HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-2000 City Council Agenda PacketKEEP ONE YEAR
AGENDA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME:
Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 4:30 p.m.
PLACE:
Closed Session in the Administrative' Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue; Adjourned Regular Meeting in the Adult Care' Center, 19655
Allendale Avenue
TYPE:
Adjourned Regular Meeting
OPEN SESSION - 4:30 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room at 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section
54957.6 Agency Negotiator: Larry I. Perlin; Employee Organization:
Saratoga Employees Association (SEA) and Saratoga Management
Organization (SM0).
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government
Code section 54956.9(a) - Name of Cases: City of Saratoga v. TCI of
Cleveland, Santa Clara County'Superior.
3. Public Employee Mid-Year Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957 - Title: City Attorney
4. Public Employee Mid-Year Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957 - Title: City Manager
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 pm. in the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January
21, 2000. The l~otice of Adjournment fi-om the January 19 meeting was posted on January 20,
1999.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS -
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agend':~a. The law generally prohibits the Council fi-om discussing
or taking action on any such matters. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly
regarding Oral Communications.
Page 1 of 2
Agenda for Ci.ty Council
Adjourned Regular Meeting
January25. 2000
e
MID-YEAR FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-00.
Recommendation: Accept the mid-year financial report, adopt the attached resolution making
adjustments to the Fiscal Year 1999-00 budget, and accept the December Treasurer's Report.
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION. '
a. Presentation on Housing Element Update and ABAG's Regional Housing Needs
Determination Allocations.
b. Extension of Measure G to commercial zoning districts.
c. Status report on Circulation Element Update.
d. Status report on Fencing Ordinance revisions.
e. Review of Argonaut Elementary and Foothill Elementary School Renovation
Projects' Environmental Studies
4. PROPOSED POLICY ON APPEAL CONTINUANCES.
Recommendation: Approve proposed policy.
5. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS.
Association of Bay Area Governments
Chamber of Commerce Board
County Cities Assn. Leg. Task Fome
County HCD Policy Committee
Emergency Planning Council
Hakone Foundation Liaison
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Library Joint Powers Authority Board
North Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Committee
Penin. Div., League of Cal. Cities
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
Santa Clara County Cities Assn./
City Selection Committee
SASCC Liaison
Saratoga Business Development Council
Sister City Liaison
West Valley Solid Waste JPA
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
West Valley Sanitation District
Mehaffey Streit
Bogosian Waltonsmith
Streit Baker
Bogosian Waltonsmith
Baker Waltonsmith
Bogosian Mehaffey
Bogosian Baker
Mehaffey Streit
Waltonsmith Mehaffey
Streit Mehaffey
Streit Baker
Baker Waltonsmith
Waltonsmith Bogosian
Mehaffey Waltonsmith
Bogosian Mehaffey
Streit Baker
Waltonsmith Mehaffey
Baker Mehaffey
6. SELF EVALLkATION OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: January 5 and January 19, 2000.
7. OTHER
~DJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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]
Page 2 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE:
January 25, 2000
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Mid-Year Financial Reports for Fiscal Year 1999/00
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept the mid-year financial report, adopt the attached Resolution making adjustments to the
Fiscal Year 1999/00 budget, and accept the December Treasurer's Report.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The accompanying financial reports represent the monthly revenues, expenditures and fund
balances in all City funds for the month of December 1999. The financial reports include actual
revenues and expenditures at the mid-year point, as well as staff's mid-year projections.
This report also makes recommendations for adjustments to the Fiscal Year 1999/00 budget to
fund changes in programs and activities which were not appropriated in the original budget
adopted by the City Council in June 1999.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Overall, revenues are higher than expected at this point in the annual cycle, and expenditures are
almost exactly as expected. In the General Fund, revenues are about $771,000 higher than
expected as of December, primarily due to the unbudgeted property tax equity allocation (TEA)
payment of $595,732 pursuant to the arbitration agreement, and higher construction taxes and
encroachment permits. All other General Fund revenues are approximately as budgeted at mid-
year.
Total General Fund expenditures are almost exactly as anticipated as of December, although
some individual t~rograms need minor adjustments. Note that the City Council is slightly over
budget primarily due to Mayor Shaw's memorial event. The City Attorney's budget is also over
as a result of the new City Attorney contract.
In other funds, the Development Services revenues are about 53% higher than expected as of
December due to an active developn~nt environment. Development expenditures are slightly
higher as well. Other funds are very close to what would be expected.
At the mid-year point, all departments take a very 'close look at their budgets, and anticipate
expenditures through the end of the year. Following are a number of adjustments which staff
recommends to keep the Fiscal Year i 999/00 budget in line with anticipated expenditures.
MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
REVENUES
TEA - The City anticipates receiving $1,497,231 in Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) revenues.
Of this amount, $595,732 was received in December pursuant to the arbitration agreement
with the County, and another $901,499 is expected to be received as the normal TEA
payment in June. Only $244,712 was originally budgeted as the City's normal TEA
payment. Therefore, an increase of $1,252,519 is expected.
ALTRANS - The new agreement between the City and ALTRANS allows the City to
receive 5% of ALTRANS' cost as an administrative processing fee. It will be used to fund
staff in the City Manager's Office who is assigned to the ALTRANS project. This amount,
estimated to total $16,469, was not originally budgeted.
Police refund - The City received $88,850 from the County as a refund of the amounts paid
to the Sheriff's Office during last fiscal year. This amount is included in the Refunds and
Reimbursements revenues, but was not originally budgeted.
Development Fees and Other Revenues - Development-related revenues are higher than
budgeted. Staff recommends increasing budgeted development fees by $34,900 to fund
specific expenditures as discussed in items 8 and 10 below. Additionally, staff recommends
recognizing the Hakone Caretaker's Cottage rental income of $9,473 for the fiscal year, as
discussed further in item 11 below.
EXPENDITURES
Legal Services - $80,000 is recommended to be added to the Legal Services budget.
$120,000 was originally budgeted, but it appears that legal services for the year will total
about $200,000. Contingency could be used to fund this amount.
Litigation Services -$15,000 is recommended to be added to the Litigation Services budget.
$60,000 was originally budgeted, but it appears that litigation costs for the year will total
about $75,000. Contingency could be used to fund this amount.
City Council Special Events - Mayor Shaw's memorial event costs totaled $2,989.
$3,000 Contingency could be used to fund this amount.
A
'8.
City Council and Planning Commission furniture/sound/lighting system - The scope of this
project has been expanded to include necessary upgrades to the sound and lighting systems.
The project, originally budgeted at $15,000, is now anticipated to cost $29,000, an increase.
of $14,000. It is recommended that the City Council budget be increased by $4,100 and the
Monthly_Dec99 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
Zoning Administration budget be increased by $9,900. Contingency could be used to fund
the City Council's share of $4,100 and higher planning fees which have already been
received could be used to fund the Planning Commission's share of $9,900.
Election and advertising costs - The March. election for the Library bond will cost
approximately $7,750. Additionally, advertising costs associated with the Library bond and
the City Council vacancy will total about $2,250 for the year. Contingency could be used to
fund these amounts.
Development Services - a) The Planning Commission Minutes Clerk, estimated at $8,500
for the year, was not included in the original budget. Planning fees are sufficiently higher
than projected to fund'this additional cost. b) Arborist contract costs are expected to be
about $11,500 higher than budgeted due to high development activity. Arborist costs are
completely funded by arborist fee revenues, which will increase as well. c) Document
storage expenditures have outpaced projectiOns by about $5,000. Document storage
expenses are completely funded by document storage fees collected to cover the costs of
storage.
Hakone Caretaker's Cottage - In accordance with the rental agreement between the City and
the Housing Authority, the Housing Authority collects the rent from the Cottage's tenant,
and the amount is then transmitted to the City, who in turn transmits the amount to the
Hakone Foundation. In this transaction, the City realizes both revenues from the Housing
Authority and expenditures to the Foundation for the same amount. Although this is
considered a "passthrough" transaction which nets to zero on the City's books, it is
appropriate to record the revenues and expenditures separately to provide an adequate
accounting audit trail. Therefore, it is recommended that Rental Income be budgeted and
Interagency Fees be appropriated, both in the amount of $9,473.
MIS Assistant - For the past four months, the City has hired a temporary, part-time
employee to'assist in the MIS function. The City has been very fortunate to find an
individual who is talented and knowledgeable, yet willing to work for a salary that the City
can afford. The MIS Assistant performs desktop support and routine maintenance on the
City's fifty or so computers, and has recently assumed responsibility for maintaining the
City's website. This has freed the MIS Coordinator to deal with other important issues such
as long range planning, interact and email access, security, network design, training, and
more complex problem solving. This arrangement has proven to be very beneficial, and
staff recommends increasing the budget by $25,100 to fund the temporary, part-time MIS
Assistant through June 30. $2,000 in contract savings in the MIS program and $23,100 in
salary savin~ in the City Manager's Office are sufficient to fund this position.
Park Restroom Improvement Project - The City Council recently approved this project,
using a portion of the funding which was originally appropriated in the Park Development
Project no. 9704. The project is estimated to cost $152,587. Staff recommends establishing
this Project under a separate capital project no. 0001 within the same Park Development
Fund.
Monthly_Dec99 3
FISCAL IMPACTS:
These changes to the Fiscal Year 1999/00 budget would have the following fiscal impacts:
Uses of Funds
Increase in General Fund Appropriations
Increase in Other (Non-General) Fund Appropriations
$138,042
34,9O0
Sources of Funds
Increase in General Fund Revenues
Use of General Fund Contingency
Increase in Other (Non-General) Fund Revenues
1,350,842
112,100
51,369
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The expenditures for Fiscal Year 1999/00 would exceed budgeted appropriations by year end,
most notably for legal and litigation services, the City Council and Planning Commission
fumimre/souncl/lighting system, election costs, and Development Services Costs. The City
would also not be able to retain highly specialized MIS staff who maintains the website and
increases staff efficiency.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Instruct staff to remm in February with revised recommendations, or wait until the books are
closed after June 30 to make the budget increases as necessary.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Record budget adjustments into the City's Fiscal Year 1999/00 budget. Accept and file the
reports.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Making Adjustments to the Fiscal Year 1999/00 Budget
Mid-Year Financial Report for Fiscal Year 1999/00
Treasurer's Report for December, 1999
Monthly_Dec99 4
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-36, adopting the. budget for Fiscal
Years 1999/00 and 2000/01 on June 16, 1999; and
WHEREAs, subsequent to the adoption of said Resolution, the City Manager has recommended
further changes to the City's budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendations of the City Manager and
believes that implementing these further changes will be in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Increase TEA Property Tax Revenues by $1,252,519 to reflect the additional amounts which
the City received pursuant to the arbitration agreement with the County and anticipates
receiving with the normal TEA payment in June.
o
Reduce ALTRANS grant expenditures by $16,469 in the Congestion Management program
to reflect the 5% administrative processing fee that the City will receive. This amount will
be transferred into the General Fund through an operating transfer at year-end to fund staff
in the City Manager's Office.
Increase Refunds and Reimbursements revenues representing an $88,850 refund of police
services from the County Sheriff's Office.
Increase Development Fee revenues by $34,900 and General Fund Rental Income by
$9,473, as discussed further in items 8, 10 and 11 below.
Increase Legal Services by $80,000, from Contingency.
Increase Litigation Services by $15,000, from Contingency.
Increase Cil~ Council Special Events by $3,000, from Contingency, for Mayor Shaw's
memorial event.
8. Increase the City Council budget by $4,100, using Contingency, and the Zoning
Administration budget by $9,900 using planning fees, for the City Council and Planning
Commission furniture, sound and,lighting system project.
Monthly_Dec99 5
Increase the City Clerk's election budget by $7,750 for the Library bond election in March
and the advertising budget by $2,250 for costs associated.with the Library bond and the City
Council vacancy, for a total of $10,000, funded from Contingency.
10.
Increase the Zoning Administration budget as follows:
General contracts by $8,500 for the Minutes Clerk, funded by planning fees.
General contracts by $11,500 for arborist contract, funded by arborist fees
'Records management by $5,000, funded by document storage fees
11. Increase Rental Income and Interagency Fees Expenditures, both by $9,473, to provide a
more thorough accounting audit trail of the Hakone Caretaker's Cottage rental transactions.
12. Increase the MIS program by $25,100 for the MIS Assistant, funded with savings of $2,000
in the MIS program and $23,100 the City Manager's Office.
13. Transfer $152,587 from Park Development Project no. 9704 to Park Restroom Improvement
Project no. 0001 within the Park Development Fund.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above adjustments to the City of Saratoga's Fiscal
Year 1999/00 budget will be made using the following entries:
Expenditures Revenues
(Debit) (Credit)
001-1040-411-03.00
150-5010-421-03.00
150-5010-552-40.70
001 - 1040-421-03.00
001-1020-511-10.01
001 - 1040-441-04.00
001-1025-511-40.11
001-1010-511-50.02
001-1025-511-40.12
001-1010-511-50.02
001-1005-511-40.51
001-1010-511-50.02
001-1005-611-60.06
001-1010-511-50.02
250-4010-642-60.06
250-4010-444-01~0
001-1030-511-40.10
001 - 1030-511-40.40
001-1010-511-50.02
250-4010-542-40.10
250-4010-444-01.00
250-4010-542-40.10
250-4010-444-02.00
TEA Property Tax Revenues
Operating Transfers Out-Street/Road Fund
Grants to Other Agencies
Operating Transfers In-General Fund
City Manager's Office Regular Salaries
Refunds and Reimbursements
Legal Services
Contingency
Litigation Services
Contingency
City Council Special Events
Contingency
City Council Furniture/Equipment
Contingency
Zoning Administration Furniture/Equipment
Zoning Administration Planning Fees
City Clerk General Contracts-Elections
City Clerk Advertising
Contingency
Zoning General Contracts-Minutes Clerk
Zoning Administration Planning Fees
Zoning General Contracts-Arborist
Zoning Administration Arborist Fees
$16,469
-16,469
16,469
80,000
-80,000
15,000
-15,000
3,000
-3,000
4,100
-4,100
9,900
7,750
2,250
-10,000
8,500
11,500
$1,252,519
16,469
88,850
9,900
8,500
11,500
Monthly_Dec99 6
Expenditures Revenues
(Debit) (Credit)
250-4010-542-40.42
250-4010-444-05.00
001-3030-532-40.71
001-1040-462-02.00
001-1065-513-10.03
001-1065-513-20.01
001-1065-513-40.10
001-1020-511-10.01
001-1020-511-10.03
310-9010-613-40.10-0001
310-9010-613-40.10-9704
Zoning Administration Records Management
Zoning Administration Document Storage Fee
Parks/Open Space Interagency Fees
Rental Income-Hakone
MIS Salary and Wages
MIS Benefits
MIS General Contracts
City Manager's Office Regular Salaries
City Manager's Office Temp Salaries
Park Restroom Improve Project no. 0001
Park Development Project no. 9704
5,000
9,473
20,464'
4,636
-2~000
-16,100
-7,000
152,587
-152,587
5,000.
9,473
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 25th day of January, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Monthly_Dec99
Monthly_Dec99 7
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED =50.00%
FUND BALANCE
FUND
001
002
FUND DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND
MIS REPLACEMENT FUND
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
100 COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT
110 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
150 STREETS&ROADS SRF
160 TRANS DEV ACT SRF
170 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF
180 LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF
250 DEVELOPMENT SRF
260 ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF
270 HOUSING & COMM DEV SRF
290 RECREATION SRF
292 FACILITY OPS SRF
293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF
TOTAL SPECIAL REV. FUNDS
310
400
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS:
PARK DEVELOPMENT
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC
AGENCY FUNDS:
420 LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC
720 C.A. TV TRUST FUND
730 PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC
740 PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC
800 DEPOSIT AGENC~FUND
990 SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
AUDITED UNAUDITED
BALANCE YEAR TO DATE ADJUSTS & BALANCE
$ 6,812,663 $ 4,005,231 $ 2,380,932 $ (273,361) $ 8,163,601
60,000 35,000 95,000
6,872,663 4,005,231 2,380,932 (238,361) 8,258,601
15,663
62,419
887,209
203,034
69,394 23,486 2,536
54,360 405 (53,955)
385,417 506,983 121,566
41,082 101,899
1,005,321 670,057
327,732 160,657 (83,802)
37,219 59,563 22,344
283,148 493,078 209,930
76,605 105,384 28,779
15,772 6,735 (9,037)
1,2
64,107
1,602
1,168,325 2,296,050 2,128,246 238,361 1,574,490
2,251,983 9,315 19,509 - 2,241,789
5,574 87,990 87,990 - 5,574
41,153 8,138 33,015
81,630 1,025 82,655
11,871 11,871
9,550 140,751 (131,201 )l
395,519 395,519 ]
245,165 245,165
784,888 1,025 148,889 ~
$ 11,083,433 $ 6,399,611 $ 4,765,566 $ - $ 12,71
fs 1299hRECAP Page 1 1/21/00
TITLE
REVENUE RECAP BY FUND
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED ----50.00%
REVENUES
001 GENERAL FUND $
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
100 COPS-SLESFFUND
110 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
150 STREETS & ROADS SRF
160 TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRE
170 HILLSIDE REPAIR FUND
180 LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING FUND
250 DEVELOPMENT FUND
260 ENVIRNMNTAL PROGRAM FUND
270 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEV FUND
290 RECREATION FUND
292 FACILITY OPERATIONS FUND
293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
310
4OO
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:
PARK DVLPMNT CAP PRJ FND
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV FND
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
420 LEONARD RD DEBT SER FUND
720 CA TV TRUST FUND
730 PRK DST#2 DBT SR/AGNCY FD
740 PRK DST#3 DBT SR/AGNCY FD
800 DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND
990 SARATOGA PFA AGENCY FUND
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
TOTAL ALLFUNDS
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
6,618,507
71,900
146,000
1,336,080
83,203
5,888
236,195
1,248,200
876,680
236,313
656,855
125,000
21,500
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99 12/31/99
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
$ 3,234,461 $ 4,005,231
69,394 69.394
58,333 54,360
393,467 385.417
30O
37,175 41,082
1,314,200
657,100 1,005,321
312,052 327,732
35,998 37,219
263,832 283,148
69.650 76,605
15.500 15,772
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
23.8%
0.0%
-6.8%
-2.0%
0%
10.5%
53.0%
5.0%
3.4%
7.3%
10.0%
1.8%
5,043,814 5,205,105 1,912,801 2,296,050 20.0 %
111,780 55,890 9,315 -83.3%
94,262 87,990 100%+
11,938
4,000
163,203
19,250
2,000 1,025
-48.7%
198,391 2,000 1,025 -48.7%
$ 5,205,152 $ 6,399,611
$ 12,066,754 12,228,045
22.9%
(1)
fsI299\REVENUE Page 2 ' 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED --50.00%
REVENUES
TITLE
GENERAL FUND
001 PROP TAX SECURED/UNSECURED
TEA ALLOCATION
SALES TAX 1%
SALES TAX PROP 172
TRANSFER TAX
CONSTRUCTION TAX
TRANS OCCUP TAX
FRANCHISE FEES - PG&E
FRANCHISE FEES - TCI
FRANCHISEFEES - SJ WATER
FRANCHISE FEES - GREEN VALLEY
BUSINESS LICENSES
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
OFF HIGHWAY MV FEE
HOPTR
DISASTER RECOVERY
OTHER REFUNDS & REIMBURSES
F/NES-FALSE ALARM
FORFEITURES
INTEREST
RENTALS-CELL PHONE
HAKONE RENT PASS THROUGH
SALE OF ASSETS
MISC.
VEHICLE ABATEMENT
ANIMAL LICENSES
FUEL SALES
GROUND MAINT
PERMIT-ENCRMT.
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
1,192,200
244,712
1,436,912
1,013,100
76,500
1,089,600
288,800
350,000
264,000
902,800
235,000
173,500
85,900
286,800
781,200
278,161
1,320,100
170
16,000
1,336,270
234,564
25,000
40,000
350,0O0
52,O00
5,000
5,000
5,000
8,000
10,000
5,000
54,000
793,564
6,618,507
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99 1'2/31/99
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
596.100 $ 543,201
595.732
(YTD)
ACTUA~
12~1D9
ESTIMATE
-8.9%
100%+
596,100 1.138,933 91.1%
506,550 513.407 ! .4%
38.250 36,454 -4.7%
544.800 549,861 0.9%
144,400 157,021 8.7%
175,000 297,216 69.8%
132,000 133.034 0.8%
451.400 587.271 30.1%
72,292 76,240 5.5%
119,500 111,403 -6.8%
191,792 187.643 -2.2%
139,081 120.355 -13.5%
740,050 761,320
334 334
2,345 100%+
740,384 763,999 3.2%
273,905 328,360
12,500 ! 1,225
20,000 22,231
175,000 173,910
46,000 46,889
1,285
2,500 2,902
2,500 7,517
4,000 4,015
5,000 3,667
2,500 4,000
27,000 51,168
570,905 657, ! 69
3,234,461 4,005,231
19.9%
-10.2%
11.2%
-0.6%
1.9%
16.1%
0.4%
-26.7%
60.0%
89.5%
15.1%
23.8%
(2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(1)
fs 1299\R EVEN U E Page 3 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 51, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED ---~0.00%
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
COPS-SLESF SP REV FD
100 SUPPL LAW ENFORCE
TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
110 REFUNDS & REIMB.
CROSSING GUARD MATCH
FINES-VEHICLE CODE
TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
STREETS & ROADS SRF
150 REFUNDS & REIMB.
ST HIGHWAY USER 2107.5
ST HIGHWAY USER 2106
ST HIGHWAY USER 2107
ST FHWA REIMB.
ST 2105 S&H CODE
TEA-21
MEASURE B
TOTAL ST&RDS SRF
TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF
160 TOTAL TDA
HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF
170 INTEREST
HILLSIDE STREET REPAIR
TOTAL HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF
LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF
180 PROP. TAX
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
INTEREST
CONTRIBUTIONS
TOTAL LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF
DEVELOPMENT SRF
250 GEOLOGY REVIEW FEES
ENGINEERING FEES
PLANNING FEES
ARBORIST FEE
MAP/PUB/OTHER SALES
DOCUMENT STRG FEES
PERMITS-BUILDING
PERM/TS-GRADING
INTEREST
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
64,554 64,554
71,900
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
228,000 228,000
YEAR-TO-DATE
6,000
140,000
146,000
39,060
6,000
153,523
267,994
75,000
193,169
224,082
377,252
1336,080 1,514,574 1,514,574
83,203
600
5,288
5,888
73,750
160,445
2,000
236,195
60,000
54,000
320,000
50,000
200
7,000
725,000
32,000
1,248,200
12~1D9 12~1D9
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
69394 69,394
3,500
58.333 50.860
58333 54360
6,348 6.348
6,000 6,000
63,968 60,972
111,664 106,824
80,487 79,522
125.000 125,751
393,467 385,417
300
30O
36,875 40,777
300 305
37,175 41,082
120,000
30,000 38,023
60,000 111,623
160,000 193,150
25,000 41,508
100 -
3,500 8,500
362,500 586,936
16,000 25,581
657,100 1,005,321
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
0.0%
100%+
-12.8%
-6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
-4.7%
-4.3%
-i.2%
0.6%
-2.0%
0%
I 0.6%
1.7%
10.5%
26.7%
86.0%
20.7%
66.0%
0%
142.9%
61.9%
59.9%
53.0%
(2)
(8)
(1)
fs 1299\REVEN U E Page 4 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED =50.00%
· TITLE
ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SKF
260 CLEAN AIR GRANT
ST REFUSE SURCHG AB939
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES
INTEREST
TOTAL ENVIRON PRG SRF
HOUSING&COMM DEV SKF
270 HCD/CDBG/SHARP GRANTS
INTEREST
SHARP LOAN REPAYMENT
TOTAL HOUSING/COMM DEV SRF
RECREATION SKF
290 FRIENDS OF WARNER HUTTON HOUS
SPORTS LEAGUE FEES
CAMP FEES
EXCURSION FEES
CLASS/SPECIAL EVENT
SNACK BAR SALES
REDWOOD SPORTS PRGM.
TEEN SERVICES
SNACK BAR SALES
WARNER HUTTON CONTRIBUTIONS
TOTAL RECREATION SRF
FACILITY OPS SKF
292 BUILDING RENT
- PARKS RENT
TOTAL FACILITY OPS SRF
THEATER TCK SRCHG SKF
293 THEATER TCK SRCHG
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
PARK DVLPMNT CAP PP3 FND
310 PARK DEVELOPMENTg
FISCAL YEAR 1999.-00
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
329,390
20,000
527,290
876,680
234,313
2,000
236,313
9,655
47,500
104,000
89,000
350,000
1,200
28,000
24,500
1,000
2,000
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99 12/31/99
'ESTIMATE ACTUAL
82,348 83.802
10,000 13,448
219.704 230.482
312,052 327,732
1.000 2.221
34.998 34.998
(YTD)
ACTUA~
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
1.8%
34.5%
4.9%
5.0%
122.1%
0.0%
35,998 37,219 3.4%
24,000 23,016
21,000 20,065
44,500 47,392
153,000 167.388
600 668
11,000 10,811
8,232 12,738
500 1,070
1.000
-4.1%
-4.5%
6.5%
9.4
-1.7
54.7%
114.0%
0%
656,855 263,832 283,148 7.3%
120,000 67,000 71,732 7.1%
5,000 2,650 4,873 83.9%
125,000 69,650 76,605 10.0 %
21,500 15,500 15,772 1.8%
5,043,814 5,205,105
111,780
1,897.301 2,280,278
20.2%
(9)
(9)
55,890
9,315 -83.3% (10)
fsI299\REVENUE Page 5 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED --50.00%
TITLE
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV FND
40O PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
OTHER
TOTAL LIBRARY BOND DEBT
AGENCY FUNDS:
LEONARD RD DEBT SER FUND
420 SERVICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS)
CA TV TRUST FUND
720 INTEREST INCOME
PRK DST#2 DBT SPUAGNCY FD
730 SERVICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS)
PRK DST#3 DBT SR/AGNCY FD
740 SERVICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS)
DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND
800 DEPOSITS
SARATOGA PFA AGENCY FUND
990 INTEREST INCOME '
TOTAL AGENCYFUNDS
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
REVISED
BUDGET
(if different)
80,000
14,062
2OO
94,262
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
11,938
4,000
163,203
GRAND TOTAL 12,066,754
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
12~I/99
ACTUAL
80.000
7,990
87,990
2,000 1,025
19,250 .
198391 2,000 1,025
$ $ 12,228,045
$ 5,205,152 $ 6,399,611
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
100%+
100%+
100%+
-48.7%
-48.7%
22.9%
(2)
(2)
(8)
(8)
(8)
REVENUE NOTES:
(1) Development Fees - Development activity remains higher than originally budgeted.
(2) Property Taxes - Secured property tax paid in December/January and April/May.
(3) TEA per arbitration agreement for FY 97/98 and 98/99.
(4) Franchise Fees from PG&E and SJ Water received in April and February respectively.
(5) Business Licenses - most business licenses renewed in January
(6) Other Refunds and Reimbt~scmenls - Insurance premium refunds ($135,545) received in July, and Police refund ($88,850)received in Oct.
(7) Cell Phone Rentals - Nextel and Sprint paid annually in December.
(8) Assessment Revenues - January and May.
(9) Recreation Fees - Sports and Camps revenues in early summer.
(10) Park Development Fees - Azule Crossing was included in estimated revenues, but not collected yet.
fsI299\REVEN UE Page 6 . 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED ---50.00%
EXPENDITURES
001
100
110
150
160
170
180
250
260
270
290
292
293
710
310
400
420
700
720
730
740
8O0
990
ORIGINAL
TITLE BUDGET
EXPENDITURE RECAP BY FUND
GENERAL FUND $ 4,708,717
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT 78,888
TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 22,311
STREETS&ROADS SRF 3,095,022
TRANS DEV ACT SRF 98,103
HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF -
LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 179,478
DEVELOPMENT SRF 1,348,266
ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF 514,129
HOUSING & COMM DEV SRF 315,529
RECREATION SRF 894,878
FACILITY OPS SRF 188,701
THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 13,922
HERITAGE PRSRVTN TRST FND
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUN
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS:
PARK DEVELOPMENT
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC
QUARRY CREEK PROJ ADM
C.A. TV TRUST FUND
PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC
PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC
DEPOSIT AGENCY FUND
SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
REVISED
BUDGET
(if differen0
YEAR-TO-DATE
TOTALALLFUNDS
12/31D9
ACTUAL
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
~983,958
78,888
22,311
3,100,819
98,103
0
198,840
1,370,592
514,129
315,529
897,060
188,701
13,922
0
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
$ 2,387,116
$ 2,380,932
25,991 23,486
413 405
548,278 506,983
99,420 101,899
661,257 670,057
164,568 160,657
77,323 59,563
456,731 493,078
94,351 105,384
6,961 6,735
O'TD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
-0.3%
-9.6%
-2.0% (13)
-7.5% (9)
2.5%
1.3%
-2.4%
-23.0%
8.0%
11.7%
~749~27 6,798,894 2,135,293 2,128,246
567,000 603,714 20,000 19,509 -2.5%
93,505 93,505 87,900 87,990 0.1%
8,138
8,150
141,000 140,751
149,150 148,889
11,938 11,938
- 0
' 0
- 0
170,203 170,203
0
0
$ 4,779,459 $ 4,765,566
182,141 182,141
$ 12,300,590 12,662~212
-0.1%
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.3%
fs 1299\EXPEND. Page 7 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED --50.00%
EXPENDITURES
TITLE
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
~(if different)
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different)
OOl GENERAL FUND
1005
lOlO
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1060
1065
2005
2010
2015
2025
3030
3035
4005
7005
7010
9010
CITY COUNCIL
CONTINGENCY
CITY COMMISSIONS
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
HUMAN RESOURCES
GENERAL SERVICES
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYS.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
CODE ENFORCEMENT
POLICE SERVICES
ANIMAL CONTROL
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
GENERAL ENGINEERING
ADVANCED PLANNING
SENIOR SERVICES
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
CAPITAL PROJECTS-VESSING RD
SUBTOTAL
LESS OVERHEAD
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
44,350
200,000
68,909
274,945
283,265
76,638
171,444
353,742
149,876
112,797
452,541
142,809
56,828
47,748
2,664,456
28,843
488,705
190,096
104,737
31,980
66,200
79,338
371,867
197,225
154,737
150,000
6,010,909 6,286,150
(1,302,192)
4,708,717 4,983,958
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99 12/31/99
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
22,175 27,004
34,455 '29,323
137,473 119,695
141,633 201,570
39,669 43,433
47,222 47,400
155,154 153,296
74,938 69,428
56,399 61,372
146,271 147,430
93,094 98,012
28,414 30,643
23,874 17,688
1,332,228 1,292,873
14,422 16,047
224,804 221,012
75,450 72,256
43,609 37,841
15,990 14,534
33,100 36,403
150,000 160,002
2,890,369 2,897,262
(503,253) (516,330)
2,387,116 2,380,932
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
21.8% (10)
- 14.9%
-12.9% (11)
42.3% (12)
9.5%
0.4%
-1.2%
-7.4%
8.8%
0.8%
5.3%
7.8%
-25.9%
-3.0%
11.3%
-1.7%
-4.2%
-13.2%
-9.1%
10.0%
6.7%
0.2%
2.6%
-0.3%
fs 1299\EXPEND. Page 8 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED =50.00%
EXPENDITURES
TITLE
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
100 2030
COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL COPS SRF
110 2020
TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF
150
· STREETS&ROADS SRE
3005 STREET MAINTENANCE
3010 SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS
3015 TRAFFIC CONTROL
3020 FLOOD AND STORM DRAIN CONTR
3025 MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS
5010 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
9000 CAPITAL PROJECTS
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL STREETS&ROADS SRF
160 9501 TRANSDEVACTSRF
170 9703 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF
180 3040
LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRE
250
4010
4015
4020
DEVELOPMENT SRF
ZONING ADMINSTRATION
INSPECTION SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF
260
5OO5
5015
ENVIRNMNTAL PRa,G SRF
INTEGRATED WASTE MGMT
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SR
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
REVISED
BUDGET
Of differenO
ESTIMATED
ACTUAL
(if different).
70,369
8,519
78,888
21,600
711
22,311
1,610,916
87,579
177,753
98,263
90,069
345,320
291,750
183,550
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99 12/31/99
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
23,185 20,950
2,807 2.536
25,991 23,486
400 392
13 13
413 405
185,029 181,178
67,778 63,127
48,334 43,834
39,132 30,225
45,035 42,447
93,417 81,856
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
-9.6%
-9.6%
-9.6%
-2.0%
-2.0% (13)
-2.0%
-2.1% (9)
-6.9%
-9.3%
-22.8%
-5.7%
2,701,650 2,707,447 478,723 442,667 -7.5°,
393,372 69,555 64,316 -7.5%
3,095,022 3,100,819 548,278 506,983 -7.5%
88,926 91,143
'10,494 10,756
98,103
158,490 177,852
20,988
179,478 198,840 99,420 101,899
182,473 193,416
177,938 170,308
79,634 82,176
355,627 364,945
370,175 375,869
163,954 171,268
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
6.0%
-4.3%
3.2%
889,756 912,082 440,044 445,900 1.3%
458,510 221,213 224,157 1.3%
1,348,266 1,370,592 661,257 670,057 1.3%
164,849 82,425 80,852 -1.9%
290,763 63,413 61,519 -3.0%
455,612 145,837 142,371 -2.4%
58,517 18,731 18,286 ·-2.4%
514,129 164,568 160,657 -2.4%
fs 1299\EXPEND. Page 9 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED --50.00%
EXPENDITURES
270
7015
9000
290
6005
6010
292 6020
293 6015
TITLE
HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF
HCDA ADMINISTRATION
CAP PROJECTS (SR CTR & ADA)
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF
RECREATION SRF
RECREATION
TEEN SERVICES
SUBTOTAL
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL RECREATION SERVICES
FACILITY OPS SRE
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL FACILITY SRE
THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF
PLUS OVERHEAD
TOTAL THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
REVISED ESTIMATED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if differen0 (if different)
90,166
216,221
306,387
9,142
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31199 12/31199
ESTIMATE ACTUAL
45,083 31,643
30,000 26.194
75,083 57,837
2,240 1,726
315,529 77,323 59,563
569,355 571,537
108,535
677,890 680,072
216,988
291,986 318,665
54,268 55,143
346~53 373,808
110,478 119,270
894,878 897,060 456,731 493,078
58,223 29,112 32,516
130,478 65,239 72,868
188,701 94,351 105,384]
8,955
4,967
13,922
4,478 4,332
2,484 2,403
6,961 6,735
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
310 9704 PARK DEVELOPMENT
6,749,227 6,798,894
567,000 603,714
2,135,293 2,128,246
20,000 19,509
(YTD)
ACTUAL/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
-29.8%
-12.7%
-23.0%
-23.0%
-23.0%
9.1%
1.6%
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
11.7%
11.7%
11.7%
-3.2%
-3.2%
-3.2%
-0.3%
-2.5%
fs 1299\EXPEND. Page 10 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER :}1, 1999
PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED --50.00%
EXPENDITURES
TITLE
DEBT SERVICE FUND:
400 8o15 LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC
AGENCY FUNDS:
420 8020 LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC
720 1040 C.A. TVTRUST FUND
730 8005 PARKING DIST #2 DEBT SVC
740 8010 PARKING DIST #3 DEBT SVC
990 1040 SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY
TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
REVISED ESTIMATED
ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL
BUDGET (if differen0 (if different).
93,505
11,938
170,203
YEAR-TO-DATE
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
12/31/99
ACTUAL
87,900 87,990
8,150 8,138
141,000 140,751
(YTD)
ACTUAl/
12/31/99
ESTIMATE
0.1% (14)
-0.1% (15)
-0.2% (15)
182,141 149,150 148,889
12,300,590 12,662,212 4,779,459 4,765,566 -0.3%
EXPENDITURE NOTES:
(9) First few months of the fiscal year are generally slower for programs that rely on contract work..
(10) Hakone Garden reception for Mayor Shaw not budgeted. Also, certain annual dues paid early in year.
(11) Salary savings.
(12) Saratoga Creek litigation serdemant costs and liability insurance paid.
(13) Traffic Safely - Crossing Guards will be paid later in the year.
(14) Debt service payments made in December and June.
(15) Debt service payments made in September and March.
£s 1299\EXPEND. Page 11 1/21/00
CITY OF SARATOGA
Cash and Investment Report
Balance as of December 31, 1999
Institution
Acquisition
Date
Anticipated
FDR* Book Market Par Maturity Montldy
Rating Value Value** Value Yefld Date Term Earnings
Cash:
DD
CK
CK
Cash & Investments:
Comerica Bank - Savings
Comefica Bank - General Checking
Comerica Bank - Payroll Checking
Subtotal Cash
N/A
N/A
N/A
AAA $532,249 $532,249 $532,249 2.200% Revolving 1 $976
AAA, 108,603 108,603 108,603 0.000% Revolving 1 0
AAA 16,384 16,384 16,384 0.000% Revolving I 0
L.A.I.F. & Investments:
MF L.A.I.F.
CD Saratoga National Bank
CD Hehlage Bank of Commerce
N/A
07/03/98
10/14/98
657,236 a 657,236 657,236 1.782% I 976
Subtotal CDs
Subtotal L.A.I.F. & Investments
Subtotal Unrestricted Cash & Investments
Restricted Cash & Investments:
SV Saratoga National Bank - CDBG
ES US Bank - Library Debt Service
CK Wells Fargo Bank - CDBG
CK Wells Fargo Bank - CDBG
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A 10,474,961 b 10,452,642 10,474,961 5.639% Revolving 1 49,224
AAA, 500,000 500,000 500,000 5.391% 07/03/99 365 2.246
AAA. 562,683 562,683 562,683 5.650% 10/14/99 365 2.649
Subtotal Restricted Cash & Investments
Total Cash and Investments
Benchmark Yield Comparison
1,062,683 1,062,683 1,062,683 5.528% 365 4.896
11,537,644 11,515,325 11,537,644 5.629% 183 54.119
12,194,880 12,172,561 12,194,880 5.421% 92 55.095
AAA 207,536 207,536 207,536 2.530% Revolving 1 438
AAA 5,800 5,800 5,800 0.000% Revolving I 0
AAA 25,057 25,057 25,057 0.000% Revolving I 0
AY'.A 7,353 7,353 7,353 0.000% Revolving I 0
245,746 245,746 245,746 2.137% I 438
3 Month Treasury 5.so%I 1 Year Treasury 6.13%I
Schedule of Maturities:
Immediate
FY 1999-2000
Total
$11,377,943
1,062,683
$12,440,626
Reserve Analysis:
General Fund Reserve requirement adopted 6/25/97:
General Fund Balance as of 12/31/99.
Available Funds:
Unrestricted Poolcd Cash & Invcslments available for current year cxpcnscs in all funds:
Includes unrestricted funds m~mring within the current fiscal year)
$2,000,000
$8,258,601
$11,132,197
General Fund Loans Receivable:
Hakone Foundation #
Principal Rate Date Term
$188,670 6.500% 03/01/2004 3,650
NOTES:
DD - Direct Deposits CK- Checking Account MF - Mutual Fund SV - Savings Account ES - Escrow Account
* FDR = The Financial Directory rating is based on computer analysis of prime fmancials reported qua~erly by the institutions to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board. Rating based on information released July 1998.
**Market values for U.S. Treasury Notes provided by Stale Street Bank and Trust Company.
it This loan is noted for memorandum purposes only. The loan is amortized per the agreement with the Hakone Foundation. No payments are received.
This report reflects Pooled Cash, Investments and Reslticted Cash which are available resources to fund operations, debt service and capital improvements. Other interest bearing
assets (notes receivable) are listed above. Debt service reserve funds held by trustees are restricted pursuant to indenture covenants and have been excluded from this report.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53646, the City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the adopted investment policy and there are adequate resources to meet
eared pool expenditure requirements for the next six months.
Approved by:
1/21/00
(Unaudited Results)
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2000
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: James Walgren~ Dir.
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a memorandum from James Walgren, Director of Community Development outlining
the items for discussion with the Planning Commission. Also attached is a memorandum from
City Attorney Richard Taylor regarding Measure G ballot measure.
FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A
ATTACHMENTg: Memorandum from James Walgren and Richard Taylor
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
City Council
Community Development Director/~ ~/~
January 25, 1999
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
The following topics have been agendized for discussion at the City Council's joint meeting with the
Planning Commission. This memorandum provides an overview of each topic to facilitate discussion.
Housing Element Update
Each jurisdiction represented by the Association of Bay Area Governments is required to update their
General Plan Housing Elements to comply with the State's Very-Low to Above-Moderate rate
housing requirements by Summer, 2001. Southem Califomia jurisdictions have already gone through
this process. The first step of this process is for ABAG to assess each jurisdiction's regional share of
required housing by income categories. The attached memorandum fi.om ABAG includes their
Regional Housing Needs Determination tables for Santa Clara County.
ABAG's RHND table indicates that Saratoga should provide 79 new housing units per year over the
next seven and one-half years. These new units can include demolished and reconstructed homes and
50 percent of them may be Above-Moderate income level homes, meaning there is no income level
attached to the type of home provided. Through redevelopment of aging homes, Saratoga probably
can provide approximately 40 newly constructed homes per year. The other 40 new below market
rate homes would seemingly be impossible for Saratoga to accommodate. Multiple-family housing is
only currently permitted in our commercial zoning districts, via mixed-use projects like Azule
Crossing. It is very unlikely that the Village or the Gateway areas, for example, are ever going to
redevelop at a paces[o provide this number of units in a single year - and there isn't enough land in
Saratoga to sustain these numbers over a period of seven years.
The City may be able to meet these below market rate housing requirements through other means. If
the City can be credited with the approximately 200 new units being constmcted at the Odd Fellows
facility, much of this burden would be alleviated. Acknowledging and "legalizing" existing second
dwelling un/ts - in a conservative manner - is another possibility.
· Page I
Regardless of the City's ability to achieve these State housing goals, staffis very concemed w/th the
distribution of the numbers provided. These numbers are supposed to be based on ajurisdiction's
anticipated population increase over this seven-year period, and to a lesser extent job creation over the
same period. If this is the case, how can Saratoga be assigned 590 units while the Town of Los Gatos
is only assigned 206 total units over the same period?
In discussions with the City Attomey regarding this matter, it was suggested that the.finn Seifel
Associates be consulted to assist the City in challenging the distribution-0fthese numbers. The ability
for a local jurisdiction to review and to challenge these numbers is built in to ABAG's process. This
is. not an aggressive or provocative action for the City to take. At the City Attorney's request, their
firm has provided the attached proposal with a not-to-exceed budget of $5,000. Given the broad
scope of their proposal, and the fact that staffis most interested in challenging ABAG's distribution of
housing numbers, staff anticipates that it will not cost the full $5,000. Adequate funds have already
been allocated over next two fiscal years to pay for this service as part of the General Plan Housing
Element update project. Since the City only has until the end of February to challenge these numbers,
staffrecommends contracting with this faro for their assistance. Stafffeels it is justified in this case
not to go out for bids for this service since Seifel Associates will be working through the City
Attorney's office and can be considered an extension of their legal services. Requests for Proposals
would be distributed to consulting firms as usual for the actual Housing Element update.
Extension of Measure G to Commercial Zoning Districts
The City Attomey will be providing a separate analysis of this subject. However, clearly the City's
deadline to comply with the State's regional housing goals in some manner is relevant to this
discussion. Currently, multiple-family housing is only permitted in Saratoga's commercially
designated districts. In these districts, it is permitted where it is appropriate. This allows mixed-use
developments to be considered where the residential component is either behind or above the
commercial development - locations where retail commercial development is generally not viable. A
move to prohibit multiple-family residential development in the City's commercial districts will
further restrict the City's ability to meet our State mandated housing goals.
Status Report on Circulation Element Update
The initial community outreach meetings scheduled for this project concluded in November, 1999.
Since then, data collection has proceeded and staffhas received copies of the Working Paper No. 1:
Existing Conditions and the draft Goals and Policies documents. These are being reviewed by staff
and will result in a draft Circulation Element by early Spring. Public hearings will then be held before
the Public Safety Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. This project is on schedule,
within budget, andes being performed per the approved Scope of Work.
Status Report on Fencing Ordinance Revisions
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12 to introduce and discuss Saratoga's
ctm-ent hillside fencing ordinance. The C.~. mmission voted 5-0 (Commissioners Barry abstaining and
Kurasch absent) to recommend amendments to this ordinance per the staffreport discussion. In short,
· Page 2
the amendments would increase the allowable fenced area of a residential lot fi.om 4,000 sq. ft. to 20
percent of the net site area. An additional exception to this fencing limit was recommended for
agricultural uses. Agriculture would be defined as vineyards, orchards and other similar uses. A
complete staff analysis will be presented to the City Council once this item is scheduled for a public
hearing before the Council.
The Planning Commission was a little surprised that there was no public attendance at their meeting to
comment on this subject. Following the meeting, Commissioner Jackman inquired whether the City
could mail direct notices to everyone residing in the Hillside Residential zoning dislricts. These
districts comprise approximately one-fifth of the City and would include roughly 1,000 to 1,500
parcels. At 70 cents per notice, this could probably be done for under $1,000.
Status Report on SUSD Projects
The SUSD has distributed their environmental Initial Study for public review for the Argonaut
Elementary School expansion plans. The School District has determined that an EIR is not necessary
for the project. Staffhas forwarded copies of the Initial Study to the Public Safety Commission and
the City's Consulting Traffic Engineer for review - their written comments will be forwarded to the
City Council at the February 2 meeting. The 30-day comment period ends February 7, though the
District has informed staffthat they would be willing to extend that deadline if necessary. Staffis not
anticipating this project to generate the types of impacts associated with the Saratoga Elementary and
the Redwood Middle School projects, and is therefore not recommending that the Council hold a
special meeting to discuss the District's study. The traffic study is attached for reference.
The District is holding ~ffdistributing the Foothill Elementary School Initial Study as a result of the
study findings that significant traffic delays may result at the Verde Vista intersection with Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road due to the school's expansion. Staffwill keep the City Council posted on this project
as it develops.
· Page 3
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
~.~- o",, e.. n,~n~.;,: t ~ :.~t~,' an3 CountvGovernmentsoftneSam:ranc;scoBavArea
,Al
Date:
To:
November 24, 1999 M
City and Town Mayors
County Board of Supervisors Chairs and presidents
Regional Housing Needs Determination Contacts
Cc:
From:
Re:
City, Town and County Managers and Administrators
Community Development and Planning Directors
Eugene Leong, Executive Director~.3~
Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner~-'~ .~d,ef.
Regional Housing Needs Determination 1999-2006
Release of Preliminary Numbers
This memo and attachment serves as official transmittal of the Regional Housing
Needs Distribution (RHND) responsibilities for each Bay Area jurisdiction. The
RHND process is a State mandate, devised to address the need for and planning of
housing across a range of affordability and in all commtmities throughout the State. Each
jurisdiction within the Bay Area (101 cities, 9 counties) is given a share of the anticipated
regional housing need. The Bay Area's regional housing need is specified by the
California State Departmem of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and
finalized through negotiations with A.BAG. The timeframe for the current RHND
process is June 30, 1999 through December 31, 2006 (a seven and a half year planning
period).
Following extensive discussion at their November 18th meeting, the ABAG Executive
Board approved the release of preliminary numbers for the RI-IND. Attached to this
memo, you will find a table that shows the housing need responsibility that ABAG has
identified for your jurisdiction, as well as other jurisdictions in your county. As required
by law, this table further delineates each jurisdiction's housing need responsibility by
income category.
This official release of the RHND numbers initiates a 90-day review period, which
begins on Dece~nber 1, 1999. Each jurisdiction has the opportunity to evaluate its
identified need and the distribution of that need across income categories. ABAG will
evaluate and respond to all comments received from Bay Area jurisdictions. The final
day for comments to be received by ABAG is February 29, 2000.
;,.'.a. :az Adoresi P.O. Bo,: 205~3 Oaktand, Ca!ifornia ?'60-:-205C (5]0~ 464-790..'3. Fax: ',5'~0)4,,54-7970 mfo@aDag.ca.gov
_c.:at c." _',ose~,h D. ~ort Me~roCente, '0: Ei(:]hth Street Oakland, Cahfornia 94607-475::.
Following this 90-day review by the jurisdictions, a 60-day review period begins for
ABAG. The ABAG review period will begin on March 1, 2000. ABAG's respOnse to
jurisdictional comments must be complete by April 28, 2000.
At the end of the 90-day and 60-day time periods noted above, the ABAG Executive
Board will be asked to adopt a final set of RHND numbers for each jurisdiction. After
adoption of the numbers, an appeals process will be available to jurisdictions. The ABAG
Executive Board will define the appeals process, and the resulting procedures will be
made available to all jurisdictions.
ABAG is currently setting dates, places and times for several RHND informational
meetings around the region. Notification of these meetings will be available on the
ABAG web-site in early December. We are tentatively planning for these meetings to
take place in early January. Staff will be available at these meetings to answer questions
related to this process, the methodology and other general questions.
Jurisdiction specific questions, comments and concerns should be directed to:
ABAG
Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
510.464.7955
AlexA~abag.ca.gov
RHND information is available for review and download on the abagOnline web-site at:
www-abae.ca, gov/planning/housingneeds/index.htm
The RHND Information packet includes:
· A distribution of numbers to all Bay Area Jurisdictions.
· A description of the methodology used to distribute the RHND numbers to each
community.
· State Housing Element Law 65580-65589.8 regulations pertaining to this RHND
process.
A schedule/calendar of dates and timeframes for this process.
Executive Board RHND PowerPoint Presentation, November 18, 1999.
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination
Construction Need Distributed By Income Category
1999-2006 Housing Element Period
Santa Clara County
HCD Regional Housing Need
230,743
Jurisdiction
CAMPBELL
CUPERTINO
GILROY
LOS ALTOS
LOS ALTOS HILLS
LOS GATOS
F'IILPITAS
MONTE SERENO
MORGAN HILL
HOUNTAIN VIEW
Regional Allocation of
HCD Units Very Low Low Moderate
4,212 640 320 984
! 5.2% 7.6% 23.4%
300 44 24 64
14.5% 8.0% 21.4%
206 37 19 49
~8.0% 9.]% 24.0%
~16.1% 8.4% .26. ! %
124 ! 7 8 22
~ 3.4o/o 6.7o/o ~ 7.5%
2,941 602 294 845
20.5% i 0.0% 28.7%
.S"~'6S'E:~.~,~,.:,~ ~~:~.~,~,~ ~"~'"~~.: -- ........... 24950 · _, '
...... . ,., . ........... ~.~ ~. , S,~ 13 2,345 6 716
Above
Moderate
439
41.1%
2,268
53.8%
1,442
39.2%
168
56.1%
45
63.6%
101
49.0%
1,354
49.3%
77
62.4%
1 ~424
47.6%
1,200
40.8%
481 'i ':'.':
48.0%:, .- ......
10,776
43.2%
Average Yearly
Need
142.
562
490
40
9
27
366
17
:133
3,3'27
A 0using
Regional Housing Needs Jurisdictional Review Numbers ~ ABA
G
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination
Construction Need Distributed By Income Category
1999-2006 Housing Element Period
anta Clara County (Continued).
HCD Regional Housing Need
230,743
Jurisdiction
SANTA CLARA
SARATOGA
SUNNYVALE
Unincorporated
Total Incorporated
Santa Clara County Total
Regional Allocation of Above
HCD Units Very Low Low Moderate Moderate
590 82 42 117 349 79
14.0% 7.1% 19.8% 59.1%
~!~'iiii?.!~i!~:~:~i:.i~:~.:.,.::i~3,~Z '. :~:,.:~::~.~1S..~.~,~,~62.~..::~:.::~:.:~.1:;032 1,6~ 495
:~.:L:::~'~:~:~:~:?.~:~.~:::-..:~:~~ ~,:~.~?::.~:~:f?~?. ........ ~:;~;~::~': .:~ ..:..:~.~.L~.~. · ' :
1~239 278 140 555 267 ] 65
22.4% ! 1.3% 44.8% 21.5%
52,81 ~ 10,424 4,880 14,015 23,500 7,043
54,058 10,702 5,020 14,56~ 2~,767 7,208
Average Yearly
Need
564
Regional Housing Needs Jurisdictional Review Numbers
. ousing Needs
~ A r~ A am''' Assodacion of
Sent by: SEIFEL ASSOCIATES 415 9891245; 01/18/00 10:52; JpJ, E~L.#847;Page
Jmmary 17, 2000
Subject: Proposal for Advisory Services on ABAG Housing Needs Allocation
13eqr Mr. Walgrcn,
Scift'l As.sociare~ proposes t,~ provide the City, ~1: Snraroga with an mmlysls .f the ABAG
11~ nlsing needs allocatit~n, ns well ~s n discussion of ix~tential ways the ('~ity can meet
allocation. We have developed aJibrdable housing progrnms and policie~ for local government=,
analyzed ABACi allocations, and updated Housing Elemem's and Comoltdated Plans.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
13ascd on our disct, s~ion wlrh Rich Taytor, our services would includt, thc following ta~k,s:
Task I: Scoping Session
Ar rhe initiation nf the conrract, we will inc. er with the Department ro revtew thc propo.md
work ta~ks and discu~ how they can mosr efficiently and cosl effectively b~ implcmenred. This
scoping session will:
· Establish a schedule for thc completitm of each task, assembl~ of inft~rmnlion and
preparation ~sf the report on the analysis.
· l')et~rmine how each work task can bc~t be accomplished and allocate responsihilitim to
a~sure thc thntdy mid efficient complc~ i~.~ of each task.
Assemble m'~d review existing dat'a.
Task 2: Review of ABAG Housing Needs Allocation
· Review Fair S~mre Housing AIh~carion numbers for SimllOga and compare to Saratoga's
(.;cncral Plan Goals, Policies and Acri~s, database t~f housing implementations to dare, and
fi,rure capacities (vacant hind ;ll~J redeveh)pmcnt altus).
*: Advisu st;iff regarding any potential challenge to ABAG reg~rdtng rhe draft Fair Share I lo~ing Allocati~n.
As background, t~ur analysis and presentation will include a review of tht' rolls,wing:
_']0 .k.l,,lSlL'smlcl~ ."ql~t','l, Nlllh' 4-18 tl I ~; · grig; 1244
'qm~ I'~am ~,~ ....( :A 9'l 10q l':~x . ~)89. 124-5
Sent Dy: SEIFEL ASSOCIATES 415 9891245; 01/18/00 10:52; Je~j~_#847;Page 3/6
As background, our analysis and presentation will include a review cfi the £oIlowing:
* ABAG methodology for determining its allocation of housing needs
, HCD Regional Housing Need
· Sam)ga's share of regional, growth
· Saratoga's share of growth by income category
Our review will include explanations of the following:
· Process used by ABAG to determine irs allocation figures,
· How the share of regional growth is determined (ba~ed on weighted housing and j~bs data).
*' Total construction need and construction need per yea~, as well as percentage share.
· How income distribution is determined (including 50% and 100% regional average).
· Differences between HCD numbers and A BAG projections.
Task 3: Presentation of Findings
· Attend a meeting, if needed with City, ABAG staff and/or others.
· Presentation of analysis at one City Council Meeting.
BUDGET
Our team proposes to bill on a time and materials Basis up to a budget maxm~um of $5,000.
Exhibit A includes our proposed budget, and Exhibit B shows the proposed budget by projected
hour~.
Seifel Associates bills monthly on a time and materials basis for services rendered during the
previous month. Professional services will be billed on an hourly basis at the following rates
(which apply for 2000):
President
Vice President/Senior Economist
Economist #
Word Proce~ing/Data Entry .
$145
$115
$85
$50
Page 2
Sent by: SEIFEL ASSOCIATES 415 9891245; 01/18/00 10:52; )pJ~j2[_#847;r~ge 4/6
Expenses are billed as fifilows:
Telephone charges are b~lled based on a fixed amoum computed at 2 percent of billed
professional services.
Automobile mileage charges are 32.5 cents per mile.
Photocopying charges are 10 cents per page, except fi~r bulk reproduction of reports
which are charged on a direct reimbursable basis.
All remaining expenses are billed on a direct reimbm~able basis with receipts abtwe $20
provided as evidence upon request.
PAYMENT TERMS
Prompt payment of all invoices is expected. If payment were not received within 30 days, Seifel
Associates would discontinue work on current and any future assignments. Should legal action
be required to secure payment, all legal fees related to collection of funds would be the
responsibility of the chent. In the event that payment were not received within 60 days of
invoice date, a delinquency charge of 1.5 percent per month would be levied, unless an
alternative payment schedule is mutually agreed upon.
We are sending a copy of our general brochure and affordable housing brochure, along with the
original copy of this letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further
information to a~ist in your evaluamm of our qualifications and experience.
Elivt~eth M. ~eifel, Pres'ide.,fi~ /
Seifel .&asociates
January 17, 2000
James Walgren, Community Development
Director
(2ity of Saratoga
Date:
cc: Rich Taylor
Page 3
Sen1: by: SETFEL ASSOC.[ATES 415 9891245; 01/18/00 10:53; )etFex #847.;Page 5/6
Sent by: SEIFEL ASSOCIATES 415 9891245; 01/18i00 10:53; )p.j~jA_#847;Page 6/6
'~
NOTICE OF INTENT
To ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
ARGONAUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PROJECT
JANUARY 7, 2000
LEAD AGENCY:
Saratoga Union School District
20460 Forrest Hills Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
PROJECT TITLE:
Argonaut Elementary School Expansion Project
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Saratoga, east of the intersection of Shadow Mountain
Drive and Miljevich Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: As part of Saratoga Union School District's implementation of its
Modernization Program (funded by Measure D), the District is proposing to improve and expand
the existing school facilities at Argonaut Elementary School in order to accommodate the
projected increased student enrollment anticipated by the 2006-2007 school year and the ultimate
student enrollment anticipated to attend the school beyond 2007. Details on the expansion are
provided in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The project is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List as set forth in
Government Code Section 65962.5.
FINDINGS/DETERMINATION: The Saratoga Union School District has reviewed and
considered the proposed project and has determined that, subject to mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment, with substantial supporting evidence provided in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The District hereby prepares and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: A 30-day public review period for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration will commence on January 7, 2000 and end on February 7, 2000 for interested and
concerned individuals and public agencies to submit written comments on the document. Any
written comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received at the above address
within the public review period. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for
review and purchase at the District offices at the above address. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration (minus the appendices) is also available on the District's web site at
www.susd.kl2.cll[us.
PUBLIC MEETING: The Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees will hold a public
meeting to receive comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 25, 2000 at 7:30
p.m. at the following address:
204off3 Forrest Hills Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
APPENDIX B
ARGONAUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION
TRAFFIC STUDY
ARGONAUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
This section describes the potential transportation and CirculatiOn impacts of the proposed
project.
SETTING
Current Enrollment and Staff
Argonaut Elementary School has an existing student enrollment of 592 students and a full
time equivalent (FTE) staff of 48, not including volunteers.
Vehicular Access, Circulation and Parking
Argonaut Elementary School is located on the east side of Shadow Mountain Drive between
Glasgow Drive and Chateau Drive. Miljevich Drive and Ljepava Drive intersect Shadow
Mountain Drive along the sehoo! frontage, and stop signs are located on the Miljevich and
Ljepava Drive approaches. Stop signs are located on all approaches at the Shadow Mountain
Drive/Glasgow Drive intersection. Miljevieh Drive provides direct access to Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road. The Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Miljevich Drive intersection is
unsignalized, but a separate southbound left-turn lane is provided on Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road.
On-street parking is permitted on Shadow Mountain Drive except for several lengths of curb
that are painted red. The number of available spaces between Glasgow Drive and Chateau
Drive is estimated to be 35. Additional on-street parking is permitted on Miljevich and
Ljepava Drives west of Shadow Mountain Drive.
Access to the site is provided via three driveways on Shadow Mountain Drive. The
southernmost driveway is located approximately 75 feet south of Miljevich Drive and serves
two-way traffic. The center driveway is for exiting traffic only and is located approximately
50 feet south of Ljepava Drive. The northern driveway is located approximately 60 feet
north of LjepSva Drive and serves two-way traffic. Left and right turns are permitted at all
driveways.
On-site vehicular circulation and parking are provided in three separate areas as shown on
Figure 1. The, area directly in front of the existing multi-purpose building, referred to as Area
1, includes a iSassenger loading (i.e., drop-off/pick-up) zone and a row of nine angled parking
spaces, one of which is designated for the school secretary. The southern and center
dr/veways provide access to Area 1. The area north of the existing school office is referred
to as Area 2 and includes a drop-off/pick up area and a total of 27 striped parking spaces.
Twelve spaces are designated for s~taffparklng with painted names and two spaces are
reserved for handicapped use, resul~ting in 13 spaces for public parking. Access to Area 2 is
provided exclusively by the northern driveway. Areas 1 and 2 are physically separated by
two rows of four large concrete planters. A designated pedestrian path is located between the
planters. The southern driveway also provides access to Area 3, which includes an existing
21-space staff parking lot. All spaces are designated for staff~th names painted on the
pavement. The total number of existing on-site parking spaces is 57.
Based on current FTE staff of 48, the total of 34 designated staff parking spaces results in a
ratio of 0.71 spaces per FTE. The California Department of Education recommends a ratio
of 1.5 spaces per FTE for all new and upgraded campuses.
In Area 1, one-way northbound circulation is designated to maximize traffic flow. Vehicles
accessing the southern parking stafflot enter and exit the site via the southern driveway.
Vehicles destined for the public parking spaces or the drop-off area in Area 1 enter frown the
southem driveway and exit at the center driveway. Traffic in the drop-off zone is separated
from the parking area by a raised curb painted yellow. Posted si~ indicate the use of each
lane.
The drop-off zone consists of a single lane in which vehicles move forward and stop to allow
students to enter or exit the car. Next to the travel lane is a 10-foot wide lane striped with red
paint where school volunteers stand to assist students entering and exiting vehicles. These
volunteers also stop traffic in the parking and drop-off lanes to allow pedestrians to cross
betkveen the public parking spaces (or Shadow Mountain Drive) and the school buildings.
In Area 2, the drop-off/pick-up area is located adjacent to the existing school office and
daycare buildings. One-way circulation through the drop-off zone and parking aisles is
designated by signs and by the direction of the angled parking spaces. Along the drop-off
zone, bollards have been installed adjacent to the portable classrooms and daycare building
(i.e., "Club House") to separate vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Circulation
Pedestrian access to Argonaut Elementary School is provided via a limited number of
sidewalk segments. In the immediate vicinity of the school, a sidewalk is provided on the
west side of Shadow Mountain Drive opposite the school site from south of Chateau Drive to
north of Glasgow Drive. A sidewalk is provided on the north side of Ljepava west of
Shadow Mountain Drive, and a short segment is located on the north side of Miljevich Drive
for approximately 75 feet. Sidewalks are not provided on Glasgow Drive south of the site.
A painted stripe and raised markers (i.e., Botts dots) have been installed at the northeast
comer of the ~lasgow Drive/Shadow Mountain Drive intersection to provide a refuge area
for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling on Glasgow Drive.
Crosswalks are painted across Shadow Mountain Drive at Glasgow, Miljevich, Ljepava and
Chateau Drives. The Miljevich and Ljepava crosswalks lead students and parents directly to
on-site pedestrian paths. No erossifig guards or safety patrol personnel assist pedestrians
crossing Shadow Mountain Drive.
Pedestrian-only access is also provided from Charters Court via a concrete sidewalk at the
east end of the site. This sidewalk leads to the existing ball fields.
On schbol property, five painted crosswalks direct pedestrians across parking aisles or
driveways. In Area 1.~ pedestrians cross the parking aisle and drop-off area in a crosswalk
just south of the multi-purpose room. A safety patrol supervised by an adult assists
pedestrians by stopping traf~c in both lanes using stop signs. A second crosswalk is located
across the entrance to the staff lot. This crosswalk is for pedestrians approaching the school
from Glasgow Drive and for bicyclists who have locked their bicycles in a rack located near
the southem driveway.
Three painted crosswalks are located in Area 2, of which two provide a designated path
between parking spaces and the campus buildings. A safety patrol assists pedestrians across
the crosswalk closest to the school office building. The third crosswalk is for pedestrians
approaching the school from Chateau Drive and crosses a paved area leading to the fire
access roadway along the northern property line. As noted above, Areas 1 and 2 are
separated by two rows of concrete planters that protect a pedestrian path.
Three bicycle storage racks are provided on-site: one is located near the southern driveway,
another is located near'the portable classrooms at the north end, and a third one is located at
the eastem pedestrian path entrance near the ball fields. No bicycle lanes are provided on
any of the streets in the immediate vicinity of the school. Bike lanes are not typically
designated on two-lane, residential streets.
Existing Circulation Observations
The schedule for classroom instruction on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays is
8:30 am to 2:20 pm for Grades 1 and 2, while Grades 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed at 3:10 pm.
On Wednesdays, all grades are dismissed at 2:10 pm. Kindergarten classes are held from
8:00 am to 11:25 am and from 11:35 am to 3:00 pm Monday through Friday.
Observations of school operations were conducted on Wednesday October 6t~, Thursday
October 7t~ and Thursday October 14t~. A summary of the field observations for each time
period (morning and afternoon) is presented below.
Morning Drop-offPeriod
The morning drop-offperiod extends from approximately 7:30 am to 8:30 am. Kindergarten
· classes begin at 8:00 am; however the volume of traffic before this time is nominal. The vast
majority of traffic arrives after 8:00 am.
Drop-off/Pick-up Lanes
Between 8:00 am and 8:10 am, no more than two vehicles at one time used the Area 1 drop-
off lane. During this time, seven parking spaces in Area 1 were occupied, and a total of
fourteen cars (seven per side) were parked on Shadow Mountain Drive. Only one or two
vehicles were parked on Miljevieh and Ljepava Drives.
From 8:10 am to 8:20, traffic volumes in the vicinity of the school increased but continued to
operate without any substantial vehicle queuing at either drop-off area. The majority of
vehicle traffic approached the site from Glasgow Drive. The Area 1 drop-off lane served up
to eight vehicles, while the Area 2 drop-off lane served no more than five vehicles. In
general, vehicles approaching from Glasgow Avenue used Area 1, while vehicles
approaching from Chateau Drive used Area 2. Although this pattern helped to minimize the
number of vehicles making conflicting mining movements at the driveways, it also resulted
in an unequal distribution of traffic in the drop-off lanes.
The first bell to signal students to move to their classrooms is rung at 8:25 am. The highest
number of vehicles arrived during the five minutes preceding this bell. During this time,
traffic in the drop-off and parking lanes in Area 1 was stopped intermittently by the safety
patrol to allow pedestrians to cross to and from Shadow Mountain Drive. This activity plus
the relatively high volume of vehicles resulted in a vehicle queue that extended out of the
southern driveway, south on Shadow Mountain Drive, and onto westbound Glasgow Drive.
At its peak, this queue included 10 cars on Shadow Mountain Drive and 10 vehicles on
Glasgow Drive. Queuing also occurred at the Area 2 drop-off lane, but only resulted in
temporary queues of five vehicles or less on Shadow Mountain Drive that were waiting to
mm left into the northern driveway. The drop-off area in Area 2 was essentially under-
utilized compared to Area 1.
Vehicles continued to arrive between 8:25 am and 8:30 am. During this time, the queue from
the Area 1 drop-offlane was reduced, but up to seven vehicles were observed queuing on
Shadow Mountain Drive. After 8:30 am, the Area 1 queue was completely accommodated
on-site. A total of 120 vehicles entered the drop-off lane in Area I between 7:30 am and
8:30 am, while 77 vehicles entered the drop-offlane in Area 2 during the same period. These
numbers were used to estimate future demand with the proposed school expansion.
Parking
Between 8:00 am and 8:10 am, no more than two vehicles at one time used the Area 1 drop-
offlane. During this time, seven parking spaces in Area 1 were occupied, and a total of
fourteen ears (~aeven per side) were parked on Shadow Mountain Drive. Only one or two
vehicles were parked on Miljevieh and Ljepava Drives.
From 8:10 am to 8:20 pm, the number of vehicles parked on the adjacent streets increased
steadily. The spaces on Shadow Mountain Drive were occupied first and additional vehicles
began to park on Miljevich and Lje~ava Drives.
Peak parking conditions occurred between 8:20 am and 8:25 am. During this period, most of
the on-street spaces on Shadow Mountain Drive were occupied. In addition, up to 11
vehicles were parked on Miljevich Drive and 10 were parked on Ljepava Drives. Almost all"
of the parking spaces in the on-site lots in Areas 1 and 2 were occupied. In the southern staff
lot, 23 vehicles were parked, of which seven were located between trees on a din area along
the southern property boundary. Since staff vehicles typically depart before and after the
peak hours of student-generated traffic, they do not conflict with vehicles entering the drop-
off and parking lanes in Area 1. Based on observations, the total peak parking demand of the
school (including staff) is estimated to be 83 vehicles during the morning, drop-off period. At
8:40 am after the peak demand time, a total of 72 parking spaces (56 on-site and 16 off-site)
were occupied.
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
The number of students riding their bicycle to school was estimated based on the number of
bicycles parked in the three bicycle rack storage areas. A total of 32 bicycles were counted
after 8:40 am. This represents appro×imately five percent of the total student body.
The exact number of students walking to school was difficult to estimate based on the
number of streets approaching the site and the frequent occurrence of students walking to and
from vehicles parked off-site. Even with the lack of sidewalks leading to the school
property, some students do walk to school because of the school's location within a
residential neighborhood. For purposes of this analysis, the number of students walking to
school was assumed to be equal to the proportion of students that bike (five percent of the
student body). However, this estimate was not used for any technical analysis.
Off-Site Issues
Traffic on Shadow Mountain, Miljevich, and Ljepava Drives moved smoothly during the
morning peak period. Several vehicles were observed making U-tums on Ljepava Drive
west of Shadow Mountain Drive before 8:15, but these movements did not affect any other
vehicles. Although the vehicle queue from the Area 1 drop-offlane extended back omo
Glasgow Drive, the queue peaked and dissipated within a 1 O-minute period. Except for
temporary inconvenience to local residents, the queue did not cause any substantial
operational or safety problems for vehicles or pedestrians.
During observations, vehicles traveled at appropriate speeds in the immediate vicinity of the
school site, ar~ no evidence of driver frustration was observed. Even without adult
supervision or safety patrol personnel, students looked for approaching vehicles while
crossing Shadow Mountain Drive at the painted crosswalks. During the field observations,
all drivers gave pedestrians in the crosswalks the right-of-way.
Summary of Typical Morning Circulation
Overall, traffic circulation was observed to be satisfactory with no apparent operational
problems or serious conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. Limited traffic
congestion in the vicinity of elementary schools is typical given a school's traffic "peaking"
characteristics. The congestion can help to reduce travel speeds on adjacent streets in some
cases.
The process of students eXiting vehicles in the drop-off lane worked well with the assistance
of school staff and volunteers. All drivers obeyed safety patrol personnel as pedestrians
traversed the on-site crosswalk in Area 1.
Afternoon Pick-up Period
Since the majority of students at school (Grades 3, 4, and 5) are dismissed at 3:10 pm, the
peak traffic demand occurs between approximately 2:55 pm and 3:25 pm. A review of traffic
counts shows that the traffic volumes at the 2:20 dismissal time are approximately 60 percent
of the volumes counted at the 3:10 dismissal. Thus, detailed observations and traffic counts
were conducted between 2:55 pm and 3:25 pm and represent conditions for all days but
Wednesdays.
Drop-off/Pick-up Lanes
Prior to 3:00 pm, no vehicles were parked in the pick-up lanes. Between 3:00 pm and 3:10
pm, traffic volumes increased steadily in the vicinity of the school. At 3:05, a few vehicles
approached the site and circulated through the Area 1 pick-up lane, but did not stop. During
the next several minutes, vehicle queues began to form in both the Area 1 and 2 pick-up
lanes, but all vehicles were accommodated on-site and did not cause delays to traffic on'
Shadow Mountain Drive. The maximum queue in the Area 1 pick-up lane was five vehicles,
and a queue of four vehicles formed in Area 2 during this time.
The peak traffic demand occurred during the ten-minute period after the dismissal bell, but
did not result ih any substantial traffic problems. At both pick-up areas, moving queues of no
more than five vehicles formed, but cleared without substantial congestion. On-site queues
did not delay traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive for more than ten seconds. During thc peak
hour fi.om 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm, a total of 82 vehicles entered the Area 1 pick-up lane, and 58
vehicles entered thc Area 2 drop-off lane.
At 3:25 pm, only the occasional vehicle passed in front of thc school. Only one vehicle was
parked in the Area 1 pick-up lane.
Parking
Prior to 3:00 pm, ten vehicles were parked on Shadow Mountain Drive in front of the school
plus two vehicles each on Miljevich and Ljepava Drives. The on-site lots included 22
vehicles in the Area 2 lot, nine vehicles in the Area 1 lot, and 24 vehicles in the south staff
lot. Thus, the total demand prior to the afternoon peak was 69 vehicles.
Between 3:00 pm and 3:10 pm, traffic volumes increased steadily in the vicinity oft. he
school. At 3:05, only a few on-street parking spaces were available on Shadow Mountain
Drive and the number of parked vehicles increased to seven each on Miljevich and Ljepava
Drives.
The peak parking demand occurred between 3:10 pm and 3:20 pm. Peak parking demand
during the afternoon period was 82 including all on-site and off-site spaces..
Just prior to 3:20 l~.approximately half of the 35 on-street parking spaces on Shadow
Mountain Drive an'~[~ive of the Area 1 parking spaces were available. By 3:20 pm, no
vehicles were parked on Miljevich Drive and only two vehicles remained on Ljepava Drive.
Off-Site Issues
During the afternoon period, there were no operational problems observed on the local streets
serving the school site. Short queues on stop sign controlled approaches cleared in short
periods and did not block driveways. All vehicles were able to travel around the school with
little or no delay.
Summary of Typical Afternoon Circulation
Similar to the morning period, circulation during the afternoon period was observed to be
satisfactory, and no substantial operational or safety operations were noted. No longstanding
vehicle queues formed, and on-site circulation did not impede traffic on any of the local
streets. Students without adult supervision appeared tentative while using the crosswalk on
Shadow Mountain Drive at Miljevich Drive, but did look for approaching vehicles. No
dangerous conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians were observed during the afternoon
peak period.
Highest Peak Traffic Demand
On Wednesdays, all classes are dismissed at 2:10 pm and the resulting pick-up lane traffic
and parking demands are sUbstantially higher than those described above for the other days
of the week. Wednesday afternoons represent the absolute peak demand for school-generated
traffic, and demand is also signifie_antly higher during mornings and afternoons on rainy
days. -
Wednesday afternoon observations showed that the queue at the Area 1 pick-up lane
extended off school property onto Shadow Mountain Drive for a five-minute period between
2:12 pm and 2:17 pm. The maximum queue included six vehicles on Shadow Mountain
'Drive but did not extend to Glasgow Drive. This maximum queue length existed for less
than two minutes. The queue in the Area 2 pick-up lane did delay vehicles entering the north
driveway causing a short.queue of four vehicles on southbound Shadow Mountain Drive.
The number of parked vehicles on the adjacent neighborhood streets was similar to typical
afternoon conditions, with only one or two additional vehicles on Miljevich and Ljepava
Drives.
It should be noted that the combined dismissal on Wednesday aftemoons only occurs 20
percent of the time. Although observed vehicle queues were longer and overall parking
demand was higher than on a typical day, no safety problems were observed. While the long
queue might be expected to increase driver frustration, vehicles operated safely and obeyed
all traffic control devices. '
Existing Intersection Operations
Traffic operations at three key intersections were analyzed to identify existing deficiencies or
the potential need for traffic control modifications. The three study intersections include
Shadow Mountain Drive/Glasgow Drive, Shadow Mountain Drive/Miljevich Drive, and
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Miljevich Drive. Operations were analyzed during the morning.
(7:00 am to 9:00 am) and afternoon (1:30 pm to 3:30 pm) peak periods. New traffic counts
were conducted at all three intersections during both periods. Figure A-1 in the technical
appendix shows the existing peak-hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at each
intersection.
To measure and describe the operational status of the local roadway network, traffic
engineers commonly use a grading system called Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service
is a qualitative description of an intersecfion's operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating
free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay at intersections) to LOS F (representing
over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long
queues and delays). The City of Saratoga considers LOS D the minimum acceptable
operating level.
The methodology published in the 1997 update to the Highway Capacity Manual or HCM
(Transportation Research Board) was used for unsignalized intersections. The LOS rating is
based on the a~verage control delay for each minor street movement measured in seconds per
vehicle.. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped
delay, and final acceleration delay. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a
whole; however, for approaches comprised oft single lane the control delay is computed as
the average of all movements in that lane. The previous 1994 HCM methodology measured
total delay, which includes queue ~ove-up time and stopped delay. Consequently, the delay
ranges have been adjusted upward from the 1994 HCM delay ranges to account for initial
deceleration delay and f-mai acceleration delay. Table A-1 in the technical appendix presents
the range of stopped delay that corresponds to each LOS designation.
The existing LOS for each intersection is presented in Table 1 below. The corresponding
LOS Calculation worksheets are also included in the technical appendix. The peak-hour
factors at both of the .Shadow Mountain Drive intersections were adjusted to reflect the fact
that the majority of traffic generated by the school arrives during a brief ten-minute period.
Table 1
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection I Traffic Control t PeakHour Delay' I LOS~
Shadow Mountain Dr./Glasgow Dr. All-way Stop AM 9.3 A
PM 8.O A
Shadow Mountain Dr./Mfljevich Dr. Two-way Stop AM 10.9 B
PM 10.3 B
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Miljevich Two-way Stop AM 30.0 D
Dr. PM 15.1 C
Note: ' Delay = Average total delay per vehicle m seconds.
2 LOS = Level of service for approaches eonlxolled by stop signs only.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., November 1999
The results of the LOS analysis show that the stop-sign controlled approaches at all of the
study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both the morning and afternoon
peak hours. Based on City of Saratoga guidelines, all intersections are operating at
acceptable level.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
The proposed upgrade of Argonaut Elementary School includes the addition of new
classroom space, the upgrade/relocation of existing buildings, and reconfiguration of on-site
parking areas and roadways. With the proposed improvements, the school will be designed
to accommodate an ultimate enrollment of 680 students by Year 2010. This projected
enrollment is 88 more students or 15 percent higher than the existing enrollment of 592. The
corresponding full time equivalent 0rTE) staff is projected to increase from 48 under existing
conditions to 61 by Year 2010.
Proposed Im40rovements
The major changes to existing on-site circulation and parking include the following:
· Re-configuring the south staff'parking lot resulting in a reduction from 21 to
19 parking spaces; '-
· Expanding the Area 2 parking lot fi.om 27 to 47 spaces and modifying the
layout to provide two-way circulation aisles except for a one-way exit aisle;
* Providing an additional 140 feet (or equivalent to' space for seven Vehicles) in
the Area 2 drop-off lane;
· Installing a raised sidewalk along the entire length of all drOp-off lanes;
* Providing 10 new parking spaces immediately adjacent to the new
administration building;
· Constructing nine new parking spaces along the north edge of the property
immediately adjacent to the relocated dayeare building.
The modifications described above will increase the on-site parking supply fi.om 57 to 94 (an
increase of 37 spaces or 65 percent) and will effectively increase the available drop-off/pick-
up lane service capacity fi.om 12 vehicles to 18 vehicles (a 50 percent increase). The effect
of these improvements with the increased enrollment is discussed under the "Project
Impacts" section.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA
A significant transportation/circulation impact is defined to occur if implementation of the
proposed project:
· Degrades operations at an unsignalized intersection from an acceptable (LOS D or
better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F); or
· Exacerbates the need for a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection that is
akeady operating at an unacceptable level; or
· Increases parking intrusion on adjacent neighborhood streets;
· Impedes txavel on an existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facility;
· Increases the potential for conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists or pedestrians.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impacts T-1 through T-4 are identified based on standard school days (Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday) with staggered dismissal times. Impact T-5 refers to the combined
dismissal of all grades on Wednesday atternoons.
Impact T-I:
Implementation of the proposed project will add traffic to the drop-off/pick-up
alanes in Areas 1 and 2. The addition of traffic to the existing vehicle queue on
Glasgow Drive in the morning peak hour could increase driver frustration
and increase the possibility of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. This impact is
considered significant.
The proposed, project is estimated t~ add 30 vehicles to the drop-off areas in the morning
peak hour and 21 vehicles in the afternoon peak hour. Of the 30 vehicles in the morning, 18
are projected to use the Area 1 drop-offlane based on the existing traffic distribution. These
additional vehicles would likely add to the existing queue that extends off-site onto
westbound Glasgow Drive. Although this queue forms for less than ten minutes, additional"
delay~ to drivers during this time will likely increase driver frustration as parents attempt to
drop-off students before school begins. Driver fi'ustration leadsto more aggressive behavior
and reduces safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially on the segments of Glasgow
Drive and Shadow Mountain Drive without sidewalks. Therefore, the project could have a
potentially si~nificant impact to pedestrian/bicycle safety.
Mitigation Measure:
Increase the efficiency of on-site drop-off lanes by implementing
the following measures:
T-l(a)
T-1Co)
T-l(e)
T-l(d)
T-l(e)
Encourage the use of the expanded Area 2 drop-off lane by supplying
parents with a map and procedures for drop-off and pick-up areas.
Install sigr~s instructing drivers to pull vehicles forward to the next
available space.
Designate. the nine parking spaces in Area 1 for full-time staff only to
minimize the number of vehicles circulating in the drop-off area
during peak morning and at~emoon periods.
Encourage parents to arrive five minutes earlier to reduce the peak
traffic demand during the morning drop-off period.
Provide additional volunteers to assist children entering and exiting
vehicles in the drop-offlanes in Area 1 and Area 2.
With the proposed mitigation measures, vehicles will be better distributed between the Area
1 and 2 drop-off lanes and overall on-site circulation will improve. Although the proposed
measures are not expected to eliminate the existing off-site vehicle queues on Shadow
Mountain and Glasgow Drives, overall delay would be reduced for traffic both on school
property and on the adjacent local streets.
SignifiCance After Mitigation:With Mitigation Measures T-l(a) through (e), Impact T-1 will
be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact T-2: Pedestrians walking between vehicles in the Area 2 parking lot and school
buildings may conflict with traffic in the extended drop-off lane. This conflict
could increase the likelihood of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. This impact is
considered significant.
The Area 2 parking lot is proposed to be re-confignred with perpendicular parking spaces to
provide a more efficient parking layout. Depending on their final destination, parents and
students walking between their vehicle and classroom may cross the new drop-off lane at
several different locations. Pedestrians crossing in fi-om of vehicles in the drop-off lane
cause a distraction and reduce the 6ffieieney of the passenger loading/unloading process.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure should be implemented:
T-2
Install a diagonal painted pedestrian crosswalk between the southwest
comer of the Area 2 parking lot and the curved section of the drop-off
lane (see illustration on Figure 2). The crosswalk shOuld be monitored
..by a safety patrol that would stop vehicle traffic to allow pedestrian
crossings.
Installing a crosswalk at this location would direct all pedestrians to a common point and
would have the least impact to drop-off operations. The curved section of the drop-off lane
cannot be used by vehicles and leads to the entrances of most of the buildings on the north
side of campus.
Significance After Mitigation:With Mitigation Measure T-2, Impact T-2 will be reduced to a
less-than-si~ificant level.
Impact T-3: The proposed school expansion will generate additional parking demand.
This impact is considered less than significant.
The existing peak parking demand is 83 spaces in the morning peak hour and 82 spaces
(including on-street and on-site spaces) in the afternoon peak hour. With project
implementation, the school is expected to generate an additional parking demand from
student drop-off/pick-up activities and fi.om new staff and volunteers. Based on a 15 percent
increase in enrollment, the additional demand for students and staff is 12 (i.e., 15 percent of
83, the total existing peak demand). Three additional spaces were assumed to be generated
by volunteers, resulting in a total increase of 15 spaces with the proposed project.
The proposed increase in the number of on-site spaces is 27, which will accommodate the
projected demand of 15 new spaces. In addition, the remaining twelve spaces will encourage
parents to park on-site and could reduce parking intrusion on Miljevich and Ljepava Drives.
Some parents will continue to park on Shadow Mountain Drive, Miljevich Drive, and
Ljepava Drive because of the apparent convenience or the desire to avoid the on-site lots.
However, the provision of additional parking close to classroom buildings will cause some
parents to park on-site. Even if the expansion generates demand for more than 15 new
spaces, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase parking intrusion
on adjacent neighborhood streets. Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant,
and no mitigation is required.
Impact TM: Implementation of the proposed project is projected to exacerbate
unacceptable operations at the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/MiO'evich Drive
inter, section. However, a signal is not warranted based on peak hour
volumes. This impact is considered less than significant.
An analysis of intersection operations was completed under 2010 conditions to determine if
the addition of project-generated traffic would require modification to existing lane
configurations or traffic control devices. First, 2010 conditions'without the proposed
expansion were analyzed. Through traffic volumes on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road were
inci'eased by one percent per year to account for background growth between 2000 'and 2010.
Growth factors were not applied to either of the Shadow Mountain Drive intersections since
the surrounding residential area is built om and traffic volumes onthe adjacent streets are not
expected to change. Intersection LOS was calculated for all of the study intersections under
2010 No Project Conditions.
Second, traffic generated by the proposed expansion was added to the 2010 No Project
volumes. The increase in the number of vehicle trips generated by the school was estimated
based on the projected increase m student population. As stated previously, the enrollment is
projected to increase by 15 percent from 592 to 680 students. It should be noted that
Saratoga School District is actively pursuing development of a district-wide busing program
and is attempting to increase the level of student carpooling and vanpooling to area schools.
In addition, the City of Saratoga (through its General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway
Element Update) and the School District will be developing "Suggested Routes to School" to
encourage students to walk or bicycle. For purposes of this analysis, however, the
percentage distribution of students by travel mode (i.e., automobile, bicycling, or walking)
was assumed to be unchanged with the proposed project. Thus, the existing number of
vehicles generated by the school was increased by 15 percent for both the AM and PM peak
hour periods.
A summary of the vehicle projections is presented in Table 2. Since vehicles dropping offor
picking up students arrive and depart within a 10- to 15-minute period, the number of vehicle
trips is double the number of vehicles. The increased enrollment is projected to result in an
increase of 76 trips in the morning peak hour and 56 trips during the afternoon peak hour.
Table 2
Existing and Projected Veh_ic!es~
' . E~[qlng Projected (2010)
Location Morning After,.oon Mornin~ Afternoon
Drop-off/Pick-up Lanes 197 140 227 161
Paxking Vehicles 56 44 64 51
Total 253 184 291 212
$ Net Increase in Veh_icles 38 I 28
lncr~.a~ m Vehicle Trips 76 56
Note: ' The nnmber of total trips is equivalent to two times the number of vehicles. For example, the
inbound trip is a vehicle entering the drop-offlane and the outbound trip is a vehicle returning
home or continuing to another destination.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., NovemBer l~.
The distribution of new vehicle trips to the roadway network was based on existing traffic
patterns determined from the counts at intersections and driveways. The trip distribution
includes 55 percent on Glasgow Drive to the south, 35 percent on Chateau Drive to the northl
and 5 percent in each direction on Saratoga'sunnyvale Road. Future traffic'volumes with
and without the proposed school expansion are.shown on Figure A-2 in the technical
appendix. Levels of service at each study intersection were calculated using 2010 Plus
Project volumes and assumed no changes to the existing roadway network. Table 3 presents
the results of the level of service analysis for 2010 conditions with and without the proposed
project.
Table 3
2010 Intersection Levels of Service
Traffic Peak 2010 No Project 2010 Plus Project
Intersection Control Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS
Shadow Mountain Dr./Glasgow Dr. All-way AM 9.3 A 9.8 A
Stop PM 8.0 A 8.0 A
Shadow Mountain Dr./Miljevich Dr. Two-way AM 10.9 B 11.4 B
Stop PM 10.3 B 10.9 B
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./lVliljevich Dr. Two-way AM 38.6 E 43.6 E
Stop PM 16.5 C 17.0 C
Note: i Delay = Average total delay per vehicle m seconds.
2 LOS = Level of service for approaches controlled by stop signs only.
Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., November 1999
Under 2010 No Project Conditions, the Miljevich Drive approach is projected to deteriorate
to LOS E during the AM peak hour. The addition of traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
will reduce the number of available gaps for vehicles to mm lef~ and will increase delay for
this movements. Traffic volumes and operations at the Shadow Mountain Drive intersections
are not expected to change between existing conditions and 2010. Thus, these locations will
continue to operate at an acceptable level.
Caltrans has warrants, including minimum volume requirements, to determine whether Waffle
signals should be considered. Based on the available data, peak hour volume criteria were
applied to determine if a traffic signal is currently warranted at the Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road/Miljevich Drive intersection.. The 2010 No Project volume of 78 vehicles in the AM
peak hour does not roeet the minimum peak hour volume threshold of 100 for rural areas
published in We Caltrans Traffic Manual. Warrant criteria for rural areas was applied
because the 85th percentile speed on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is estimated to be above 40
roiles per hour (i.e., the speed limit is 45 roph). This evaluation assumes two lanes on
Miljevich Drive because there is adequate width for two vehicles to wait for an acceptable
gap in traffic. A copy of the peak hour signal warrant sheet is included in the appendix.
According to the Traffic Manual, the satisfaction of warrants does not solely determine the
need for a traffic signal. Other factors such as delay, safety, congestion, and driver confusion
should be considered. Caltrans and the City of Saratoga make the final decision regarding
traffic signal installations on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which is also designated Business
Route 85.
The addition of school traffic under 2010 conditions is projected to exacerbate LOS E
operations at the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Miljevich Drive intersection during the AM peak
hour. As noted above, the westbound left-mm movement from Miljevich Drive to
southbound Saratoga-SunnYVale Road experiences the vast majority 'of the approach delay.
However, the proposed school expansion is projected to add only four trips to this movement.
In addition, the total AM peak hour volume on MiIjevich Drive with the proposed project
will not meet the minimum volume threshold. Given the project's neghgible addition of
traffic to the critical movement and the fact that that the peak hour warrant criteria is not met
under 2010 conditions, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation
measure is required.
Impact T-5:
On Wednesday afternoons, the combined dismissal of all grades will result in
longer queues and higher parking demand than those identified under Impacts
T-1 through T-4 with the proposed expansion. The additional traffic could
increase the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. This is considered a
significant impact.
With the combined dismissal of Grades 1 through 5 at 2:10 pm on Wednesday aftemoons,
the number of vehicles projected to use the pick-up lane is estimated to be up to 35 percent
higher than the volume projected for the other days of the week. A similar increase is
expected for the projected parking demand. With higher volumes of traffic during the
afternoon pick-up period, vehicular delays may increase and cause driver frustration. This
could result in a potentially significant impact to pedestrian and/or bicycle safety.
Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 (a) through (e) and T-2
will improve efficiency of drop-off/pick-up operations and reduce overall delay. The
expanded number of parking spaces will help to absorb the additional demand. Some
vehicles will continue to park on the adjacent local sweets, which is typical for an elementary
school in a residential neighborhood. However, no increase in parking intrusion is
anticipated with the additional parking supply.
Significance ,4~fter Mitigation:With Mitigation Measures T-l(a) through (e) and T-2, Impact
T-5 will be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
0 0
D 0
· 0 0 ·
W~t~ O q V H S'
TABLE A-1
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS USING
AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY
Level of Average Control Delay
Service Description Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Little or no delays. < l 0.0
B Short lraffic d~lays. 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic dehys. 15.1 to 25.0
D Long lraflic delays. 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Exlr~,,,~ Wa~c delays with mm'section capacity exceeded. > 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board Highway C_.a. vaciry Manual, Special Report 209, .1997.
.Existin.q Volumes
Milievich Dr, ~
~f I Project 1
[[ '. Site
~.. 173 (se)
~ 17 (17)
29 (23) ~
Existing Lane Confi,qurations 4
Milievich Dr.
i Project
Site
Gtas ow Dr.
Key:
~1 = Stop Sign
XX (XX) = AM (PM)
Figure A-1
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AND INTERSECTION LANE
Not to
Fettr & l~eer$ ~$sociate~, Inc.
2010 No Pmiect Volumes
· ,- 59 (38)
Milievich Dr. ~
39 (9}
26 (23)
ProjectI
Site
2010 Plus Project Volumes
~.. 64 (43)
~.- 23 (21)
Miljevich Dr,
~-- ~- ~90 (e~)
~ ~ ~ 17 (17}
42(1i) J
29 (23) ~
Key:
XX (XX) = AM'~PM)
Figure A-2
2010 PEAK:.-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Not to Scale
Fehr & Peers Associate.% Inc,
E. CLEMENT 5HUTE, JR.
HARK I. WEINBERGER
MARC B. MIHALY, P.C.
FRAN H. LAYTON
RACHEL B. NOOPER
ELLEN ,J. GARBER
CHRISTY H. TAYLOR
TAHARA S. GALANTER
ELLI$ON FOLK
RICHARD S. TAYLOR
,~USANNAH T. FRENCH
WILLIAM d. WHITE
· .JOSEPH E. ,,JARAN'IILLO
ROBERT S. PERLMUTr'ER
SHUTE, MIHALY&WEINBERGER
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
TELEPHONE (41 5) 552-7272
FACSIMILE (4 I 5) 552-58 I6
WWW. SMWIAW.
LLP
OSA L. ARHI
LISA T. BELENKY
MARK A. FENSTER
KATHERINE A. TRISOLINI
BRIAN a. SChMIDt
LAUREL L. IHPE~, AICP
URBAN PLANNER
ELI'ZABETH M. DODD
OF COUNSEL
MEMQRANDUM
TO:
Saratoga City Council
FROM:
Richard S. Taylor, City Attorney
DATE:
January 20, 2000
Options for Commercial Measure G Ballot Measure
As you requested we have researched the Council's options with regard to
preparing a ballot measure to limit conversions of land designated as "commercial" in the
General Plan to uses other than commercial land uses. We conclude that such a measure
could take a variety of forms, chief among them:
Reaffirm and readopt existing General Plan policies regarding commercial
lands in a form virtually identical to Measure G;
Amend existing General Plan provisions regarding commercial land uses to
limit the circumstances under which such lands may be used for non-
commercial uses;
Impose a moratorium on non-commercial uses on commercially designated
lan~ds for up to two (2) years to allow a more comprehensive evaluation of
the appropriate land use policy for commercially designated lands.
The final date that the Council may act to place a measure on the ballot is
August 11, 2000. The Council's decision to place the measure on the ballot would be
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Saratgga City Council
January 20, 2000
Page 2
Below we first describe Measure G adopted by the voters in 1996. This is
followed by discussion of alternative approaches to a commercial Measure G. The
memorandum concludes with a discussjon of procedural requirements applicable to such
a ballot measure including timing requirements and the applicability of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
I. Summary_ of Measure G
Measure G was adopted by the voters of the City of Saratoga in March,
1996. Measure G reaffirmed and reado~pted certain policies of the General Plan in effect
at the time the initiative was filed. In addition, Measure G added new policies imposing a
voter approval requirement for amendments to the policies that were reaffirmed and
readopted by the Measure. The new policies also set forth certain exceptions to the voter
approval requirement. Measure G reaffu'med and readopted policies specifying the
maximum densities and intensities ofu~es permitted'in the six residential land use
subcategories established in the Generai Plan as well as reaffirming and readopting the
residential and the "Outdoor Recreation!' land use designations on the General Plan Land
Use Map. t~
Elections Code section 92 ! 7 provides that the provisions of an initiative
adopted by the voters may not be amended except by a subsequent vote of the people
unless otherwise provided within the te~t of the initiative. The new General Plan policies
adopted by Measure G implemented thii provision. The new policies specified that
certain of the existing General Plan policies reaffirmed and readopted by the Measure
could be amended only by a vote of the people. The new policies go on to permit
amendments by the City Council under clertain circumstances.
II. Alternative Policy Approaches ~o a Commercial Measure G,
Measure G applied only to :lands designated as residential and outdoor
recreation in the General Plan. The MeaSure did nothing with respect to lands designated
as "Commercial.*' There are several poli~y approaches that could be used in formulating
a commercial equivalent to Measure G. These are discussed below.
Saratoga City Council
January 20, 2000
Page 3
Reaffirm and Readopt Existing Commercial Land Use Policies.
A ballot measure reaffirming and readopting the City's existing land use
policies for lands with a commercial land use designation would most closely mimic the
structure of Measure G. Just as Measure G made no change to residential land use
policies other than to require voter approval of changes in those policies for 'land use
designations, this approach would make no change to the substance of the General Plan's
existing commercial land use policies. The primary change made by the initiative, like
Measure G, would be that any change to the commercial land use policies would require a
vote of the people.
A copy of the City's existing commercial land use policies is attached to
this Memorandum as Exhibit "A".. Those policies create four subcategories of the
commercial land use designation. Two are traditional commercial categories that allow
typical retail commercial and office uses. An additional subcategory applies to gateway
landscaping areas. The fourth subcategory allows a planned development approach on
lands with a commercial land use designation. In addition to commercial land uses, all of
the commercial land use subcategories except the "Gateway Landscaping" subcategory,
allow residential development upon issuance of a conditional use permit.
A ballot measure reaffirming and readopting these policies would state the
existing policies and provide that those policies could be changed only by a vote of the
people. If implemented in the same manner that Measure G is currently being
implemented, any project requesting a change in land use designation from commercial to
another land use designation would apply for that change and proceed with the traditional
legislative process for changes to land use policy. If the change was approved by the City
Council, the change would then be submitted for a vote of the people.
This approach is straightforward and is substantially similar, in form, to
Measure G. In contrast to Measure G, however, the policy would not limit or provide an
opportunity for voter approval of non-commercial projects on commercially designated
lands. This is bScause the residential land use policies reaffmned and readopted by the
voters in Measure G allowed only residential land uses whereas the commercial land use
policies in the General Plan allow both commercial and residential uses.
Saratoga City Council
January 20, 2000
Page 4
B. Amend Existing Commercial Land Use Policies.
The City Council could also propose a ballot measure to amend the City's
existing commercial land use policies to limit the circumstances under which non-.
commercial uses could be permitted. For example, policies could allow non-commercial
uses only where fmdings of commercial infeasibility could be made or where the housing
is determined to be necessary to meet affordable housing goals established by state law.
The foregoing policies are provided solely as examples; the specifics of any such
amendments are a policy matter for Council consideration and beyond the scope of this
legal memorandum. If the Council pursues this option, I recommend that you direct staff
to provide more detailed information on options available in this regard, as well as
direction with respect to the types of policies that might be of interest to the Council.
This approach would require revising the existing General Plan's
commercial land use policies and would likely require additional General Plan
amendments to ensure continued internal consistency of the General Plan as required by
state law. (Gov't Code § 65300.5.) If approved, the Measure would allow Council
approval of housing projects on commercial lands subject to the standards imposed by the
voters. Voter approval would be required in the event that an applicant or the Council
sought to change those standards.
Impose a Temporary Moratorium on Non-commercial Uses of
Commercially Designated Lands.
The Council could also choose to propose a ballot measure that would
impose a temporary moratorium on non-commercial land uses on commercially
designated lands. Such a moratorium could remain in place for up to two years. The
moratorium would be coupled with a requirement that the City study its existing
commercial and residential land use policies to determine what amendments, if any, are
needed to the City's existing General Plan in order to best meet the City's various land
use objectives. No non-commercial land uses would be permitted on commercially
designated lands~during the term of the moratorium.
The California Supreme Court upheld voter-imposed moratoria in 1976 in
considering a City of Livermore measure that prohibited issuance of residential building
permits until sewer, educational, an_d other support facilities could be brought into
compliance with specified standards. (Associated Homebuilders of the Greater East Bay,
Saratoga City Council
January 20, 2000
Page 5
Inc. v. Ci_ty of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976).) The courts have since held that such
measures are subject to the same two-year limit that applies to moratoria imposed by the
City Council. (See Bank of the Orient v. Tiburon, 220 Cal. App. 3d 992 (1990); Gov't
Code section 65858.) If a moratorium measure were to be adopted, no non-commercial
land uses could be approved on commercially designated lands during the term of the
moratorium. This would give the Council more time to consider the best mix of policies
to achieve the City's various goals.
The term of the moratorium may not exceed two years, but may be less than
two years. If the Council elects to adopt a moratorium on its own initiative to remain in
effect until such time as the moratorium can be voted on in a City election,~ the term of
the moratorium imposed by the ballot measure could not exceed two years from the date
upon which the Council-imposed moratorium was adopted.
III. Procedural Issues,
Placing a measure on the ballot is a legislative act similar to adopting a
resolution. The following discusses the timing requirements applicable to the Council's
actions as well as the requirements associated with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
A. Timing Requirements.
The City Council must act to place a measure on the ballot no later than 88
days prior to the election at which the matter is to be considered. (Elections Code §
10403.) For the November 7, 2000 election, the deadline for Council action is August 11,
I Government Code section 65858 authorizes the Council itself to adopt a
moratorium without following the procedures otherwise required for zoning ordinance
through a measu!',e approved by a 4/5 vote of the Council. That measure would remain in
effect for 45 days and may be extended following public notice and hearing The
ordinance may prohibit any uses which may be in conflict with planning proposals being
studied by the City or that the City intends to study. The moratorium must be supported
by findings documenting the necessity of the ordinance to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. In this case, such findings would likely be based on the limited
supply of commercially designated land in Saratoga.
Saratoga City Council
January 20, 2000
Page 6
,2000. The last scheduled Council meeting prior to that date is August 2, 2000.
B. CEQA Requirements.
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") §§ 21000 et. seq.
applies to discretionary "projects" carried out or approved by public agencies. (Pub.
Resources Code § 21080). Until December 8, 1999, a city council's submission of a
ballot measure to voters was generally understood to be exempt from CEQA review,
based on cases interpreting the CEQA Guidelines to exclude ballot measures from the
definition ora "project." Under a recent precedent, however, a city council's submittal of
discretionary projects to the voters is considered a "project" under CEQA and thus
requires review of environmental impacts prior to placing the measure on the ballot. In
Friends of Sierra Madre v. Sierra Madre, 99 C.D.O.S. 9639, filed December 8, 1999, the
California Court of Appeal held that where a city submits a discretionary land use
decision to the voters, the action is a "project" subject to CEQA. The case dramatically
narrows the meaning of the guidelines exception to apply only where "a public agency is
acting only in a ministerial manner to place a citizen-initiated measure on the ballot, or..
· when the public agency has already undertaken CEQA review for a project and submits
the issue of the project's approval to the voters." (Id. at 9645.) Unless this case is
reheard by the Second District, or reviewed by the California Supreme Court, this
principle will remain the legal standard in California.2 Therefore, the City must comply
with CEQA prior to placing a measure on the ballot.
The nature of CEQA review will depend on the nature of the ballot
measure. A measure to reaffn'rn and readopt existing policies would be only a change in
the process required to amend the General Plan and therefore would likely fall within
CEQA's "common sense" exception for projects where "it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
2A petitiot~ for review by the California Supreme Court has been filed in the Sierra
Madre case. If granted, this will effectively "depublish" the opinion pending review by
the Supreme Court. ( California Rules of Court, Rule 976 (d).) Although the decision
would not be formally binding in that circumstance, the City may nonetheless wish to
proceed with CEQA compliance due to the Supreme Court's active consideration of the
issues raised by the case. ~
Saratoga City Council
January 20, 2000
Page 7
environment." CEQA Guidelines § 05161(b)(3). A measure subsequently amending the
commercial land use policies would likely require more extensive CEQA analysis through
a negative declaration or an environmental impact report depending on the nature of the
revisions proposed. A moratorium would likely fall under the common sense exception
or require a straightforward negative declaration.
The requirement of CEQA review affects the timing issues discussed above.
If a negative declaration is prepared, the Council must allow time for public review and
comment and staff response to comments on the negative declaration. The time typically
allowed by City staff between public release of a negative declaration and Planning
Commission or Council action on a project is 35 days. Thus, in order to meet the August
'2, 2000 deadline for Council action, a negative declaration would need to be prepared and
released by June 28, 2000. The language to be proposed in the Measure would need to be
developed prior to that time to allow staff sufficient time to prepare the negative
declaration. An EIR would require additional time, the extent of which would depend on
the complexity of the issues in the EIR.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning
this matter.
attachment
Larry Perlin, City Manager
James Walgren, Director of Community Development
P:\SARATOGA~IATI \RST056.MEM]
EXHIBIT A
Existing Commercial Land Use
Policies of City of Saratoga
General Plan ·
[In Effect as of January 20, 2000]
Commercial
Commercial land use is brOken down into four subcategories. The
first two are traditional commercial categories that allow typical
retail commercial and office uses. These facilities serve the
community and/or their immediate neighborhood. They are not regional
in orientation and tend to be located in relatively small complexes.
The fourth subcategory allows a mix of residential and commercial uses
upon receipt of a use permit. The four subcategories and the density
and intensity of the uses permitted in these subcategories are as
follows:
ae
Retail Commercial - 4.35 to 8.7 co~tauercial lots/acre, a
maximum density of 14.5 DU/net acre (if use permit granted)
or 27-45 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage:
60% - 100% of site area.
Professional Administrative - 3.63 commercial lots/net acre
8.7 to 10.89 DU/net acre (if use permit granted) or 27-33.8
people/acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage: 50% of
site area.
Ce
Gateway Landscaping - The purpose of this category is to ~
create attractive entrances to the City in conjunction with
commercial development. A minimum of 1,500 square feet of
a site adjacent to a street or streets shall be devoted to
landscaping. The City shall determine the exact configuration
of this landscaped area through the design review process but,
as a guideline, a 10 foot landscaping strip should extend
along any street frontage.
P-D (Planned Development) Mixed - 4.35 commercial lots/net
acre 8.7 to 10.89 DU/net a~re or 27~33.8 people/acre. Maximum
intensit~ of building coverage: 60% of site area. All projects
proposed on sites with this designation shall require use permit
approval as provided for in Article 16 of this zoning ordinance.
From General Plan, pages 3-2 and 3-3
· SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2000
ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MANAGER:
· PREPARED By:
City Cler~.~')
SUBJECT: Self-evaluation of previous Council meetings of January S and 19, 2000
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): None
REPORT SUMMARY:
Please see attached copy of the January 5 and 19 Council meeting agendas.
FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Council agendas
Public hearings will start promptly at 7:30, when the Council will move from whatever item it is
considering at that time to public heatings
AGENDA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, January 5, 2000 - 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Closed Session - Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue;
TYPE: Regular Meeting
OPEN SESSION - 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to G°vernment
Code section 54956.9(a) - Name of Cases: City of Saratoga v. TCI of Cleveland,
Santa Clara' County Superior Court; City of Saratoga v. Hinz, Santa Clara
Superior Court No. CV 784560
*******************************************************************************
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR MEETING/CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. in the Adult Care Center at 19655
Allendale Avenue.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Resolutions of Commendation to exiting Finance, Library and Parks and
Recreation Commissioners (Ousley, Sessler, Whitney, Swan, Friedrich)
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA - Pursuant to Government Code
54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 30, 1999.
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
Page J.o~ 4
City Council Agenda January 5, 2000
e
Aw
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items - Any member of the public will
be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on
this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking
action on such matters. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly
regarding Oral Communications under Agenda Item No. 8.
B. , Communications from Boards and Commissions- None
C. Written Communications - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
The consent calendar contains routine items of business separated into three sections. Items
for each section will be acted upon in one motion unless they are removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion. Previously discussed items in Section A have already been
considered by the City Council at a prior public hearing, which was eventually closed.
Those items are not subject to further public discussion at this meeting because the vote
taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions in Section A are for the purpose of
memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any
conditions imposed. New items in Section B do not require a presentation from staff
unless the Council removes th&m for discussion, at which time staff may provide additional
information if requested. Claims against the City identified in Section C will be presented
by staff prior to the Council's vote.
'A. Previously Discussed Items
Resolution overmm/ng Planning Commission approval °fApplications
SD 99-005, LIP 99-018 and DR 99-037 (12312 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road).
Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc. Considered by City Council on December 15,
1999.
Recommendation: Adopt resolution.
B. New Items
Check Registers dated December 15 and 22, 1999.
Recommendation: Note and file
Memo authorizing publicity for January 19, 2000 Public Heating items: Appeal
of Planning Commission approval of DR 97-061 (14805 Masson Court).
Applicant: Liu. Appellants: Kwong et.al.
~-,ecommendation: No additional noticing is required by law.
Ordinance authorizing an amendment to the contract between the
City of Saratoga affd the Board of Admimstration of the California Public
Page 2 of 4
City Council Agenda January. 5, 2000
Se
e
Employees' Retirement System. (Introduced on December 15, 1999).
Recommendation: Adopt ordinance.
C. Claims Against the City - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30 p.m.
If you challenge a decision of the City Council pursuant to a public hearing in court, you
may. be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing(s), described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Ae
Appeal of Planning Commission approval of UP 99-014 (N/E Corner of Fruitvale
Avenue and State Route 9). Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a
Use Permit to install two panel antennas mounted on an existing utility pole. The
project also includes construction of an equipment structure 6 ft. (1) x 2 ft. (w) x 4-
1/2 ft. (h) located at the base of the pole (Appellant: Kenneth Cheng; Applicant:
Cellular One)
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Status Report regarding publication of a City Newsletter
Recommendation: Receive report.
Continuing discussion regarding response to the Mountain Winery Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
Recommendation: Review staff's response dated December 15, 1999, receive public
testimony, and direct staff accordingly.
NEW BUSINESS - None
2.
3.
4.
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUS~NESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
A. REVIEW SARATOGA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUDIT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
Recommendation: Accept the audit.
Page 3 of 4
City Council Agenda January 5, 2000
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None
ADJOURN
7. ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions
on current oral communications.
e
10.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no
longer needed.)
A. Adjourned Regular meeting of December 7, 1999
Recommendation: Approve minutes.
B. Regular meeting of December 15, 1999.
Recommendation: Approve minutes.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Ae
Agenda items for the next adjourned regular meeting (Note: The purpose of
listing the items immediately following is not to discuss or take action on them, but
simply to decide whether they are to be placed on the agenda for the adjourned
regular meeting of January 11, 2000. This meeting is canceled.
B. Other
11.
12.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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]
Page 4 of 4
Public hearings will start promptly at 7:30, when the Council will move fi.om whatever item it is
considering at that time to public hearings.
AGENDA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Closed Session - Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue;
TYPE: Regular Meeting
OPEN SESSION - 6:30 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government
Code section 54956.9(a) - Name of Cases: City of Saratoga v. TCI of Cleveland,
Santa Clara County Superior.
*******************************************************************************
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
REGULAR MEETING/CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. in the Adult Care Center at 19655
Allcndale Avenue.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award and Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA).
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA - Pursuant to Government Code
54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 14, 2000.
Page lof5
City Council Agenda January 19, 2000
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
Ae
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items - Any member of the public will
be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on
this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council fi.om discussing or taking
action on such matters. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly
regarding Oral Communications under Agenda Item No. '8.
B. Communications from Boards and Commissions
1. Nomination of Ann Margo Mendeke and Phylis 'Davis to the Hakone Foundation
Board of Trustees.
Recommendation: Approve appointment of Nominees.
2. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to support a new
Aquatic Center at Saratoga High School.
Recommendation: Approve a $150,000 contribution to support construction of a
new Aquatic Center at Saratoga High School.
C. Written Communications
1. Letter from Saratoga Lions requesting City co-sponsorship for July 4~, 2000
Hometown Celebration.
Recommendation: Move to co-sponsor the event.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The consent calendar contains routine items of business separated into three sections. Items
for each section will be acted upon in one motion unless they are removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion. Previously discussed items in Section A have already been
considered by the City Council at a prior public hearing, which was eventually closed.
Those items are not subject to further public discussion at this meeting because the vote
taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions in Section A are for the purpose of
memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any
conditions imposed.. New items in Section B do not require a presentation from staff
unless .the Council removes them for discussion, at which time staff may provide additional
information if requested. Claims against the City identified in Section C will be presented
by staffprior to the Council's vote.
Previously Discussed Items - None
B. New Items
1. Planning Commission actions of January 12, 2000.
Recommendation: Note and file.
2. Approval of Check Register
Recommendation: Note and file
Page 2 of 5
City Council Agenda
January l9,2000
Memo authorizing publicity for February 2, 2000 Public Hearing item: Huang
appeal of Planning Commission denial of F-99-003, 13870 Pike Road,
Applicant: Huang (Continued September 1, 1999).
Recommendation: No additional noticing is required by law.
Park Restroom Improvements and Disabled Accessibility Ramp - Award of
Construction Contract.
Recommendation:
1. Move to declare Jens Hansen Company, Inc. of San Carlos to be the lowest
responsible bidder on the project;
2. Move to award a Construction Contract to Jens Hansen Company, Inc. in
the amount of $158, 661;
3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up
to $16,000.
C. Claims Against the City - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:30'p.m.
If you challenge a decision of the City Council pursuant to a public hearing in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
heating(s), described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Ae
Reconsideration of City Council's decision to overturn the Planning Commission
approval of applications SD 99-005, UP 99-018, DR 99-037 (12312 Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road, Applicant: Azule Crossing, Inc., considered by City Council on
December 15, 1999. Reconsideration granted on January 5, 2000.
Recommendation: Continue the hearing to February 2, 2000 as requested by the
applicant.
B. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of DR 97-061, a design review to
construct a new 6,461 square foot two-story residence on a vacant 2.75 acre lot.
The property is located within a hillside residential zoning district at 14805
Masson Court. (Appellant: Kwong, Park and Sze; Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Liu,
APN 503-72-014).
Recommendation: Continue the public hearing to February 2, 2000, as requested by
the appellants.
C. Use of Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) Funding in Fiscal Year 99-00.
Recommendation: Approve the recommended allocation of funds.
OLD BUSINESS - None
Page 3 of 5