• Where the natural beauty of the City and its hillsides is preserved;
• Where historic assets are preserved and promoted;
• Where local commerce provides a vibrant presence in the Village and the other
commercial areas;
• Where the orientation is toward the family;
• Where homes and neighborhoods are safe and peaceful;
• Where government is inclusive and values community involvement;
• Where desirable recreational and leisure opportunities are provided;
• Where quality education is provided and valued;
• Where value is placed on an attractive, well maintained and well planned
community;
• Where government provides high quality, basic services in a cost - effective
manner;
• Where a small town, picturesque, residential atmosphere is retained;
• Where the arts and cultural activities which serve the community and region is
promoted;
• Where neighbors work for the common good;
• Where leadership reflects community goals;
• Where, because of the foregoing, the citizens and families of Saratoga can
genuinely enjoy being a part of this special community.
The Draft Elements are summarized below:
Draft Land Use Element
The Draft Land Use Element consists of updated land use categories that establish land
use locations, densities and intensity of use, land use issues, a Land Use Map indicating
the location of various land uses in the community, suggested implemented strategies,
and a number of goals and implementation strategies to achieve the stated goals. In some
instances, land use categories have changed from the current Land Use Element to reduce
and simplify land use administration. However, the intent of this effort is not to change
the amount or type of development allowed in the City of Saratoga.
Table 1 presents existing General Plan land use designations, proposed land use
designations set forth in the Draft Land Use Element, consistent zoning districts for each
proposed land use designation and a discussion regarding proposed changes.
City of
Draft Land Use & Open Spec&ronwwation
Exhibits 3 through 10 show the proposed changes to the Land Use Map of the General
Plan, which include the updated land use designations.
Land use goals and policies have also been modified and simplified from the list of
current goals to update the Land Use Element. Proposed goals recommended in the Draft
Land Use Element include:
Goal LU 1: Maintain the predominantly semi -rural residential character of
Saratoga.
Goal LU 2: Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial
and office areas and their accessibility by residents, taking into account the impact
on surrounding residential areas.
Goal LU 3: Promote the long -term fiscal soundness of the City of Saratoga
through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices.
Goal LU 4: Provide sufficient land uses for public, quasi - public and similar land
uses in Saratoga.
Goal LU 5: Relate development proposals to existing and planned street
capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and other public safety hazards so as
to protect neighborhoods. If it is determined that existing streets need to be
improved to accommodate a project, such improvements shall be in place or
bonded for prior to issuance of building permits.
Goal LU 6: Protect natural resources and amenities through appropriate land use
and related programs.
Goal LU 7: Protect existing agricultural resources and encourage expansion of
this use.
Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillside areas shall be
maintained and protected for its contribution to the overall quality of life of
current and future generations.
Goal LU 9: Generally encourage medium density, multi- family residential and
non - residential uses in flatland areas where most appropriate for urban
development..
Goal LU 10: Minimize the visual impacts of hillside development, especially on
ridgetops.
Goal LU 11: Foster closer inter - jurisdictional cooperation and coordination
concerning land use and development issues.
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use d Open Specs/Conservation Ekwwfs
August Mff
Goal LU 12: Recognize the heritage of the City by seeking to protect historic and
cultural resources, where feasible.
Goal LU 13: The City shall use the design review process to assure that new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings.
Goal LU 14: Seek to achieve appropriate and contiguous City boundaries to
provide for the efficient delivery of public services and to create a greater sense of
community.
Goal LU 15: Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development
projects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
Goal LU 16: Review and amend (as needed) the Zoning Ordinance to provide
consistency with the General Plan updates, new State legislation and court
decisions.
In addition to the draft goals, above, the Draft Land Use Element includes an
Implementation Plan to allow the City to achieve these goals.
Draft Open SpacelConservation Element
The Open Space and Conservation Elements have been combined into the Draft Open
Space /Conservation Element, and updated to identify current conditions in Saratoga.
Specific topics addressed in the Draft Element include: local and regional parks, other
open spaces, agricultural lands and Williamson Act contracts, public trails, school sites,
flood easements, mineral extraction areas, geological hazard areas, hillside areas, tree
resources, biological resources and other resources protection areas. Proposed goals
recommended in the Draft Open Space/Conservation Element include:
Goal OSC 1: To provide and maintain open space resources of local and regional
significance accessible to the public.
Goal OSC 2: To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga
Goal OSC 3: To provide and maintain parks which are located, designed, and
improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community, and the
neighborhoods of Saratoga
Goal OSC 4: Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per
1,000 residents.
Goal OSC 5: A city-wide system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails
shall be provided within the community, which includes regional trail linkages
Draft Land Use 6 Open
with City, County, State, and regional parks, and other publicly -owned open
space lands.
Goal OSC 6: Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent
natural beauty.
Goal OSC 7: Preserve and protect existing view sheds, view corridors, and scenic
open spaces.
Goal OSC 8: Encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture.
Goal OSC 9: Protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water
quality in surface and subsurface water sources.
Goal OSC 10: Maximize the use of the City's water supply.
Goal OSC 11: Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in the
Saratoga Planning area.
Goal OSC 12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and
increasing the extent of urban forest resources in the City. The specific vision is to
increase overall tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an
equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable manner.
Goal OSC 13: The preservation of native and other plant species indicative of
Saratoga's cultural heritage shall be given priority over development and the City
shall provide for the perpetuation of such species.
Goal OSC 14: Through coordination with and implementation of other related
General Plan strategies, encourage the preservation of the City's heritage by
providing for the protection of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources
representing significant elements of City and regional history. (Refer to Historic
Character Land Use Element Strategies).
Goal OSC 15: Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development
projects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
Similar to the Draft Land Use Element, the Draft Open Space /Conservation Element
contains an Implementation Plan with specific implementation strategies associated with
each of the above goals.
Copies of the Draft Land Use Element and the Draft Open Space/Conservation Element
are available for review at the Saratoga Community Development Department, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, during normal business hours.
Dreg Land Use 8 Open
Table 1
Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing GP
Proposed GP
Existing Zoning
Comments
Category
Category
Residential
RHC (Hillside
RHC
HR (Hillside
No change `
Conservation)
Residentian
RVLD (Very Low
RLVD
R- 1- 40,000
No change'
Density)
RLD (Low Density)
RLD
R -1- 20,000
No change'
M (Medium
M
R -1- 10,000
No change'
Density)
R- 1- 12,500
R- 1- 15,000
RMF (Residential
RMF
R -M 3,000
No change'
Multi - Family)
R -M 4,000
R -M 5,000
PDR (Planned
PDR
none
No change'
Development
Residential)
MUPD
Redesignate as
MUPD
Text Amendment:
(Manufacturing
Medium
No change. Designation is not listed
Use Planned
Density per
in text of Land Use Element; appears
Development)
existing
on Land Use Map only and is applied
development
to one area only, east on Saratoga
Avenue between SR85 and
McFarland Ave.
Land Use Mao Amendment
Delete from legend and redesignate
area to appropriate residential
density, as developed, which is the
RM (R- 1- 10,000) designation.
Implementati on:
Rezone area to the R -1- 10,000
Zoning DistdcL
Per Measure G, no changes are allowed in these residential categories.
City o1 seraloya
Draft Land Use A Open SpecaConserve ion Elements
August 2006
Table 2 — continued:
Existing GP
Proposed GP
Existing
Comments
Category
Category
Zoning
Commercial:
CR( (Commercial
CR
Various
Text Amendments: Add language
Retail)
commercial
which clarifies that 100% coverage
zones
only applies to downtown Saratoga
Village Specific Plan area; add - for
new commercial development
located adjacent to or across from
an established single - family or
mufti-family residential use,
appropriate landscape buffers shall
be required that are at least equal
to the setbacks of the adjacent
residential district. Also, no single
tenant of said development shall
exceed 15,000 square feet of floor
area.
PA (Professional
PA
PA
Text Amendment: Eliminate
Office)
reference to FAR; amend maximum
building coverage to 30%,
consistent with Zoning Ordinance
standards.
Land Use Mao Amendment:
Redesignate an approximate 9.7
acre site at 13025 Saratoga
Avenue, on the west side of
Saratoga Avenue approximately
1,000 feet north of State Route 85
to the CR (Commercial Retail) land
use designation. The purpose of the
proposed change is to encourage
commercial land uses on this site to
strengthen the community's
economic base.
Gateway
Delete
none
Text Amendment: Delete existing
Landscaping
category, which has only been
applied on Land Use Map to two
small parcels at the comers of
Prospect Road and Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road. The Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Gateway Guidelines
have been adopted for the area and
address standards for development,
including mixed uses in that area.
Land Use Mao Amendment: Delete
Gateway (G) designation from Land
Use Map. Redesignate the two
affected parcels to CR Exhibit 3).
Drew Lend use 8 open
Table 2 — continued:
Existing I
Category
Zoning
Development
residential and
commercial
Remove this category from the text
Mixed)
QPF categories with CFS. All CFS
and multi-
of the Land Use Element. Add
sites require a use permit for new
Public Facilities)
family
policy stating that mixed -use is
residential
allowed in all commercial zones.
Redesignate PF and QPF sites as
This is already provided for in
CFS, RM -10 and RLVD, See
Zoning Ordinance.
Land Use Mao Amendments:
Delete designation from map.
Affected properties are to be
redesignated to land use
designations that conform to
existing development as follows:
To CR (Commercial Retail)
Commercial properties fronting on
Prospect Road and Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road as described in
Exhibits 3 and 4
To PA: (Professional
Administrative) Office complex
parcel located at the southeast
comer of Cox Ave. and Saratoga
Ave. See Exhibit 8.
To RMF (Residential Multiple
Family):
Multi- family residential properties
located immediately adjacent to
the east and west of commercial
properties fronting on Saratoga -
Sunnyvale, south of Prospect
Road. See Exhibits 3 and 4.
Facilities), PF PF and QPF
residential and
Revise text to combine with PF and
(Public Facilities)
commercial
QPF categories with CFS. All CFS
and QPF (Quasi-
districts
sites require a use permit for new
Public Facilities)
development or expansion of use.
Land Use Mao Amendments:
Redesignate PF and QPF sites as
CFS, RM -10 and RLVD, See
Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10.
Zoning City may consider new
Public Facilities/Institutional Zoning
Draft Land use & open
Table 2 — continued
txrstmg GP
I Proposed GP I Existing
Comments
Category
Category Zoning
Open Space
OS -NR (Natural
Delete None
Text Amendments:
Resource
Preservation)
Delete from Text.
No changes to Land Use Mao as it
does not list this category and no
such easements have been
incorporated in the Map. The City
controls and documents easements
more appropriate through the
subdivision process.
OS -MR (Open
OS -MR R -1 zones
No change
Space- Managed
Resource
OS -R (Outdoor
OS -R R -1 zones
No change "
Recreation
OS -P (Open
OS -P Residential
No change (Applies only to
Space - Private)
Open Space
Saratoga Golf Course).
Existing GP
Proposed GP Existing
Comments
Category
Category Zoning
OS -PHS (Public
Delete from text None Amendments:
Health and Safety
Delete from text.
Preservation)
No changes in Land Use Map
needed. This category is not shown
on Land Use Map. Development is
restricted by other policies that
cover issues (i.e. geotechnical
clearance creek setbacks etc
PUC (Public
Delete from text None Amendmenffi:
Utilities Corridor)
and map Delete from L.0 text and GP map,
as it is no longer applicable; lands
within this designation as shown on
the Land Use Map now fail within
the Route 85 roadway and right of
way. Show as SR 85 right of way.
' No changes allowed in text per Measure G
Draft Land use a Open
Table 2 — continued
Specific Plans current] not shown or referenced in text or ma
Saratoga Village Show SP
CH -1 &2
Proposed Amendments:
Specific Plan and
Est on
n m
Reference added regarding SP &
included as Appendix
Land Use Map Amendments:
Show SP boundary on Land Use
Map.
Hillside Specific Show SP
RHC
Proposed Amendments:
plan end
lost on m
Reference added regarding SP &
included as Appendix
Land Use Map Amendments:
Show SP boundary on Land Use
Map
Other Amendments.
RLD RVW
R- 140,000
Land Use Map Amendments:
(no change in
Redesignate four parcels at 28010,
zoning
28020, 28021 & 28011 Audrey
designation)
Smith Lane, from RLD to RLVD.
This will make them consistent with
other parcels and development on
Audrey Smith Lane. Development
at higher density (per existing GP
designation) has potential
cumulative impacts on adjacent
properties. See Exhibit 6
RLD RVLD
R- 140,000
Land Use Map Amendments:
(no change in
Redesignate one parcel at 20170
zoning
Bonnie Brae, two parcels at 20152
designation)
& 20161 Hill Avenue, and one
parcel at 14931 Vickery Avenue.
Parcels include some topographic
constraints, and development at
higher density (per existing GP
designation) has potential
cumulative impacts on adjacent
properties. See Exhibit 6
Draft Land Use 6 Open
Prospect
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 3
® PDM /G to CR
® PDM to RMF
Page 15 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements
August 2008
Milli
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 3
® PDM /G to CR
® PDM to RMF
Page 15 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements
August 2008
rn
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 4
® PF to CFS ® PDM to CR
® QPF to CFS
saes PUC to SR85
Page 16 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Oran Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements
August 2006
SUNNYVALE-
SARATOGA ROAD
N
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 5
® QPF to CFS
® PDM /G to CR
Page 17 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use A Open Space/Conservation Elements
August 2006
N
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 6
® QPF to CFS ® RLD to RVLD
® PF to CFS ® PA to CR
Initial Study
Page 18 City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use 8 Open Space/Conservation Elements
August 2006
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 7
® QPF to CFS
® PF to CFS
rSRB]5 PUC to SR85
page 19 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Dreg Land Use & Open Space/Conservation Elements
August 2006
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 8
QPF to CFS PDM to PA
...
PA to CR j • t to RM10
R PUC to SR85 i;ii QPF to RM1O
Page 20 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use & Open Speca Conservation Elements
August 2006
AVE
ALLENDALE AVE
AVE
N
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 9
® QPF to CFS
® PF to CFS
Page 21 Initial Study
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use & open Spece/Conservation Elements
August2006
FRUrrVALE AVE
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 10
Eg QP
RA .
Q
N
Page 22 Initial Study
Ctry of SarsWr
Dreft Land Use & Open Space/Conservation EAwwo
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following Environmental Checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the
proposed project, as detailed in the Project Description. Potential environmental impacts
are described as follows:
Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be
significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially
significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an Environmental Impact
report (EIR) must be prepared.
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: An environmental impact that
requires the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to a
less - than - significant level.
Less - Than - Significant - Impact: An environmental impact may occur, however,
the impact would not be considered significant based on CEQA
environmental standards.
No Impact: No environmental impacts are proposed.
Draft read use a Open
1. Aesthetics
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Leas
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitl gated
Impact
Would the Proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
X
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
X
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
X
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
X
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a, b) The proposed project would revise the current Elements to meet requirements of
current State Law, correct technical inconsistencies, reformat for ease of use and
combine elements. The updated Elements contain City goals and policies related to
land use, parks, open spaces, trails, conservation and scenic areas within the
Saratoga planning area. The following goals contained in the Draft Open
Space /Conservation Element are relevant to protecting scenic vistas and related
scenic resources. There are also a number of related implementing strategies to
achieve these goals.
Goal OSC 1: To provide and maintain open space resources of local and
regional significance accessible to the public.
Goal OSC 2: To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga
Goal OSC 6: Preserve the hillside lands in its natural condition and inherent
natural beauty.
Goal OSC 7: Preserve and protect existing view sheds, view corridors, and
scenic open spaces.
Draft Land Use d Open Spece/Conservabon Ea *wits
August 2006
The following goals contained in the Draft Land Use Element would assist in
preserving the aesthetic features of Saratoga:
Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be
maintained and protected for its contribution to the overall quality of life of
current and future generations.
Goal LU 9: Generally encourage medium density, multi- family residential and
non - residential uses in flatland areas where most appropriate for urban
development..
Goal LU 10: Minimize the visual impacts hillside development, especially on
ridgetops.
Goal LU 13: The City shall use the design review process to assure that new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings.
Based on adherence to these goals and related implementing strategies contained in
the two Draft Elements, no impacts would result to scenic vistas and scenic
resources and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Adherence to the goals and implementing strategies contained in the two Draft
Elements, some of which are included above, will ensure that no impacts result to
the visual character and visual quality of the Saratoga Planning area.
d) No impacts are anticipated with regard to creation of additional light and glare
within the Saratoga planning area. For proposed development in more rural hillside
areas, adherence to the following goal and strategy in the Draft Land Use Element
will require Design review of new development proposals which will include
control of significant light and glare impacts.
Goal LU 13: The City shall use the design review process to assure that new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings.
Strategy 13.1: Utilize the site development and design review process and the
California Environmental Quality Act in the review of proposed residential and
non - residential projects to promote high quality design, to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations, to ensure compatibility with surrounding property
and use, and to minimize environmental impact. Special attention shall be given
to ensuring compatibility between residential and non - residential uses (e.g. land
use buffering).
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use 8 Open SpscaConsOmafion Elements
August 2006
2. Agricultural Resources
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the propaFah
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
X
the Farmland mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
X
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
X
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
Discussion
a -c) The Draft Land Use Element proposes no change to prime farmlands, unique
farmlands, farmlands of Statewide Importance, zoning for agricultural uses or
Williamson Act Land Conservation Contracts. No existing non -farm or agricultural
properties would be converted to non - agricultural uses pursuant to the Draft Land
Use Element. The Draft Elements contain the following goals and implementing
strategies regarding agricultural land preservation and conservation that would
ensure there would be no impact related to protection of agricultural resources in
Saratoga.
Goal LU 7: Protect existing agricultural resources and encourage expansion of
this use.
Strategy LU 7.1: Encourage renewal and discourage cancellation of Williamson
Act Contracts to preserve agricultural lands.
Strategy LU 7.2: Allow agricultural and open space landowners to voluntarily
protect their land.
Strategy LU 7.3: Encourage agricultural use on suitable land with protection for
nearby residences as appropriate.
Goal OSC 8: Encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture.
Draft Land Use a open Spacacroservabon Eleraanta
August 2006
Strategy OSC 8.1: In evaluating future land uses, efforts shall be made to
maintain agricultural lands as a component of open space and to preserve the rural
and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. The City shall discourage the cancellation of
Williamson Act Contracts.
Strategy OSC 8.2: Encourage land owners to enter into new Williamson Act
Contracts.
3. Air Quality
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the Proposal-.
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
X
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
X
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
X
Discussion
a) The proposed amendment to General Plan to adopt Draft Land Use and Open
Space/Conservation Elements would not change the rate of population growth as
shown in regional population and jobs projections published by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), on which the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District's Clean Air Plan is based. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
b) The proposed project does not include any direct development actions that would
exceed regional air quality standards, however, the Draft Elements would facilitate
Dreg Land Use d Open Spsc&Consemaiion Elements
August200B
development that would be consistent with the Draft Element. The Draft Open
Space /Conservation Element includes the following goals and implementing
strategies to assist in minimizing both short-term and long -term operational air
quality impacts to a less- than - significant level.
Goal LU 15: Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development
projects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
Strategy LU 15.1: Require development projects to comply with Bay Area Air
Quality Management District measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions due to
grading and construction activities.
Strategy LU 15.2: Encourage use of trip demand measures as part of major
commercial and office development projects to reduce dependence on auto use.
Goal OSC 15: Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all
development projects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants.
Strategy OSC 15.1: Require development projects to comply with Bay Area Air
Quality Management District measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions due to
grading and construction activities.
Strategy OSC 15.2: Encourage use of trip demand measures as part of major
commercial and office development projects to reduce dependence on auto use.
c) The Bay Area is currently a non - attainment area for the 1 -hour ozone standard.
However, in April 2004, the U.S. EPA made a final finding that the Bay Area has
attained the national ] -hour ozone standard. The finding of attainment does not
mean the Bay Area has been reclassified as an attainment area for the 1 -hour
standard. The region must submit a re- designation request to EPA in order to be
reclassified as an attainment area.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay
Area as a non - attainment area for the Federal 8 -hour ozone standard.
The proposed project would not significantly change land uses or transportation
patterns that would add major pollutant increases into the atmosphere. Therefore,
less- than - significant impacts are anticipated with regard to cumulatively
considerable ozone emissions.
d) The proposed project would not significantly change existing land use patterns. No
new land uses, such as industrial or manufacturing uses that could increase impacts
to sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, convalescent care facilities, day care
centers and similar uses, are proposed. Therefore, no impacts regarding introducing
significantpollutants-to- sensitive receptors are anticipated.
Draft Lend Use & Open
e) No significant change to existing land use patterns would occur pursuant to the
proposed project, including introducing land uses that would emit significant
quantities of odor. Therefore, no impacts regarding the introduction of significant
odor producing land uses are anticipated.
4. Biological Resources
lean
PotentiAy
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impad
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
]Impact
Would the proposal result:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
X
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the
X
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
X
limited to, marsh, venial pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
X
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
X
preservation-policy or ordifii06e7 - --
`
Draft Land Use 6 Open
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
X
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
a -d) The flatter portions of the Saratoga Planning Area exhibit plant and animal species
typical of urbanized areas, including a combination of native and introduced trees,
grasses and shrubs, the predominant variety of which are used for landscaping
purposes. Undeveloped areas are typified by native grasses and ruderal species.
The one bird species that may still exist in the urbanized area is burrowing owl,
which is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
Local creeks and streams extending through the flatter, urbanized portion of the
Saratoga Planning Area may include California tiger salamander and red - legged
frog. Both species are listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species
Act.
The Santa Cruz Mountains harbor many species of reptiles, amphibians, birds and
mammals. In addition to the more common varieties, several rare species are known
to live in these mountains or to regularly frequent the area in search of food and
shelter.
The California Natural Diversity Data Base, maintained by the California
Department of Fish and Game, lists several threatened and/or endangered plant and
wildlife species that may occur in the hillside potion of the Saratoga Planning Area,
including coho salmon, steelhead trout, Zayante band - winged grasshopper,
California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, Cooper's hawk, San
Francisco garter snake, Alameda whipsnake, white -rayed pentachaeta, Ben Lomond
spineflower, Marin western flax, Tiburon paintbrush, Coyote ceanothus, Santa
Clara Valley dudleya, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, fountain thistle and San Mateo
thom -mint.
The proposed Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements include the
following goals and strategies to protect sensitive biological resources in the
Saratoga Planning area:
Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillside areas shall he
maintained and protected for its contribution to the overall quality of life of
current and future generations.
Dian Land Use 6 Open
Strategy LU 8.1: Development proposals shall minimize impacts to significant
natural hillside features, including but not limited to steep topography, major
stands of vegetation, especially native vegetation and oak trees, and
watercourses.
Strategy LU8.2: Adhere to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
Goal LU 9: Generally encourage medium density, multi- family residential and
non - residential uses in flatland areas where most appropriate for urban
development..
Strategy LU 9.1: Limit Expansion of Urban Development in the Hillside Areas.
Goal OSC 11: Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in
the Saratoga Planning area.
Strategy OSC 11.1: Minimize development that would encroach into important
wildlife habitats, limit or restrict normal range areas, or restrict access to water
food, or shelter. This includes limitations on the installation of barrier fencing in
hillside areas.
Strategy OSC 11.2: Through the development and CEQA process, preserve,
protect, and maintain riparian habitats and creek corridors. This includes
requiring biological surveys of parcels of land that could contain sensitive
species or their habitats prior to allowing development on these parcels.
Also, the Draft Open Space /Conservation Element includes goals and strategies to
preserve existing trees that provide roosting and nesting opportunities for various
avian species in the planning area
Goal OSC 12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and
increasing the extent of urban forest resources in the City. The specific vision is
to increase overall tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an
equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable manner.
Strategy OSC 12.1: Development projects should include the preservation of
protected trees and other significant trees. Any adverse affect on the health and
longevity of native oak trees, protected or other significant trees should be
avoided through appropriate design measures and construction practices. When
tree preservation is not feasible, individual development projects shall include
appropriate tree replacement as approved by the City.
Strategy OSC 12.3: To further support the City's urban forest resources and
build on the City's Tree Regulations, the City should establish a Community
Dreg Land Use 6 Open
Forest Master Plan that will identify focus areas of the community in which to
implement tree management activities, inventory and assess trees, summarize
data and specify benchmarks.
Overall, impacts to sensitive biological species, including wetlands, other waters of
the US, waters of the state and wildlife corridors are anticipated to be less -than-
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
e) The Draft Open Space/Conservation Element includes specific goals and strategies
to protect tree resources, as identified above. No impact is anticipated.
The city is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan area and no impact is therefore anticipated
5. Cultural Resources
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Leas
No
Significant
Significant
Than
impact
Impact
Umh=
Significant
Miti ated
Impact
Would the proposal result: in: impacxT to:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in 815064.57
x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to B15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontolgical resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
x
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
x
Discussion
a) A number of historic resources have been identified in the Saratoga Planning Area.
These are described in the Draft Land Use Element. The Element also includes a
number of goals and strategies to protect and preserve these resources as part of the
vision of Saratoga. These goals and policies include:
Goal LU 12: Recognize the heritage of the City by seeking to protect historic
and cultural resources, wherever feasible.
Dreg Land Um 6 Open
Strategy LU 12.1: Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging
compatibility of architectural styles that reflect established architectural
traditions.
Strategy LU 12.2: Develop zoning and other incentives for property owner, to
preserve historic resources and seek out historic designations for their respective
properties.
Strategy LU 12.3: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow, in all zoning districts,
a Modification of Standards for Historic Structures, as is currently permitted in
the C -H district. The Modification of Standards would allow the Planning
Commission to have the authority to modify any of the development regulations
in the Ordinance, if the subject of the application is a structure which has been
designated as an historic landmark.
Strategy LU 12.4: The City shall continue to participate in the Mills Act
program which allows property owners of historic residences a reduction of
their property tax.
Strategy LU 12.5: Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation
of the City's past and foster civic and neighborhood pride and sense of identity
based upon the recognition and use of the City's heritage resources.
Strategy LU 12.6: The Heritage Preservation Commission shall continually
update the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
Strategy LU 12.7: Design Review by both the Planning Commission and the
Heritage Preservation Commission shall be required for development proposals
impacting any of the City's heritage land and/or any historic resources listed on
any local or state inventory.
Strategy LU 12.8: For any project development affecting structures that are 50
years of age or older, conduct a historic review.
Since one of the stated goals is to protect and preserve historic resources in the
community, a less-than-significant impact would occur with regard to this topic and
no mitigation measures would be needed.
b,c) Future construction of public and private development projects that could be
facilitated by the Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements could
have a potentially significant impact on unsurveyed archeological, historic, cultural,
Native American and/or paleontological resources. Some private properties are
located adjacent to local creeks that could impact cultural resources if grading or
construction occurs on these sites. Implementation of Land Use Element Strategy
LU 12.9 would require -that reconnaissance-levels- sw vey"Fdevelopment sites be
Dreg Land Use & Open
undertaken prior to construction to ensure that any cultural resources are identified
and properly dealt with prior to any impact. This Strategy includes:
Strategy LU 12.9: Conduct reconnaissance -level analyses of new development
projects to ensure that no significant archeological, pre - historic, paleontological
or Native American resources would be disturbed. If such resources are found,
appropriate steps shall be made, consistent with CEQA requirements, to protect
these resources.
The City of Saratoga initiated Native American Tribal Consultations in December
2005 as part of this General Plan Amendment to further comply with Government
Code Section 65352.3 regarding consultation with tribes. The NAHC recommends
conducting record starches through the NAHC and California Historic Resources
Information System (SHRIS) to determine if any cultural places are located within
the Planning Area. Adherence to Strategy LU 12.9 would meet this request.
Appendix 1 contains documentation of letters to potentially affected Native
American groups in the Saratoga Planning area.
Implementation of the above Strategy will reduce impacts to archeological, historic,
cultural, Native American and/or paleontological resources to a less-than-
significant level.
d) One historic cemetery has been established in Saratoga on Oak Street. No
development of structures would be allowed on this site. Therefore, no impact is
anticipated regarding disturbance of human remains.
6. Geology and Soils
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the proposal:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
X
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
X
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Page 34 1nJWW Study
City of Saratoga
Oren Land Use & Open SpaosConservation Elements
August2a96
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
X
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table I8-1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
X
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
X
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
DiscussiOII
a, c, d) Existing structures within Saratoga and future development projects that could be
constructed under the auspices of the Draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements would be subject to geologic hazards, including but
not limited to moderate to severe ground shaking from seismic events,
liquefaction, landslides, and other potential unstable soil conditions. Two
potentially active faults lie within the alluvial plain portion of the planning area.
These include the Berrocal and Shannon Faults. The California Division of Mines
and Geology have established Earthquake Fault Zones adjacent to these faults,
which require site - specific geotechnical analyses prior to the construction of any
development on properties within these Zones, to ensure that construction does not
occur on identified fault traces and that building foundations can withstand
maximum credible earthquakes anticipated to occur on the faults. This requirement
will be enforced by the City of Saratoga as part of the normal development review
and geotechnical clearance process to ensure that impacts related to ground rupture
would be less - than - significant.
New development projects would be required to adhere to construction
requirements set forth in the California Uniform Building Code to minimize
hazards from groundshaking. The City of Saratoga may also require development
projects rw-near -steep ilsi - be- malyzed -ta site- speei�c geotechnical
city of Saratoga.
Oran Land Use 6 Open SpaceConservation Elwnents
August 2006
reports to determine appropriate construction techniques for individual sites.
Development allowed under the Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation
Element will also be required to adhere to the following goals and strategies set
forth in the Draft Land Use and Open Space Elements:
Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be
maintained and protected for its contribution to the overall quality of life of
current and future generations.
Strategy LU 8.1: Development proposals shall minimize impacts to significant
natural hillside features, including but not limited to steep topography, major
stands of vegetation, especially native vegetation and oak trees, and
watercourses.
Goal LU 9: Confine urban uses to flatland areas most appropriate for urban
development.
Strategy LU 9.1: Limit Expansion of Urban Development into Hillside Areas.
Strategy LU 9.2: Limit the amount of grading within hillside areas to the
minimum amount needed for dwellings and access.
Goal OSC 6: Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent
natural beauty.
Strategy OSC 6.1: Through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance,
designate lands in the hillier portions of the Saratoga Planning Area for Open
Space- Managed Resource Production, that allows very low density residential
uses while maintaining a significant amount of open space.
With adherence to required building codes and practice, and adherence to the goals
and strategies outlined above, there would be a less - than - significant impact
regarding geotechnical hazards.
b) Although the proposed project would not result in any direct construction,
individual public and private development projects could be facilitated pursuant to
the Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements that could result in soil
erosion into adjacent bodies of water. The City of Saratoga presently enforces
surface water quality standards that have been adopted by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board to minimize erosion potential from construction and
operational phases of projects. In addition, the Draft Open Space /Conservation
Element contains Goal 9, which states it is the policy of the City to protect existing
watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and subsurface
water sources. Potential impacts of soil erosion would therefore be less -than-
sign fcant.
Draft Land Use A Open SpacaConservabon 09ma6fa
August ZOOS
e) A majority of dwellings constructed under the auspices of the Draft Land Use and
Open Space/Conservation Elements would be connected to a sanitary sewer system.
In hillside areas, there may be limited use of septic systems to support individual
custom homes. Any use of septic systems would only be undertaken with valid
permits from local and County agencies and with appropriate underlying soil
conditions, so this potential impact would be less- than -sign cant.
7. Hazards
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the proposal:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
X
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
X
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
X
within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
X
Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
X
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
City of
Draft Land Use 6 Open SpacwConservation
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
X
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fire,
including where wildlands are
X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Discussion
a) Limited additional development in Saratoga would be permitted under the Draft
Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements. There is a possibility that some
commercial uses could involve the use, transport, and/or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials, such as auto service stations, dry cleaning establishments and
similar uses. All of these uses would be strictly regulated by city, county, state or
other regulatory agency that a less-than-significant impact would result.
b.c) In some instances, previous land uses within Saratoga may have used potentially
hazardous materials that, under limited conditions, could be released into the
atmosphere. This may include, but would not be limited, to agricultural chemical
residue, use of asbestos in building materials, and the presence of underground
storage tanks. Some of these sites may be located within one - quarter mile of a local
school. Construction activities undertaken pursuant to the Draft Land Use Element
could release hazardous or potentially hazardous material into the atmosphere, soil
or groundwater. This impact could be reduced to a less - than - significant level by
requiring applicant's to submit Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports as
part of the normal development review process. Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments include an analysis of historic uses of individual properties, a review
of regulatory agency data bases for open cases of contamination, a site walk
through and review of similar secondary source material to determine the possibility
of site contamination. If warranted, the Environmental Site Assessment may require
additional testing and remediation.
d) There were no sites listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese)
List as of July 21, 2006. This a planning document that is prepared by the California
Environmental Protection Agency and used by the State, local agencies and
developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements
in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that an updated Cortese List be
ege 38 /m
City of Sera"
Dreg Land Use d Open Spaos Conservation Elements
August 2006
provided at least annually. Therefore, no impacts would result from adoption of the
Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements, and no mitigation
measures are needed.
e,f) There are no public or private airports or airstrips located within the Saratoga
Planning Area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures
are needed.
g) The Draft Land Use and Open Space Conservation Elements do not propose
development that would block or obstruct emergency evacuation routes. No impacts
are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
h) Portions of the Saratoga Planning Area are located within hillside areas that are
considered high fire hazard areas. The City of Saratoga is committed to working
with the two local fire districts to ensure that new individual development projects
are provided with adequate access for emergency fire and rescue equipment and
with an adequate and reliable water supply. These fire reduction measures are
included as conditions of approval for new development. Therefore, less-than-
significant impacts would result.
8. Hydrology
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the prqposal.
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
x
there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
X
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or
off -site?
Draft Lend Use 6 Open
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
X
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on-or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
X
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade
X
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
X
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 1 o0 -year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
X
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or
X
mudflow?
Discussion
a) The Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements do not include
significant increases in the amount, type, rate or intensity of development in
Saratoga that would cause or create violations of clean water or water discharge
standards to occur. Therefore, no impacts would result from adoption of the
Elements and no mitigation measures are required.
b) No significant changes to the use of water is anticipated with regard to adoption of
the Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements. Similarly, limited new
development would occur in the Saratoga Planning area but this amount of
development would not significantly impeded groundwater recharge. The Draft
Open Space/Conservation Element contains the following goals and strategies to
protect groundwater resources:
Goal OSC 9: Protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water
quality in surface and - subsurface water sources.
Page 40 City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use & Open Space/Consarvation Elements
August 2008
Strategy OSC 9.3: Implement land use controls to protect watershed lands on
the upper elevations of hillsides.
With adherence to this goal and strategy, no impacts are anticipated with regard to
groundwater water resources and groundwater recharge areas and no mitigation
measures would be needed.
c, d)The proposed project involves consideration of Draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements. No specific development is being proposed;
however, additional development could be facilitated pursuant to the Draft
Elements. The Draft Elements do not propose substantially greater development
than currently allowed under the existing General Plan so that existing drainage
patterns would not be substantially changed or altered. Furthermore, the Land Use
categories of the Draft Land Use Element contain limitations on site coverage
allowed in each category for the purpose of minimizing runoff from development
Strategy OSC 9:2 contained in the Draft Open Space /Conservation Element would
also assist in limiting the amount of increased stormwater flows. This Strategy.
reads as follows:
Strategy OSC 9.2: Concentrate development in those portions of the community
least susceptible to soil erosion and minimize grading and the introduction of
impervious surfaces. Where appropriate, consider the use of on -site detention or
retention basins to minimize stormwater runoff from sites.
In addition, implementation of Draft Land Use Element Strategies LU 6.1 and LU
6.2 will assist in protecting water quality.
Strategy LU 6.1: Incorporate specific standards and requirements into the
Zoning Ordinance to preserve and protect sensitive watershed areas on hillsides
within the community.
Strategy LU 6.2: Development proposals shall incorporate stormwater quality
features, including but not limited to, grassy bio- swales, to protect surface and
subsurface water quality.
A less - than - significant increase in the amount of stormwater runoff would occur as
a result of new development; however, this would be reviewed and accommodated
as part of the standard City development review process.
e, f) No specific development is being proposed as part of this project and no additional
stormwater flows would occur. New development that could be facilitated pursuant
to the Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements will be reviewed by
the City of Saratoga as part of the normal development review process and any
improvements in downstream drainage improvements will be required at that time.
Adherence to Draft Land Use Element Strategies LU 6.1 and 6.2 will assist in
protecting water quality. Similarly, new development will be subject to current
Clean Water standards adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board and enforced by the City of Saratoga to protect surface water quality
so that no impacts would result
'age 41 Inifial Study
City of sarabge
Draft Lend Use 6 open space/Conservation Elam"
August 2OO5
g -i) Both Draft Elements include a discussion of 100 -year flood hazards and no
development would be permitted within flood hazard areas, so there would be no
impacts related to flooding of housing projects and no mitigation measures are
needed.
j) The Saratoga Planning Area is well inland from the San Francisco Bay and other
major bodies of water. The Planning Area would therefore not be subject to seiche
or tsunami. Individual projects that would be allowed pursuant to the Draft Land
Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements in proximity to slopes could be subject
to geologic hazards including the potential for mudflow. Following standard City of
Saratoga development review procedures, project- specific development reviews
would be undertaken for development applications in potential hazard areas to
ensure safety from possible mudflows and similar hazards. Less - than - significant
impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to this topic and no mitigation
measures are needed.
9. Land Use
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Leas
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impad
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Im ct
Would the proposak
a) Physically divide an established
community?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
X
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X
Discussion
a) No significant changes to the existing land use pattern of Saratoga are proposed in the
Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements that would physically divide
an established community. While changes in land use categories are proposed for
some parcels, as shown in Exhibits 3 through 10, the changes are consistent and
compatible with the existing use of sites and are intended primarily to bring internal
consistency between the land use designation and existing use of sites. The change in
designation from Professional Administrative (PA) to CR (Commercial Retail)
City of Serstva
Dreg Land Use d Open Spscs Consawabon Elemsms
August MS
proposed for an existing 9.7 acre vacant parcel located west on Saratoga Avenue and
north of State Highway 85, will not be significant as both current and proposed land
use designations are commercial categories. Therefore, no impacts would therefore
result and no mitigation measures would be required.
b) The proposed project would include updating land use, open space and conservation
policies contained in the General Plan. Proposed policies are generally consistent with
policies contained in existing Elements. There would therefore be no impact with
regard to conflicts with plans or policies and no mitigation measures are needed.
c) No Habitat Conservation Plans or similar plans have been adopted within the City of
Saratoga. There would therefore be no impact and no mitigation measures are needed.
10. Mineral Resources
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Les
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the proposal,
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
]mown mineral resource that would
X
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
X
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Discussion
a,b) No significant deposits of minerals are known to exist in the Saratoga Planning
Area. Therefore, no impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required.
11. Noise
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
impact
Would the proposah
a. Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable_ _
X
standards of other agencies?
Draft Lard Use & Open Spao&r;onsemalion Elm
August
b. Exposure of persons to or generation
Standards
Daytime
Evening
of excessive groundbome vibration
Outdoor
or groundbome noise levels?
55 dBA
X
50 MA
c. A substantial permanent increase in
Public/Park
ambient noise levels in the project
60 dBA
50 dBA
Indoor
vicinity above levels existing
40 dBA
X
without the project?
Outdoor
60 dBA
50 dBA
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
45 bDA
35 dBA
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
X
existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
X
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
X
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion
a,) The Noise Element of the Saratoga General Plan (1988) establishes noise exposure
levels in the community as described in the following table:
Table 2. City of Saratoga Acoustic Standards
Land Use
Standards
Daytime
Evening
Commercial/Office
Outdoor
65 dBA
55 dBA
Indoor
50 MA
40 dBA
Public/Park
Outdoor
60 dBA
50 dBA
Indoor
50 dBA
40 dBA
Residential
Outdoor
60 dBA
50 dBA
Indoor
45 bDA
35 dBA
Notes: dBA = decibels on the "A- weighted' acoustic scale
Source: Saratoga Noise Element, 1988
Page M In!
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use A Open SpacalCotrwwadon Elerrrerrtr
August2009
The Noise Element also includes goals, policies and implementation programs to
ensure that existing and future land uses constructed pursuant to the General Plan
will generate noise levels that are less - than - significant. Existing and future land
uses are also subject to the City's noise and nuisance standards. Policy 2.4 of the
Noise Element requires new noise - generation uses to mitigate excessive noise
levels through preparation of project- specific acoustic analyses. Therefore, future
noise levels are anticipated to be less- than - significant
b) Adherence to the City's acoustic standards established in the Noise Element and
Noise Ordinance will ensure that the potential for future groundborne noise and
vibration that could be facilitated as a result of the Draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements will be less- than - significant.
c, d) Future public and private construction projects could generate levels of noise in
excessive of standards adopted by the City of Saratoga. Adherence to Policy 2.4 of
the Noise Element requires potentially noisy projects to obtain site- specific acoustic
reports and to mitigate noise levels to a less- than - significant level. Long -term
operations of land use will also be required to adhere to City noise exposure
standards. In addition, Noise Element Policy 1.2 requires the City to control specific
noise sources through enforcement of noise standards.
e, f) No public or private airstrips are located in or adjacent to the Saratoga Planning
Area. No impacts would therefore result, and no mitigation measures would be
required
12. Population and Housing
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Leas
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Mitigated
Impact
Would the pNposak
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
X
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere?
Page as City of Saretop'a
Draft Land Use d Open SpaceVonservation Elemantr
August 2006
Discussion
a) The Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements do not propose
significant changes to existing land use patterns. There would be no substantial
population growth within any portion of the community resulting from adoption of
the Draft Elements. No major infrastructure extensions are proposed as part of
either Draft Element. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation
measures would be required.
b,c) No residential units would be displaced as a result of adopting the two Draft
Elements. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation measures would
be required
13. Public Services
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Len
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Miti sited
Impact
Would the proposal
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
X
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
b) Fire protection?
X
c) Police protection?
X
d) Schools?
X
e) Parks?
X
f) Other public facilities?
X
Discussion
a,b) Fire service for Saratoga is provided by the Saratoga Fire District and the Santa
Clara Fire District, both of which are special districts with their own respective
boards of directors. The Draft Land Use Element notes that portions of Saratoga,
especially the hillside areas, are considered high fire hazard areas. Future individual
development projects that would be constructer m the City will be subject to review
Cityty of Sar
Dreg Land Use A Open SpacaeCanservatan Eler
August
by the appropriate fire district as part of the normal development review process to
ensure that adequate emergency access can be provided for emergency equipment
and that an adequate and reliable water supply can be provided to suppress fires.
The Safety Element of the General Plan (1987) contains Goal 4, which directs the
City to reduce the danger of property damage and loss of life due to fire in both
urban and rural areas of the City. Implementing Policies requires the installation of
early warning fire alarm systems for many new dwellings, enforcement of fire
protection regulations for fire hazard areas and undertaking studies to determine the
need for additional fire protection regulations. It is unlikely that additional new or
substantially enlarged fire stations or other fire facilities would be required to serve
the additional amount of development anticipated in the Draft Land Use Element
and no impacts would occur.
c) Police protection for the city of Saratoga is provided under contract to the Santa
Clara Sberifrs department. Service to Saratoga is provided from the West Valley
Division of the Department located at 1601 S. De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino.
Since land use patterns in Saratoga would not significantly change if the Draft Land
Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements are adopted by the City, there would
be no need to significantly expand Sheriff Department offices or related physical
facilities to continue providing services to the City. No impacts are anticipated and
no mitigation measures would be needed.
d) The Draft Land Use Element does not propose an increase in the number of new
residential dwellings above that anticipated in the current Land Use Element that
would result in a significant increase in school -aged children; therefore no impacts
to local school facilities are anticipated. New residential development will be
required to pay state - mandated school impact fees to offset the costs of any impacts
to local school districts.
For impacts to parks, refer to item 14, below.
f) No impacts to maintenance of other governmental functions are anticipated, since
new public services and facilities, once constructed, would be built to City and/or
appropriate special district standards and would not require maintenance for a
number of years. No mitigation measures would be needed.
14. Recreation
Issue
Potential
Potentially
Len
No
ly
Significant
Than
Impact
Signifka
Unless
Significant
m
Mitigated
Impact
-- - --
Impact
Dreg Land use B Open
Would the ro al:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
X
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
X
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
a) The Draft Land Use Element does not propose a significant number of additional
residential dwellings in Saratoga that would require construction of a significant
number of new neighborhood or regional parks. As discussed in item b) below, the
project also includes goals and strategies for providing additional parks and open
space in the community. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to
increased use of neighborhood and/or regional parks and no mitigation measures
would be needed.
b) The proposed project consists of updates to the Land Use and Open Space/
Conservation Elements that, among other objectives, includes a strategy for
increasing the amount of parks in Saratoga. The following goals and strategies are
included in the Draft Open Space/Conservation Element to protect and increase the
amount of parkland in the City.
Goal OSC 3: To provide and maintain parks which are located, designed, and
improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community, and the
neighborhoods of Saratoga.
Strategy OSC 3.1: Ensure that existing and future parks and dedicated open
spaces remain part of the public domain in perpetuity.
Strategy OSC 3.2: Preserve open space and recreational resources provided on
school sites and surplus school sites through joint use agreements, acquisition
and/or land use controls.
Goal OSC 4: Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per
1,000 residents.
Overall, no impacts are anticipated within regard to providing additional parks and
recreational facilities required and no mitigation measures would be needed.
Page 48 In
City of Saratoga
Draft Land Use 8 Open Spaceh:msewation Elernentr
Augusf 2009
15. Traffic and Transportation
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Lees
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impart
Unless
significant
Miti ated
Impact
Would the proposal:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which
is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the
X
number of vehicle trips, the
volume -to- capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
X
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
X
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
X
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
X
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
X
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
X
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
a -b) Accommodation of additional traffic in the community is governed by the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, last updated in 2001. This Element
establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) D at street intersections under City
inrisdiction. A lower LOS may be accepted if it is determined that achieving LOS D
ciy 01
Draft Land Use & Open Space/Conservetion
is not feasible. For roadways and intersections under the jurisdiction of the Santa
Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA), the LOS standard is E.
Generally, no significant amount of additional development is proposed in the Draft
Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements that would substantially increase
traffic on roadways in Saratoga. Further, implementation Measure CI.2.22 requires
major development proposals in Saratoga that would generate more than 50 net new
trips to prepare a transportation analysis, including methods to reduce peak hour
trips to acceptable levels.
The proposed change of the Land Use Map includes a redesignation for the
approximately 9.7 -acre vacant parcel on the west side of Saratoga Avenue
(approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and State
Route 85) from PA (Professional Administrative) to CR (Commercial Retail). At
full buildout, this property could potentially accommodate an estimated 106,000
gross square feet of commercial land uses, assuming development at maximum
allowable site coverage. Under this assumption, a development could potentially
generate approximately 290 additional PM peak hour trips over and above the
number of PM peak hour trips that would result from the maximum development
potential under the existing Professional Administrative land use designation.
Intersections near the project site at Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue and the
Saratoga Avenue and SR 85 intersections are operating near maximum capacity and
the construction of additional travel lanes at these intersections may not be feasible.
However, any new project for that site will required design review and site - specific
environmental review. Adherence to Circulation Element Policy CI.2.22 will
require completion of a detailed traffic and transportation analysis of any future
project on this property when a site - specific development proposal is filed with the
City. At that time, appropriate recommendations can be made as to how best to
accommodate additional traffic that could be generated by retail commercial uses,
including but not limited to identifying an appropriate mix of land uses, maximum
floor area ratios, implementation of trip reduction techniques and other measures to
ensure that future traffic impacts would be less - than - significant within the
community.
Therefore, less- than - significant impacts would result with regard to traffic increases
or impacts to Congestion Management Agency (CMA) routes and no mitigation
measures are needed. Future project- specific mitigation measures may be
recommended based on individual traffic analyses.
c) The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves
updates to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. No
mitigation measures would be required.
d) All facilities constructed pursuant to the Draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements would comply with City and/or special district design
standards. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have no impact with
regard to safety factors.
CO 01
Dreg Lend Use d Open Speca/ConserveNon
e) Approval of the Draft Land Use and Open Space would have no impact regarding
emergency access, since any new private development that would be facilitated by
the proposed Draft Elements would not occur on public rights -of -way and will be
reviewed by the City of Saratoga, appropriate Fire Districts and the Santa Clara
County Sheriff's Department to ensure that no emergency accesses are blocked or
impeded.
f) Parking for individual projects facilitated as part of the Draft General Plan Elements
would contain on -site parking, per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.
g) The Draft Open Space /Conservation Element contains goals and implementing
strategies to promote the planning, acquisition and construction of new pedestrian,
equestrian and bicycle trails in Saratoga. These include:
Goal OSC 5: A city -wide system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding
trails shall be provided within the community, which includes regional trail
linkages with City, County, State, and regional parks, and other publicly owned
open space lands.
A number of implementing strategies are proposed in the Draft Open
Space/Conservation Element to assist is achieving the above goal, including:
Strategy OSC 5.1: The City shall continue to use the Parks and Trails Master
Plan as a day -to -day guide for the development, maintenance and financing of
trails in Saratoga.
Strategy OSC 5.2: The City shall promote the acquisition of new trails through
purchase, dedication or gifts.
Strategy OSC 5.3: Trail planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, and
management shall be coordinated among the various local and County volunteer
agencies, as well as local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide
trails or funding for trails.
Strategy OSC 5.5: Trail development, patrol, and maintenance responsibilities
shall be coordinated with all entities involved with each trail segment. In most
cases, development responsibilities shall be home by the property owner with
maintenance activities undertaken by the City.
No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to promoting alternative modes of
transportation and no mitigation measures are needed.
Draft Land Use & Open
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Less
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Miti ated
impact
Would the ro'eet
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
X
Board
b) Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
X
could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing water entitlements and
X
resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
X
project's projected demand in
addition to the providers existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
X
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local
statutes and regulations related to
X
solid waste?
Discussion
a, e) Wastewater treatment and disposal within Saratoga is provided by the Cupertino
Sanitary District. The Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements do
Draff tend Use 6 Open
not include significant amounts of new development that would require treatment
capacity exceeding the capacity of existing facilities. Therefore, Regional Water
Quality Board discharge requirements would not be exceeded and no impact is
anticipated
b, d) Potable water is supplied to Saratoga by the San Jose Water Company. The staff of
the San Jose Water Company has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) that includes small increases in the amount of additional development in
Saratoga. The UWMP notes that a long -term reliable water supply is available to
supply existing uses in the water company's service area. In addition, the Draft
Open Space /Conservation Element includes the following goals and strategies to
conserve water resources:
Goal OSC 10: Maximize the use of the City's water supply.
Strategy OSC 10.1: Implement water conservation provisions of the Urban
Water Management Plan.
Based on the above, no additional water facilities would be required to support the
_provisions of the Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements and no
impact would result. Similarly, there would not be a need to expand wastewater
treatment or disposal facilities and there would be no impact with regard to
expanding wastewater facilities.
c) The Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements do not propose
significant additional areas of growth in the Saratoga Planning Area. Adherence to
Implementation Strategy OSC 9.2 ("Concentrate development in those portions of
the community least susceptible to soil erosion and minimize grading and the
introduction of impervious surfaces.) will further minimize any impacts from
development. Where appropriate, consider the use of on -site detention or retention
basins to minimize stormwater runoff from sites. ") would serve to minimize storm
drain runoff in the community. Less - than - significant impacts are anticipated with
regard to construction of new drainage facilities.
f, g) The Draft Elements propose minimal expansion of additional development in the
City that would generate significantly increased amounts of solid waste. Therefore,
no new or expanded solid waste facilities would be required as a result of this
project and no impacts are anticipated.
2Y 0'
Dreg Land Use d Open Spaca Conservation
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issue
Potentially
Potentially
Lem
No
Significant
Significant
Than
Impact
Impact
Unless
Significant
Midi ated
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the
X
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self - sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the
X
disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
X
cumulatively considerable?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
X
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
a) No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed City of Saratoga Land Use
and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the General Plan would not have a
significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including the potential
of reducing the habitat of fish or wildlife species, elimination of any special- status
plants, a reduction of the number or range of endangered plant or animal species to
eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
b) No. The proposed General Plan Elements would not achieve short-term objectives
to the disadvantage of long -term goals, since goals and strategies contained in the
two Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements would assist in
preservation of open spaces, natural resource areas, and riparian areas, as well as
promoting the creation of new parks and recreational facilities in Saratoga
c) No. No such cumulative impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing
this Initial Study.
d) The Initial Study notes that goals and implementing strategies included in the Draft
Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements will serve to protect the health of
humans. - — — -- -- —
Dare lane Use 6 open
Initial Study Preparer
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
Deborah Ungo- M°Cormick, Ungo- M°Cormick Consulting
Jane Maxwell, report graphics
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Saratoga
John Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director
Therese Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner
Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner
Ivetta Harvancik, Associate Civil Engineer
Saratoga Fire District
Dirk Mattem, Fire Marshal
Traffic:
Sorab Rashid - Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants
References
Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2005
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQAGuidelines, revised December
1999
California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database
(website), 2006
City of Saratoga, Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Update, Fehr & Peers
Associates, 2001
City of Saratoga, Noise Element of the General Plan, Pack & Associates, 1988
City of Saratoga, Parks and Trails Master Plan, WRT Planning, 1991
City of Saratoga, Safely Element of the General Plan, 1987
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cortese List (website), July 21, 2006
San Jose Water Company, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005
Draft Land Use & Open
Appendix 1
Draft Lend use 6 Open
09UT off O ° MoOR�&
13777 FRLIITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Incorporated October 22, 1956
December 19, 2005
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Attn: Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
3015 Eastern Ave, #40
Sacramento, CA 95821
RE: Notification of Pending General Plan Update for the City of Saratoga
Dear Valentin Lopez:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Aileen Kno
Kalhleen King
Norman Kline
Nick Sired
Ann Wedonsmdh
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the City of Saratoga has contracted with, a
consultant to update three Elements of the City's General Plan: Land Use, Open Space and
Conservation and to invite you, if-you should so choose, to participate in the General Plan Update
process.
The City of Saratoga has a low- density residential land use pattern that is well established and is
unlikely to change. The Land Use Element will describe the history of land use planning in
Saratoga, discuss major issues that face the City, and present the objectives, policies, and
programs that will determine how land use and growth will be managed in Saratoga. The Land
Use Element was last updated in 1983.
The City Counsel adopted the Conservation Element of the General Plan in 1988. The Element
outlines natural and cultural resources available to the residents of Saratoga. The Open Space,
Recreation and Trails element of the General Plan serves as a basis for future trails, parks and
open space acquisitions within the City. The Open Space Element was adopted by the City,
Council in 1993. The objective of the current task is to update and combine these two Elements
into one Element.
The targeted start date is January 2006, with adoption of the General Plan update by the City
County in October of 2006.
Please contact me within 90 -days of the postmark of this letter informing me if you will be
participating in the update process. Please feel free to contact me at 408 - 868 -1230 if I can be of
any assistance in answering your questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner
O MW o2 O &MkkUOr97e& .
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
lncoryoratO October 22,19M Aiieen Kao .
Kathlewiffltig
December 19, 2005 Norman One
Nick $tW
A% 1+?vekma'IndiamTnlie Ann waROnamith .'
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
1S0 l3ox 360293
Milpitas, CA: 95136
RE:. Notification of Pending General Plan Update for the City of Saratoga.
Dear Rosemary Camlim.
I would-like to take this opportunity to inform you that the City of Saratoga has contracted with &-
consultant to update three. Elements of the City's General Plea:. Land Use,. ,Open- Space and.
Conservation anal to invite you, if. youshould so choose; to participate in the Gen
Conservation Vpdate
process:.
The ;City of Saratoga has a low-density residential land.use pattern that is well established and ie' `
unlikely to change. The Land Use Element: will describe the history of land use phi ming is
Saratoga, discuss major issues that face the City, and present the objectives, :policita, and
programs that will determine how land use and ,growth will,be managed in Saratoga The I etaz►d
1;1se ticinent was .last updated in 1983. .
The City. Counsel adopted AwConservation Element: of the General Plan in 1988 The`Eletaent . -.
outlines natural. and cultural resources available to the'resi4ci6.of Saratoga. 17te i)penspace,
Recreation -and Trails clement of the General Plan selves as a basis far future trails, parks and
open, space aoquisitiot s within the,City:. The Open.;Space Elerri was edoptecl i+y tlit iy'
Council in 1993. Tiro: objective,6f.tbe current task is to update and combing theft two Elements
intoone-E7e
The` targeted start date is January 2606,, with adoption of ilte General Plan. updSte'l y tht. City
County m Octoberof2006.
Please contact me within 90 -days of the postmark. of this letter informing me if you, will be
participating in the update process. Please feel free :to •contact me at 408 - 868- 1230.if I sari be of
any assistance in answering your questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner
OMW off 93& -/LU005&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE t SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95010
Incorporated October 22, 18561
December 19, 2005
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Attn: Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
RE: Notification of Pending General Plan Update for the City of Saratoga
Dear Ann Marie Sayers:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Aileen Kao
Kathleen King
Norman Kline
Nick Streft
Ann Waltonsmith
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the City of Saratoga has contracted with a
consultant to update three Elements of the City's General Plan: Land Use, Open Space and
Conservation and to invite you, if you should so choose, to participate in the General Plan Update
process.
The City of Saratoga has a low- density residential land use pattern that is well established and is
unlikely to change. The Land Use Element will describe the history of land use planning in
Saratoga, discuss major issues that face the City, and present the objectives, policies, and
programs that will determine how land use and growth will be managed in Saratoga. The Land
Use Element was last updated in 1983.
The City Counsel adopted the Conservation Element of the General Plan in 1988. The Element
outlines natural and cultural resources available to the residents of Saratoga. The Open Space,
Recreation and Trails element of the General Plan serves as a basis for future trails, parks and
open space acquisitions within the City. The Open Space Element was adopted by the City
Council in 1993. The objective of the current task is to update and combine these two Elements
into one Element.
The targeted start date is January 2006, with adoption of the General Plan update by the City
County in October of 2006.
Please contact me within 90 -days of the postmark of this letter informing me if you will be
participating in the update process. Please feel free to contact me at 408 -868 -1230 if I can be of
any assistance in answering your questions or concerns.
Respectfitlly,
Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner
CITY o = ' ATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
Incorporated October 22, 1956
December 19, 2005
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Attn: Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
RE: Notification of Pending General Plan Update for the City of Saratoga
Dear Irene Zwierlein:
COUNCIL. MEMBERS:
Aileen Kao
Kathleen King
Norman Kline
Nick Strew
Ann Waltonsmith
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the City of Saratoga has contracted with a
consultant to update three Elements of the City's General Plan: Land Use, Open Space and
Conservation and to invite you, if you should so choose, to participate in the General Plan Update
process.
The City of Saratoga has a low- density residential land use pattern that is well established and is
unlikely to change. The Land Use Element will describe the history of land use planning in
Saratoga, discuss major issues that face the City, and present the objectives, policies, and
programs that will determine how land use and growth will be managed in Saratoga. The Land
Use Element was last updated in 1983.
The City Counsel adopted the Conservation Element of the General Plan in 1988. The Element
outlines natural and cultural resources available to the residents of Saratoga. The Open Space,
Recreation and Trails element of the General Plan serves as a basis for future trails, parks and
open space acquisitions within the City. The Open Space Element was adopted by the City
Council in 1993. The objective of the current task is to update and combine these two Elements
into one Element.
The targeted start date is January 2006, with adoption of the General Plan update by the City
County in October of 2006.
Please contact me within 90 -days of the postmark of this letter informing me if you will be
participating in the update process. Please feel free to contact me at 408 - 868 -1230 if I can be of
any assistance in answering your questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner
12/14/2005 16:51 FAX 916 057 5390 NAHC 0001 /002
♦.neld 6chxar...... er. f: maeaet
CAUEOUNIA
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
716 CAPITOL MAU., ROOM 3"
SACRAMMM CA 7Nla
pu1667Ntl
Pat 0161467:7." .
December 14, 2005
Theresa Schmidt
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruttvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Sent Via Fax: 408 - 867 -8555
# of Pages: 2
RE: General Plan Update, City of Saratoga
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
Government Code §65352.3 requires local governments to consult with California Native
American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of
protecting, and /or mitigating impacts to cultural places. Attached is a consultation list of tribes with
traditional lands or cultural places located within the requested General Plan boundaries.
As-a part of consultation, the NAHC recommends that local governments Conduct record searches
through the NAHC and California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine if any
cultural places are located within the area(s) affected by the proposed action. NAHC Sacred Lands
File requests must be made in writing. All requests must include: county, USGS quad map name.
township, range and section. Local governments should be aware, however, that records maintained
by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not
preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding
the existence of a cultural place.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from Tribes, please notify
me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current Information.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653 -4038.
'readway
Specialist III
12/14/2005 18:51 FAX 916 657 5390 NABC
California Tribal Consultation 412t
City of Saratoga
December 14, 2005
Amah MutsunTribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
3015 Eastern Ave, #40 Ohlone /Costanoan
Sacramento , CA 95821
(916) 481 -5785
iAmah/MutsunTribal Band
Irene ZwierWn, Chairperson
789 Canada Road Ohlone/Costanoan
Woodside , CA 94062
(650 -851 7747- yHome�m
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28 Ohlone/Costanoan
Hollister CA 95024
Muwekma Indian Tribe
Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
PO Box 360791 Ohlone/Costanoan
Milpitas . CA 95036
Q002/002
/7 LA kj-jjtG
, /t0A'0.4, oho s� Cx os
R")X
mk list k cutrmt only as of the deb of dft documwR by
"1ft Cold ofc$90llon60 7� not f the Publle f1wouroes CCoodi Section NUM ve defined In the PuW Section urn Of
Code,
This list Is applicable only for oonsulledon with Native American ttibee under Govommem Code section 66369x4
12/14/2006 16:61 FAX 916 967 6390 NAHC Q001/002
—3M CAl IMRNIA Arnold Schns..eeeeee.. Gnrereer
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
018 CANTOL 3dAIJ. ROOM 3"
SACRAWERM CA tau
(910 653, M
Po Q16) 4674 M
December 14, 2005
Theresa Schmidt
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Sent Via Fax: 408 -867 -8555
# of Pages: 2
RE: General Plan Update, City of Saratoga
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
V]
Government Code §65352.3 requires local governments to consult with California News
American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of
protecting, and /or mitigating impacts to cultural places. Attached is a consultation list of tribes with
traditional lands or cultural places located within the requested General Plan boundaries.
As,a part of consultation, the NAHC recommends that local governments conduct record searches
through the NAHC and California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine if any
cultural places are located within the area(s) affected by the proposed action. NAHC Sacred Lands
File requests must be made in writing. All requests must include: county, USGS quad map name,
township, range and section. Local governments should be aware, however, that records maintained
by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not
preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding
the existence of a cultural place.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from Tribes, please notify
me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current Information.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (9 16) 653 -4038.
Tpl .J r..
'readway
Specialist III
October 30, 2006
City of Saratoga
Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Element Amendments
Response to Environmental Comments
Introduction
The City of Saratoga issued a Negative Declaration for this project on August 25, 2006,
to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The proposed project
includes consideration of an updated Land Use and Open Space Conservation Elements.
The Negative Declaration was published and circulated for a 30 -day review ending on
September 25 2006.
Comments received:
A Study Session was held by the Planning Commission on September 27, 2006. The
Planning Commission directed that the following changes be made to the Project
Description and related attachments of the Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration for the
project:
1. Delete all references to redesignation of a 9.7 acre parcel at 13025 Saratoga
Avenue, as follows:
• Table 1: Delete reference to parcel under PA (Professional Office Land use
Map Amendment (page 11);
• Exhibit 8: Delete parcel from map; delete CR to PA from legend;
• Land Use Discussion: Under a) — delete third sentence in first paragraph;
• Traffic and Transportation Discussion: Under a -b) — delete third paragraph;
Response: Noted. Any and all references to redesignation of subject parcel are
hereby deleted from the Initial Study/MND, accordingly.
2. The following maps require correction/clarification:
• Exhibit 6:
• QPF to CFS designation should cover entire Cemetery parcel;
• Show Blaney Plaza parcel to be redesignated from CR to OS -MR;
• Delete PA to CR in legend;
Response: Corrections noted. Exhibit Amended and included in Attachment 1.
City of Saratoga Page 2
Response to Comments
Draft Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Elements
October 2006
• Exhibit 8:
• Show redesignation of parcel on Sousa Lane from QPF to CFS;
Response: Corrections noted. Exhibit Amended and included in Attachment 1.
• Exhibit 10: Show redesignation of San Marcos Open Space (city -owned
parcel) from QPF to OSMR
• QPF to RVLD only applies to four parcels on Via De Marcos;
• City owned parcel (San Marcos Open Space) from RVLD to OS -MR;
Response: Corrections noted. Exhibit Amended and included in Attachment.
• Add land use exhibit for parcels to be redesignated to Highway 85, near
Saratoga Avenue.
Response: Correction noted. Exhibit 11 added and included in Attachment 1.
Nine comment letters referencing the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were
received during the comment period, at the Study Session on September 27`s, and on
October 11, 2006:
No.
Commenter
Date
1
West Valley Sanitation District
9/12/06
2
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency
9/25/06
3
Santa Clara Valley Water District
9/25/06
4
Maureen Hill
9/25/06
5
Jeffrey Hare
9/26/06
6
Kathleen Casey Coakley
9/26/06
7
Cheriel Jensen
9/26/06
8
Mary Robertson
9/27/06
9
Barbara Stewart
9/27/06
10
Valerie Fitch
9/27/06
11
Sandra Cross
9/27/06
12
Alan & Meg Giberson
10/11/06
Copies of these letters are included in Attachment 2.
Following are responses to each of the comment letters.
1) West Valley Sanitation District
Comment 1: The District notes that the proposed changes to the Elements will have no
impact to District facilities.
City of Saratoga Page 3
Response to Comments
Draft Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Elements
October 2006
Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary.
Comment 2: The District requests that the District be added to the Discussion section at
the bottom of page 52 of the Initial Study.
Response: The West Valley Sanitation District is hereby acknowledged as providing
wastewater treatment and disposal services within Saratoga and this is included by
reference into the Initial Study.
2) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Comment: The District has no comments on the Initial Study at this time.
Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary.
3) Santa Clara Valley Water District
Comment 1: The District notes several discrepancies between the checklist and
Discussion of Impact section in the Initial Study as noted in the comment letter
Response: In all instances the finding of significance contained in the Discussion
section of the Initial Study take precedence over the table designations. These
corrections are hereby included by reference into the Initial Study document.
Comment 2: The District notes that cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge areas an
increased watershed runoff may be significant as development continues. Please describe
how cumulative impacts are determined..
Response: The proposed amendment that would adopt the updated Land use Element
of the General Plan makes no significant changes to the buildout potential for the City
of Saratoga over cumulative, buildout potential under the existing Laird Use Element,
Therefore, cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge areas and increased
watershed runoff is anticipated to be less - than- significant.
4) Maureen Hill
Comment: The commenter asks when the General Plan Update was initiated, what was
the process for noticing the project, when and in what format were community meetings
held and what is the basis for the adequacy of the CEQA determination of the project and
how will the City comply with CEQA for the General Plan as a complete document.
City of Saratoga
Response to Comments
Draft Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Elements
October 2006
Page 4
Response: In responses to the first three questions regarding initiation of the General
Plan update, public notification of the General Plan Update and format of community
meetings regarding the general Plan Update, these are not related to the CEQA
aspects of the project and will be responded to by City staff or consultants as part of
the public hearing process.
Regarding the basis of the adequacy of the CEQA determination for the project, City
staff and City consulting staff have prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA
addressing all of the topics mandated by CEQA. The Initial Study was circulated for a
30 -day public review period as mandated by CEQA. The City Council will ultimately
determine the adequacy of the CEQA documentation recommended by City staff.
hi regard to the comment concerning CEQA compliance for other General Plan
Elements, no other Elements are proposed to be amended at this time and no CEQA
documentation is required until amendments are proposed.
5) Jeffrey Hare
Comment: This comment letter constitutes a formal objection to the proposed Draft Land
Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the General Plan. Copies of all
documents, writings and other public documents pertaining to the project, including he
Initial Study, is requested.
Response: The objection to the Draft Elements is noted. The City of Saratoga is in
process of collecting all public documentation regarding the project as requested by
the commenter.
6) Kathleen Casey Coakley
Comment 1: The commenter states that she also represents five other individuals who
oppose the proposed Land Use Element and Open Space /Conservation Elements updates.
The City should vote on the updated elements after the November elections. This
includes an annexation program. The commenter would stop annexations since these hurt
the future needs of Saratoga residents, since they will be responsible for old county roads,
water and sewage. Landslides and water supply problems are a big expense.
Response: The commenter's concerns about the proposed Elements of timing of City
Council consideration are noted. Concerns regarding the City's annexation policy is
also noted.
City of Saratoga Page 5
Response to Comments
Draft Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Elements
October 2006
7) Cheriel Jensen
Comment: The commenter raises issues with regard to missing policies in the Draft
Elements, lack of public participation, lack of an EIR to assess impacts of the proposed
Elements, incomplete information and a missing land use designations.
Response: The commenter's concern regarding the draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements. These concerns will be considered by the Planning
Commission in their deliberations regarding the proposed Elements and the City
Council as they act n the proposed Elements.
8) Mary Robertson
Comment 1: The commenter is concerned about lack of sufficient noticing of the
September 27, 2006 Planning Commission study session. Why are not area plans also
being considered? The commenter has concerns about the proposed Open
Space /Conservation Element. The commenter also has concerns regarding references to
the Master Plan of Parks and Trails. A concerns is raised regarding OSC Strategy 12.1,
which regards maintaining and increasing an Urban Forest, This should require full
design review and an EIR should be prepared as well. In sum, the commenter strongly
opposes adoption of the proposed Elements.
Response: The commenter's concern regarding the draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements. These concerns will be considered by the Planning
Commission in their deliberations regarding the proposed Elements and the City
Council as they act n the proposed Elements.
Regarding the Open Space /Conservation Element Strategy concerning Urban Forests,
this is a recommended strategy only. If adopted, the City would need to prepare
additional plans for the Urban Forest, as well as consideration of CEQA.
9) Barbara Stewart
Comment: The commenter asks about public noticing for the September 27, 2006
Planning Commission workshop and asks that discussions be tabled until appropriate
noticing is given.
Response: Notice of the Planning Commission workshop was given consistent with
State Law. The Commission has scheduled other workshops and public hearings to
review the Draft Elements.
City of Saratoga Page 6
Response to Comments
Draft Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Elements
October 2006
10) Valerie Fitch
Comment: The commenter cannot attend the September 27, 2006 Planning Commission
workshop and wishes to adopt the letter sent by Mary Robertson (Letter 8).
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required.
11) Sandra Cross
Comment: By filing a Negative Declaration, the City will attempt to avoid an EIR and
any mitigation, After an overturn on a proposed utility tax, the Draft Open
Space /Conservation Element allows the Council to impose taxes. These changes should
be opposed
Response: This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required.
12) Alan & Meg Giberson
Comment: The commenters believe an EIR should be required before this document can
be accepted by the City Council. The proposed Draft Land Use Element is lacking in
detail and, in some instances, is erroneous, that it cannot function as stated in the Draft
Element,. Specific concerns include:
a) The maps of specific parcels do not clearly specify actual boundaries of the
specific plans and should be clarified so that the general public and decision
makers can understand where these parcels are located.
b) Some of language included in the Draft Element is non - specific, such as goals
related to the Village Specific Plan.
c) Some of the language in the Vision Statement lacks definition and are
meaninglessly vague.
d) No Land Use Diagram is included
e) The term "net area" should be better defined.
f) The definition of impervious surface is incomprehensible.
g) Site coverages and densities for Medium Density Residential and multi - family
appear reversed.
h) Allowing up to 100% coverage in the Village area would increase density beyond
that traditionally accepted and valued in the area. The Study and an EIR should
precede acceptance of value.
i) The Draft Land Use Element is incorrect that the OP -S (Open Space - Private) land
use designation is only applied to the Saratoga County Club is incorrect. This
designation is also applied to a private open space grant made by owners D. Jon
Cary and Teresa Cary affecting APN 517 -22 -112.
City of Saratoga
Response to Comments
Draft Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Elements
October 2006
Page 7
Response: Regarding the comment that an EIR be prepared to satisfy CEQA
requirements for the proposed Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation
Elements, City staff has prepared an Initial Study as required by CEQA and is
recommending certification of a Negative Declaration. This final decision regarding
certification of a Negative Declaration versus preparation of EIR will be made by the
Saratoga City Council.
Other comments regarding the content of the Draft Elements are acknowledged and
will be addressed as part of the public hearing process for this project.
Attachment 1
(Amended Exhibits)
City of Saratoga
Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Element Amendments
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Response to Environmental Comments
October 30, 2006
fu:S.!!
Land Use Map
..
en
Exhibit 6
■•■
• iiw R
FM Pol
CR to •
Drag Land Um d Open
N
wlte G
�M
FRUITVALE AVE
Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit 10
0
' ' 10 RVLD to OS-MR
WTV
Attachment 2
(Letters of Comments)
City of Saratoga
Land Use & Open Space /Conservation Element Amendments
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Response to Environmental Comments
October 30, 2006
September 12, 2006
WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Theresa M. Schmidt
Community Development
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements,
Saratoga General Plan
Dear Ms. Schmidt:
SERVING RESIDENTS OF
CITY OF CAMPBELL
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
CITY OF SARATOGA
UNINCORPORATED AREA
�ECEIVF�
SEP -4 4 "05 ')
Ch
COMMUNI'T'Y DEYLL0,10MEN11
District staff has reviewed the document. The proposed changes will have no impact to the district's
sewer system and treatment plant capacity.
At the bottom of Page 52, "Discussion ", please add West Valley Sanitation District for providing
wastewater treatment and disposal within Saratoga.
Please call me if you have questions.
truly S,
* t
3�Jil °
100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell, California 95008 -6608 Tel: (408) 376 -2407 Fax: (408) 364 -1821
09/25/2006 16:52 4883215787 EWIRON ANALYSIS PAGE 02
/49SA0TA rlA4A
, Valley Tronsportation Authority
September 25, 2006
City of Saratoga
Community Development Dcpmtment
13777 Ft 9tvale Aveaue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attention: Therese Schmidt
Subject: Draft Land Use and Open Space Elements of Saratoga General Plan
Dear Ms. Schmidt:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorty (VTA) staff have reviewed the Initial Study for the
Draft Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plant. We have no comments at this
time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project If you have any questions, please call me at
(408) 321 -5784.
Sincerely.
Roy Molseed
Senior Environmental Planner
3331 Nsnlr Fire Strew • $as lets, CA 15134M% - 14mialstretlom 441.321.5555- Customer S4rviq 400.321.1300
File: 31251
Saratoga Creek
September 25, 2006
Ms, Therese M. Scmidt
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
5750 ALMADEN EXPWY
SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686
TELEPHONE (409) 265-2600
FACUOLE 0081 266.0271
www.volleywater.org
u+e2uu oroosnwm uewvre
Subject: Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan
Dear Ms. Scmidt:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the City's notice of intent to adopt
a negative declaration for the subject document received on August 25, 2006.
The District has noticed some discrepancies between the environmental checklist tables and the
descriptions that follow. Please refer to Table 1 for a listing of the environmental factors and
subsequent categories where the discrepancies can be found.
TABLE 1
Environmental Factor Table Designation Descri tion
Cultural Resources
a
No Impacts
Less than Significant
d
Less than Significant
No Impacts
Hazards
h No Impacts Less than Significant
Hydrology
c
No Impacts
Less than Si nificant
d
No Impacts
Less than Significant
No Impacts
Less than Significant
Utilities and Service Systems
d Less than Significant No Impacts
The intent to adopt document states that the adoption of the draft Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements would allow limited new development in the Saratoga planning
area. The District agrees that environmental impacts due to individual developments are, in
most cases, limited; however, cumulative impacts to groundwater recharge areas and increased
watershed runoff may be significant as development continues. Please describe how
cumulative impacts are determined.
pte.,n istrid is n keni*W ..d6 and enhanced_ quality oflivinng in Santa Cloro County through watershad
stewardship and comprehensive management of wafer resources in a practical, Gait- effedive and environmentally Sensitive manner.
Ms. Therese M. Scmidt
Page 2
September 25, 2006
Thank you for the opportunity to review the environmental documents. If you have any
questions, my number is (408) 265 -2607, extension 3135.
Sincerely,
'Id6a CG /
/Wendy Jones, P.E.
Assistant Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc: B. Goldie, S. Tippets, W. Jones, File (2)
st:fd
0925d- pl.doc
Deborah Ungo- McCormick
From:
John Livingstone
Sent:
Monday, September 25, 2006 10:41 AM
To:
Therese Schmidt
Cc:
Deborah Ungo- McCormick
Subject:
FW: General Plan update
C
ATr599706.htrn
Hi Therese
Please respond to this e-mail.
Thank you
John L
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Maureen [mailto :mohillconsulting ®comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:47 PM
TO: John Livingstone
Cc: dave ®saraatoga.ca.us
Subject: General Plan update
I have recently become aware of the City's General Plan update, in
fact according to the Planning Commission Agenda for 9/27, a study
session is planned, followed by a public hearing for the
consideration of approval of the land use element.
I have downloaded the Draft Land Use Element, however the proposed
Negative Declaration and staff report is not included with the
agenda information available to the public. As such
I have several questions for which I would appreciate responses to
prior to Wednesday 9/27.
1). when was the General Plan Update initiated?
2). what was the process for public noticing of the project?
3) When and in what format were community input meetings
conducted?
4) What is the basis for the adequacy of the CEQA determination
for the project? How will the City comply with CEQA for the
General Plan as a complete document?
I plan to attend the Planing Commision study session and public
hearing, and according to the agenda the public is limited to 3
minutes of opening statements. With this time constraint for
address to the Planning Commisioners, a timely reply to the issues
raised will be appreciated.
Please call me if you have any comments or questions to this
request. Thank you,
Maureen Hill, Principal
Owens Hill Consulting
Land. Use, Development and Environmental Planning
18813 Aapesi Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
P. 408 - 872 -0794
F. 408- 872 -0219
M 408- 202 -3994
mohillconsultingecomcast.net
JEFFREY B. HARE
Attorney at Law
A Professional Corporation
501 Stockton Avenue
San Jose California 95126
Tel: 408 - 279 -3555 Fax: 408- 279 -5888
Jbhlaw@pacbell.net
CATHLEEN BOYER
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
September 26, 2006
Via Regular and E -mail
RE: OBJECTION TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUEST CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING PROJECT:
APPLICATION #07 -082 (City Wide) Draft Land Use and Open
Space/Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan and
Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Boyer:
This letter constitutes a formal objection on behalf of the Neighbors of Kevin
Moran Park to the proposed Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements
project, Application #07 -082, which has been scheduled for a Study Session on
September 27, 200&
Pursuant to Government Code §6250, et seq., I hereby request a copy of any and all
documents, writings, and other public records that pertain or in any way relate to the
proposed project, including, but not limited to, the Initial Study, any checklist, or other
documentation prepared by or on behalf of the City of Saratoga concerning the
environmental review for this project under the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey B. Hare
cc: Richard S. Taylor, City Attorney
Page 1 of 2
Deborah Ungo- McCormick
From:
John Livingstone
Sent:
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:27 AM
To:
Dave Anderson; Deborah Ungo- McCormick
Cc:
Barbara Powell
Subject: FW: count this email as 5 Citizens: OPPOSITION to 2006 GENERAL PLAN voted should wait until
after elections—[
FYI
From: Kristin Bore]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:00 AM
To: John Livingstone
Subject: FW: count this email as 5 Citizens: OPPOSITION to 2006 GENERAL PLAN voted should waft until after
elections —!
From: K C (mailto:historycalkc @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:40 PM
To: Kristin Borel; kboyer @saratoga.ca.us; saratogakc @yahoo.coM
Subject: count this email as 5 Citizens: OPPOSMON to 2006 GENERAL PLAN voted should wait until after
elections!
I have permission from the following people to input their objections
about any approval for the 2006 City Council General Plan.
(See articles written in Saratoga News Sept 06, and Sept 20, 2006
Stereopticon, written by Willys Peck.)
Willys Peck
Betty Peck
Gerry English
Jenni Taylor -Young
Kathleen Casey - Coakley
Because not all people have email, letters maybe post marked for today!
The date 25 September 2006, which was a date noted in one copy of a
general plan, that due date was not clear to many citizens, because many
people didn't even know about a NEW GENERAL PLAN!
WHY RUSH to A NEW PLAN, when a new council being elected on
November 7, which will effect the next council budget!
The plan that has been used is dated 1989, realistically Citizens can wait
another 6 months, Citizens want to wait!
The meeting on 27 September, 2006
Wednesday's planning will have many citizens giving their opposition!
9/26/2006
Page 2 of 2
The City Council's vote should wait until after November 7th 2006 elections,
and with more CITIZEN INPUT!
The New City Council will be there to help decide for Saratogans, with more
citizen meetings, and public input, with copies of general plan to be placed
into the library for review, to review for a much longer period of time.
This includes Annexation programs that can cost the next council,
Los Gatos did not force annexation! They asked their citizens, and the
council actually asked county property owners, if they would like
to be annexed!
MY OPINION:
I would stop annexation just because the long term effect on Saratoga's
budget will hurt future needs of Saratogans within the city limits. Being
responsible for old county roads, water and sewage can only lead to big
expenses!.... Any landslide or water supply problems are large ticket expenses,
these type of expenses are never ending, with mountain property. I know,
Woodside knows, all of Hi -way 9 knows, Prospect Avenue people know,
On Orbit Drive, people know, How expensive landslides are!
County will have the money, Saratoga doesn't!
THESE City Council needs to tell the public must be completed before any
NEW City GENERAL PLAN can be accepted!
Kathleen Casey - Coakley
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on .Y ! Stt�.11..13u x1rtP
9/26/2006
Cheriel Jensen
13737 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA 95070
379 -0463
September 26, 2006
Saratoga Mayor and City Council Members
Saratoga Planning Commission
Saratoga City Hall
13777 Fruitvale
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Commissioners,
The proposed Draft Land Use Element the proposed Open Space/Conservation
Elements must be reworked to restore the policies of our General Plan.
MISSING POLICIES:
The POLICIES of the current General Plan Land Use Element and Open
Space/Conservation Elements have been reworded and turned into STRATEGIES. But
nowhere in General Plan law or the General Plan Guidelines are there STRATEGIES.
Attached pages from the General Plan Guidelines show POLICIES are essential.
Policies are the heart of the authority of the General Plan: "A policy is a specific
statement that guides decision - making. It indicates a commitment of the local agency to
a particular course of action." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 15) The proposed Draft Land
Use Element and the proposed Open Space/Conservation Elements, through rewording,
effectively cancels out these General Elements by canceling out the policies.
"An implementation measure is an action, procedure, program or technique that caries
out general plan policy. Each policy must have at least one corresponding
implementation measure." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 16)
Combining policies and implementation into "strategies' is not proper. Without proper
Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements, no development can conform to the
General Plan and therefore cannot be approved
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
The General Plan Guidelines specify a public participation process. The General Plan
Land Use Element Advisory Committee met for two years and in the end advised against
the proposed Draft Land Use Element prepared by consultants. There is an assumption
that public participation means actually listening to the public, especially those who have
an official role and who have invested two years in the process. Surprisingly, the staff
has brought the rejected Draft to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
has no Environmental Impact Report and no agreed upon document to review.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
If the proposed Draft Land Use Element is to be considered by the Planning Commission,
a proper Environmental Impact Report must be prepared so the Planning Commission has
a proper basis to evaluate it. If the proposed Draft Land Use Element and Open
Space /Conservation Elements are assumed evaluated in an older Environmental Impact
Report or Reports, those reports should be brought forward to the Planning Commission
so a proper environmental review can be done.
If "strategies" are not reworded to restore "policies and implementation," the loss of our
policies is certainly subject to an Environmental Impact Report for that reason alone.
Assuming this mistake will be swiftly corrected, an Environmental Impact Report, either
a new or an older applicable report is still necessary.
The proposed language says: "All uses or their expansions, including building intensity,
are evaluated through the use permit process and must comply with criteria indicating
their compatibility with adjacent uses." (Draft LUE, P. 14) But this is a backwards
process. The Environmental Impact Report should be done at the first stage of a project.
"CEQA Guidelines §15126 specifically requires that an EIR, including a general plan
EIR, address feasible alternatives that will reduce or avoid one or more of the significant
effects associated with the proposed plan. The E1R must also analyze the "no project"
alternative." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 43) There have been significant additions to
the potential for densification since the last General Plan Revision. The Draft Land Use
Element includes additional significant potential for growth, especially with the Abrams
property changes. An Environmental Impact Report is the only honest way to ass=
these proposals. The proposed Draft Land Uses Element and Draft Open
Space/Conservation Elements cannot rely on an EIR that does not exist.
The impact of the freeway is now more evident and it is clear it's Environmental Impact
Report failed to honestly report the impacts it has had on our traffic flow, air quality
including vastly increased particulates, noise levels, and growth inducing impact The
Draft Land Use Element proposes to designate the freeway corridor with no limitations
on additional lanes. A Negative Declaration is therefore not appropriate for this reason.
Incomplete information:
"Solid policy depends on solid information. The analysis of data collected during the
planning process provides local officials with the knowledge about trends, existing
conditions, and projections that they need to formulate policy." (General Plan
Guidelines, P. 15) Also see General Plan Guidelines, P. 136 -141 and 201 -204 and P. 240
attached.
"The planning staff must distill the mass of raw data that has been collected during the
early stages of plan preparation into usable form. The analysis of data serves as the
bridge of logic from raw data to policy." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 42.)
Z,
Nowhere is there an assessment of undeveloped land that can be developed under the
Land Use Plan proposal, land that can be redeveloped for different uses or densities (for
example, land that masquerades as Commercial Retail but is actually half high density
residential), and land built at the uses allowed but not built at the densities or intensities
allowed How can the environmental aspects of development be evaluated if the vacant or
underdeveloped land is not mapped nor quantified? How much of the remaining land is
flood plane, how much is landslide, how much is fault zone, how much is too steep or
potentially unstable to build roads? How do these factors effect development potential
under the existing policies?
The Planning Commission and the public were recently surprised to see the three story
proposal that would completely change the character of and intensity in the village, but
the current plan apparently now allows such massive changes that have never been
addressed in an EIR. How many more dwelling units could be added in our commercial
areas under the 50% residential in commercial policy? How many dwelling units could
be added to our residential areas with the granny unit policy? What does this mesa for
traffic congestion, noise, and aquifer recharge? Where is the EIR that assesses thew
impacts?
Nowhere is there an assessment of the extent of the reliable water supply or the integrity
of local collection and aquifer recharge system essential to our water availability as
densification and land coverage increases. The capacity of the sewage treatment plant we
depend on and the need for and its potential for expansion due to designated land uses is
not discussed. Nowhere is there assessment of the quality of our air, what steps can be
taken to improve our air and how the options for intensification and congestion built into
the Draft Land Use Element will impact our air.
Nowhere is there assessment of the impact of global warning on our city and our well
being and what approaches can be taken to do our part to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Nowhere is there discussion of the impact of noise on land uses, and the failure to protect
1/3 of our city from Highway 85 noise levels that exceed state and our own general plan
standards for residential land uses.
There is no linking of land uses with the status and capacity of the roads in Saratoga or
en -route to job centers of the San Francisco Bay Area For example, the Abrams
property is proposed to be designated Commercial Retail (currently Professional Office)
without any analysis of the current traffic in that area now, at times, completely impacted
with traffic from the freeway on and off -ramps
Nowhere is the population or its characteristics, household size and composition
discussed either current or as the population ages.
9
The Draft does not explain that Saratoga does not create any significant housing demand,
but instead fills demand caused by the industrial land uses in other parts of Santa Clara
County and the San Francisco Bay Area
Nowhere is there a discussion of the steps that,have been taken to honor our history on
the ground, such as preserving significant historical structures and trees, how permitted
land use densities influence and impact these and how the Draft Land Use Element
should account for and protect these values.
"Data collection, data analysis, and special studies should be coordinated with the needs
of the CEQA document being written for the plan. In the interest of efficiency, data
collection and analysis should be comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of both the
CEQA document and the general plan. For instance, the traffic analysis prepared for the
land use and circulation elements must be complete enough to allow for the evaluation of
alternative plans, the final plan, and the project alternatives discussed in the general
plan's final EIR." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 42) Alternatives to the proposals, as
required by CEQA are nowhere to be found
Assessment of the state of our riparian corridors, our flora and fauna and the role of flora
in moderating our temperature, energy dependence, air quality or other well being is
nowhere to be found
The Abrams site has been proposed for redesignation to Commercial Retail from
Professional Office. The site is big enough that the Commercial Retail designation could
easily mean a big -box warehouse -scale development, especially when the potential for
50% of the site under the proposed Commercial Retail designation could be high density,
residential. Such a facility in that location would be completely out of character with
Saratoga, violating our primary goals, making our general plan internally inconsistent.
MISSING LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Missing from the land use designations is an equivalent to the County's Hillside
designation. The county Hillside designation is not a residential land use designation and
the densities permitted for land divisions are far lower than any land use designation the
city has. Yet the introduction states that ail county land within our sphere of influence is
slated to eventually be incorporated into our city, Without an equivalent city land use
category designation, and application to these Hillside areas, the potential for growth of
residential land uses in the steep, unsuitable hillside areas is increased Without such a
designation to protect the hillsides, the Environmental Impact Report should address
these hillside areas and their potential for development.
A recent Santa Cruz court case made it clear that a jurisdiction can rule out logging in its
hillsides by General Plan designation. Because the watershed is so critical and fragile the
hillside land use category should also include a prohibition on logging.
M
Private educational/tutoring facilities are now only allowed in Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning Districts by use permit. The Land Use Element should make clear that just as the
City itself sponsors classes of many kinds in provided facilities to enhance the quality of
our lives, private classes also enhance the quality of life and should be allowed in a wider
range of Land Use Categories and should be easier to establish If space cannot be
provided by the city at least they should not be so thoroughly restricted and required to
get an expensive use permit.
OTHER MISSING OR INCORRECT DATA:
The list of schools fails to mention that part of Saratoga is in the Campbell School
District and fails to list Marshall Lane School (Elementary School). The General Plan is
relied on for accurate background data and thus it is especially important the data is
accurate. School District maps should be consulted to make sure other districts such as
Moorland are not left out
The distance between Saratoga and San Francisco is misreported
Though not operating, the quarry in the Western hills above Quarry Road should be
acknowledged for its effect on downstream erosion, siltation and the potential for
flooding. (Draft Open Space Element/Conservation Element, P. 17)
Vasona Creek is missing from the fist of creeks, P. 17, Open SpaceJConservation
Element.
MISSING POLICIES RELATING TO HAZARDS, RIPARIAN VALUES, STEEP
AND UNSTABLE LANDS:
It should be clear that land use element densities are subject to reductions, sometimes
significant to avoid land -based hazards, where access is difficult or impossible, where
adequate water and other resources are not available, and to protect resources including
water resources, endangered species, riparian corridors, views, historical structures,
historical places and historic and other valuable trees.
This is not a comprehensive evaluation because after the rewording to restore policies
other issues may arise. I have not had the Draft long enough to study it with the care it
deserves.
Yours truly,
Cheriel Jensen
5
From: Mary Robertson [robertson.b.m@mindspring.com] CITY OF SARATOCA
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 PM
To: Cathleen Boyer; jill hunter; Manny_Cappello@amet.com; lindarodgers @msn.com;
jhlavaogden @Comcest.net; yanniezhao@yaheo.com
Subject: Draft of Land use and Open Space use.
There is a study session occurring tonight of which I will be unable to attend. I am
concerned that this draft review process has not been properly noticed amongst other
concerns. I do not see the General Plan changes noticed on the home page of Saratoga City
Web site. It had not been posted for review at the city's kiosk as well since I understand
the review process was to have started in August. Now are citizens supposed to know this
is open for study unless they are part of a city wide notification list?
Why are the area plans not being reviewed in conjunction with the land use portion at the
same time? The land use portion of the G/P refers to them. These are very specific to
each area for development and needs. Now can a negative declaration be even suggested
without defining the area plans again along with the implications for development at
various locations. when making these types of changes to the G /P, a negative declaration
is unacceptable.
Squally, I have similar concerns for the Open Space portion of the General Plan. The
wording of Tax Revenues on page 27 is a big concern to me and I fully object to such
wording that "that the city could choose to Pass." This appears to take such choice
directly out of the hands of the people and I fully object.
I am also objecting to Page 27, Section titled Master Plan of Parks and Trails. This
section indicates reference made to a Parks and Trails Master plan which refers to a
number of specific Methods to expand park and recreation facilities. Claiming a negative
declaration to put in this portion of the General Plan while talking about expanding
facilities is unacceptable. This is as good as stating moving from a passive park to an
intensified use active park has no impact. This is incorrect and for this reason and
more, I am objecting to passage of this Open Space Policy.
I addition the strategy Of OSC 12.1 is unacceptable as well.
Maintaining and increasing our Urban forest is necessary to retain the rural character of
the very city we live in. A full design and review process should take place before any
project is even considered. An SIR should be conducted as well. Once again, it appears
that by adopting the Negative Dec, the city is trying to skirt around all possible BIR
issues. This is unacceptable.
For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose any adoption of these General Plan changes
going forth for study tonight and would strongly and appropriately suggest that this city
NOT Do a negative Declaration and proceed with another form of the BIR.
why is there such a rush to dump these changes on a new council which should be involved
in the process since they will be stuck with the administration of the G/P changes.
Please make sure that my concerns which are too numerous to list are heard by this review
board and public present.
Respectfully yours,
Mary Robertson
Saratoga Resident
1
Cathleen
Barbara Stewart fbarbara @barbarastewart.comj C17• uuv
From: v �,
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:46 PM `'h'AP4TOGA
To: Cathleen Boyer; jhunter95070 @yahoo.com; Manny_Cappello@amat.wM.
lindarodgers @msn.com; jhlavaogden @Comcast.net; yanniezhao@yahoo.com
Subject: Land Use and Open Space Before You This Evening
Dear Planning commission:
i understand there is an item before you this evening, regarding changes to the General
Plan with regard to use of the open space and density of land use. What methods of
noticing were given to us that these items were up for review and how would a negative
declaration possibly be appropriate given the contentious issues within this city
regarding the use of open space and land use?
Please table this discussion until appropriate noticing is given and the Saratoga citizens
have had a chance to review the impact any decision or change to the General Plan would
have on our city. why do we feel that so many things are slipped in under the radar?
Barbara Stewart
(408) 366 -0111
1
Page 1 of 1
Cathleen Boyer
From: VFltch1181 @aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:54 PM
SARAJOGA
To: robertson.b.m@mindspdng.com; Cathleen Boyer, jhunter9507O @yahoo.00m;
Manny_Cappeilo @amat.com; lindarodgers @msn.com; jhlevaogden @Comcast.net;
yanniezhao@yehoo.com
Subject: Re: [KMP- Neighbors] Draft of Land use and Open Space use.
Since on such short notice I am unable to attend this meeting, I wish to adopt the letter sent by Mary Robertson
as my own and request that the Council note my objections as noted in her letter.
Thank you.
Valerie Fitch
Viewoak Drive
9/27/2006
October 11, 2006
TO: Honorable Members of the Saratoga Planning Commission
Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
FROM: Alan and Meg Giberson
15561 Glen Una Drive
Saratoga Sphere of Influence
Los Gatos, CA
RE: EIR required for Proposed amendments and modifications to the General
Plan Land Use Element
DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT ( "DLUE ")
Further study under the California Environmental Quality Act, including an EIR, should
be required before this document can be accepted by the City Council. The proposed
DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT ( "DLUE") is so lacking in detail —and in some cases,
so erroneous —that it cannot function as a useful "central framework for the entire
General Plan and as a guide to planners, the general public and decision makers as to the
desired pattern of development for Saratoga" —which is its stated goal. Specific
comments follow that demonstrate some, but not all, instances illustrating these failures.
1) Map of Specific Plan Areas in Draft Land Use Element (Exhibit LU -3, online
page 11 of 33, online) does not clearly indicate the actual boundaries of the
individual specific plans (with streets, etc.), making it useless for citizens
attempting to determine affected properties. The boundaries of these areas should
be shown with sufficient references to identified streets, or other specifics, to
enable use by the intended general public and decision makers.
2) Non - specific language includes: "main goals of the Saratoga Village Specific
Plan are aimed at %
COMMENT: "Aimed at" is so vague as to be unenforceable; it lacks
language that would provide specific mandatory application. This goal should be
made more specific.
3) Some vision goals are: "Where the common good prevails"
"Where neighbors work for the common good;"
COMMENT: The "common good" lacks definition, making the
statements meaninglessly vague.
4) No Land Use Map is included as Exhibit LU -5, although the BLUE states that
"All properties within the Saratoga Planning Area have been grouped into land
use categories, as shown on the Land Use Map, which is included as an integral
part of the Land Use Element as Exhibit LU -5." (DLUE, page 11).
COMMENT: In place of a usable draft Land Use Map, there is a
statement that one will be included once approved by the City Council. Lacking
the important up -to -date map Land Use Map, citizen review of the land use
categories cannot occur. As the DLUE notes, the Map should be an integral part
of the LUE; it is not. Further study and inclusion of the new map for citizen
review and comment must precede any action by the City on the Land Use
Element.
5) "net area is generally defined "(DLUE, page 11)
COMMENT: A "general" definition does not give sufficient certainty to
the "net area" meaning. Any exceptions or exclusions should be noted and
discussed.
6) "Impervious coverage is defined as any structure constructed surface that
disrupts the aesthetics of the landscape."
COMMENT: What is a "structure constructed surface "? Again, the
definition provided is not workable because it is incomprehensible.
7) Site coverage and densities for Medium Density Residential (4.35 to 2.90
DU /net acre, with 50 -60% maximum intensity of building and impervious surface
coverage) and Multi- family (density 14.5 DU /net acre with maximum 40% site
coverage) appear reversed. An explanation should address the differences.
8) Allowing up to 100% building coverage of the net site area in the downtown
Village area would increase intensity beyond what has been traditionally accepted
and valued in that area. (DLUE, page 13) This does not preserve the historic
"Victorian village look" treasured by Saratogans. Study and an EIR should
precede acceptance of this value, as of the other changes and additions.
9) The DLUE incorrectly asserts (at page 15): "Private Ownership (OS -P) The
Saratoga Country Club Golf Course is currently the only site that falls under this
designation."
COMMENT: There is privately -owned open space other than the Country
Club. As the City of Saratoga should know, and as it has been notified (as
recently as March 3, 2005, by a letter to Saratoga Planning and Building, Attn:
Planning Director), a private open space grant was made by landowners D. John
Carey and Teresa R. Carey and accepted by City in 1956 -86, affecting APN 517-
22 -112. Evidence of the City decisions which memorialized the City's
acceptance of that open space (Lot Line 7, GPA 85 -2, Re- zoning -C -219) may be
found recorded at J663 page 1563, et seq.; J484 page 990 -996. A recorded map
showing the "Open Space Easement" may be found at Book 550 page 32, which
shows "Exhibit A" as described in Book 1663 page 1567.
2
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
PUBLIC NOTICE AND NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT APPLICANT:
PROJECT CONTACT PERSON:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD:
Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements
of the Saratoga General Plan
City -wide applicability
City of Saratoga
Therese Schmidt, AICP
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 - 868 -1230
September 27, 2006 (Study Session)
October 11, 2006 (Planning Commission Hearing
August 25 — September 25, 2006
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes an update of the City's Land Use and Open
Space /Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan. These Elements establish City goals and
policies related to the location, type, density and intensity of development in the City as well as the
location of trails, open space and natural resource areas.
NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
has been prepared for the project. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration certify
that the City of Saratoga has determined that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be
associated with the project. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and
project plans are available for review at the City of Saratoga Community Development Department,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue. You may also call the phone number listed above if you have any questions, or
to request a copy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 30 -day public review period
ends at the end of the day September 25, 2006. All written comments must be received by this time and
should be sent to: Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070;
Atm. Therese Schmidt; or faxed to: (408) 867 -8555.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN THAT a Planning Commission Study Session will be schedule on
September 27, 2006, and a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration and the project will be
scheduled for the October 11, 2006. All interested parties are encouraged to attend and be heard. When
the meeting date has been set, the City of Saratoga will send out an announcement to property owners
within 500 feet of the subject site and will post it on its Web site. To confirm the meeting date and time
please visit the City's Web site or call (408) 868 -1230.
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 07-
A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA BY
CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY (RLD) TO RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW DENSITY (BLVD) FOR THE
FOLLOWING EIGHT PARCELS: 517 -18 -018; 517-19-082,083,084 and 085; 517-
20 -016 and 021; AND 517 -22 -004
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has initiated a General Plan Amendment to
change the General Plan Map Land Use Designation of eight (8) parcels to correct an
discrepancy between the City's General Plan Land Use Map and the City's Zoning Map;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment ( "Project ") would change
the land use designation from Residential Low Density (RLD) to Residential Very Low
Density (RVLD) for the eight (8) parcels shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65860 of the California Government
Code requires consistency between a city's general plan and zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which
time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence regarding this matter on November 8, 2006, at which time they adopted a
Resolution recommending approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed hearing at which
time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
and,
WHEREAS, the subject General Plan Amendment has been evaluated pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City Council has adopted a
Negative Declaration for the Project and further concludes that the Project qualifies for a
Categorical Exemption from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15305, "Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations," allowing for minor alterations in
land use limitations, which do not result in any changes in land use or density since the
proposed amendment would not allow the creation of any new parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed under Measure G's two step evaluation
process and it has been determined that it is not subject to Measure G; and
WHEREAS, as demonstrated by the materials in Community Development
Department File No. 07 -140, the Project is consistent with the text and policies of the
General Plan, including the housing element, and the sites identified in the housing
element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing
need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. This General Plan amendment
will not reduce, require, or permit the reduction of the residential density for any
parcel to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the
Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance
with housing element law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is
consistent with land use and housing goals and policies of the General Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga hereby amends the Saratoga General Plan Land Use Map by changing the land
use designation from Residential Low Density (RLD) to Residential Very Low Density
(RVLD) for the eight (8) parcels shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga City Council, State of California, the 17h
day of January, 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved:
Aileen Kao, Mayor
Feet
Exhibit "A"
General Plan Amendment for:
14931 Vickery Lane; 28020, 28021, & 28011 Audrey Smith Lane; 20161 &20151 Hill Ave; 20170 Bonnie Brae
(APNs: 517-18-18;517-19-82-85;517-20-16,21;517-22-004)
From:
Residential Low Density (RLD)
to
Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. 07-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING OF PARCELS 517-12-020,517-12-021, and 517 -12 —
022 FROM R -1- 40,000 TO R -1- 20,000
The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Parcels 517 -12 -020, 517 -12 -021, and 517 -12 — 022 are each less than
30,000 square feet in size and have a current zoning designation of R-
1- 40,000 typically requiring a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
The General Plan designation for these parcels is "RLD" (Residential
Low Density) which is compatible with the R -1- 20,000 zoning
designation.
B. Following a public hearing on November 8, 2006 at which all
interested persons had an opportunity to be heard the Planning
Commission recommended reclassifying the subject parcels from the
R -1- 40,000 zone district to the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The City
Council considered the Planning Commission Recommendation at a,
public hearing at which all interested persons had an opportunity to be
heard on January 17, 2007.
C. As demonstrated by the materials in Community Development
Department File No. 07 -140, this rezoning is consistent with the
adopted General Plan, including the housing element and the sites
identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the
jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section
65584. This zoning map amendment will not reduce, require, or
permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower
residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the
Department of Housing and Community Development in determining
compliance with housing element law.
D. In order to apply a zoning designation that is more closely aligned with
the General Plan designation and to remove the current non-
conforming status of the subject parcels it is appropriate to amend the
Zoning Map to change the zoning of the parcels from R -1- 40,000 to R-
1- 20,000.
Section 2. Zoning Man Amendment.
Pursuant to Section 15 -85 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, the City of Saratoga Zoning
Map is hereby amended by reclassifying the Zoning District designation from R -1- 40,000
to R -1- 20,000 for the three (3) parcels shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), this action is exempt
under 14 California Code of Regulations ( "CEQA Guidelines ") section pursuant to
Section 15305, "Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations" (allowing for minor
alterations in land use limitations, which do not result in any changes in land use or
density applicable here because the reclassification would allow continued single - family
land uses consistent with existing land uses on the subject parcels, would not increase the
allowed density, and would not provide an opportunity for creation of new parcels) and
CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (the amendments are exempt because it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment).
Section 4. Publication.
This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its
adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day of January, 2007, and was
adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 7th day of February
2007:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved:
Aileen Kao, Mayor
Exhibit "A"
Fee
Zoning Amendment for:
20500, 20568 & 20550 Lomita Avenue
(APNs: 517- 12 -20, 21, & 22)
From:
R -1- 40,000 to R -1- 20,000
Attachment 4
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 5
Mr. Mike Vierhus replied yes.
Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Mike Vierhus if staff had recommended the use of story poles.
Mr. Mike Vierhus said that the issue was not discussed.
Commissioner Nagpal asked whether new columns are going up as part of this addition.
Mr. Mike Vierhus said yes. The columns would be located in a pavilion outside the living
room. There are presently two columns and four are proposed facing the pool on the interior
of the property.
Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a fairly straightforward project with no impacts from this
addition. She added that since the columns are only on the interior of the site they should be
okay.
Commissioner Zhao said that she could make all findings. She added that there is no
interference with views or privacy and that she is okay with this project.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava,
the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Design Review
Approval (Application #07 -004) to remodel a single -story single - family
residence with a total floor area of all buildings on the site totaling 7,369
square feet on property located 21116 Comer Drive, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: None
_:1
Chair Rodgers suggested that the remaining two items on this evening's agenda be heard in
reverse order with Item No. 3 (11 Parcels — General Plan & Zoning Amendments) to be
handled prior to Item No. 2 (Draft Land Use and Open Space /Conservation Elements of the
Saratoga General Plan and Negative Declaration).
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 6
parcels. The proposed project includes amending the General Plan designation of eight (8)
parcels from RLD to RVLD and amending the zoning designation of three (3) parcels from R1
— 40,000 to R1- 20,000. (Therese Schmidt)
Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows:
• Reported that this is a City - initiated action to correct inconsistencies between the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan for 11 parcels.
• Explained that the General Plan is mandated by State Law and requires consistency.
• Said that the 11 parcels are currently designated as Residential Low Density (RLD). For
that GP designation, the corresponding Zoning should be R -1- 20,000.
• Stated that the actual Zoning is currently R- 1- 40,000. However, with this Zoning
designation, the minimum parcel size must be 40,000 square feet and the General Plan
designation of RLD requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
• Informed that when there is inconsistency, the General Plan designation must rule and
parcels could be subdivided. There is the potential that 11 parcels could be split with this
inconsistency.
• Said that the intent with this amendment is to bring everyone in line so that the Zoning and
General Plan designations for these 11 parcels match.
• Explained that the staff proposes to rezone three parcels from R- 1- 40,000 to R -1- 20,000.
This prevents these lots from being subdivided any further.
• Added that staff is also proposing that the remaining eight parcels have a General Plan
Amendment to Residential Very Low Density.
• Said that one parcel on Vickery Lane is proposed to be left non - conforming at R- 1- 40,000.
• Stated that this amendment is exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
as it is not creating new lots or increasing density.
• Added that the Initial Study prepared for the General Plan found no impacts with this
proposed amendment.
Commissioner Hunter advised that she had received four notices for this amendment and
wondered if she is compelled to recuse herself.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer explained that if this Zoning Code amendment affects her any
more than the general public she would need to recuse herself. If not, there is no reason to
recuse from participation.
Commissioner Hunter replied that there is no specific impact to her property.
Planner Therese Schmidt advised that there have been several calls from neighbors and
property owners but no concerns or problems were raised. One email was received from a
Hill Avenue property owner who is not in favor of the General Plan amendment to his property,
as he prefers to retain the existing RLD designation with R -1- 20,000 Zoning to allow for
potential subdivision.
Commissioner Zhao asked how this inconsistency was created and which designation was
created first.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 7
Planner Therese Schmidt said she must defer this question to the Director.
Director John Livingstone advised that he does not have that history.
Commissioner Zhao asked of the three Lomita properties were the result of a subdivision.
Planner Therese Schmidt said she does not have that history.
Commissioner Hunter said that these are all older homes, some of which are historical from
about 1900. The discrepancies are simply the result of carelessness or inadvertent mistakes.
Chair Rodgers recounted that the previous Community Development Director was looking at
maps one day and noticed that they didn't match.
Commissioner Hlava reminded that much of this likely occurred before computers when
General Plan maps were hand drawn. Lots of times things just didn't get caught.
Commissioner Nagpal asked about this item being exempt from CEQA while a Negative
Declaration was prepared for the next item on tonight's agenda.
Planner Therese Schmidt reminded that the Negative Declaration was prepared for the
General Plan Amendment. This application was going to be a part of the overall General Plan
Update but staff realized there were three straggling parcels that didn't need a General Plan
Amendment but rather Zoning Amendment to make the inconsistency go away.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if a vote on the Negative Declaration would occur in relation to
these 11 parcels.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied only the portion of that Negative Declaration that pertains to
this application.
Chair Rodgers clarified that eight parcels would receive a General Plan Amendment and not
the three that need re- zoning.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied correct.
Commissioner Hunter reminded that the process had been expedited due to concerns over
the possibility of Proposition 90 passing in this recent election. Proposition 90 did not pass so
the need for quick action is now a moot point.
Commissioner Nagpal asked how large the house is on the Hill property.
Planner Therese Schmidt said she is not sure how large that home is. She said that the
parcel is over 40,000 square feet and so it could be subdivided.
Commissioner Zhao reminded that the General Plan designation takes precedence over the
Zoning designation when they are inconsistent.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 8
Chair Rodgers asked for clarification that one amendment would handle all 11 parcels.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied correct.
Chair Rodgers pointed out that one letter received mentioned lack of due process. She asked
whether this evening's hearing is what constitutes due process.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this public hearing is part of the due process. The
Planning Commission will forward its recommendation on to Council. Another noticed public
hearing would be conducted by Council, which offers the public another opportunity to be
heard.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the owner of the Hill property sent the email.
Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes.
Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Trish Cypher:
• Said that she appreciates the ability to address this Commission on this issue.
• Explained that she was on the Land Use Element Update Task Force Committee.
• Stressed the importance in recognizing that this item is just the 11 parcels and not the
entire General Plan Land Use Element update.
Ms. Cheriel Jensen:
• Stated that she is in favor of this amendment.
• Pointed out that a General Plan Amendment was processed with the North Campus
was changed back.
• Asked how many General Plan Amendments the City can have.
Chair Rodgers replied that the City is allowed four per year.
Planner Therese Schmidt said that that is four per calendar year. There has been just
one so far this year.
Ms. Cheriel Jensen reiterated that she is in favor of this amendment but is concerned
about the inclusion of the Negative Declaration information with this item.
Mr. Jerry Bruce, representative of the Saratoga Federated Church, said that there are
potential corrections to the mapping.
Chair Rodgers apologized for the confusion caused with Items 2 and 3 being handled in
reverse order this evening and Explained that -Mr. Jerry Bruce's issues need to be raised
with the next hearing item.
Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 9
Chair Rodgers asked about the inclusion of the Negative Declaration.
Planner Therese Schmidt:
• Explained that it is in the packet and is part of the application only as it pertains to this
General Plan Amendment for the eight parcels. The remaining three parcels to
undergo a Zoning Amendment are Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
• Said that the Negative Declaration is an available resource and that the Planning
Commission can forward a recommendation to Council to approve that portion that
pertains and it can stand alone. Not the entire Negative Declaration will be approved
as part of this action.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the entire Negative Declaration would be forwarded to
Council with this General Plan Amendment.
Planner Therese Schmidt said she would defer to the Director on this.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if that is possible to only apply a portion of the Negative
Declaration to this amendment.
Director John Livingstone explained that when the General Plan process was split into
three components (Land Use Element, Open Space /Conservation and General
Plan /Zoning Map Amendments), the City Attorney advised that staff could continue to use
the same environmental document for each phase. When approved, any one of three
phases can be based upon only the portion of the Negative Declaration that applies.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that when the evaluation was done for the Negative
Declaration the entire Land Use Element was looked at. He added that there was a
concern in using only a subset of this document instead of the entire document. He said
that the Negative Declaration is only to apply to the 8 of 11 parcels that will receive a
General Plan Amendment. There is language that clarifies this in the title as well as in the
"be it further resolved" language.
Chair Rodgers said or it could also be added as another "whereas" statement.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Negative Declaration would be attached as an exhibit.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to know which sections specifically relate
to these parcels.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer pointed to Table 1 that identifies these eight parcels. He
added that the Planning Commission could elect to recommend that Council split the
Negative Declaration but the document is pretty intermingled.
Chair Rodgers asked how the eight parcels would be tied to the Negative Declaration.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 10
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that they are already referenced in the title and that
the Negative Declaration is only for eight parcels that will be listed.
Chair Rodgers asked for specific language.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested the text as follows, "be it further resolved that
the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative
Declaration dated August 23, 2006, and attached hereto as Exhibit A, for a General Plan
Amendment to redesignate from RLD (Residential Low Density) to RVLD (Residential
Very Low Density) the eight parcels identified as 20152 Hill Avenue; 20161 Hill Avenue;
20170 Bonnie Brae; 28010 Audrey Smith Lane; 28020 Audrey Smith Lane; 28021 Audrey
Smith Lane; 28011 Audrey Smith Lane; and 14931 Vickery Avenue."
Commissioner Nagpal asked what about the Negative Declaration itself. Does it warrant
a change?
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that an attempt could be made to pull the document
apart. He added that there are no impacts as far as the eight parcels are concerned. It
could be determined that no Negative Declaration is needed for these eight parcels and
simply designate them as Categorically Exempt.
Commissioner Nagpal asked the City Attorney if he is recommending that action instead
of adoption of the Negative Declaration for the eight parcels.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Negative Declaration was prepared to cover
this as well. However, if the Planning Commission feels there is confusion, the clean and
easy way is to find this General Plan Amendment to be Categorically Exempt.
Commissioner Hlava asked if the eight parcels should be designated as Categorically
Exempt.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission could elect to make that
recommendation to Council.
Commissioner Hlava pointed out that there is no change to density.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this simply represents a minor amendment to
Land Use regulations.
Chair Rodgers asked the City Attorney if it is safer to use the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Nagpal asked what the Attorney's recommendation is for this item.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that once it has been prepared, it is probably better
to stay with the Negative Declaration and have the Categorical Exemption as more of a
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006 Page 11
fallback position. The motion can say either the Negative Declaration or Categorical
Exemption is appropriate.
Commissioner Kundtz supported using the Negative Declaration.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Commission has not evaluated the Negative
Declaration yet but will with the next agenda item.
Commissioner Hlava said that she is not comfortable since the Negative Declaration is a
large document that is an all or nothing deal. She said this would be better handled with
a Categorical Exemption.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer again recommended the use of this environmental
documentation.
Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that a Negative Declaration is better than a Categorical
Exemption much like an EIR is better than a Negative Declaration.
Chair Rodgers said that as applied to these eight parcels, she has no problem with either
the Negative Declaration or the Categorical Exemption although the Negative Declaration
is stronger.
Commissioner Hlava said that the use of this Negative Declaration doesn't seem clear for
the record but will defer to the City Attorney's recommendation.
Commissioner Nagpal said that if the City Attorney recommends this, she is fine with the
added text provided by him. She added that she wanted to be on the record that this
Negative Declaration is currently only to be applied to these eight parcels undergoing a
General Plan designation change from RLD to RVLD.
Commissioner Hlava reminded that there is one letter from someone who doesn't want
this amendment for his property. Staffs recommendation is that the better way to go is
with three parcels receiving a Zone Change and eight parcels receiving a change in
General Plan designation to create consistency for all 11 parcels.
Chair Rodgers re- opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Mark Weisler, Owner of one of the Hill Avenue properties under consideration this
evening, pointed out that there are other 20,000 square foot lots located near his.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Mark Weisler if his is a flat lot.
Mr. Mark Weisler said that there is a gentle slope of less than 10 percent. He added that
his home is approximately 2,400 square feet.
Chair Rodgers re- closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006
Page 12
Chair Rodgers advised that three resolutions would be required. The first is the
recommendation of a Negative Declaration for the eight parcels, as amended by the City
Attorney.
City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested addition additional text, "Be it further resolved
that the circumstances of the General Plan Amendment would allow a Categorical
Exemption as well."
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,
the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution, as amended by the City
Attorney, recommending the adoption of a Negative Declaration for a
General Plan Amendment (Application #07 -140) from RLD (Residential
Low Density) to RVLD (Residential Very Low Density)for eight parcels
identified as 20152 Hill Avenue; 20161 Hill Avenue; 20170 Bonnie Brae;
28010 Audrey Smith Lane; 28020 Audrey Smith Lane; 28021 Audrey
Smith Lane; 28011 Audrey Smith Lane; and 14931 Vickery Avenue, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: Hunter
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal,
the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending approval
of a General Plan Amendment (Application #07 -140) from RLD (Residential
Low Density) to RVLD (Residential Very Low Density)for eight parcels
identified as 20152 Hill Avenue; 20161 Hill Avenue; 20170 Bonnie Brae;
28010 Audrey Smith Lane; 28020 Audrey Smith Lane; 28021 Audrey
Smith Lane; 28011 Audrey Smith Lane; and 14931 Vickery Avenue, to
reach conformity with the Zoning designation, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: Hunter
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal,
the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending Zoning
Map Amendments (Application #07 -140) on three parcels located on
Lomita Avenue from R- 1- 40,000 to R -1- 20,000 to achieve consistency with
the assigned General Plan designation, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello
ABSTAIN: Hunter
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEP�: City Manama's Office CITY MANAGER: 171
r-\.
PREPARED BY:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering the Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal of
Hazardous Vegetation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The attached resolution represents the second step in Saratoga's Hazardous Vegetation
Abatement Program administered by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. The
Commissioner has sent owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement three notices informing
them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notices also
informed them that they may present objections at the public hearing.
A representative from the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner will be attending the meeting
to answer any questions Councilmembers may have on this topic.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None to the City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to
property owner.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Abatement process by the County will not proceed. It would be necessary to depend upon the
property owners to take care of their own abatement.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Upon adoption, the County will begin abatement.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Saratoga News in December 2006 as required
bylaw. The County mailed-three. notices to all of the affected property owners.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 07-,
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ORDERING
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL
OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council has declared hazardous vegetation growing on
certain properties to be a public nuisance by Resolution No. 06 -097 adopted December 20, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner did give three notices to all
property owners of land on which hazardous vegetation which have been declared a public
nuisance are growing; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said notice was held on January 17, 2007; and
WHEREAS, final action on any protests or objections to the proposed removal of weeds
has been made by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Office of the Agricultural
Commissioner shall cause the abatement of hazardous vegetation as designated by resolution
dated December 20, 2006, by having said weeds destroyed or removed, and any property owner
shall have the right to destroy or remove such weeds himself or herself, or have the same
destroyed or removed at his or her own expense, provided that such vegetation shall have been
removed prior to the arrival of the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner or his authorized
representative to remove them.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 17th day of January 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Norman Kline, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE January 179 2007
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
PREPAID By; Richard Ta for
City Attorney
AGENDAITEM.�
r '
CITY MANAGE Dave Anderson
DEPT-HEAD'-Dave Anderson
SUBJECT:
Ordinance AdoPt1 °g Video Service Standards.
of ordinance regarding
ACTION: for frnal
RECOMMtNDEIJ and introduce and waive first reading
public hearing lace ordinance on consent calendar
Conduct p
video service standards and direct staf to P
adoption.
Council approved an At that
REPORT the Cif of Saratoga.
15 2006 City Council meeting, within the City tin standards for
At the November AT &T to provide video services ordinance ad °P g
agreement allowing
with an
time the City as AT&T' The ordinance is attache
Council directed staff to return
video service providers such
anticipation of increased video set tion Act of
AT&T was entered in anticip cmTe and Video Come
with video service
The agreement Digital infrastructure
effect on January 1, 2007 and authorizes
s expected as a result of the D g ursuant to franchises
offering 2987) That bill took has standards
2006 (AB he City currently existing franchsie
Operate in California Cahftirnies Commission- heTe in the state l those rules
providers to op video services Pursuant to an
issued by the State Public Utilities
however, the City cannot apply
erators p 2987 urred to apply to
applicable to cable OP Under AB supplemental rules are Iar a under the
agreement (e.g•> COrncast)• Accordingly operate in Saratog
to new video service providers.
other video service PrOViders that elect to
AT &T and any a new legislation.
provisions of the adopting customer service standards
ents from chise that differ to set a
overnm erating under a state fran
AB 2987 prohibits local g erators oP
overnments to eat rial breach of standards
tate law.
applicable to video x` diects local g event of a m c, the state standards
state law. The legislation osed in the 2987 by adopting
schedule for penalties . to be imp lements AB
Accordingly the attached ordinance nnP
1
and setting a penalty schedule in accordance with state law. The ordinance does not
replace the separate rules applicable to the City's existing cable franchisee; Comcast will
continue to be subject to the City's earlier cable service standards and will not be required
to comply with these new rules.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council could decline to adopt the ordinance and allow video services to be
provided in the City without City regulation.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Pursuant to AB 2987 the City is required to share any revenues obtained from penalties
with a state fund promoting access to video services and other technologies.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
If introduced, place ordinance on consent calendar for adoption February 7, 2007.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice for this meeting.
2
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE
CONCERNING VIDEO SERVICE STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)
was signed into law on September 30, 2006 authorizing video service
providers to operate in California cities and elsewhere in the state pursuant
to a franchise issued by the State Public Utilities Commission.
B. AB 2987 prohibits local governments from adopting customer service
standards applicable to video service operators operating under a state
franchise that differ from state law.
C. AB 2987 directs local governments to enforce state standards and to set a
schedule for penalties to be imposed in the event of a material breach of
state law.
D. The City of Saratoga wishes to implement AB 2987 by adopting the state
standards and setting a penalty schedule in accordance with state law.
E. This ordinance shall not apply to video service providers operating pursuant
to a local franchise entered before September 30, 2006.
Section 2. Adoption.
The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown below:
Article 4 -26
VIDEO SERVICES
4- 26.010 Purpose and Definitions. This Article implements the customer service and
consumer protection standards of the Digital Infrastructure and Video
Competition Act of 2006 (the "Act ", Public Utilities Code § 5800 et seq.).
All terms used in this article shall be defined as defined by that Act or this
Page 1 of 4
Ordinance No.
Code; in the event a term is defined in the Act and this Code, the definition
in the Act shall apply to this section.
4- 26.020 Applicability. This Article applies to all video service providers serving
Saratoga residents pursuant to a state franchise or pursuant to a franchise or
other agreement with the City entered after September 30, 2006.
4- 26.030 Notice. Prior to assessing any penalty pursuant to this Article, the City shall
notify the video service provider of the alleged material breach and allow
the video service provider at least 30 days from receipt of the notice to
remedy the specified material breach.
4- 26.020 Penalties. All video service providers subject to this Article shall comply
with the customer service standards mandated by section 5900 of the Public
Utilities Code. Monetary penalties shall be assessed for a material breach
of those standards unless the breach is out of the reasonable control of the
video service provider. One half of each penalty collected shall be
submitted to the Digital Divide Account established by the Act. The
penalties shall be as follows:
(a) Five - hundred dollars ($500) for each day of material breach, but
not to exceed one - thousand five- hundred dollars ($1,500) for each
occurrence of a material breach.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, if notice has been
provided and a penalty has been assessed pursuant to subsection (a)
above and a subsequent material breach of the same nature occurs
within 12 months, an amount of one - thousand dollars ($1,000) shall
be assessed for each day of each material breach, not to exceed
three- thousand dollars ($3,000) for each occurrence of the material
breach.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), above, if notice has
been provided and a fine or penalty has been assessed pursuant to
subsection (b), above, and a third or further material breach of the
same nature occurs within 12 months of the original breach, an
amount of two - thousand five- hundred dollars ($2,500) shall be
assessed for each day of each material breach, not to exceed seven -
thousand five- hundred ($7,500) for each occurrence of the material
Page 2 of 4
Ordinance No.
breach.
4- 26.030 Response Time. Video service providers shall comply with the
requirements of Section 53088.2(e) of the Government Code concerning
standards for answering customer calls for installation, service, and
complaints.
Section 3. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub - section, paragraph, sub-
paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of
every other section, sub - section, paragraph, sub - paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of
this ordinance. If any section, sub - section, paragraph, sub - paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have
adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held
invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this
ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
Section 4. Publication.
This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its
adoption.
Page 3 of 4
Ordinance No.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day of January, 2007, and was
adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 7th day of February,
2007:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Aileen Kao
MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer
CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richard Taylor
CITY ATTORNEY
Page 4 of 4
Ordinance No.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGEAjYZIL ZZ / i
PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD- v�
hu Cherbone John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Review Options for Ranfre Lane Refuge Pocket
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider report, accept public testimony, and provide direction to staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
In May 2004, concerned residents in the Ranfre Lane neighborhood came before the Public
Safety Commission (PSC) to request improved traffic safety for residents trying to make a left
hand turn from Ranfre Lane onto Saratoga Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer and the PSC
reviewed the request and recommended that a refuge pocket be installed to improve vehicular
safety. Due to budget constraints at the time the refuge pocket improvements were placed on
hold.
Subsequently, in light of budget constraints the City Council adopted many changes to
Commissions, including changing the PSC to the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC).
During October 2006, residents asked the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) review the earlier
decision. At the November 19, 2006 meeting the TSC supported the PSC decision and asked the
Public Works Department to investigate current funding availability.
Discussion:
Because the estimated $20,000 cost of the project is beyond the TSC's yearly budget, the City
Council is being asked to provide direction for funding the improvements. In addition the
modifications to the median will reduce the landscaped area which will impact the aesthetics of
the median, which is viewed as an issue that requires City Council direction.
Staff has identified the following funding sources:
I . Fund the project via the Council contingency budget which currently has a balance of
$30,000.
2. Consider the project during mid -year budget analysis in early February, at which time
funds may be available.
3. Consider the project during the annual update to the CIP that normally occurs in the fall.
4. Fund the project from the adopted streets and roads fund, however this will reduce the
amount of money used for street resurfacing.
If the City Council determines that it wants to move forward and provide funding, staff will
bring back a budget resolution at the next City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
See above options.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The project will be put on hold until future funding options are available.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Depends on the direction from the City Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notified interested residents and the Traffic Safety Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Project plan
2. Emails from residents
Me &wvt Pt w. to be PAmo\{ -CCSL
1 ,
--------- - - - - -- -- — — .- - -! - --
ke-vi Re "e— Pccv-e-i"
-----------------
:] a
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
-------------------
------------------
SARATOGA AVE.
— — — — --
i
I
1
J I DRAFT
� I
1
I Saratoga Avenue Merge Lane
I at Ranfre Lane
a
r7
r7
Q
r7
t--
Attachment 2
Kristin Borel
From: Paul & Corinne Vita [pcvita @comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:49 PM
To: Kristin Borel
Cc: brige26 @hotmail.com;'Paul Vita'
Subject: Safety issue - Intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga Ave.
Kristen,
Thank you for putting the intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga Ave. on the Nov. 9 Traffic Safety Commission
meeting agenda. I will notify neighbors to provide you input prior to the meeting and to attend the meeting.
I have lived in the Ranfre neighborhood since 1992 and have noticed Saratoga Ave. traffic increasing
exponentially over the years. Some key reasons for the increase — Highway 85 on ramps new a few years ago,
more housing in the area, new Saratoga Library, and increased activity at nearby schools — St. Andrews, Sacred
Heart, West Valley College.
The area around Ranfre /Saratoga Ave. is like a freeway. Saratoga Ave. is 4 lanes of non -stop traffic from early
morning until late at night. I understand more multi -level housing is planned for downtown Saratoga. I have a
friend who lives in Boulder Creek and commutes down Saratoga Ave. More housing means more cars on
streets.
Many of us in the Ranfre neighborhood need to make a left turn onto Saratoga Ave. to take our children to school,
library, church or downtown Saratoga. I feel unsafe every time I need to make a left turn from Ranfre onto
Saratoga Ave. I fear for the safety of myself and my children. All the other streets that intersect Saratoga Ave.
from other neighborhoods near Ranfre have a street light. I propose a traffic light to ensure the safety of the
intersection and our children or some other improvement to the intersection so it is not so dangerous.
I have a call into the Sheriffs department West Valley Sub Station to obtain incidentlaccident statistics for the
intersection. I know a year ago there was a bad accident at this intersection. Let's improve the safety of the
intersection and prevent accidents.
Thanks,
Corinne Vita
13618 Wendy Lane, Saratoga
867 -4868
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006
1/10/2007
Page 1 of 2
Kristin Borel
From: Niti Agrawal [agrawal— niti @yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:00 PM
To: Kristin Borel
Cc: 'Paul Vita'
Subject: FW: Safety issue - Intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga Ave.
Hi Kristen,
I want to support Corinne & Paul Vita's proposal to have a traffic light at the intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga
Ave. It is a busy interestion and very difficult to make a left onto saratoga ave from Ranfre. This especially is a
problem in the mornings (taking my kids to school) and in the late afternoon /weekends, when traffic on Saratoga
Ave is high.
I will be there at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting on 11/9.
Thanks,
21111
From: Paul & Corinne Vita [mailto:pcvita @comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:11 PM
To: 'Niti Agrawal'
Subject: FW: Safety issue - Intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga Ave.
Hi Niti,
I have a neighborhood update that will need your support — I have scheduled an agenda item at the next Traffic
Safety Commission meeting on Thursday, Nov. 9. Meeting takes place at City Hall starting at 6:30 pm. The item
is the safety of Ranfre /Saratoga Ave intersection. It will be first or second on the agenda. One of our neighbors
Brigitte Ballingall is on the Traffic Safety Commission. I propose a traffic light or intersection improvement for the
intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga Ave. I'm increasingly concerned with the safety of Ranfre /Saratoga. All
other streets that intersect with Saratoga around Ranfre have a street light. I feel our intersection is unsafe and
near impossible to make a safe left turn. I called the West Valley Sub Station and left a message with the Sheriff
dept to get statistics on any traffic incidents /accidents for Ranfre /Saratoga intersection.
Please send an email with your thoughts on this proposal to Kristen Borel. She works for the City of Saratoga in
the traffic office. Kristen will assign a Traffic Engineer to study the issue and give a report at the Nov. 9 meeting.
We need a few neighbors to show up at the Nov. 9 meeting. The next step is the Traffic Commission votes and
can send a proposal for improvement of our intersection to the City Council.
Please include any safety concerns in your email to Kristen and copy me. Kristen Borel's email is
kborelasaratoga ca.us
We are putting together a neighborhood email address list. I'll be sure to include you and get you an updated
map /email into.
Corinne
From: Paul & Corinne Vita [mailto:pcvita @comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:49 PM
To:'kborel @saratoga.ca.us'
Cc: 'brige26 @hotmail.com'; 'Paul Vita'
1/10/2007
Page 1 of 2
Kristin Borel
From:
Paul & Corinne Vita [pcvita @comcast.net]
Sent:
Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:26 AM
To:
Kristin Borel
Cc:
'Niti Agrawal';'elizabeth george'
Subject: RE: Request for Light at Ranfre
We would like to request an improvement at the intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga. A traffic light is just one
idea for improvement. The intersection continues to be a danger to our children. I would like to speak with the
Traffic Engineer and review the 2005 data. Please send me contact information for the Traffic Engineer.
I also gathered statistics from the police department in preparation for the Nov. 9m meeting. The highest number
of Saratoga traffic accidents occur in the corridor between Fruitvale and Highway 85 along Saratoga Ave. This is
exactly where Ranfre — Saratoga Ave intersection is located. There have been multiple accidents at the
intersection of Ranfre and Saratoga Ave.
I would like to understand what time of day the Traffic Engineer did the vehicle counts and if the traffic engineer
examined the number of accidents in the immediate vicinity of Ranfre — Saratoga. The traffic is dangerous in the
morning and afternoon. If the Traffic Engineer did the counts during the mid day this would not be an accurate
assessment of the dangers during peak traffic.
I did speak with Brigitte Ballingall and I understand the Public Safety Commission heard a Ranfre issue and
recommended an improvement of the median to make left turns safer. What is the status of this action?
You originally said the Traffic Safety Commission meeting was Nov. 9. Is it Nov. 9 or Nov. 19?
1 request the item be heard at the Nov. 9 Traffic Safety Commission meeting. Thanks,
Corinne Vita
From: Kristin Borel [mailto:kborel @saratoga.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Paul & Corinne Vita
Cc: Niti Agrawal; elizabeth george
Subject: Request for Light at Ranfre
Corinne,
I met with the Traffic Engineer yesterday about the upcoming TSC meeting in November to go over the
new items. It seems that your same issue was already heard in front of the Public Safety Commission.
Last May (2005), Public Safety Commission was disbanded and the TSC was formed. Traffic concerns
as well as many other City safety issues were brought before the PSC. Your concern was brought before
the PSC in 2005 and the Traffic Engineer did vehicle counts to see if a traffic signal was warranted. A
minimum number of vehicle traffic is required before the installation of a traffic signal is considered
Your intersection was well below the required threshold needed to meet the warrant. I was not aware
of the PSC decision because this program was run through the City Manager's office.
I had also heard from Brigitte Ballingall telling me that the PSC already ruled on this item. Brigitte and
the other members of the TSC also served on the Public Safety Commission.
I am sorry that we will not be hearing your item on November 190i
Please let me know if you have further questions.
1/10/2007
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely
Kristin Borel
Public Works Analyst
408 - 868 -1258
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/1/2006
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/1/2006
1/1.0/2007
Kristin Borel
From: Mary Lynn [maryandbill @comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 7:11 AM
To: Kristin Bore]
Subject: Ranfre Lane & Saratoga Ave. Intersection on Agenda for CityCouncil Nov. 9, 2006
Dear Ms. Borel:
It may not be possible for us to be at this meeting. We want very much, however, to tell the Council how much
we need and want this improvement. It is a real safety issue. Please add this to comments from others about
this issue.
Thank you very much. Wm. E. &t Mary L. Hotaling
19305 Ranfre Lane Te. 408.867.0903
Saratoga, CA 95070
Page 1 of 1
Kristin Borel
From: Mike [sheehanmikel@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:27 AM
To: Kristin Borst
Subject: Ranfre /Saratoga Intersection..
Hi Kristen: I would like to voice support to the Ranfre /Saratoga Avenue intersection solution. Presently
this is a dangerous place to cross to Saratoga Avenue. I have witnessed problem's several times
with car's swerving to avoid a collision with a car merging from Ranfre to Saratoga. With all the traffic
now especially with West Valley College students J am very supportive and requesting a safety review
with the implementation of a left turnout lane to safely merge onto Saratoga Avenue.
Thanks for your consideration.
Mike Sheehan
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups
1/10/2007
Kristin Borel
From: Michiko Kelly [michikokelly @yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:15 PM
To: Kristin Borel
Subject: Ranfre and Saratoga Ave.
Hi, Christin,
My name is Michiko Kelly, and I live on 13693 Ronnie Way.
Several years ago, The greenery in the median on Saratoga Ave. between 85 and Ranfre were so high, I could not
see the cars coming.
There were many close calls when I made left turn from Ranfre to Saratoga Ave. I went to talk to the Corporate
Yard many times, and asked them to trim the greenery. They are so much better now.
I still have a lot of difficulty making the left turn from Ranfre to Saratoga Ave. because of heavy traffic.
I definitely want the city to put in' No U -turn "
sign on Saratoga Ave. left turn lane. at Ranfre. I had many close calls with the cars making u turns
there.
I am not quite sure exactly what would be done, but I do not want a traffic light. Something else that will make
the left turn easier.
Thank you for your cooperation, and a good day, Michiko
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups
(http: / /groups.yahoo.com)
Kristin Borel
'rom:
Mary Lynn [maryandbill @comcast.net]
,ent:
Saturday, November 04, 2006 9:29 PM
To:
Kristin Bore]
Subject:
Ranfre Lane /Saratoga Avenue Intersection - Meeting 11/9/2006
Dear Ms. Borel: It may not be possible for us to attend this meeting on 11/9/06.
Therefore, we are writing to strongly request remodeling the intersection so that there is ample space to move
autos to the center of Saratoga Avenue when making a Left -hand turn on Saratoga Avenue and then safely
waiting to
get into the line of traffice going towards the village. We appreciate the
serious safety consideration being given to doing this for us. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wm. E. & MaryL.
Hotaling
19305 Ranfre Lane Tel. 408.867.0903
Saratoga, CA 95070
Message
Dear Saratoga Public Works Personnel;
Page 1 of 1
I know that you have a lot of projects on "To -Do" list but the safe left hand turn from Ranfre Lane onto
Saratoga Avenue needs to be at the top of your list because of the extremely high volume of traffic and the
high number of lights between Fruitvale and HWY 85. How many people drive up and down Saratoga
Avenue in this section of road?
Are there any projects that impact MORE residents and drivers? This intersection is a BAD accident waiting
to happen. How can we get this median improvement project to the top of your list for immediate
improvement?
Not only do approximately 500 residents in the immediate area and a large number of West Valley College
students, teachers and administrators utilize this access.
It is currently VERY DANGEROUS for four reasons:
1) it is difficult just to get out into the intersection because of the pure VOLUME of cars and the high
number of lights;
2) most of the time our van's back -end is always hanging out as one tries to merge into the flow of traffic;
3) the forced left turn lane requires that one has to "get over to the right lane quickly" in order to proceed
on Saratoga Avenue toward HWY 9.
4) drivers get angry when you try to merge into the right lane because they do NOT realize that you have just
entered Saratoga Avenue at Ranfre Lane and they "cut you off' and /or take more aggressive measures.
Again, we ask aze there any projects that impact MORE residents and drivers? This intersection is a BAD
accident waiting to happen. How can we get this project to the top of your list for immediate improvement?
Please let us know how we can help.
Regards,
Mimi & David Mather
13519 Ronnie Way
408 - 741 -5111
1/10/2007
Page 1 of 1
Kristin Borel
From:
DBatt2002@aol.com
Sent:
Wednesday, November 08, 2006 3:06 PM
To:
Kristin Borel
Subject: Traffic safety meeting
Hello Kristen.
I am sending this message as it is beginning to look like I may not be able to attend the
Thursday meeting after all.
I support the efforts of my neighbors to do something about the traffic problem at Saratoga
and Ranfre. It is really a dangerous spot . I have lived here since 1961, and it just gets
worse. What the general consensus of my neighbors' solution to this problem will be fine
with me.
We seem to have too much traffic and sometimes ruder, it seems , drivers.
An issue I would like to raise when this one is concluded, is the too fast and unyielding
traffic at Ranfre and Ronnie Way and also at Ronnie Way and Wendy Lane.
My corner has been hit by speeders who couldn't make the turn,; five times in not so recent
years, ripping out chunks of an old stand of juniper in my yard & many heartstopping near
misses.
Thank you for your attention.
Dolorez M. Battaglia
13636 Ronnie Way (at Wendy Lane)
408 - 867 -4713
1/10/2007
Page 1 of 1
Kristin Borel
From:
Melanie Guzzo [melanieringler @yahoo.com]
Sent:
Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:24 AM
To:
Kristin Borel
Cc:
Corinne Vita
Subject: Intersection safety Ranfre & Saratoga
Hi Kristin,
As a Wendy Lane resident I use Ranfre to access Saratoga Ave. every day. My kids go to Saratoga
Elementary, so I'm making a left onto Saratoga at least twice a weekday. It's especially tough to make it
over both lanes in the morning and afternoon due to the volume of traffic from the schools and the
college. Given the current intersection configuration, I cross to the median, and wait till I can merge
into the next lane... but that is quite dangerous. I drive a Suburban, and it's a very tight fit. It's also quite
frustrating that people don't respect the "Keep Clear" road markers, and sometimes make it difficult to
merge to the far right lane to continue past Fruitvale. It's my understanding that a left turn merge lane
for the median has already been approved, and that at this point needs to be implemented. There are
many families with young children that approach this intersection just as I do! I believe immediate
implementation of the left turn merge lane is essential. I'm unable to attend Thursday's meeting, so
please consider this my full support of immediate implementation of a left turn lane.
Best Regards,
Melanie Guzzo
13505 Wendy Lane
1FRITNOYA
Page 1 of 1
Kristin Borel
From:
Nanjf @aol.com
Sent:
Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:15 AM
To:
Kristin Bore]
Cc: pcvita@comcast.net
Subject: Intersection danger
Dear Ms. Borel,
I'm writing to support the neighbors who are requesting that the intersection of Saratoga
Avenue and Ranfre be improved. It is a disaster, safety -wise. I live on Ronnie Way and I
have four children under ten years old. I have had many near - collisions as I try to make a
left turn from Ranfre to Saratoga Ave. Either the cars coming one way on Saratoga nearly
hit my front end, or the cars coming the other way on Saratoga nearly hit my back end. The
driver on Saratoga Avenue are aggressive and they don't seem to notice the need to slow
down when a car is in "trouble" in the intersection. I would think that the great number of
senior citizens in our neighborhood would also had much difficulty navigating that
intersection, with all the commuters rushing to Highway 85 and all the students rushing to
West Valley College.
I'm wondering which of our residents needs to get killed (seriously) before a turning lane or
traffic signal is installed. Please don't wait for such a tragedy to find the funds to make this
happen. What is government for, if not for protecting citizens? Even pro - government
citizens like myself will turn jaded and anti - government if we don't see you serving our
needs - -in this case, a very small, do -able project. We're not asking for a million - dollar bailout
here. We just want to keep our families safe. Let's get going on this, please.
Is it really so much to ask that this be corrected as soon as possible? We pay too much in
taxes (especially newer residents like myself) to settle for no action.
Thank you,
Nanette Fondas
13669 Ronnie Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
1/10/2007
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: —
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGE
PREPARED BY: John Ch
erbone DEPT HEAD: Joh Cherbone
�� _ _ s
SUBJECT: Park Development and Sport Field Use — Public Discussion Options
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Accept report and provide direction to staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
A group of concerned Saratoga residents is interested in creating a vehicle for public discussion regarding
development of City parks /open spaces and field usage by organized sports. Currently, the same group of
residents is gathering signatures in order to place these issues before the public at an election via a voter
initiative. According to the group, their concerns center on the City decision making processes that result
in physical and/or usage changes to our parks and open spaces. Their desires are spelled out in their
initiative proposal which is attached to this report (Attachment 1). The City Attorney's title and summary
prepared pursuant to the Elections Code is also included in the attachment. In order to qualify for the
ballot the group has until approximately March 27, 2007 to collect signatures from 10 percent of current
registered Saratoga voters or 15 percent of registered Saratoga voters to qualify for a special election. The
City Clerk has contacted the County in regard to the cost of placing the initiative on the ballot and will
report this information at the City Council Meeting.
At the January 3rd City Council meeting, Marty Goldberg, spokesperson for Citizens for Parks
Preservation, voiced a desire to explore additional ways of resolving their concerns other than the
initiative process. City Council agreed that a discussion of the proposal would be beneficial and placed
the item on the January 17 City Council agenda.
Discussion:
Staff has identified the following options which provide alternative approaches to discussing the City
policy regarding development and usage of the City's parks and opens spaces:
Option 1: City Task Force
A City Task Force is a City sanctioned body created to deal with a specific task in a specific time frame.
frame. The membership of the Task Force is usually chosen by the City Council based on their expertise
or involvement in the issue. City staff and/or one or two Council Members are chosen to participate along
with the other interested parties. The Kevin Moran Task Force is a good example of a City Task Force.
All Task Force meetings are subject to the Brown Act.
Option 2: City Council Ad Hoc
A City Council Ad Hoc is normally made up of two members of the City Council who are chosen by their
fellow Council Members to work on a specific issue. The Ad Hoc generally disbands once the task is
completed. The School Ad Hoc is a good example of a City Council Ad Hoc. Ad Hoc meetings are not
subject to the Brown Act.
Option 3: City Commission
A City Commission is a City sanctioned body in which interested residents are appointed for a specific
term to work on matters specific to the particular Commission. In this case, the Parks and Recreation
Commission would be the body that would have interest in discussing Park and Open Space matters.
Currently, the City's Parks and Recreation Commission is suspended. Commission meetings are subject
to the Brown Act.
Option 4: No City Involvement
The City could opt to remain out of the discussion and not participate formally in the process.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Staff s time to support the process.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The City would not be formally involved in the issue.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Staff will follow Council's direction regarding the chosen option..
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Saratoga Parks Preservation and Field Use Policy Initiative and City Attorney Title and Summary.
City Attorney's Title and Summary of
Initiative Measure Filed September 13, 2006
Title:
Measure to Require Voter Approval of Conversions of Passive Recreation Facilities tD
Active Recreation Facilities and to Establish Policies for Use of City Athletic Facilities
Summary:
This measure would amend the City of Saratoga General Plan and Municipal Code to (1)
require voter approval of new or expanded active recreation facilities in Saratoga, and (2)
establish a policy governing use of specified athletic facilities in Saratoga by residents
and non - residents.
Voter ADDroval Reouirement
This measure would add a new section to the Open Space Element of the General Plan
requiring voter approval of new or expanded active recreation facilities in City parks that
would either (i) encroach upon existing passive recreation facilities or (ii) unduly
interfere with or result in a net reduction of existing opportunities for passive recreation
in the same park. The new section would define the terms "Active Recreation," "Active
Recreation Facility," "Expansion," "Park," "Passive Recreation," and "Passive
Recreation Facility" and include exceptions relating to parks under 0.5 acres.
Policies for Use of City Athletic Facilities
This measure would add a new section to the Open Space Element requiring the City to
maintain and implement a Saratoga Field Use Policy. The new section would specify the
goals of the Field Use Policy.
This measure would add to the Municipal Code provisions governing use permits for
indoor and outdoor facilities for organized team sports at facilities either owned by
Saratoga or controlled by the City pursuant to a. joint powers agreement with a school
district. These provisions:
Specify factors to consider in issuing use permits, conditions that may be imposed
on use permits, and prohibitions on issuance of permits for use during field rest
periods and on Sundays;
Require that permits be issued according to a priority among twelve specific
categories of use based on factors including users' residence, age, and
organizational status as well as event type;
Establish Fall and Spring use periods, specify priority uses for those use periods,
and create procedures for resolving conflicts between or among equally eligible
groups requesting the same facility;
Page 1 of 2
• Specify procedures to be used to ascertain the percentage of Saratoga residents in
a proposed user group and to verify compliance with applicable residency
requirements;
• Specify penalties for non - compliance and for misrepresentation in applications for
permits;
• Require adoption of a fee schedule for athletic facility use in accordance with a
previously approved fee schedule and in a manner that requires non- resident
individuals and organizations to pay fees that are at least 150% of any
corresponding fee paid by comparable resident individuals and organizations; and
• Declare that the provisions adopted by the measure constitute the exclusive Field
Use Policy for the City.
General Provisions .
This measure provides that its terms can be changed only by a subsequent vote of the
people and that it will take effect immediately upon certification of its passage by the
elections official. The measure provides rules for interpretation and standards to be
applied in the event a competing measure is presented on the some ballot.
Page 2 of 2
C.d
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION SEP 13 2006
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to
circulate a petition within the City of Saratoga for the purpose of amending the Saratoga General
Plan to require an affirmative vote of the People before allowing open areas of City-owned
parklands, or portions of them, to be converted into athletic fields or other facilities capable of
supporting organized, region -based sporting events, and to amend the General Plan and
Municipal Code to require implementation of a "Field Use Policy" to ensure fair and equal access
to existing City-owned athletic fields by Saratoga residents.
A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as
follows.
Saratoga's parks are among the City's most precious and irreplaceable public resources,
and they are critical to maintaining the semi -rural residential character of Saratoga. However,
with limited areas for new park development, the City has projected that by 2020 it will fall short
of its goal of maintaining 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Protecting existing open
park areas that support passive recreational activities such as walking and hiking, running and
biking, picnicking, kite - flying, horseback riding, bird- watching, or just simply sitting, is therefore
critical to preserving the health, safety, welfare and quality of life for Saratoga residents.
The City Council in recent years has allowed the physical conversion of many of
Saratoga's open park areas into athletic fields and facilities serving the active recreational
interests of regional sports organizations. In addition, the city has sold off park land for private
use. This has significantly reduced the number and acreage of City-owned park areas available
for passive recreational uses by Saratoga's children, teens, adults, and seniors who choose not to
participate in formally organized athletic events. The City Council has also allowed sports
organizations to expand their access to the City's existing athletic fields, limiting the recreational
opportunities of local residents. If continued unchecked, these trends will jeopardize the public
health, safety, serenity and welfare of all Saratogans.
By requiring a vote of the People before any park areas can be developed for new or
expanded athletic facilities, which in turn would require a complete planning and public review
process prior to the vote, this Initiative will force a hard look at the costs and benefits of such
development and slow the current trend toward increased development. Furthermore, by
requiring a vote of the People before any park areas can be developed for new or expanded
athletic facilities, this Initiative ensures that Saratoga residents and taxpayers have a say in the
future management of their parks.
Finally, the Field Use Policy required by this Initiative assures that Saratoga citizens and
Saratoga-based sporting groups have priority over non - Saratoga -based organizations in reserving
City-owned and funded athletic fields and facilities.
Dated: Signed: d.A- " r_� -- --
Stan Bogosian
Dated: 11- b (P Signed:
Dcaik Goldberg
SARATOGA PARKS PRESERVATION AND FIELD USE POLICY I 6JPT 6
The text of the proposed measure is set forth below and on the subsequent pages, as follows:
SECTION I: TITLE
This Initiative shall be known as "The Saratoga Parks Preservation And Field Use Policy
Initiative."
SECTION II: PURPOSE AND FINDINGS
The People of the City of Saratoga hereby find and declare as follows:
A. Effect of Measure. This Initiative amends the City of Saratoga General Plan to
require an affirmative vote of the People before allowing any existing City-owned parks, or
portions of them, to be converted into athletic fields or other facilities designed to support active
recreational activities such as organized competitive sporting events. The Initiative also amends
the General Plan and Municipal Code to implement a "Field Use Policy" designed to ensure that
Saratoga residents and taxpayers have priority access over non - residents to City -owned or
controlled athletic fields.
B. Importance of Protecting Saratoga's Open Parklan d. Saratoga's parks are among
the City's most precious and irreplaceable public resources and they are critical to maintaining
the semi -rural residential character of Saratoga. However, with limited areas for new park
development, the City has projected that by 2020 it will fall short of its goal of maintaining 5
acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Protecting existing open park areas that support
passive recreational activities such as walking and hiking, running and biking, picnicking, kite-
flying, horseback riding, bird- watching, or just simply sitting, is therefore critical to preserving
the health, safety, welfare and quality of life for Saratoga residents.
C. Need for an Initiative. This voter - sponsored measure is necessary to protect our
parks and open space resources and amenities from improper development. The City Council in
recent years has allowed the physical conversion of many of Saratoga's open park areas into
athletic fields and facilities serving the active recreational interests of organized sports
organizations. In addition, the city has sold off park land for private use. This has significantly
reduced the number and acreage of City-owned park areas available for passive recreational uses
by Saratoga's children, teens, adults, and seniors who choose not to participate in formally
organized athletic events. The City Council has also allowed sports organizations to expand
their access to the City's existing athletic fields, limiting the recreational opportunities of local
residents. If continued unchecked, these trends will jeopardize the public health, safety, serenity
and welfare of all Saratogans.
D. Controlling the Loss of Open Park Areas to Athletic Facility Construction. By
requiring a vote of the People before any park areas can be developed for new or expanded
athletic facilities, which in turn would require a complete planning and- public -review process
prior to the vote, this Initiative will force a comprehensive look at the costs and benefits of such
development and slow the current trend toward increased development.
E. Guaranteeing Saratoga Residents and Taxpayers A Voice In Future Park
Development and Management. By requiring a vote of the People before any park areas can be
developed for new or expanded athletic facilities, this Initiative ensures that Saratoga residents
and taxpayers have a say in the future management of their parks.
F. Assuring Saratoga Residents and Taxnavers Fair Access to Their Parks and
Athletic Facilities. The Field Use Policy required by this Initiative assures Saratoga citizens and
Saratoga -based sporting groups priority over non - Saratoga -based organizations in reserving
City-owned and funded athletic fields and facilities.
SECTION III: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT — VOTER APPROVAL OF
RECREATION FACILITIES
The Open Space Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan, as it exists as of the date
of the approval of this Initiative by the Voters, is amended to add and incorporate the following
provisions.
A. Definitions.
For purposes of this Section, the following definitions of words and phrases used herein
shall apply.
"Active Recreation" means the organized, structured use of recreation facilities by more
than one person. Active recreation typically requires the development of recreational facilities,
and often involves cooperative or team sports or activities.
"Active Recreation Facility" means a physically developed area of a Park supporting
Active Recreation. Active Recreation Facilities include, but are not limited to: athletic fields,
recreational courts, gymnasiums. Structures and fixtures supporting these facilities including
bathrooms, equipment storage facilities, concession areas, bleachers and lighting fixtures are
included in this definition. Park areas comprising less than 0.5 acres are excluded from this
definition.
"Expansion" means the construction or development of additional structures, areas, or
facilities adjacent, appurtenant, or related to an existing Active Recreation Facility and/or an
intensification of use. Expansions comprising less than 0.5 acres, and/or that include a single
basketball court, tennis court, or volleyball court, are excluded from this definition provided: (i)
they are not a component part of, or an interim step towards, an Expansion that would equal or
exceed 0.5 acres; (ii) there has been no Expansion of any size within the same Park at any time
during the preceding five years, and (iii) the Park in question is greater than 0.5 acres in size.
For Parks 0.5 acres or less in size, Expansions comprising less than 25 percent of the total Park
area, and/or that include a single basketball court, tennis court, or volleyball- court, are excluded
from this definition.
2
"Park" means and includes all real property, including grounds, roadways, parks,
playgrounds, open space reservations, recreation centers or any part or area thereof, located
within the City and open to or used by the public for either active or passive recreation, whether
owned, leased or maintained by the City. The term includes all buildings, structures and other
facilities located on such real property devoted to such use. For purposes of this Section, "Park"
includes, but is not limited to, the following real property (acreage approximate):
Azule Park 4.3 acres located at 12777 Goleta Avenue. .
Beauchamps Park. 2.3 acres located at the comer of Beauchamps and Bowhill Court.
Brookglen Pazk. 0.7 acres of land located at 12734 Brookglen Court. .
Central Park/Heritage Orchard. 14 acres located near the Civic Center.
Coneress Springs Park. 10 acres, located at 12970 Glen Brae Drive (former school site)
El Ouito Pazk. 6.3 acres located at 12855 Paseo Presada (former school site).
Foothill Park. 0.8 acres located at 20654 Seaton Ave.
Gardiner Park 1.2 acres located at 19085 Portos Drive.
Hakone Gardens. 25 acres located at 21000 Big Basin Way
Kevin Moran Park. 10 acres located at 12415 Scully Avenue.
Pollard Park 0.5 acres located at comer of Quito and Pollard Roads.
Ravenwood Park. 0.5 acres located at 13830 Ravenwood Drive.
San Marcos Wilderness Park. 8.1 acres off of Crisp Avenue.
Wildwood Pazk. 4 acres located at 20764 Fourth Street.
"Passive Recreation" means lower impact use of parks and recreation facilities in an
unstructured format that may be enjoyed by an individual or groups. Passive recreation typically
emphasizes the open -space aspect of a park and involves a low level of development.
"Passive Recreation Facility" includes any area or structure in a Park supporting
passive recreation. Passive Recreation Facilities include, but are not limited to: open greenspace,
forested areas, benches, picnic areas, children's play areas, walking and bicycle paths,
community gardens, ornamental gardens, water bodies, fountains and orchards.
3
To adopt a field policy that encourages volunteerism and community
involvement.
SECTION V: AMENDMENT TO SARATOGA MUNICIPAL CODE — FIELD USE
POLICY
The Saratoga Municipal Code, Chapter 11, "Parks and Recreation," as it exists as of the
date of the approval of this Initiative by the Voters, is amended to add and incorporate the
following provisions.
A. Field Use Permit Required
Field Use Permits are required for exclusive field use for any repeated, organized use of
athletic fields maintained by the City of Saratoga. For purposes of this Policy, "athletic fields"
includes indoor or outdoor ball fields and recreational courts for soccer, baseball, basketball,
football, lacrosse, and other organized team sports.
Fields will be permitted for the activities that the field(s) are intended for, designed for,
classified as, or for activities conducted in a manner that does not compromise public safety or
field quality and integrity. Fields may be closed to avoid turf damage due to inclement weather
or field saturation. Fields may be closed for field maintenance. All fields shall have designated
rest periods throughout the year. City-owned fields will not be available for organized sports on
Sundays as this day is reserved for community use.
B. Priority For Obtaining Field Use Permits
Field permits are assigned based on the following priority system (see definitions):
Priority
1. Saratoga Parks and Recreation Department programming
2. Saratoga resident, youth, volunteer nonprofit organization
3. Saratoga resident, youth, commercial nonprofit organization
4. Saratoga resident, adult, volunteer nonprofit organization
5. Saratoga resident, adult, commercial nonprofit organization
6. Non - resident, youth, volunteer nonprofit organization
7. Non - resident, youth, commercial nonprofit organization
8. Non - resident adult, volunteer nonprofit organization
9. Non - resident, adult commercial nonprofit organization
10. For -profit youth sports events
11. For - profit adult sports events
12. Organizations that have previously violated the terms of the Field Use Policy
Eligibility is based on an assessment of each organization's prior season eligibility status.
It is the organization's responsibiiityto notify the City of Saratoga;- upon -permit application
submittal, of a change in Eligibility Status for the upcoming season. Permit approval for new
M
organizations will be based on current registration information. Permits may be revoked if it is
found that an organization's Eligibility Status has changed without notifying the City of Saratoga
prior to permit application.
C. Priority Categories Defined
Priority 1 — Saratoga Parks and Recreation Programming: Programs offered by the
City of Saratoga will have first priority of scheduling.
Priority 2 — Saratoga resident, youth, volunteer non - profit organization: An
organization that maintains at least 51% Saratoga residents and has a governing board made up
of at least 51 % Saratoga residents. The organization must be all volunteer with no paid coaching
or training, to be in this priority group.
Priority 3 — Saratoga resident, youth, commercial non -profit organization: An
organization that maintains participation of at least 51% Saratoga residents and has a governing
board made up of at least 51 % Saratoga residents. Organizations in this category can hire paid
staff.
Priority 4 — Saratoga resident, adult, volunteer non - profit organization: An
organization that maintains at least 51% Saratoga residents and has a governing board made up
of at least 51% Saratoga residents. The organization must be all volunteer with no paid coaching
or training, to be in this priority group.
Priority 5 — Saratoga resident, adult, commercial non -profit organization: An
organization that maintains participation of at least 51 % Saratoga residents and has a governing
board made up of at least 51% Saratoga residents. Organizations in this category can hire paid.
staff.
Priority 6 — Nonresident, youth, volunteer non -profit organization: These
organizations do not meet the 51% residency requirements for participants or governing board.
They are non -profit and volunteer in nature.
Priority 7 — Nonresident, youth, commercial non - profit organization: These
organizations do not meet the 51% residency requirements for participants and/or governing
board. Organizations in this category can hire paid staff.
Priority 8 — Nonresident, adult, volunteer non - profit organization: These
organizations do not meet the 51% residency requirements for participants or governing board.
They are non -profit and volunteer in nature.
Priority 9 — Nonresident, adult, commercial non - profit organization: These
organizations do not meet the 51% residency requirements for participants and/or governing
board. Organizations in this category can hire paid staff.
0
Priority 10 — For profit youth sports events: In this category would be field rental for
businesses that run special clinics and camps for youth.
Priority 11— For profit adult sports events: In this category would be field rental for
businesses that run special clinics and camps for adults.
Priority 12 - Organizations that have violated the terms of the field use policy: Any
group found violating any term of the field use policy or providing misleading of false
information to the City of Saratoga will have the last priority for scheduling field time.
D. Seasonal Use Dates:
The Fall Use Period shall extend from July 1 through December 31.
The Spring Use Period shall extend from January 1 through June 30.
E. Seasonal Use Date Priority:
Saratoga Resident Youth Non - Profit (Priority 2 and 3) Soccer Organizations shall have
field priority during the Fall Use Period.
Saratoga Resident Youth Non -Profit (Priority 2 and 3) Baseball and Softball
Organizations have field priority during the Spring Use Period.
F. Exceptions to Seasonal Priority:
Saratoga Parks and Recreation Department programs have annual priority on all fields.
G. Two or more Eoually Eligible Groups Reauesting the Some Field:
In the event that two or more field requests with equivalent eligibility overlap, the groups
shall work together to resolve the issue through compromise. If the issue cannot be resolved by
the groups then city staff will use good judgment in determining field allocation for the season.
In these cases, priority consideration shall be given in the order stated below:
1. The organization with a history of past field use of specific fields will have first
priority.
2. A program providing a service that does not currently exist, i.e., does not
duplicate a program already available
3. Timely receipt of field use request and required accompanying materials.
IL Determination of Saratoga Residency
Because leagues are regional in nature, city staff will calculate the residence percentage
by reviewing the player rosters for each team intended for or scheduled to play on Saratoga
fields, and not the league roster as a whole. This calculation is intended to encourage league
field schedulers to secure playing time in all cities from which they draw participation. For
purposes of this Policy, a "Saratoga Resident" is defined as a person who lives in the City of
Saratoga
L Verification of Compliance with Field Use Polity
Saratoga requires a Master League Roster complete with player first and last names
alphabetized, address, and phone number, and all Team Rosters of participants, along with proof
of liability insurance. This information will be presented to city staff within two weeks after
registration for the organization closes. Coaches will be required to have team rosters and
permits on site during each field use, available for inspection by a city representative. Any
organization found to be misrepresenting its residency status will have its permit revoked for the
season and will have last priority for field scheduling for the next season.
J. Oreanizations Within Other Oreanizations
Any organization found to be scheduling field time for use by another organization will
have its permit revoked for the season and will be the last priority for field scheduling for the
next season.
K. Fee Schedule
The City Council, or its designee, shall, within 60 days of the passage of this Initiative,
and following review from time to time thereafter, establish a schedule of fees for use of City
athletic fields in accordance with the Maintenance and User Fees approved by the City Council
on January 16, 2002. The fee schedule shall be established so as to require non - resident
individuals and organizations to pay no less than 150 percent of any corresponding fee paid by
comparable resident individuals and organizations. The fee schedule shall provide that all fees
are collectible prior to or concurrently with the issuance of a Field Use Permit, and may not be
waived. All fees collected shall be expended on park and open space maintenance and/or
operating expenses.
L. Exclusive Policy
The foregoing constitutes the City of Saratoga's exclusive Field Use Policy governing
Saratoga -owned fields and any fields controlled by the City specified in Joint Powers agreements
with school districts.
SECTION VI: VOTER CONTROL OVER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT AND FIELD USE POLICY
In order to maintain voter control over future parkland conversions and the Field Use
Policy, no provision of this Initiative measure shall be changed, amended, or repealed except by
a vote of the People.
SECTION VII: EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION.
The provisions of this Initiative shall take effect immediately upon certification of its
passage by the appropriate Election Official. This Initiative shall apply to actions by the City,
including its City Council and its various commissions, departments, and agencies, taken on or
after the effective date. Pending actions or proposals otherwise governed by this Initiative that
have been initiated by the City but that are not yet final as of the effective date, or that are the
subject of pending legal challenge, shall be subject to the provisions of this Initiative.
SECTION VIII. SEVERABILITY.
This initiative shall be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this
initiative. If any section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this initiative is
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the initiative. The voters
hereby declare that this initiative, and each section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or
portion thereof would have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, sub - sections,
sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. If any
provision of this initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such
invalidity shall not affect any application of this initiative that can be given effect without the
invalid application.
SECTION IX. CONFLICTING BALLOT MEASURES
In the event that this measure and another measure or measures relating to the same or
similar subject matter shall appear on the same Citywide election ballot, the provisions of the
other measures shall be deemed in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure shall
receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their
entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
Caj 4
Services &
Important Contact
Information
www.saratoga.ca.us
408.868.1200
408.867 -8559 (fax)
cityhall @saratoga.ca.us
EMERGENCY: 9-1 -1
POLICE SERVICES
Provided by Santa Clara County
Sheriff's Office
WESTSIDE STATION
Captain Terrence Calderone 408.868.6600
Fire Services
SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
Battalion Chief Joe Parker 408.867.9001
SANTA CLARA FIRE DISTRICT
Acting Chief, Ken Valdvogel 408.378.4010
C
ANIMAL CONTROL (City of San Jose) 408.361.6600
COMCAST CABLE TV 800.945.2288
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE 408.868.1269
WEST VALLEY COLLECTION & 408.283.9250
RECYCLING, INC.
(garbage, yardwaste, recyclables
Beginning March 1, 2007)
PG &E (OUTAGES) 800.743.5002
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
EMERGENCY 408.290.2507
BUSINESS 408.265.2600
SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY 408.867 -6126
SENIOR SERVICES (SASCC) 408.868 -1257
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
AILEEN KAO
akao @saratoga.ca.us 408.868 -9371
JILL HUNTER
jhunter @saratoga.ca.us 408.741 -1213
KATHLEEN KING
kk2king @saratoga.ca.us 408.605 -5251
CHUCK PAGE
cpage @saratoga.ca.us 408.839 -9555
ANN WALTONSMITH
awaltonsmith @saratoga.ca.us 408.867.9723
STATE REPRESENTATIVES
REBECCA COHN, Assemblywoman
Capitol: 916.319.2024
Local: 408.282 -8920
ABEL MALDONADO, Senator
Capitol: 916.651.4015
Local: 408.277.9461
�.
DAVE ANDERSON, City Manager
davea @saratoga.ca.us 408.868.1216
BARBARA POWELL, Assistant City Manager
bpowell @saratoga.ca.us 408.868 -1215
ANN SULLIVAN, Exec. Asst. to City Manager
asullivan @saratoga.ca.us 408.868 -1216
CATHLEEN BOYER, City Clerk
ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us 408.868 -1269
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
MARY FUREY, Director
408.868.1221
BUSINESS LICENSES 408.868.1260
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 408.868.1266
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
JOHN F. LIVINGSTONE, Director
408.868.1222
Counter Hours: M -F 7:30 a.m. —Noon
(closed every other Friday,
please check website)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 408.868.1222
BUILDING DEPARTMENT 408.868.1240
TREE REMOVAL 408.868.1276
CONSTRUCTION WORK HOURS
www.saratoga.ca.us/constructionhours.htmI
PUBLIC WORKS
JOHN CHERBONE, Director
408.868.1239
ENGINEERING DIVISION 408.868.1239
MAINTENANCE DIVISION 408.868.1245
STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
www.saratoga.ca.us/pw/ssc.htm
STORMWWATER REQUIREMENTS
www.saratoga.ca.us/current%20projects/
stormwater.html
RECREATION
JOAN PISANI, Director
408.868.1248
CURRENT RECREATION GUIDE 408.868.1249
www.saratoga.ca. us /recreation. htm
4
W ate. gLf
ABOUT SARATOGA
www.sa ratoga.ca. us /a bout. htm l
APPLICATIONS, PERMITS, FORMS
www.sa ratoga.ca. us /on I i neforms. htm I
CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS $ MINUTES
www.saratoga.ca.us/AgendaManager/uploads/
city - council/
CRY PARKS
www.saratoga.ca.us /parks.html
CRY TRAIL AND BIKE MAPS
www.saratoga.ca.us/trail—and_bike—maps.htmI
CONSTRUCTION WORK HOURS
www.saratoga .ca.us /constructionhou rs. html
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
www.saratoga.ca.us/em ployment. htm I
FACILITIES RENTALS
www.saratoga.ca.us /recreation /parkrental.htm
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
www.saratoga.ca.us/comdev/FAQ.html
HERITAGE RESOURCES
www .saratoga.ca.us /heritage.html
PUBLICATIONS
www.sa ratoga.ca. us/ publications. htm I
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
www .saratoga.ca.us /recreation.htm
SENIOR SERVICES
www.sascc.org
VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES
www.sa ratoga.ca.us /volu nteers. htm I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: January 17, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: _
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGE
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone and Catlyleen Boyer DEPT HEAD
SUBJECT: Review of the Proposed Process for Welcoming the Newly Annexed Areas into the
City of Saratoga
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly on the proposed process.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On September 20, 2006 the City Council adopted Resolution 06 -072 approving the annexation of
the 104 acre Prospect Road Area and the 20 acre Hidden Hill Road Area. City Council gave
direction to staff to investigate options to welcome the new residents to the City of Saratoga.
The goal of this session would be to provide the residents with a first hand look at the work of
Saratoga city government and the role it plays in the community.
Topics that could be covered are as follows:
• General Government — an overview of the City, History, and general government
responsibilities.
• Finance & Administrative Services — an overview of the budget, long term financial plan,
and other administrative related processes.
• Community Development — a discussion of land use issues such as planning, zoning, and
building.
• Public Works — provide an overview of the City's infrastructure and current and future
projects.
• Recreation — a look at the recreational facilities and programs offered that enhance the
quality of life in the City.
• Law Enforcement and Fire Services — an overview of law enforcement and fire services in
the community and related roles and responsibilities.
DISCUSSION:
The following are some options that the Council may consider:
Have a City Hall Open House one evening and invite both neighborhoods to attend and have
City Staff available to present information in an informal setting to encourage discussion and
questions.
2. Have City Staff conduct a neighborhood meeting at a school or convenient facility close to
each neighborhood.
3. Send each neighborhood a copy of the attached brochure without having any formal
meetings.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
As directed by the City Council.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
As directed by Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The agenda for this meeting has been properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proposed handout
2