HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-1998 Staff Reports I
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 q AGENDA ITEM'
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1998 CITY MANAGER:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD:
fj
SUBJECT: Request from Santa Clara County Social Services Agency to appoint a
Child Care Coordinator
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to direct staff to recruit for a Child Care Coordinator.
REPORT SUMMARY:
it The County is requesting that the City appoint a Child Care Coordinator to represent Saratoga at
meetings of the Joint Child Care Committee and the Children and Youth Collaborative Task
Force. Since I do not believe that there are sufficient staff resources to devote to this purpose, I
recommend recruiting for a representative from within the community. Another option would be
for a member of the City Council to serve in this capacity. Ultimately, if staff is unable to find
someone willing to serve as the City's Child Care Coordinator, Bob Best, Director of the Los
Gatos Saratoga Recreation District has expressed a willingness to represent Saratoga at
upcoming meetings since he apparently will be representing Los Gatos and Monte Sereno.
Although this may not seem like a high priority for the City, the current federal and state emphasis
on child care issues warrants having a Saratoga representative at the table to participate in
4i discussions that could greatly impact how welfare reform is implemented in Santa Clara County.
Feedback from the City's Child Care Coordinator may also offer an important perspective as
future policy decisions are made regarding the City's Recreation and Teen Service programs.
1 -15 -1998 8:15PM FROM IM PROGRAM TECH DR 408 452 1976 P.3
copy 12-) 3'91-,
r
County of Santa Clara
Social Services Agency A
0 rid
-o Q 7
I 725 Technology Drive E TA C'
San Jose. California 95110-1360,
i
October 29, 1997
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Moran:
As members of the Joint Child Care Committee, we are writing to urge you to support of
collaborative efforts to improve child care services throughout Santa Clara County.
With the advent of changes brought on by welfare -to -work legislation, and as a matter of great
concern for our children and families, our goal is that child care become a top priority. No matter
what your socioeconomic status, child care is consistently a key component of employment
retention.
Four cities within Santa Clara County already have child care coordinators. Supervisor Jim Beall
has already encouraged many other cities to consider doing the same. We are asking that your city
designate or appoint a representative from staff to participate on the City- County Child Care
Collaborative.
The Collaborative's general purpose is to evaluate and improve the quality, quantity and
availability of child care. The Collaborative also specifically deals with child care as it relates to
welfare -to -work and CaIWORKs families. It is essential for all cities in the county to participate in
order to gain a fuller understanding of the child care tasks and issues that lie before us as we assist
families toward self sufficiency. The Collaborative will work toward the following goals:
1. to enhance child care education and training countywide;
2. to serve as a conduit of information to the Local Planning Council, the Santa Clara County
Office of Education, and the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency regarding child care issues
as they relate to Ca1WORKs;
3. to serve as a forum for identifying obstacles blocking child care access and affordability;
and
4. to develop a system of communication linking cities with countywide efforts around child
care.
After choosing your city representative, or if you have questions or concerns, please contact
Jolene Smith, Child Care and Youth Services Program Manager for the Santa Clara County Social
Services Agency, at (408) 441 -5613. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of all children and families
in Santa Clara County.
Sincerely,
Supervisor Blanca Alvarado Supervisor Jim Beall
Chair, Joint Child Care Committee Joint Child Care Committee
II I
Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh. James T. Beall Jr.. S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg `a„
1 -15 -1998 8:1dPM FROM IM PROGRAM TECH DR d08 d52 1976 P.2
..q 4b iz,L/90
C o v E R
FAX
S H E E T
To: Mayor Gillian Moran /4.1.
il CeYY
Fax 867 -0668 (AWL—
Subject: Child Care Coordinator Appointment Request
Date: December 2, 1997
Pages: 2, including this cover sheet.
Dear Mayor Moran:
I am faxing you a copy of a letter sent to your office on October 29, 1997, in which Supervisors
Alvarado and Beall request of the City of Saratoga that it designate a Child Care Coordinator to
participate on the City County Joint Child Care Committee.
Please read the attached letter, and I will call you later this week to discuss any of your questions
or concerns, and to find out from you the process you'll use to select the Child Care Coordinator
for the City of Saratoga.
Thank you in advance for your efforts.
Sincerely,
7 nk..4.r
Rine C. Fa i
From tile desk of...
Rine C. Faletti
Management Analyst
Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
1725 Technology Drive
San Jose, CA. 95110
40S- 4416693
Fax: 408.441 -7237
i
I
1 -15 -1998 8:14PM FROM IM PROGRAM TECH DR 408 452 1976 P.1
1
I I
I
facsimile
TRANSMITTAL
To: Larry Perlin, City Manager
Of: City of Saratoga
Fax: 408- 868 -1280
Phone: 408 868 -1213
Pages: 3, including this cover sheet.
Date: January 15, 1998
Dear Larry:
I am glad we finally were able to talk today about the County Board of Supervisors' request that
Saratoga appoint a Child Care Coordinator to assist with strategic planning for the future of child
care for our county's families and children.
With this cover sheet I am faxing copies of the previous correspondence I have sent, as you
requested. Participation in the county -wide collaborative effort will involve attendance at the
meetings of two collaborative bodies working on child care. One is the Joint Child Care
Committee, whose meetings are convened by and held at the County Office of Education. The
second is the Children and Youth Collaborative Task Force; these meetings are held at the Santa
Clara County Social Services Agency and are facilitated by the Program Manager of Children
and Youth Services.
Even if the City of Saratoga has not appointed its representative by February 9, we hope you will
find an interested City Council, staff or community member to attend the next meeting of the
Children and Youth Task Force, on February 9 from 12:00 1:30 p.m. in the California Room at
the Social Services Agency offices, at 1725 Technology Drive in San Jose (lobby entrance at
the corner of Technology and Skyport). We look forward to seeing you there.
If I can be of help, please let me know.
l i
From the desk of...
Rina C. Faletti
Management Analyst
Santa Clara County Social Services Agency
1725 Technology Drive
San Jose, CA 95110-1360
Phone: 403 441 -5693
Fax: 408-452-1976
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The cost for recruitment of a Child Care Coordinator should be minimal as should any future
costs associated with the performance of this role.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Staff will not recruit for a Child Care Coordinator.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
A recruitment will be conducted much in the same manner as which Commission members are
recruited.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letters re: Child Care Coordinator.
i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL jl
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. r2 1 O AGENDA ITEM 6
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1998 CITY MGR.: dildgr`
ORIGINATING DEPT.:COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT: Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3
Application for the Saratoga Avenue Walkway Project
Phase II
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to adopt the attached Resolution endorsing the project
concept and authorizing the filing of an application for TDA
Article 3 funds.
Report Summary:
Under the Transportation Development Act Article 3, funds are
made available each year for bicycle /pedestrian projects. Staff
recommends that a two phase (2 year) project be approved in
concept for construction of a pedestrian walkway along the east
(south) side of Saratoga Avenue between Herriman Avenue and the
Village as a continuation of Capital Project No. 9501, Arterial
Sidewalk Improvements. This project, once completed, will close
the final pathway gap along Saratoga Avenue and allow safe
continuous pedestrian access along the entire length of Saratoga
Avenue.
The total cost estimate for this project is $125,000 ($112,500
from TDA funds and $12,500 from local funds). For F.Y. 1998/99
the City will be allocated $20,610 from the TDA Guaranteed Fund,
which leaves $91,890 the City will have to compete for from the
TDA Discretionary Fund. St aff estimates it will take two funding
cycles to accumulate the $112,500 to fully fund the project.
Under this scenario, the p roject would be built in F.Y. 1999/00.
To apply for TDA funding, authorization to submit the attached
application needs to be granted by the City Council. This would
be done by adopting the attached Resolution.
d I
Fiscal Impacts:
Nothing at this time. If approved by Council, $125,000 will be
budgeted for the project in fiscal year 1999/00.
Follow Up Actions:
The City will submit the 1998/99 TDA Article 3 Application to
MTC.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The project will not be approved and the TDA Guaranteed
Allocation of $20,610 would be reallocated to other cities in
Santa Clara County.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Attachments:
1. Resolution authorizing the filling of an application with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funds for fiscal year
1998/99.
2. 1998/99 TDA Article 3 Application.
I I
I
I
APPLICATION DOCUMENTS: TDA ARTICLE 3
l i
BICYCLE /PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Applicant: City of Saratog Contact per John Cherbone
County: Santa Clara Telephone: (408) 868 -1223
Name of Project: Saratoga Avenue Walhaay Amount of claim:$_l 5O0
Phase II
Type and extent of project (check and complete requested information)
Bike Path (Class I) (length) Other Bicycle Facilities (type)
Bike Lane (Class II) (length) Bicycle Safety Education
Bicycle Route (Class III) (length) Pedestrian Walkway X 1 9 0 0 (length)
Bicycle Parking Facilities (number /type) Other Pedestrian Facilities (type)
Project Description: A C P C C Pedestrian Walkway
Financial Plan: Below, please list project components being applied for such as preliminary engineering, design, right -of -way,
construction, contingencies, etc.; also provide project budget showing total cost of project and other funding sources.
If this is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for other segments.
Project Components: Preliminary Engineering, Design and Construction
Funding: I Prior Year I Application Year I 2nd Year I 3rd Year
I Total Cost
TDA I 1112,500 1 j
Others (specify) 1 i 1 I
City of Saraltoga 1 12,500 I 1
I I I I I
I I I
Total I 1125, 000 I I
I. Project Eligibility (If no, give approximate date of completion in comments.) YES NO
A. Is the project approved by the governing agency (City Council or Board of Supervisors)? X
B. If a bikeway, does the project meet Caltrans' mandatory minimum safety design criteria?
(Section 7 -1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.)
C. If a bicycle project, has it been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee?
(If not, please explain below under "Comments.
D. Has the environmental impact documentation been completed?
(See Tab I, MTC's Hind Application Manual) Specify date completed.
EIR
Negative Declaration
Notice of Exemption 1/14/98
E. Expected completion date of project? 9/3 0 9 8
1. Right -of -way purchased
2. Agreement of all cities and other agencies involved
3. Commitment of other necessary funds
x-
4. Preliminary design completed
5. Final cost estimate: Financial plan completed X --X.-
F. Provisions have been made to maintain the facility by claimant other
(Please explain 'ocher under comments.)
Comments
D. Categorically Exempt. Notice of Exemption attached.
E. 1. None required
4. July 1998.
'1TC Graohio:bw
February 20. 1992
I
TDA Article 3 Appliction'
Santa Clara Supplemental Information Sheet
Project Sponsor:
Project Name:
y ,<-x.. 3 -c r3+ p< ...t syav: yg" :_�y �3'. C+ 3'.::. r. t y t �ia9,. �r .a �a e x'"�'` x r1
c: iii z }y
��e. >,:stt.m� a::.,.�
a n s ?:Y: ..:.a .�s.?4 Z.
Does the project i elim problem areas on routes which P ropo a se si. ewa wi connect existing
would otherwise provide relatively safe travel uses? walkways and will improve safety for No e. e ri n
If this is a sidewalk project, is there an existing sidewalk
on the other side of the street? No
What is the ADT at the project site? 13 000
.sf 'r_' •<.,s ..'a.:? a ....x
-k
.a:.:
rlterlo .cesllylll 5 TMY
:.�....�!:.a °:u+�sss�:_ ^T.�ca^° r r.A,,...f.�.��'�g.�'J��;:.".. "'''�g�;,�'`�'�'"Y „y
Does the project provide bicycle access to high -use Please list activity centers
activity centers? Bicycle lanes already exist.
Does the project provide pedestrian access to high- use No Please list activity c nter "es ey o
activity centers? Saratoga offices, Sarato Community
4 Y g Y
Librar Saratosa Villa•e.
Does the project provide bicycle parking in high use No Please list activity centers
activity centers?
••rar .x „>Wa a xh?- 2�- k rs �a^..;.u`- .a a >a.: -�s.< ry e... �.H'
ar'� x- a s 'r xtc s'=`'
�`.5�`,�- as��!€�� ..t �,�._%�1s�s�ss -�..m Does the project provide for the improvement of bicycle CD No Please describe, and the bus lines, and/or rail transit services
/transit or pedestrian/transit commute use? affected.
Allows continuous access to Santa Clara
Valley bus routes 27, 54, 57 and 58.
s.. e •.Y 3 -'p .,a� «f..^v -s, "a.ayr� :_s: .:yam :tip. J"i..:.., n•�s,
kcv. 2..5 ?+�'Yi
e ;a •�t� .ac&� .v.. r '7452541•11 Y a r �,3� s�:n'` i s a
onnectiotV onfinur il i .Y
...uTi,:4�.���a;°�" x. «�,3� ;��t.a ^°ss'"�.�..:a...� _9
Does the project provide connection to and/or continuity
(missing link) in the county -wide bicycle and /or
pedestrian system? No
suppapp.x Page 1 of 2
TDA Article 3 Appliction
Santa Clara Supfgment I Information Sheet
Does the project provide connection to and/or continuity Allows continuous pedestrian access along
(missing link) in an individual city's or the County's the full length of Saratoga Avenue within
bicycle and/or pedestrian system? Yes No the City limits of Saratoga.
If this project abuts or intersects another jurisdiction(s), Yes No Please attach letters and/or describe contacts
has project sponsor contacted and/or coordinated with the
abutting or intersecting jurisdiction(s)?
Does the project implement a county or city facilities plan
or circulation element of a general plan? mo No
t t i3 Eq3
Is there demonstrated local support? Yes No Please describe: Attach copies of any supporting letters
Is there organized opposition? Yes Nom
a
te
Please describe important attributes of this project which
you feel have not been fully captured by this application.
suppapp.xls Page 2 of 2
VICINITY MAP
f 1 UA4= t i
AV 'C 4 ...v i A Wi tSI R DR 1 v0 4 ii q �f 4 s itlN v C a .0 *Cott c C R i o ra. 'Li J. 4 44 to.,
S p X 11 R 1 r
rd cc 4 tr C YON i RUM 1. A t, p t
It o�
ROAD v+ 1 1 C T u w 1 Nt 0 sO t� 0
.6 yull I. 111. di a, "MIAAIS RC J o
.0, iii
Np►C a °�R g'•2 OM) V *MU! *.r 4 Ic VW IM OM r f 1
C.r11a R ti CT o N�q 'a�. ..►AS(01tltll0 Int
o 11, RAI N al w •Cl Ku; r� COX t g e Pius I N •i
3 Avt>t R '11 R MCC RAW A 1 A /AMU' _A 'p
A. 3 A "t'Owo► yA1f �\1 C/ (Sh o v z 3 S '(I Uariums- DUt
AN: R
u a MKS r 0 s
i i M j tI s 5 1 m t L s T s ti /4' wARIMh to COr
M IAN I RI,. >L p� d, r r
ve URD ROAD 3 ..t 4,1 A I: f it 6 t
Z G' sue d. 0.414 1 �i AV! r 0
Li I a o SR 1 re. r. r too tats -I g
llttlAN AYE AfMAR t• r i SOU V, t.% i V I 1 r 4 �IANCA n w
N AY(r i .p r r NA
v r t(N
t l DON I, FRANR y i
Cl A r CT J a s ♦a. r ASIa
a CNA rf• s SA11A10G /j,. T 4 "1
iI A 111 ®I rER>il L r t e Q NARttI6N C r C r4.+ OR N.
'r., 4 I r 0,0 7 A V w Z w t
ANN 9 S ro s
f OtE ARR
Vienne p as 4 s s /A X II
r �1 4 c, ``dCi, r
i -V 70ZA°t111 .ra w A •tr.gtA Cowen* t. 1 A I�• y gyp SRO EI los r,;, »,C1" 1►i l �r Q
1�y P a Sottr Rao
lR0 c OUR a p
s o
1 'R s
I 3 u• 4 i i
t' O'•.''. �1�•1�/ ILIUM( W 6 S A R A a CIO Z C01 1.......
y y N N SAN tIARC0 RO r
f' 4' a a VIM S t1 way g r 'tr s f WI a MAR fi YI IN AM �I
Q b AYt sc 'J a a r tl N N 0A,
r.� S mo t.\ 4 Y �t�'
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBAC K, SILVER WILSON II
MICHAEL R. NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION SANTA ROSA OFFICE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZABETH H. SILVER GATEWAY PLAZA 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230
MICHAEL S. RIBACK SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
KENNETH A. WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET SUITE 300 TELEPHONE: (707) 545.6009
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94 FACSIMILE: (707) 545 -6617
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP FACSIMILE: (510) 351 -4481
WENDY A. ROBERTS
DAVID W. SKINNER
STEVEN T. MATTAS
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO
DEBBIE F. LATHAM
WAYNE K. SNODGRASS
OF COUNSEL REPLY TO
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN OPINION OF COUNSEL
April 15, 1996
TO: Metropolitan Transportation Commission
FROM: City Attorney, City of Saratoga
SUBJECT: Eligibility of City of Saratoga for Transportation Development Act
Funds (Numerous Projects)
This commission will serve as the requisite opinion of counsel in connection with the
application of City of Saratoga for an allocation of Transportation Development Act
(TDA) funds.
1. City of Saratoga is authorized to provide and assist public transportation by
construction of pedestrian right -of -way improvements. This assistance may be
provided directly or by contractual arrangements with other parties. The City is
authorized to. install or construct improvements as detailed on Attachment 1
contemplated by the proposed funding application.
2. City of Saratoga is an eligible claimant for Transportation Development Act
(TDA) funds pursuant to PUC Section.99234.
3. I have reviewed the pertinent state and local laws, and tam of the opinion that
there is no legal impediment to City of Saratoga making applications for TDA
funds. Furthermore, as a result of my examinations, I find that there is no
Page 2
pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the
proposed project, or the ability of City of Saratoga to carry out such project.
Yours very truly,
./e/:
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
MSR:dsp
J: \WPD\MNRSW\2 73\MISC\TDA- FUND.W61
I i
I
i
:rv1. E 007080
Notice of Exemption Appendix
1
To Office of Planning and Research From (Public Agency) City of Saratoga
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814 Engineering Division
1 7 l ru tvale
E County Clerk Saratoga, CA 95070
County of Santa C1 a ra ,',T
fi n. i
191 North ort First St r
i
ti t w
San Jose, CA. 95112 y 'i
r
Project Title: Saratoga Avenue Walkway Phase II
Project Location Specific: Saratoga Avenue east side
Project P g between Herriman Avenue
and Rig Basin Way.
Project Location City: Saratoga Project Location County: Santa Clara
Description of Project: Installation of continuous curb, gutter, sidewalk, and
A.C. walkway
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Saratoga
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: John Cherbone, Assistant Engineer
JAN
Exempt Status: (check one) POSTED ON jam THROUGH TY CLER FE8 31998
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUN I.
K
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); STEPHEN V. LOVE, COUNTY CLERK
gY S VE
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); DEPUTY
[categorical Exemption. State type and section number. Class 1(c) Section 15301
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt: Minor alteration of existing public street with no
rPmnva1 of scenic resources.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: John Cherbone Area Code/Telephone/Extension: 0 8) 8 6 8-12 0 0 x. 2 2 3 i
1
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes Es No
Signature: A_ 4 _A, i Dat ‘‘1.i} �K Title: �5o �`eI AvAl.pii('
.16 1 IA 18 Ac551510 -K"� E;r
�(S' I ned by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:
Signed by Applicant
Revised October 1989
I
11
I I
i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 21 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1998 CITY MANAGER
&Mr
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Vessing Road Assessment District Approval of Engineer's Report and
Confirmation of Assessments
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
1. Conduct the Public Hearing on the proposed District.
2. Consider testimony and direct the City Clerk to tabulate the Assessment Ballots.
3. Depending on the outcome of the ballot tabulation, move to adopt the Resolution approving
the Engineer's Report and Assessments and Ordering the Improvements, or move to direct
�I! staff to prepare a Resolution Abandoning the Proceedings.
Cj
REPORT SUMMARY:
At your meeting, you will conduct the required public hearing on the proposed Vessing Road
Assessment District. Recall that the hearing was set for this date by Council action taken on
November 19. Since then, Notices of Improvement and Assessment Ballots were mailed to each
of the 20 property owners in the proposed district. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council
should recess and direct the City Clerk to tabulate the ballots returned by the close of the hearing.
Upon reconvening, the City Clerk will report the outcome of the ballot tabulation. If votes
representing assessments in favor of the project exceed votes representing assessments opposed
to the project, the Council may move to form the assessment district by adopting the attached
Resolution prepared by legal counsel approving the Engineer's Report and assessment amounts
and ordering the improvements.. If, on the other hand, votes against the project exceed votes in
favor of the project, or if for some other reason the Council does not wish to form the assessment
district, then the Council should direct staff to prepare a Resolution abandoning the proceedings
for your next meeting.
j t
I
A third option available to the Council is to continue the proceedings to a future date if the
Council needs additional time to decide whether the assessment district should be formed. This
option should particularly be considered if enough property owners believe that an acceptable
alternative for improving Vessing Road can be developed in a cooperative and timely fashion
eliminating the necessity for an assessment district. If the Council opts to continue the matter
however, then it is strongly recommended that the Council do so only for a limited period of time,
say no more than thirty or forty -five days. The reason for this is that if it is ultimately decided to
proceed with the project via formation of the assessment district, there will be enough time to do
so and complete the project during the upcoming construction season.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Depends on Council's action. If the Resolution is adopted, the costs associated with the project
will be recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Each property owner in the proposed district has been mailed a notice of the public hearing along
with the Notice of Improvement and Assessment Ballot.
I
iI CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
N /A.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Again, depends on Council's action. If the Resolution is passed, work on the project will
continue. sOtherwise, a Resolution abandoning the proceedings will be prepared for your next
meeting, or the matter will be continued to a date certain.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum of Proceedings prepared by Legal Counsel.
2. Resolution approving Engineer's Report and Assessments and Ordering Improvements.
3. Engineer's Report.
Ii
II
1
lil
MEMORANDUM OF PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1998, IN CONNECTION WITH
VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
I
On May 21, 1997, the City Council approved the Resolution of intent to reimburse
expenditures, the boundary map, the legal services agreement, the consultant services
agreement and the resolution of intention to order improvement. The boundary map was
filed with the County Recorder on May 23, 1997.
On November 19, 1997, the Council approved the amendment of the resolution of
intention by resolution, designated the City Engineer as Superintendent of Streets and
designated the City Engineer's Office as the Superintendent of Street's Office for
assessment district purposes, accepted and filed the Engineer's Report and set the hearing
for 8 p.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 1998. Additionally, the Notice of Improvement and
the Assessment Ballot were filed with the City Clerk, and they were mailed to each
property owner within the boundaries of the proposed district on November 25, 1997.
The following affidavits and certificates are on file in the City Clerk's office:
(a) Certificate of filing boundary map with County Recorder; and
(b) Certificate of mailing notice of improvement (w /ballot and return envelope).
1. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. This is the time set for the public hearing on the
Resolution of Intention, as amended, and the Engineer's Report.
2. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. The City Clerk will then open and count the ballots
received from the property owners within the boundaries of this district. Judged
by the outcome of ballots, and if the Council wishes to proceed, it is in order to
consider the following:
3. City Clerk's Certificate Re: Assessment Ballot Results. This is to be filed. Please
see additional instructions below.
4. Resolution Approving Report and Assessment and Ordering Improvement. This
resolution is to be passed.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CITY CLERK:
A. Engineer's Report: The second certification on the certification page of the
Engineer's Report approving and confirming the report should be completed by
signing and using the January 21, 1998 date. THE LAST CERTIFICATION REMAINS
BLANK AT THIS TIME.
ICI
II
I
B. City Clerk's Certificate Re: Assessment Ballot Results: After the public hearing is
closed, you will count the ballots, complete the certificate in triplicate, return two
copies to the undersigned and file the original in your proceedings file.
C. Please provide the undersigned with two certified copies of the resolution adopted.
STURGIS, NESS, BRUNSELL ASSAF
a professional corporation
By: Philip D. Assaf
PDA:ot
Enclosures
2
I I
I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT
AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
a
l i The City Council of the City of Saratoga resolves:
WHEREAS, this City Council has taken a series of actions preliminary to ordering
the improvement in Vessing Road Assessment District, City of Saratoga, Santa Clara
County, California, and now makes the following findings and orders:
I I
1. The City Council adopted a map showing the boundaries of the land
benefited by the proposed improvement. A copy of the boundary map was filed in the
office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara in the Book of Maps of
Assessment and Community Facilities Districts.
2. The City Council adopted its Resolution of Intention to order the
improvement described therein under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, and
directed Civil Consultants Group, as the Engineer of Work for the assessment district, to
prepare the report required by Section 10204 of the Streets and Highways Code.
The improvement is generally described as follows:
a) Steps preliminary to the construction of a water supply system consisting of
620 feet; more or less, of water mains, fire hydrant and metered services,
including, but not limited to, feasibility studies, engineering plans, cost
estimates, legal expenses, and acquisition of easements and rights -of -way
necessary therefor.
b) The acquisition of property necessary for the improvement of Vessing Road
from its intersection with Quito Road to Vessing Court to minimum
acceptable City of Saratoga standards by clearing, grubbing, grading, and the
construction therein of base, pavement, curbs, gutters, driveway aprons and
conforms, striping, signage, retaining structures, utility relocation, where
required, and a water transmission system consisting of 620 feet, more or
less, of water main, fire hydrant and metered services.
c) The acquisition of all lands, easements and rights -of -way and the
performance of all work auxiliary to any of the above necessary to complete
the same.
3. The Engineer of Work filed the report as directed, and the City called a
hearin g report as required by on the re uired b Section 10301 of the Streets and Highways Code.
P
Notice of the hearings was given by mailing to affected property owners, all according to
the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. In addition, an Assessment Ballot was mailed to
affected property owners, as required by Article XIIID of the California constitution and
the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. An affidavit of mailing the Notice of
Improvement and the Assessment Ballot was filed with the City Clerk.
4. At the time and place for which notice was given, the City conducted a
public hearing and gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed
improvement, the extent of the assessment district, or the proposed assessment.
5. The City Council finds that an assessment ballot proceeding on the question
of the proposed assessment was conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the
California Constitution and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, and that the
ballots marked and returned do not constitute a majority protest as defined therein.
6. The documents and events described in paragraphs 1 to 4, inclusive, are
stated here in tabular form, with their dates and, where appropriate, their numbers. All
documents are now on file with the City Clerk.
Document or Event Date Number
a. Resolution approving boundary map 05/21/97 97 23.1
b. Boundary map filed with County Recorder 05/23/97 Dated
c. Resolution of Intention 05/21/97 97 -23.4
d. Resolution amending Resolution of Intention 11/19/97 97 -23.5
e. Filing of Engineer's Report 11/19/97 Dated
f. Resolution accepting Report 11/19/97 97 -23.7
g. Certificate of Mailing Notice of
Improvement and Assessment Ballot 11/25/97 Dated
h. Public hearing conducted 01/21/98
7. The City Council approves the Engineer's Report and each component part
of it, including each exhibit incorporated by reference in the report.
8. The City Council finds that the Engineer of Work in the Engineer's Report
has fairly and properly apportioned the cost of the improvement to each parcel of land in
the assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each
parcel, respectively, from the improvement. The City confirms and levies each
individual assessment as stated in the Engineer's Report.
9. This City orders the improvement described in paragraph 2 and as detailed
in the Engineer's Report.
i I
2
1
I
10. Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to
exceed twelve percent (12 per annum, will be issued in the manner provided by the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10, Streets and Highways Code), and the last
installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the
second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date.
11. According to Section 10603 of the Streets and Highways Code, the City
designates the City Treasurer to collect and receive payment of the assessments. The
property owners who elect to pay their assessments in cash before the issuance of
improvement bonds will not be required to pay their pro rata share of the allowance for
special reserve fund, allowance for bond discount and allowance for capitalized interest.
li The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council
at a meeting held on the 21st of January, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
AFI EST:
Deputy City Clerk
I
3
II,
I
ENGINEER'S REPORT
VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, Engineer of Work for Vessing Road
Assessment District, makes this report, as directed by the City Council, pursuant to Section
10204 of the Streets and Highways Code (Municipal Improvement Act of 1913).
The improvements which are the subject of this report are briefly described
as follows:
a) Steps preliminary to the construction of a water supply system
consisting of 620 feet; more or less, of water mains, fire hydrant and
metered services, including, but not limited to, feasibility studies,
engineering plans, cost estimates, legal expenses, and acquisition of
easements and rights -of -way necessary therefor.
b) The acquisition of property necessary for the improvement of Vessing
Road from its intersection with Quito Road to Vessing Court to
minimum acceptable City of Saratoga standards by clearing, grubbing,
grading, and the construction therein of base, pavement, curbs,
gutters, driveway aprons and conforms, striping, signage, retaining
structures, utility relocation, where required, and a water
transmission system consisting of 620 feet, more or less, of water
main, fire hydrant and metered services.
c) The acquisition of all lands, easements and rights -of -way and the
performance of all work auxiliary to any of the above necessary to
complete the same.
Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to
exceed twelve percent (12 per annum, shall be issued in the manner provided by the
Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10, Streets and Highways Code), and the last
installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the
second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date.
i I
I
Ii
This report includes the following attached exhibits:
EXHIBIT A: Plans and specifications for improvements to be constructed. Plans and
specifications are a part of this report whether or not separately bound.
EXHIBIT B: An estimate of the cost of the improvements.
1 11
EXHIBIT C: An assessment roll, showing the amount proposed to be specially assessed
against each parcel of real property within this assessment district. Each
parcel is described by County Assessor's parcel number or other
designation, and each parcel is also assigned a separate "assessment number"
for the purposes of this proceeding.
EXHIBIT D: A statement of the method by which the undersigned determined the amount
proposed to be assessed against each parcel, based on benefits to be derived
by each parcel, respectively, from the improvements.
EXHIBIT E: A list of the names and addresses of the owners of real property within this
assessment district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for taxes,
or as known to the Clerk. The list is keyed to Exhibit C by assessment
number.
EXHIBIT F: A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property within this assessment
district. The diagram is keyed to Exhibit C by assessment number.
EXHIBIT G: A general description of the rights -of -way to be acquired.
EXHIBIT H: Proposed annual assessment per parcel for expenses in connection with the
registration of bonds.
Respe'tfully submitte
CIVIL\CONSULTAN S GROUP
Engineer of Work
By:
PRC��
S CO
No. C 14760 CT
Exp.3 /31/01
y
LP C
CF CALcC�'
I I
EXHIBIT A
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THOUGH
BOUND SEPARATELY, ARE A PART OF THIS REPORT
I I
I I
Ii
I
EXHIBIT B
I II
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Vessing Road Assessment District
Item Unit Item Total
No. Description Quantity Unit Price Cost Cost
Street Improvements
1 Traffic control 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500
2 2" AC overlay 200 TN 50.00 10,000
3 Wedge cut 600 LF 3.25 1,950
4 Pavement fabric 1,500 SY 1.25 1,875
5 Grading 400 CY 35.00 14,000
6 Pavement grinding 17,550 SF 1.00 17,550
7 Finish grading 17,550 SF 0.45 7,898
8 Driveway conforms 8 EA 2,000.00 16,000
9 PCC curb gutter 1,500 LF 21.00 .31,500
10 AC pavement 400 TN 55.00 22,000
11 Class II aggregate base 500 TN 45.00 22,500
12 Raise manholes 4 EA 275.00 1,100
13 Offset drain inlet 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000
14 Remove AC berm 470 LF 7.00 3,290
15 Remove /replace PCC curb gutter 50 LF 25.00 1,250
16 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000
17 PCC swale 70 LF 20.00 1,400
18 Drain inlet 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500
Total Street Improvement Costs $172,313
Water System Improvements
19 6 -inch DICL pipe 620 LF 48.00 $29,760
20 Fire hydrant 1 EA 4, 140.00 4,140
21 1" metered services 6 EA 1,153.00 6,918
22 1" unmetercd service 1 EA 1,153.00 1,153
23 Retirement of existing services I LS 2,900.00 2,900
24 Other 1 LS 5,109.00 5,109
25 Tax gross -up 1 LS 15,020.00 15,020
Total Water System Improvement Costs $65,000
Total Construction Cost $237,313
Notes: ll
1. Estimate of street improvement corn prepared by City of Saratoga
2. Estimate of water system improvement costs prepared by San Jose Water Company
3. Cost of water services revised er telephone
p conversation w/ 1. Bartitepu of San lose Water Company, 9/26/97
ESTIMATED COSTS AND EXPENSES
Vessing Road Assessment District
Construction Costs
Street Improvements $172,313
Water System Improvements 65,000
Subtotal $237,313
Contingencies ±10% 23,687
Total Construction Costs $261,000
Incidental Costs
Engineering Services
Street improvement design $2,500
Water system design 5,000
Preliminary surveys 3,525
Construction engineering 7,500
Subtotal Engineering Services $18,525
Financing and Administrative Costs
Bond counsel $15,000
Assessment engineering 9,810
Printing, advertising and bidding 2,000
Bond reserve 18% 49,600
Bond discount 12% 12,400
Capitalized interest 21,700
Bond printing and advertising 5,000
Paying agent and registrar 3,000
Financial advisor 5,500
Assessment district management 1,000
Other 4,535
Subtotal Financing Administration $129,545
Subtotal $148,070
Contingencies 410% 14,808
Total Incidental Cost 162,878
and Acquisition Costs
Right -of -Way Acquisition $180,000
RAW documents 6,500
Appraisal services 4,000
Legal expense 9,500
Total Land Acquisition Cost $200,000
Credits
Landowner contributions for preliminary surveys (3,878)
Total Balance to Assessment $620,000
1i EXHIBIT C 10/21/97
Page 1
ASSESSMENT ROLL
I
CITY OF SARATOGA
Vessing Road Assessment District
Assessment Assessment Parcel
Number Amount Description
1 33,934.00 397 -06 -055
2 32,057.00 397 -05 -031
3 40,785.00 397 -05 -029
4 43,271.00 397 -06 -054
5 35,111.00 397 -06 -046
6 35,111.00 397 -06 -045
7 35,111.00 397 -06 -028
8 35,111.00 397 -06 -037
9 46,743.00 397 -06 -048
10 32,057.00 397 -05 -039
11 32,057.00 397 -05 -041
12 24,214.00 397 -05 -067
13 24,214.00 397 -05. -085
14 24,456.00 397 -05 -086
15 24,214.00 397 -05 -087
16 24,214.00 397 -06 -111
17 24,214.00 397 -06 -110
18 24,214.00 397 -06 -109
19 24,456.00 397 -06 -108
20 24,456.00 397 -06 -030
it TOTAL: 620,000.00
I I
EXHIBIT D
VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
METHOD OF SPREAD
The amounts to be assessed against the parcels of property to pay the costs and
expenses of the work and improvements have been based on the estimated benefits to
be derived by the various properties within the assessment district from the proposed
improvements.
The total assessment to be levied against any parcel of land in the district shall be the
sum of the amounts determined by the following:
A. Basic Street Improvements (Item 1):
The cost of constructing street improvements along Vessing Road and Vessing Court
including, but not necessarily limited to grading, paving, land acquisition, local surface
drainage facilities, utility relocations and minor traffic signage shall be assessed as
follows:
1. Special Benefit: Vessing Road and Vessing Court together form a cul -de-
sac approximately 1,250 feet in length. The only purpose of the streets is
to provide access to properties fronting either Vessing Road or Vessing
Court. The basic street improvements described above provide special
and direct benefit to all parcels dependent on Vessing Road for vehicular
ingress and egress from Quito Road. The street improvements will
eliminate existing broken pavement and potholes which are considered a
nuisance and which could pose a potential safety hazard. Additionally,
the improved street surface and the addition of a new drainage inlet will
provide for improved local drainage conditions. Accordingly, the costs of
said improvements will be distributed equally to all properties within the
district.
2. General Benefit: Vessing Road and Vessing Court constitute a "dead -end"
street which provides for neither "thru- traffic" or general vehicular
circulation. Because they provide only for local traffic, it can be fairly
assumed that vehicles utilizing either Vessing Road or Vessing Court do
so to access one or more of the several properties within the district.
Whether the purpose of vehicle trips along these streets is for direct
access to individual properties by residents and guests, or results from
delivery, service, utility or public safety vehicles, the trips are of direct
and specific benefit to the parcels within the district and no benefit is
attributable to other properties in the surrounding community or to the
public in general.
B. Frontage Improvements (Item 2):
The cost of concrete curb and gutter shall be spread in accordance with benefit
received as follows:
1. Special Benefit: The construction of curb and gutter is typically required
along individual property frontages when streets are improved to City
standards. Such construction, together with other improvements (such as
ii sidewalks) are commonly referred to as "frontage improvements The
construction of curb and gutter will also contribute to improved drainage
along the fronting properties.
Even if Vessing Road and Vessing Court were not strictly local streets (see
Paragraph Al, above), the benefit of frontage improvements would be
attributable as a special benefit to the immediate fronting property.
Accordingly, the cost of concrete curb and gutter shall be spread to
benefitting properties in the ratio that the length of each parcel's
improved street frontage bears to the total length of parcel frontage on
improved streets within the project. Excepting that parcels having
previously constructed comparable frontage improvements shall not be
assessed and their frontages shall not be included in the computation of
the distribution ratios.
2. General Benefit: Historically, it has been the practice throughout
California to associate frontage improvements with the individual
property even on major thoroughfares. In the case of non -local streets,
general benefit is usually ascribed to "arterial improvements" (such as
travel lanes, traffic signals, medians, etc.) which are necessary for
community-wide or regional traffic circulation. In contrast, frontage
improvements are of direct benefit to the parcels within the district and
no general benefit is attributable to other properties in the surrounding
community or to the public in general.
C. Water System Improvements (Item 3):
The total cost of constructing water system improvements shall be spread to the
benefitting parcels as follows:
1. Water Main Extension: The cost for the extension of the water
distribution main in Vessing Road between Vessing 'Court and Quito Road
(including pipelines, valves, fire hydrants, and connections to the existing
distribution system) shall be spread to each parcel within the service area
of the new fire hydrant on an equal basis.
I
I
"i
1
it I i
(a) Special Benefit: The principal purposes for the extension of the
water main (to be operated by San Jose Water Company) is to
improve fire suppression flow and increase system redundancy for
residential properties along Vessing Road. All benefit is specific to
those parcels situated along either side of Vessing Road between
Vessing Court and Quito Road.
(b) General Benefit: The water main extension is totally within the
district and no quantifiable general benefit is attributable to other
properties in the surrounding community or to the public in
general.
2. Relocation of Water Services: The cost for installation of new metered
water services and retirement of existing service connections shall be
spread to each parcel receiving a new metered service on an equal basis.
Special Benefit: All benefit is specific to those parcels receiving
P P P g
new metered services.
General Benefit: There is no general benefit to any Y arcels other parcels
those receiving new metered service connections.
D. Rights -of -Way (Item 4):
The cost for acquisition of rights -of -way shall be spread to all properties within
the district in the same proportions as the costs for Item 1 Basic Street
Improvements. The assignment of special and general b enefits for rights -of -way
are also consistent with those for Item 1.
E. Incidental Costs (Item 5):
The cost of incidental expenses spread to the various parcels within the district
shall be the sum of the following:
1. Street Construction Related Costs: Incidental expenses (such as design
engineering and other professional services) identified as related to the
construction of street improvements shall be spread in the ratio that each
parcels' aggregate assessment for Items 1 and 2 bears to the total of
assessments for Items 1 and 2 for all parcels in the district. The
assignment of special and general benefits incidental costs related to the
street construction shall be the same and in the same proportions as
those for their corresponding items for improvement.
2. Water System Related Costs: Incidental costs (including design
engineering and tax gross-up expense) identified as related to the
ii g g P xP
construction of water system improvements shall be spread in the ratio
that each parcel's aggregate assessment for Item 3 bears to the total of
assessments for Item 3 for all parcels in the district. The assignment of
special and general benefits for incidental costs related to water system
elements shall be the same and in the same proportions as those for
their corresponding items of improvement.
3. Financing and Administrative Related Incidental Costs: Incidental
expenses (such as assessment engineering, bond counsel and bond costs)
identified as related to the financing of the works of improvement shall
be spread in the ratio that each parcel's total assessment for Items 1
through 4 (inclusive) bears to the total of assessments for Items 1
through 4 (inclusive) for all parcels in the district. The assignment of
special and general benefits for financing and administrative incidental
costs shall be the same and in the same proportions as those for their
corresponding items of improvement.
F. Credit for Preliminary Survey Costs (Item 6):
Funds for the initial design surveys were advanced by voluntary contributions
from sixteen property owners within the district. A total of $3,525 was
expended for this purpose. Credits, including allowances for the 10%
contingency mark up ($352) shall be distributed equally to all properties having
advanced funds for this purpose. All credits are for local special benefit.
II
1
EXHIBIT E Page 1
PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST
CITY OF SARATOGA
Vessing Road Assessment District
ASSESSMENT NUMBER(S) NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER
1 Arthur W. Dana Jr.
(APN: 397 -06 -055) 18500 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
2 Thomas H. Gurnee
(APN: 397 -05 -031) 18545 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
3 Austin M. Barbara J. Kilburn (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -05 -029) 18531 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
4 Paul Livia Hug (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -06 -054) 18540 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
5 Thomas F. Bonnie L. Mueller
(APN: 397 -06 -046) 18564 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
6 Douglas A. Jonathan
(APN: 397 -06 -045) 18584 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070 l;
7 Dan Manju Banerje (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -06 -028) 18594 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
8 Donald H. Shirley J. Hambey (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -06 -037) 18600 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
9 Clinton 0. Lois M. Lindseth (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -06 -048) 18620 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
10 Kurt P. Gutenberg /Karen E. Louie (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -05 -039) 18579 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
11 Abe Maureen A. Piramoon
(APN: 397 -05 -041) 18557 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
12 James G. Sandra S. La Maack
(APN: 397 -05 -067) 18601 Vessing Road
Saratoga CA 95070
I
EXHIBIT E Page 2
I I
PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST
CITY OF SARATOGA
Vessing Road Assessment District
ASSESSMENT NUMBER(S) NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER
13 Michael A. Carol S. Van Buskirk
(APN: 397 -05 -085) 18653 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
14 Donald E. Barbara G. McKenzie (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -05 -086) 18681 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
15 Stephen A. Sandra S. Moore
(APN: 397 -05 -087) 18691 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
16 Glenn Brenda Yamasaki
(APN: 397 -06 -111) 18668 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
17 Bruce A. Thompson (Tr.)
(APN: 397 -06 -110) 18656 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
18 John L. Lucy F. Huang
(APN: 397 -06 -109) 18644 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
19 James A. Marlene L. Tate
(APN: 397 -06 -108) 18632 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
20 Barbara G. McKenzie
(APN: 397 -06 -030) 18680 Vessing Court
Saratoga CA 95070
END OF LIST
it
EXHIBIT F
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
THE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM,
ALTHOUGH NOT BOUND TO THIS REPORT,
IS A PART OF THIS REPORT.
i %fy
EXHIBIT G
VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY TO BE ACQUIRED
1. 14521 Quito Road (A.P.N. 397 -05 -021):
The Southerly 17 feet of property as described in Legal Description recorded May 20,
1913 in Book 403 of Official Records, page 389.
2. 18545 Vessing Road (A.P.N. 397 05-029):
The Southerly 17 feet of property as described in Legal Description recorded May 20,
1913 in Book 403 of Official Records, page 389.
3. 18540 Vessing Road (A.P.N. 397-06 -054):
The Northerly 17 feet of property as shown on Record of Survey recorded September 2,
1960 in Book 125 of Maps, page 9.
4. 18620 Vessing Road A.P.N. 397 -06 -048):
The Northerly 17 feet of property as shown on Record of Survey recorded October 31,
1960 in Book 127 of Maps, page 5.
I i
EXHIBIT H
PROPOSED ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PER PARCEL FOR
EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE REGISTRATION OF BONDS
VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to Section 8682.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, the Auditor will annually enter in the assessment roll on which taxes will next
become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land, each lot's or parcel's pro rata share of
the annual expenses of the City in connection with the registration of bonds. Such
expenses will include the amount or estimated amount necessary to pay the fees and
charges coming due during the fiscal year covered by the assessment roll of corporate or
other authenticating agents, transfer agents, registrars, paying agents, agents engaged to
assist in complying with federal arbitrage requirements or other agents of the City.
1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2- 6 (9 AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 21,1998 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Amended Proposal for Replacement of Workstations
Recommended Motion(s):
Approve the replacement of existing workstations (panels, work surfaces and filing/storage capacity) in
the Finance Office in accordance with an amended, scaled back plan provided by Space Designs, Inc.
for $8,981.00.
Report Summary:
Background:
City Council first considered this proposal on December 3, 1997. The original agenda item (8B) is
attached as Exhibit #1.
As noted in the Executive Summary for the December 3 agenda item, three main concerns compelled
the City's former Administrative Services Director to accept the lowest bid of $10,374.31 for this
project from Space Designs, Inc. Those concerns were: (1) the critical need for additional filing and
storage capacity, (2) the addition of one employee into the office area, (3) important accommodations
for persons with disabilities. The City's auditors shared the concern about the shortfall in capacity and
organization of the City's financial records.
Immediately after the $10,374.31 bid from Space Designs, Inc. was accepted, three purchase orders
were issued referring to the three primary components of the plan: panels ($3,899.94), work surfaces
($2,205.00), and filing/storage capacity ($4,269.37). In addition, a check in the amount of $4,269.37
was issued to Space Designs, Inc. on October 30, 1997 to secure the filing and storage components of
the plan.
Discussion:
During its December 3, 1997 meeting, Council took no action on the agenda item (8B) pertaining to
this proposal and directed that staff come back with a more cost effective solution to address the
concerns stated above.
1
1 I
Since the three purchase orders and one check had already been issued, and since Space Designs, Inc.
asserted that it had reasonably relied upon those documents and actions as authorization to proceed
with placing the orders for various components of the plan, it became apparent to staff that
negotiations would have to be held solely with Space Designs, Inc. to accommodate the need to pare
costs.
Those negotiations occurred on December 12, 1997. Space Designs, Inc. submitted a revised
proposal, which is attached as Exhibit #2. Please note that one entire set of panels and shelving have
been removed. These were the panels and shelving which had been intended to segregate work space
for auditors or employees conducting research using various financial documents or records.
As a result of the removal of these components, the cost of the proposal from Space Designs, Inc. was
revised downward to $8, 981.00. This is $1,393.31 less than its original bid.
Fiscal Impacts:
Sources of funding: 270 9010- 622 -4010 2,317.04 (panels)
001- 1060 -513 -4010 2,864.21 (work surfaces)
001- 1055- 613 -6004 3,799.75 (filing/storage units)
Total 8,981.00
These funds have balances sufficient to absorb the expenditures as allocated above without affecting
any other operational plans.
Follow Up Action(s):
Cancel the three purchase orders issued previously and replace them with one purchase order to Space
Designs, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $8,981.00. Complete the transaction and surplus existing
workstations and filing systems.
Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motion(s):
As mentioned above, a check in the amount of $4,269.37 down payment was made to secure filing and
storage components. If Council chooses not to grant approval of this revised workstation replacement
proposal in its entirety, the down payment may become a sunk cost. Any effort to pursue a refund
from Space Designs, Inc. will likely be challenged by the vendor. Space Designs, Inc. may assert that it
compensates the firm for the costs of design work and materials requisitioned to date, all of which were
incurred under a reasonable expectation that the City authorized it to do so.
i
Attachment(s): Exhibit 1: December 3, 1997 Agenda Item 8B
Exhibit 2: Revised Proposal from Space Designs, Inc.
2
1� g'
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 6J 7
MEETING DATE: December 3, CITY MANAGER C J z‘.1, s
!.lt
i r
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Proposed Replacement of Workstations
Recommended Motion(s):
Approve the replacement of existing workstations (panels, work surfaces and filing/storage capacity) in the Finance office
in accordance with a plan provided by Space Designs, Inc. for $10,374.31.
Report Summary:
During the FY 1996 -97 annual audit and concurrent reorganization effort in the City of Saratoga, it became evident to the
City's former Administrative Service Director that the use of space within the Finance office failed to deal with: (1) the
critical need for additional filing and storage capacity, (2) the addition of one employee into the office area, and (3)
important accomodations for persons with disabilities. The City's external auditors concurred with the observation that
financial records would remain difficult to access without additional capacity and attention to organization.
During the month of September 1997, bids for replacement work stations and filing systems were received from Space
Designs, Inc. and Curtis Trading Company. Space Designs, Inc. offered the lowest bid of $10,374.31.
The plan provided by Space Designs, Inc. (copy attached) illustrates how the concerns listed above would be addressed. In
addition, a small table would fit in front of the safe for auditors or employees to use when working with documents in the
Department. ADA- related accomodations would be provided in the form of the proposed handrail supports incorporated
into the plan.
Fiscal Impacts:
Sources of funding: 270 9010- 622 -4010 3,899.94
001- 1060 -513 -4010 2,205.00.
001- 1055-613 -6004 4,269.37
Total $10,374.31
These funds have balances sufficient to absorb the expenditures as allocated above without affecting any other operational
plans.
Follow Up Action(s):
Complete transaction and surplus existing workstations and filing systems.
I
1
i ail
I
Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motion(s):
A $4,269.37 downpayment was made to secure filing and storage components. If Council chooses not to grant approval
of this workstation replacement proposal in its entirety, the downpayment may be applied to a scaled -back approach to
address these pressing concerns.
Attachment(s):
Space plan by Space Designs, Inc.
ii
2
Ir
VVI .I 41 IJ. hi IV 11J....w.;I“. 11.11 ..1“.i.. ll.l.ul
I
I
lo•11• .....••a•.,..
11•
II 1 :1 1.11• ''.11!
'II 2 1
2'8
8 .11•
I
1..
Ili
r r:
0 2 i i
3 H 11
i
1
ire'
S
1
I
i C IV- 1'3
I
s
it 1
2
.._+.tigt pelr• 27 12'4•
Plan Pg 1 of 1 OFFICE Oulilns Door/Opening ...w«..u.0 Window Column it
Scale 1 /13e -1'
a CONNECTORS SLC I T•Connecnr 4 WaU■alp I Expanded CON IP
Components NrdSurf Mold-way or Endoap 8 Shemin Pwtr Mande M efihway Q
ATTACHED cola PONENTe (liner on panel 4a w
run 1neee .lenen view le avahebte)
WO,IISYrface 24' E-� Sr Contorence Reim 1 Cenci*, Cap r"..:.:.=
Canrlleverw/ I. bradlet I•:— WI 2L bradatc •.I O Corner Cantor Clip 13 End Blacks' KW 4 Clanging Plate 4::...a
Podeetal or Drawer Workaurfac. Support
Flipper, or Shell without Light whh Light Q Tacbooud 12 16 c-
comer. under Yeoman bem
Lemb FREESTANDING COMPONENTS
einre, WA jV 6.1 Cneegeede r ChM, Q
jI.
1
.j
1
4159648026 SPACE DESIGNS INC. F -857 T -960 P -002 DEC 22 '97 07:07
e
Space Designs, inc.
Proposal
2490 Chadeston Road 5990 Stoneridge Drive 11190 Sun Center Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone 650.960.1500 Phone 510.734.0773 Phone 916.638.8818
Fax 650.964.8026 Fax 510.734.0421 Fax 916.635.6227
Bill To: Ship to:
City of Saratoga City Manager
13777° Fruitvale Ave., 13777 Fruitvale,
Saratoga, Ca 95070 Saratoga, Ca 95070
Attn: Debra Larson Attn: Debra Larson
Salesperson Project Coordinator Estimated Lead Time Terms
Brad'Cole, 350 Chuck Heinemann, 329 Net 20
Proposal Name: Accounting Dept. Proposal Date: 12/12/97
Qty Description Unit Price Extended
1 Accounting Dept. Cube's per Z -Axis Drawings Approved by Client $7,551.00 $7.551.00
Client Initials Sub -Total $7,551.00
Labor $1,430.00
Services
TOTAL $8,981.00
Client Acceptance of Proposal, including Terms and Conditions on Page 2
TAX
Unless otherwise noted, tax is not included in the total and will be added at invoicing. NOTE: Installation is a taxable item.
FREIGHT
Freight, if applicable, will be added at invoicing.
OPTIONAL SERVICES
Data/Telecommunication Cabling: If you would like information and pricing on data/telecommunication cabling, please
initial here.
Fabric Protection: If you would like information and pricing on fabric protection, please initial here.
1
57b40U40 Jrhil.0 LCJ l t]rvJ 11V1,. 1 70V r aria ur=n GC. 71 CJ r• v 1
o Page 2 Accounting Dept. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 12112/97
Total: $8,981.00 City of Saratoga
This proposal is subject to and shall be governed by the terms and conditions on hereof, and shall be void unless accepted by the
customer signing a copy and returning it to Space Designs. Inc within 30 days from the date hereof.
I NET 20 DAYS from the date of invoice
Space Designs, Inc. shall make every effort to install all products as quickly as possible; however, any delivery and/or installation dates
quoted to customer are approximate and Space Designs, Inc.'s obligation shall only be to install and/or deliver the products within a
reasonable time. Also, due to the nature of comportentized modular furniture, e.g. uncertain factory shipping schedules, it is possible that
Space Designs, Inc. will only be able to deliver and install portions of the job at a time. Therefore, payment shall be made in accordance
with the following terms.
1. Products will be invoiced for items on a component parts basis as delivered. Customer must sign all delivery tickets to acknowledge
receipt of individual components. Payment is due 20 days thereafter. In no case is payment to be withheld for acceptable products should
any portion of the job be unacceptable or undelivered. If any products are unacceptable or undelivered, customer may pay 90% of the
invoice amount for those product delivered and acceptable, and withhold 10% until completion of the job; balance is payable 20 days after
final delivery.
2. The quotations contained herein are based upon a design and layout prepared by or accepted by Space Designs, Inc. and approved by
the customer and upon the plans and specifications and existing conditions of the job site. Any services rendered to customer to change or
modify the design and layout before or during installation will to charged to the customer at prevailing rates. If such changes or
modifications result in additional products. parts, materials or labor, they will be billed to the customer at prevailing prices. If such changes
or modifications result in any products not being used, they may only be canceled or returned to Space Designs, Inc. at its option, and will
be subject to a cancellation or restocking charge.
3. Changes, Cancellations, and Returns: Due to the custom nature of the manufacturing process, no change nor cancellation, in whole or
in part, may be made after order placement without prior written confirmation from both the manufacturer and Space Designs. Approved
changes and cancellations will be subject to cancellation charges as determined by both the manufacturer and Space Designs. No return
of goods will be accepted without written consent and shipping instructions from Space Designs. All returns are subject to a restocking fee.
Only unused product, in its original shipping container, will be accepted.
4. If the customer is unable or unwilling to accept installation or delivery of the products according to the specified schedule, the products
may be stored at the customer's request in Space Designs, Int.'s warehouse, in which case the customer shall pay 100% of the invoice
price within 20 days. In addition, the customer shall pay a warehouse charge of 2% per month of the invoice price of such products so
warehoused, payable monthly. After delivery, the terms stated above shall apply.
5. Installation and Delivery: These services are conducted during the normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, non -union tabor. if these services are requested for time and days other than normal, special handling or equipment required,
moving of products other than delivered, or any unusual condition not made known to Space Designs, Inc. at the time of sale, will
constitute additional labor charges at prevailing rates. Area is to be free and clear of furniture, other trades, debris and other
encumbrances. Unless otherwise stated, labor charges do not include the moving or relocating of other furniture.
6. If during installation, additional products are necessary or required to complete the job, such additional products and the labor to install,
such products will be charged to the customer at prevailing prices.
7. SPACE DESIGNS, INC. MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE SUITABILITY OF THE MERCHANDISE
FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXCEPT THOSE MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE PRODUCTS. Any claim must be
made to Space Designs, Inc. in writing within 10 (ten) days after the delivery or installation of the products, and if no claim is so received by
Space Designs, Inc.. it will be conclusively presumed that customer has accepted the products and that the products are as represented.
8. Space Designs. Inc. retains and the customer hereby grams to Space Designs, Inc. a security interest in the products to secure the
purchase price. The products shall remain personal property regardless of being affixed to any real property. If the customer defaults in the
payment of the purchased price when due, Space Designs, Inc, shall have all rights and remedies granted by the Uniform Commercial
Code. A finance charge of 1.5% per month (ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE of 18% per annum) will be charged on all past due balances.
Customer shall pay all collection costs including a reasonable attorneys fee, in the event the collection of the purchase price or any part
thereof is referred to a collection agency or an attorney.
9. Space Designs, Inc. requires a deposit on all orders over 10,000.00 and on all new orders; the percentage to be determined by Space
Designs, Inc. before any action will be initiated on the customer's behalf. No product will be ordered from any manufacturer nor removed
from Space Designs, lnc.'s stock for the customer until such deposit is received by Space Designs, Inc. Said deposit will be applied to the
customer's account pro rata as product is delivered and invoiced. Each invoice less its proportionate share of the deposit, will be due and
payable subject to the above stated terms and conditions.
Client Acceptance of Proposal, including Page 1 Date
1 b7b4UUdb 51 Vt 1 I Nb 1 NL. 1 I 'e J r i't.0 44 7 f lJ CIO
VW
is System Miller SQA Incorporated, a Herman Miller Company
Omer Name
='ce Designs, Inc.; Brad Cole x350 I
1 1
I
PARTS ORDER LIST
*roe
Fabrics Finishes and Options
Q Panel• Q Finish: LG Light Grey
BL03 Sherman Pewter Q Worksurface Finish: J5 Frosted Innertone
Q Tackboard Finish: SLO3 Mango 0 Connector: Hard Surface
Q Flipper Door: BG06 Liberty Q Floor DataPort: No
Q Flipper Front: Fabric
Q Power: None
Qty Mfg Product Number Description Each Total
3 MSQ QPAS6724C1LGBLO3 Panel, Tackable, Standard 67H x 24W $125.13 $375.39
2 MSQ QPAS6730C1LGBLO3 Panel, Tackable, Standard 67H x 30W $138.25 $276.50
3 MSQ QPAS6736C1LGBL03 Panel, Tackable, Standard 67H x 36W $158.38 $475.14
I I 2 MSQ QPAS6742C1LGBLO3 Panel, Tackable, Standard 67H x 42W $168.88 $337.76
1 MSQ QPAS6748C1LGBLO3 Panel, Tackable, Standard 67H x 48W $178.50 $178.50
1 MSQ, QPAS6760C1LGBLO3 Panel, Tackable, Standard 67H x 60W $197.75 $197.75
3 MSQ QCR603OLGJ5 Work Surface, Conferencing Return 60W $206.50 $619.50
x 3oD
3 MSQ QCRC Corner Support Clip $0.00 $0.00
3 MSQ QCWS3624J5 Work Surface, Corner 36W x 24D $147.00 $441.00
3 MSQ QFLF24LGBGO6 Flipper Unit Fabric, 24W x 13D $101.50 $304.50
3 MSQ QFLF36LGBG06 Flipper Unit Fabric, 36W x 13D $115.50 $346.50
3 MSQ QGPL Ganging Plate $0.00 $0.00
6 MSQ QLBK L Bracket $0.00 $0.00
I 3 MSQ QSTLT24LG Task L =ght 24W $33.25 $99.75
3 MSQ QSTLT36LG Task Light 36w $39.38 $118.14
3 MSQ QTB1224SLO3 Tackboard, 12Hx24W $23.63 $70.89
3 MSQ QTB1236SL03 Tackboard, 12Hx36W $27.13 $81.39
3 MSQ QWS2424J5 Work Surface, Standard 24W x 24D $67.38 $202.14
2 MSQ QWS6024J5 Work Surface, Standard 60W x 24D $125.13 $250.26
1 MSQ QWS6624J5 Work Surface, Standard 66W x 24D $136.50 $136.50
6 MSQ QWSBK End Bracket Kit $0.00 $0.00
I 10 MSQ QWSCL Cantilever with L Bracket $8.75 $87.50
1 MSQ QCNM267L4 Connector, Two Way 90 Hard Surface $33.25 $33.25
67H
1 MSQ QCNM367LG Connecror, Three Way Hard Surface $60.38 $60.38
67H
4 MSQ QFE67LG Connector, Finished End Kit 67H $13.13 $52.52
6 MSQ QSLC67 Connecror, Straight Line 67H $5.25 $31.50
3 MSQ QTC67LG Wall Start 671I $19.25 $57.75
I 9 MSQ QWST67LG Wall Sip 67F $20.13 $181.17
�:r 3 MSQ QLF236LG Freestanding Lateral File, 2 high, $288.75 $866.25
2711x ?6W, Finish:Light Grey
2 MSQ QLF542LG Freestanding Lateral File, 5 high, $609.00 $1218.00
64Hx12W, Finish:Light Grey
159648026 SPRCE DE51 GNS 1 NG. r -tor 1-you r Clay LOLL, I cai.wv
System Miller SQA Incorporated, a Sherman Miller Company page 2
outer Name
ce Designs, Inc.; Brad Co3e x350
wewewwwww *wwww* *w
PARTS ORDER LIST
***wwww *wwww *r*
Qty Mfg Product Number Description Each Total
2 MSQ QMP661224L0 Mobile Pedestal, 24D box /box /file, $225.75 $451.50 V
FiniS1:Light Grey
Customer Sell Price excluding tax: (Published Price: $8630.00) $7551.43
Office Designed 12 -12 -1997
software under liecnne from Lemberaky Chi Incorporated, semee]e, WA (1716.1)
I II i
I I
t rppg4107be.R:3164b bl'HCE DESIGNS INC. F-857 T-960 P-006 DEC 22 '970':
Nue
i
11
1
I
I l 1 2' 101 I' 4•••••■3" 11*
11* 1
J*41'
g
1
I 1
;>'S'
il
e'11 i ,10•
n I
B g:
Milli
I .....1.2
4:11.21
d 1
11 s
2
3
li
1
3
191"
10'. 1'S•
I‘
9 t
i
I 2
r I
■•••-••■•■471grow•■■•••4 12'4'
II
1
1
Plan Pg 2 of 3 OFFICE Outline Doer/Opening varrow.M..• Window Column 2
Scale 1/8"=1'
Q CONNECTORS $1.0 I T-Cennnctor .0 wanstrip I Expanded CON 11
Components HrdSerf Multi•way or Endcap W Shormn Pwtr Fabric Multi-way CI
ATTACHED COrd FOMENTS (Letter on panel run indicates elevation view is available)
Worksurface 24' A SO' ,..........„1 Conference Return Counter Can I I
Cantievor *1 L bracket WI 21. bracket s El: :±7.7; Corner Center Clip 13 End OPIUM Kit 4 Ganging Plate
Pedestal or Drawer Workourface SuPPon
Flipper, or Shelf without Light 1 7 with Light Tackboard 12 16 I
FREESTANDING COMPONENTS
Software under lie,enso from
Lamb C Caeca/H.4s
Chair
I i
J „r
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2, et 6 4 AGENDA ITEM S
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1998 CITY MANAGER: d
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY ATTORNEY DEPT. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Introduction of revised Anti Loitering Ordinance
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
Move to introduce the Ordinance by title only, waiving further reading.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is a draft of the revised Anti- Loitering (Curfew) Ordinance prepared by the City
Attorney. Since the Council first discussed the Ordinance on December 9, the City Attorney has
reviewed Cupertino's Ordinance for compatibility since the Sheriff has enforcement responsibility
in both cities. As a result of this review, the City Attorney has modified the times when a curfew
would be in effect from what existed in the initial draft to be consistent with Cupertino's
Ordinance. The details of this are spelled out in the City Attorney's attached memo dated
December 11. In order to resume enforcement of curfew and anti loitering laws in Saratoga, it is
recommended that the Ordinance before you be adopted. This is done by first introducing the
Ordinance at next week's meeting, and then adopting the Ordinance on February 4. The
Ordinance would then become effective on March 6.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None anticipated. The costs to enforce the Ordinance are already built into the Sheriff's contract.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional. A summary of the Ordinance will be published in the Saratoga News after its
introduction and adoption.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S):
The Ordinance would not be introduced and could therefore not be adopted on February 4. Until
such time as a new Ordinance is adopted, the Sheriff will not enforce curfew laws in Saratoga.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Adoption of the Ordinance will be placed on your February 4 meeting agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance.
2. Memo from City Attorney dated December 11.
3. Memo from City Attorney dated September 16.
i
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON
MICHAEL R. NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
STEVEN R. MEYERS NORTH BAY OFFICE
ELIZABETH H. SILVER
MICHAEL S. RIBACK GATEWAY PLAZA 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230
KENNETH A. WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
DAVID W. SKINNER TELEPHONE: 17071 545 -8009
STEVEN T. MATTAS SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 FACSIMILE: 17071 545 -6617
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP FACSIMILE: (51 0) 351-4481 CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE
DEBBIE F. LATHAM
STOCKTON, CA 95207
WAYNE K SNODGRASS TELEPHONE: 1209) 951 -4080
ARNE B. SANDBERG FACSIMILE: 12091 951 -3009
BENJAMIN P. FAY
DANIELS. MULLER
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
PATRICK WHITNELL
KATHARINE G. WELLMAN MEMORANDUM
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN
CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST
TO: City Council DATE: December 11, 1997
'City Manager
City of Saratoga
FROM: Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
RE: Revisions to Proposed Curfew Ordinance
At the presentation of the proposed Curfew Ordinance to the City Council at its
adjourned meeting of December 9, the Council directed that the City Attorney review the
Cupertino Curfew Ordinance to determine whether the two ordinances are compatible for
enforcement purposes, since the Sheriff has enforcement responsibility in both cities.
I have reviewed. the Cupertino Ordinance and compared it to the proposed
ordinance. As a result, I have made one substantive modification to the proposed
ordinance, relating to curfew hours: to establish curfew hours as the period from 10 P.M.
to 6 A.M. from Sunday night through Friday morning, and from 12:01 A.M. to 6 A.M. on
any Saturday or Sunday.
The remaining portions of the proposed ordinance are consistent with the
Cupertino Ordinance.
The proposed ordinance does contain one provision that is not found in the
Cupertino Ordinance. That provision directs the Sheriff to treat a first violation of the
Curfew Ordinance by simply releasing the minor to his/her parent or guardian and issuing
a warning citation to the minor regarding the consequences of a second violation. The
TO: City Council, City Manager
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Revisions to Proposed Curfew Ordinance
DATE: December 11, 1997
PAGE: 2
parents also receive a copy of the citation and notification that they may be held liable for
administrative and transportation costs for a second and subsequent violations. The
ordinance also provides a procedure for a parent to appeal the imposition of any fee or
cost. As Captain Wilson indicated at the December 9 adjourned meeting, this provision
places greater responsibility upon the parent or guardian to exercise supervision and
control over the minor.
I will be happy to discuss the ordinance further with the Council at a future
Council meeting.
,de-
Michael S. Riback
City Attorney
MSR:dsp
F:\WPD\MNRSW\2 73\01 \MEMO\DEC97\CURFEW.D 11
III
2F o* 4
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER WILSON
MICHAEL R. NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
STEVEN R. MEYERS NORTH BAY OFFICE
ELIZABETH H. SILVER
MICHAEL S. RIBACK GATEWAY PLAZA 555 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230
KENNETH A. WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
DAVID W. SKINNER TELEPHONE: 17071 545 -8009 i.
STEVEN T. MATTAS SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 FACSIMILE: 17071 545 -6617
CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP FACSIMILE: (51 0) 351-4481 CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE
RICK W. JARVIS
LARISSA M. SETO 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE
DEBBIE F. LATHAM STOCKTON, CA 95207
WAYNE K SNODGRASS
ARNE B. SANDBERG TELE 209) 51-3 0
FACSIMILE: (2091 951-3009
BENJAMIN P. FAY
DANIEL A MULLER
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
OF COUNSEL MEMORANDUM
ANDREA J. SALTZMAN
CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST
TO: Bob Wilson, Captain DATE: September 16, 1997
Santa Clara County Sheriff
FROM: Mike Riback, City Attorney
City of Saratoga
RE: Curfew Ordinance
I. Issue Presented.
In light of the recent ruling in Nunez v. City of San Diego,' we have reviewed the
Saratoga curfew ordinance to determine its validity.
II. Brief Conclusion.
The Saratoga curfew ordinance is likely invalid and not enforceable. The ordinance
contains provisions similar to those in the ordinance struck down in Nunez. Specifically,
a court following Nunez would likely hold that the Saratoga ordinance is
unconstitutionally vague and overly restrictive of protected First Amendment expression.
To preserve the validity of the ordinance, the prohibited conduct should be more
specifically defined, and several exceptions should be included. In.addition, the ordinance
should explicitly state the purpose of the curfew, along with some evidentiary findings, in
g rY g
a "Findings" or "Whereas" section.
1 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997).
I I
I II
TO: Bob Wilson, Captain, Santa Clara County Sheriff
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Curfew Ordinance
DATE: September 16, 1997
PAGE: 2
III. Discussion.
it
A. Nunez v. City of San Diego.
In Nunez, the Ninth Circuit invalidated San Diego's curfew ordinance. The
ordinance declared it unlawful for minors under 18 years to "loiter, wander, idle, stroll, or
play" in public places after 10:00 p.m. Exceptions were provided for when the minor is:
1) accompanied by a parent or guardian,
2) performing an emergency errand,
3) returning directly home from a meeting or recreational activity
sponsored by educational authorities, or
4) acting pursuant to legitimate employment.
The Court ruled that the San Diego ordinance violated the United States
constitution. First, the phrase describing acts prohibited by the curfew "loiter, wander,
idle, stroll, or play was vague. This phrase failed to provide reasonable notice of what
conduct was illegal and allowed the police excessive discretion in enforcing the curfew.
More significantly, the Court found that the exceptions listed in the curfew
ordinance did not adequately protect First Amendment expressive freedom. The
ordinance restricted minors' access to public forums for one -third of each day. In
addition, the curfew subjected a wide range of legitimate activities to punishment,
including any meeting, entertainment or recreational activity not sponsored by local
educational authorities. (Examples include: studying at a coffeehouse, auditioning for a
theater, attending a city council meeting, attending midnight mass, practicing astronomy,
attending hockey practice, and volunteering at a homeless shelter.) As a result of these
deficiencies, the curfew also violated parents' Fourteenth Amendment due process right to
raise children without undue governmental influence.
B. The Saratoga Curfew.
The Saratoga ordinance shares characteristics with the San Diego ordinance struck
down in Nunez. First, Saratoga's definition of what activity is proscribed "to remain,
stay, tarry or loiter is probably vague under the reasoning of Nunez. Previous California
decisions had implied that using the term "loiter which has a "sinister" inference, was
TO: Bob Wilson, Captain, Santa Clara County Sheriff
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Curfew Ordinance
DATE: September 16, 1997
PAGE: 3
preferable to more general terms such as "to be present" or "remain However, Nunez 1.
made clear that terms without precise definition, such as "loiter allow the police too
much discretion in enforcing the curfew. In contrast, two federal decisions have upheld
curfew ordinances which used the word "remain" instead of "loiter In light of these
decisions and Nunez, Saratoga should eliminate the words "stay, tarry or loiter and
retain the word "remain
A curfew's exceptions are the "most important consideration" in a court's
constitutional analysis of whether the curfew ordinance is narrowly tailored.' The
ordinance struck down in Nunez had several exceptions; yet, the Ninth Circuit still found
that the exceptions were inadequate. The Saratoga curfew provides only one exception -for
minors who are accompanied by a parent or guardian. To ensure consistency with Nunez
and other previous cases in which curfew ordinances were upheld, Saratoga should
provide additional exceptions for any minor who is:
1. required to be in a public place in connection with some lawful
employment activity;
2. in a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel;
3. on an errand at the direction of the minor's g
P arent or guardian, without
any detour or stop;
4. going directly to, attending, and returning directly from attending an
educational, religious, recreational, or other lawful activity sponsored by the City of
2 Nunez, supra, at 7224 (stating that excessive discretion may be an effective enforcement
tool, but where the ordinance does not adequately distinguish prohibited and permitted conduct it is
impermissibly vague). Another federal case has also held that the terms "loiter" and "wander" were
impermissibly vague. U.S. ex rel. Newsome v. Malcolm (2d Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d. 1166, 1172 -73.
3 Outb v. Strauss (5th Cir. 1993) 11 F.3d 488; Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown (1975)
401 F.Supp. 1242.
4 Outb, supra, at 493 -94. See also Waters v.. Barry (1989) 711•F.Supp. 1125, 1134 II
(characterizing a juvenile curfew ordinance with few exceptions as a "bull in a china shop of E
constitutional values
TO: Bob Wilson, Captain, Santa Clara County Sheriff
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Curfew Ordinance
DATE: September 16, 1997
PAGE: 4
Saratoga, a community service organization, a youth organization, a school, or a
church; or
5. exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States
Constitution, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right
of assembly.'
As a final precaution, Saratoga should explicitly state the government's compelling
interest along with some evidentiary findings in a "Findings" or "Whereas" section at the
beginning of the ordinance. A city has a compelling interest in protecting the safety and
welfare of its minors. Saratoga should state that its objectives in enacting the ordinance
are to reduce juvenile crime and juvenile victimization, emphasizing that minors have a
special vulnerability to the dangers of the streets at night. In addition, Saratoga should
establish an evidentiary nexus between the curfew and its objectives (e.g., that the curfew
will help to attain those objectives). While the City need not produce "scientifically
certain criteria of legislation it should conduct either a fact finding hearing or a public
debate on alternate proposals.'
The ordinance upheld in Outb, supra, at 498, provided a First Amendment exception with
identical language. While an exception for First Amendment activity may seem to dilute the curfew
ordinance, the absence of a First Amendment exception will almost certainly result in the ordinance
being struck down under the reasoning of Nunez.
6 Outb, supra, at 492.
Saratoga should make these findings specific to the City. See Hutchins v. District of
Columbia (1996) 942 F.Supp. 665, 678 (concluding that the District of Columbia could not adopt the
curfew ordinance upheld in Outb without its own evidence showing the particular effectiveness of a
nocturnal juvenile curfew in meeting its compelling interests). Please see the attached statistical
evidence, offered to the Court in Outb, supporting the city of Dallas' curfew ordinance findings.
e
TO: Bob Wilson, Captain, Santa Clara County Sheriff
FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney
RE: Curfew Ordinance
DATE: September 16, 1997
PAGE: 5
I have enclosed a draft ordinance to amend the current ordinance consistent with
the suggestions in this memo, for your review and comment.
Michael S. Riba
City Attorney
MSR:dsp
Enclosure
Larry Perlin, Interim City Manager (w /encl.)
F:\wPmmNRsw\273\ol\MEMO\SEP97\CURFEW.724
it
I� I
I
i
I i
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
I I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2. 1 to 3 AGENDA ITEM S
MEETING DATE: January 21, 1998 CITY MANAGER 4 4
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1997 Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report and Saratoga Public Financing Authority Financial Statements
Recommended Motion(s): Note and file.
Report Summary:
Background:
Pursuant to applicable federal, state and local statutes the City is required to prepare a Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report and undergo an annual audit to obtain assurance that: 1) the financial
statements are not misstated, 2) the City complied with generally accepted accounting principles and
federal financial assistance laws and regulations, and 3) accounting internal controls structures are
present to reduce to a relatively low level of risk that errors or irregularities occur.
The Saratoga Public Financing Authority is subject to provisions of a 1993 Revenue Bond Trust
Agreement that require an annual audit of its financial statements.
Discussion:
Maze Associates, the City's auditing firm, has completed its work for the year ended June 30, 1997,
and has issued its reports on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Public Financing
Authority. Each report contains a "clean opinion which is the highest level of assurance given. As
the auditor's report indicates, the responsibility for the financial statements belongs to the City's
management, not the auditors. Their work is limited to opining on the fairness of the presentation of
those statements.
Also included in City Council's packet is the Auditor's Memorandum on Internal Control Structure.
According to Scott Maze (Partner, Maze Associates), since the Finance Department had just come
through a difficult year, these comments were intended to be helpful and to offer guidance once the
organization has stabilized.
1
1
a
I
Mr. Maze walked the Finance Commission through these reports at its meeting on Monday, January
12. The Commission wished to note for City Council the following issues:
1. Certain changes in format, such as presenting the Budget to Actual comparisons on a
budgetary basis first in the General Purpose Financial Statements, have been due to the
's. Finance Commission's input.
2. The City may have too many funds established which have had little or no activity and
could be combined elsewhere, e.g. the Hillside Repair Fund appears to have no underlying
plan to accumulate funds, so it could just as well be budgeted in the General Fund.
3. Page 70: Dollar signs are reflected on charts which deal with population figures.
4. Page 71: Bank Deposit information seems to hold little meaning anymore, since those
funds are are no longer "local" in the traditional sense of the word.
5. Page 9, Note #1: The paragraph titled "Public Safety" misstates the facts about the
services provided by the County Sheriff's offices. Fire services are not provided by those
offices, but are instead provided by special districts as noted in the second sentence.
6. Given the July 1, 1997 revision to the terms of the loan to the Hakone Foundation, the
treatment of that loan may have to change for reporting purposes in the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for 1997 -98.
Having noted these minor issues, the Commission voted to recommend that Council accept these
reports.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Follow Up Action(s):
Distribute reports to interested parties.
Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motion(s):
Not applicable.
Attachment(s):
1. City of Saratoga Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (previously distributed to City
Council)
2. Saratoga Public Financing Authority Financial Statements
3. Auditor's Memorandum on Internal Control Structure
2