Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2015 City Council agenda packet1 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 7, 2015 SPECIAL MEETING – 5:30 P.M. – SENIOR CENTER, CITY HALL, 19655 ALLENDALE AVENUE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. CALL JOINT MEETING TO ORDER – 5:30 P.M. 1. Saratoga School Districts Recommended Action: Informational Only ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for public review on October 2, 2015 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 2nd day of October 2015 at Saratoga, California. Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk     City of Saratoga  CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING Building Connections  Meeting Discussion Topics      Joint Meeting with Saratoga Schools & School Districts  October 7, 2015 | 5:30 p.m.  Saratoga Senior Center | Saunders Room    5:30 p.m.  Introductions   5:45 p.m. City/School Engagement Opportunities  Discussion of opportunities to build more  connections between the City and Saratoga  schools, as well as between the City and  Saratoga’s youth.    6:15 p.m. Saratoga Youth Commission Presentation   Presentation about the mission and activities of  the Saratoga Youth Commission.    6:20 p.m. Updates from schools   6:45 p.m. Other Remarks & Wrap Up   Dinner is provided during the Joint Meeting.     The Regular City Council Meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater.  Joint meeting attendees are invited to attend the Regular Meeting and share  an overview of the joint meeting with the public during Oral Communications.             City:  ‐ City commendations for notable students or teachers  ‐ Traffic Flow assessments  ‐ City Hall tours for students/teachers  ‐ Youth volunteer opportunities  ‐ Information tables at school events  ‐ Regular meetings between City Manager and Superintendents  ‐ Saratoga Youth Commission – Walk‐one‐week  City Council Members  ‐ Commencement ceremony speakers  ‐ Classroom or school assembly presentations  ‐ Support for school bond issues  ‐ Interview panels  ‐ Public Safety –funding for School Resource Officer  City Activities for all ages  ‐ Tree Lighting ceremony –day after Thanksgiving  ‐ Blossom Festival  ‐ Arbor Day  ‐ Summer Movie Nights  ‐ City of Saratoga Recreation Programs  ‐ Quarry Park Grand Opening –October 31, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.  Contacts:  ‐ General Information: Debbie Bretschneider 408‐868‐1216   debbieb@saratoga.ca.us  ‐ Media Communications: Brian Babcock  408‐868‐1275    bbabcock@saratoga.ca.us  ‐ Youth Commission:  Bridget Eddings  408‐868‐1251          beddings@saratoga.ca.us  ‐ Traffic safety:  Mainini Cabute   408‐868‐1258                    mcabute@saratoga.ca.us  City of Saratoga  CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING October 7, 2015 Opportunities for City/Schools  Engagement    Table of Contents Agenda 3 Appointment of Park & Recreation Commissioner and Oath of Office Staff Report 8 ATT A - Resolution 9 ATT B -Oath of Office 10 Commendations for America in Bloom Volunteers Staff Report 11 Attachment A: Commendations for America in Bloom Volunteers 12 Presentation on Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Staff report 43 City Council Meeting Minutes Staff report 44 ATT A -minutes for 09/16/2015 45 Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Staff Report 54 9/15/2015 Check Register 55 9/22/2015 Check Register 62 9/29/2015 Check Register 67 Second Reading of Procurement Ordinance Update Report to Council 71 Procurement Ordinance Update 72 Second Reading of a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned- Combined Zoning District (P-C) to an existing site at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road Staff Report-Sacred Heart PC 84 Attachment 1 Draft Ordinance 85 Approve Donation from Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation for the October 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park Grand Opening Staff Report 90 ATT A - Donation agreement 91 ATT B - Quarry Grand Opening Flyer 93 Saratoga Falcon Newspaper Correction staff report 94 Att A - Original Article 95 Att B - Correction 96 Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program Staff report 97 ATT A -Resolution 99 ATT B - 2015 Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Assessment report 101 1 Amendments to City Code Article 4-55 Massage Establishments and Massage Practitioners Massage Staff Report 102 Att 1 -Draft Ordinance 104 Att 2 -2015 List of Massage Establishments 131 Att 3 -Sample Massage Therapist Certificate 132 Att 4 -Sample Certified Massage ID card 133 Local cities’ requirements for dead tree removal. Staff report 134 Att A - Matrix of Cities 136 PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTY-WIDE HOUSING NEXUS STUDY Nexus Staff Report 137 Attachment A – Resolution authorizing participation in Nexus Study 139 Attachment B – Draft Memorandum of Understanding 141 Attachment C – Keyser Marston Associates proposal 142 2 Page 1 of 5 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 2, 2015. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. Appointment of Park & Recreation Commissioner and Oath of Office Recommended action: Adopt the resolution appointing Renee Paquier to a full term on the Parks & Recreation Commission ending September 30, 2019 and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. 2. Commendations for America in Bloom Volunteers Recommended action: Present the commendations. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 7, 2015 3 Page 2 of 5 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 3. Presentation on Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Recommended action: Receive presentation by staff of the Santa Clara Valley Water District on the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 4. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on September 16, 2015. 5. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 9/15/2015: Period 3 9/22/2015: Period 3 9/29/2015: Period 3 6. Second Reading of Procurement Ordinance Update Recommended action: Adopt Ordinance 7. Second Reading of a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to an existing site at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road Recommended action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance to add the Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to an existing site at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road (Sacred Heart Church Parish). 8. Approve Donation from Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation for the October 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park Grand Opening Recommended action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a donation agreement with the Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation and accept a donation for $626.56 for the October 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park Grand Opening. 9. Saratoga Falcon Newspaper Correction Recommended action: Accept informational report. 4 Page 3 of 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting. 10. Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program Recommended action: Open public hearing, accept public testimony, close public hearing, and adopt resolution confirming report and assessment of hazardous vegetation abatement charges. 11. Amendments to City Code Article 4-55 Massage Establishments and Massage Practitioners Recommended action: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance to amend Article 4-55 Massage Establishments and Massage Practitioners 3. Direct staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 12. Local Cities’ Requirements for Dead Tree Removal. Recommended action: Receive report and provide direction to staff. 13. Participation in a County-Wide Housing Nexus Study Recommended action: Adopt resolution authorizing City participation in a County-wide Housing Nexus Study CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Howard Miller Cities Association of Santa Clara County Council Finance Committee Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA Board West Valley Cities Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Association West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Vice Mayor Manny Cappello Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Board Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) West Valley Sanitation District 5 Page 4 of 5 Council Member Emily Lo Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee KSAR Community Access TV Board Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Association of Bay Area Governments Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Selection Committee Saratoga Historical Foundation Saratoga Sister City Organization Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga Saratoga Ministerial Association CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on October 2, 2015, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 2nd day of October 2015 at Saratoga, California. Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk 6 Page 5 of 5 NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 10/07 Regular Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga School Districts in Senior Center, Saunders Room 10/21 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation 11/04 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College Board of Trustees 11/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Senator Beall Jr. 12/02 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Representative Evan Low 12/16 Regular Meeting – Council Norms Study Session Unless otherwise stated, Joint Meetings and Study Sessions begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2015 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Debbie Bretschneider SUBJECT: Appointment of Park & Recreation Commissioner RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the resolution appointing Renee Paquier to a full term on the Parks & Recreation Commission ending September 30, 2019 and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office. BACKGROUND: One Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commissioner will end th Consequently, the City started recruitment for the vacancies in applications were received before the application deadline on The Saratoga City Council held interviews o Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission. Council has selected to the Parks & Recreation Commission for FOLLOW UP ACTION: Update the City’s Commission roster. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution of Appointment Attachment B - Oaths of Office SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 City Manager’s Office Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk Park & Recreation Commissioner and Oath of Office Adopt the resolution appointing Renee Paquier to a full term on the Parks & Recreation Commission ending September 30, 2019 and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Parks & Recreation Commissioner will end their term on September 30, Consequently, the City started recruitment for the vacancies in June 2015. A total of applications were received before the application deadline on September 9, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. The Saratoga City Council held interviews on September 16, 2015 for the 1 vacancy Commission. Council has selected Renee Paquier to be appointed Commission for a four-year term ending September 30, 2019. Resolution of Appointment and Oath of Office Adopt the resolution appointing Renee Paquier to a full term on the Parks & Recreation Commission ending September 30, 2019 and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of September 30, 2015. 2015. A total of 2 , 2015 at 5:00 p.m. September 16, 2015 for the 1 vacancy on the to be appointed 8 RESOLUTION 15-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING MEMBER TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, one vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission was created by the expired term of Renee Paquier; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a recruitment for the Parks and Recreation Commission and accepted applications until 5:00 p.m. on September 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City received a total of 2 applications and the City Council interviewed applicants on September 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, following interviews, the City Council selected to appoint Renee Paquier to a full four-year term that will run from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2019. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby make the following appointment: NAME COMMISSION TERM Renee Paquier Parks & Recreation Commission October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2019 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th day of October 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, Renee Paquier, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. Renee Paquier, Member Parks and Recreation Commission Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 7th day of October 2015. Debbie Bretschneider Acting City Clerk 10 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Brian Babcock, Administrative Analyst I SUBJECT: Commendations for America in Bloom RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present the commendations. BACKGROUND: The City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees” at the 2015 America in Bloom Awards Ceremony held on Saturday, September 26, Bloom is a nonprofit organization that promotes civic pride and the beautification A volunteer committee made up of residents, many of whom are members of the Saratoga Village Gardeners or on a City Commiss Bloom visited Saratoga in May and evaluated the City on the following criteria: floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression. There were three other cities evaluated in the same population category as Saratoga, including Santa Paula, California; Hopkinsville, Kentucky; and St. Charles, Illinois. In total, 42 communities participated in the program, accordi ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Commendations for America in Bloom Volunteers SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL October 7, 2015 City Manager’s Office Brian Babcock, Administrative Analyst I America in Bloom Volunteers The City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees” at the 2015 America in Bloom Awards Ceremony held on Saturday, September 26, 2015 in Holland, Michigan. America in a nonprofit organization that promotes civic pride and the beautification of cities A volunteer committee made up of residents, many of whom are members of the Saratoga Village Gardeners or on a City Commission, organized the efforts. Two judges from America in Bloom visited Saratoga in May and evaluated the City on the following criteria: floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community There were three other cities evaluated in the same population category as Saratoga, including Santa Paula, California; Hopkinsville, Kentucky; and St. Charles, Illinois. In total, 42 communities participated in the program, according to America in Bloom. Commendations for America in Bloom Volunteers 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees” at the 2015 America in Bloom America in of cities. A volunteer committee made up of residents, many of whom are members of the Saratoga ion, organized the efforts. Two judges from America in Bloom visited Saratoga in May and evaluated the City on the following criteria: floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community There were three other cities evaluated in the same population category as Saratoga, including 11 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING ANNETTE STRANSKY WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 12 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING BRIAN BERG WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 13 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING CAROL KUMMERER WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 14 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING CHARLOTTE FOSTER ROMAN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 15 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING CORINNE VITA WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 16 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING DINA COTTEN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 17 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING DONNA POPPENHAGEN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 18 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING DOROTHY MARIAN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 19 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING DORSEY BRAUNSTEIN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 20 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING EVA WU CHOI WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 21 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING JILL HUNTER WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks Jill for her hard work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride, as well as representing the City of Saratoga at the awards ceremony held in Holland, Michigan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 22 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING JIM ROMAN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 23 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING JOHN MARIAN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 24 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING JOHN TOWLER WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 25 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING KAREN GREBENE WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 26 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING KERSTIN ERICSSON-SPLAWN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 27 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING LAUREL PERUSA WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 28 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING LOREN COOK WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 29 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING LORI PAXTON WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 30 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING MARILYN MARCHETTI WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 31 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING MARY ANN SERPA WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 32 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING MARY BOGDANOVICH WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 33 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING MARY CHANG WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 34 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING MARYKAY BREITENBACH WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 35 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING OKSANA TRIFONOVA WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 36 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING PALLAVI SHARMA WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 37 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING PAULA CAPPELLO WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 38 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING RON PISANI WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 39 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING SEAN HALASZ WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 40 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING SUE SULLIVAN WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 41 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING TINA LIDDIE WHEREAS, in October 2014, representatives of the Saratoga Village Gardeners approached the City Council to partner with them for the America in Bloom awards program; and WHEREAS, America in Bloom, an independent nonprofit founded in 2002, promotes nationwide beautification through education and community involvement by encouraging the use of flowers, plants, trees, and other environmental and lifestyle enhancements; and WHEREAS, a volunteer committee was created, including residents, Saratoga Village Gardeners and City Commissioners, whom compiled a community profile of Saratoga and organized efforts to prepare for a visit by two judges from the America in Bloom program; and WHEREAS, the judges visited Saratoga on May 4 and 5, 2015 and evaluated the City on seven criteria, including floral displays, landscaped areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, community involvement, and overall impression; and WHEREAS, in September 2015, the City of Saratoga was named the winner in its population category (30,000 – 40,000) and given a special award for “Most Beautiful Canopy of Trees;” and WHEREAS, the City Council thanks all the volunteers for their work in promoting Saratoga’s aesthetic beauty and encouraging community identity and civic pride. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and thank Jill Hunter for her hard work and dedication in this process. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 7th day of October 2015. ___________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 42 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Debbie Bretschneider, SUBJECT: Presentation on Rinconada Water Treatment Plant RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation by staff of the Santa Clara Valley Water District on the Treatment Plant. BACKGROUND: At the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, the construction phase of the Reliability Improvement Project began in July 2015. This Project will replace facilities and components that are near the “end of their useful life” and will meet current water quality standards, current seismic codes and improve plant safety. This Project is currently scheduled to continue through approximately mid-2020. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 City Manager’s Office Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk Presentation on Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Receive presentation by staff of the Santa Clara Valley Water District on the Rinconada Water At the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, the construction phase of the Reliability Improvement ject will replace facilities and components that are near the “end of their useful life” and will meet current water quality standards, current seismic codes and improve plant safety. This Project is currently scheduled to continue through approximately Rinconada Water At the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, the construction phase of the Reliability Improvement ject will replace facilities and components that are near the “end of their useful life” and will meet current water quality standards, current seismic codes and improve plant safety. This Project is currently scheduled to continue through approximately 43 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Debbie Bretschneider SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes for September 16, 2015. BACKGROUND: Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following Cit legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Minutes for the Special SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 City Manager’s Office Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes Approve the City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. Minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on September 2 Regular City Council Meeting on Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be y Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. ity Council Meeting on September 2, 2015 44 Page 1 of 9 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING At 5:30 p.m., the Saratoga City Council held Parks and Recreation Commissioner interviews in the Administrative Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. At 6:00 p.m., the City Council called to order a joint meeting with the Saratoga Youth Commission. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Miller called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Howard Miller, Vice Mayor Manny Cappello, Council Members Emily Lo, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk Mary Furey, Finance & Administrative Services Director Erwin Ordonez, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Kevin Meek, Parks Division Manager Brian Babcock, Administrative Analyst Captain Rick Sung, Santa Clara County Sheriff West Valley Division REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Acting City Clerk Debbie Bretschneider reported that the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 10, 2015. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Youth Commission Chair Mitali Shanbhag and Vice Chair Roshi Verma spoke about the Youth Commission’s meeting with the City Council. The Youth Commission wants to bring together the youth in Saratoga and outlined a work plan for the school year to accomplish that. Some highlights were the Walk-One-Week event, a Color-run for youth, and several dances. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Mayor Miller commented that the Youth Commission had requested two items that they needed help with. One was an ADA park area, with specialized equipment. The Council recommended that the Youth Commission work with the Parks and Recreation Commission on this project. The second project was a Teen Center and Vice Mayor Cappello volunteered to work with the Youth Commission on this project. 45 Page 2 of 9 Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Yurik Muradyan addressed the Council on the Saratoga Community Garden and asked for a discussion to be put on the Council agenda. Roza Grossman addressed the Council on the Saratoga Community Garden and asked for a discussion to be put on the Council agenda. Alec Grossman addressed the Council on the Saratoga Community Garden and asked for a discussion to be put on the Council agenda. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Mayor Miller acknowledged Mr. Muradyan’s commitment to the garden. However, Mayor Miller said that the City Council had passed the law about the Saratoga Community Garden three years ago. None of the council members are interested in changing the law. There are Saratoga residents on the waiting list for garden plots. ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Kumar announced that Silicon Valley Youth Tech Day was a success last weekend. The outcome is a 4-week bootcamp in October on how to create a VC pitch. www.siliconvalleycoders.org Also, on September 20 is a documentary screening of Cowspiracy with a free vegetarian lunch from 12 p.m.-3 p.m. tinyurl.com/SaratogaScreening and open mic night is returning to Blue Rock Shoot in the Village. Council Member Bernald announced that the Saratoga Historical Foundation is having a free reception on Sunday, September 20 from 1-4 p.m. on their new exhibit, “Center Stage: Theater Groups in Saratoga.” The Museum is also looking for items for McWilliams House that are from 1860’s kitchens. On October 25, the Museum will be holding a free India Festival from 1-4 p.m. at the Museum. Council Member Lo announced that the Historical Museum is also holding a free Mid-Autumn Festival on September 27 from 1-4 p.m. and that the special exhibit will be, “Chinese and the Iron Road: Building the Transcontinental Railroad.” Vice Mayor Cappello wanted residents to know about the Tax Equity Allocation fit that was passed by the State of California last week. Previously four cities (Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Cupertino, and Los Altos Hills) in the State were low-tax cities that were treated differently, but now they will receive the same percentage of money as other cities. Senator Beall and Representative Low were very helpful in passing this legislation. Council Member Bernald thanked Vice Mayor Cappello for his work on this issue. Mayor Miller announced that the Fall Recreation Activity Guide was available and that the Saratogan, the official newsletter of the City, is inside that guide. There are Commissions in the City that we need residents to volunteer for. Traffic Safety Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission are taking applications with a deadline of November 23. Library 46 Page 3 of 9 Commission is also accepting applications with a deadline of January 12, 2016. The applications are on the city website. Mayor Miller also announced that September is National Recovery Month. The City of Saratoga was the first city in the State to give a commendation on this subject and the Mayor attended a community event held at Wildwood Park last week. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. Proclamation Declaring September 2015 as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month Recommended action: Present the proclamation to Vicky Michelis, an ovarian cancer survivor. Mayor Miller and the Council presented the proclamation to Vicky Michelis. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2. Presentation About the 2015 Silicon Valley Turkey Trot BERNALD/LO MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 21, 2015 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. CONSENT CALENDAR 3. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special City Council Meetings on August 27, 2015 and August 31, 2015 and the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on September 2, 2015. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 27, 2015 AND AUGUST 31, 2015 AND TO APPROVE THE CORRECTED MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2015. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 4. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 9/01/2015: Period 3 09/08/2015: Period 3 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 9/01/2015: PERIOD 3; 09/08/2015: PERIOD 3. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 5. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2015 Recommended action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June 30, 2015. 47 Page 4 of 9 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2015. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 6. Fiscal Year 2015/16 CDBG County/City Contract Recommended action: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a $146,057.54 contract with Santa Clara County for the Fiscal Year 2015/16 CDBG Program. RESOLUTION 15-056 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $146,057.54 CONTRACT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 CDBG PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 7. Resolution Requesting the Federal Aviation Administration Address Increased Aircraft Noise in Saratoga and Santa Clara County Recommended action: Approve resolution requesting the Federal Aviation Administration address increased aircraft noise in Saratoga and Santa Clara County. Council Member Bernald removed this item from the Consent Calendar to bring attention to this subject. Many residents have complained about the new flight patterns the FAA approved. Anyone with this issue can contact Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office to file complaints. Congresswoman Eshoo’s office is trying to consolidate all of the complaints to take to the FAA. More information is on the City’s website. Vice Mayor Cappello thanked Council Member Bernald for her work on this subject. RESOLUTION 15-057 BERNALD/LO MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADDRESS INCREASED AIRCRAFT NOISE IN SARATOGA AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Appeal of a Design Review approval to install a new cellular telecommunications facility on an existing building at 20455 Herriman Avenue Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. Community Development Director Erwin Ordonez presented the staff report. 48 Page 5 of 9 Len Almalech, Planning Commission Chair, spoke on the Planning Commission decision, which was based on Design Review Findings and was unanimously in favor. Mayor Miller invited the appellant to provide opening remarks. Shelly Beer spoke on behalf of the appellant. Mayor Miller invited the applicant to provide opening remarks. Ashley Wood spoke on behalf of the applicant, Verizon. She then introduced Paul Albritton, Verizon’s outside Counsel who spoke on behalf of the project. Mayor Miller invited public comment on the item. The following people requested to speak: -Poorva Gupta spoke in favor of the appeal. -James Jin spoke in favor of the appeal. -Grace Chen spoke in favor of the appeal. -Nancy Swanson spoke against the appeal. -Pastor Steve Steele spoke against the appeal. -Jim McFarlane spoke against the appeal. -Jim Moreland, original architect of the Church, spoke against the appeal. -Mina Tang spoke in favor of the appeal. -Adoh Chang spoke against the cupola as he feels it will block his view of the mountains. -Lang Qua spoke in favor of the appeal. -Sheri Wang spoke in favor of the appeal. -Tyler, student at Prospect High, spoke against the appeal. -Anonymous spoke in favor of the appeal. Paul Albritton provided closing remarks on behalf of the applicant, Verizon. Ivan Coop provided closing remarks on behalf of the appellants. Mayor Miller asked the Council if they had questions. Vice Mayor Cappello had a question on the definition of “stealth” in the City Code. Attorney Taylor responded that in the Saratoga Code, “stealth” is defined as architecturally appropriate to the area and that “stealth” refers to hiding the antennas. Mayor Miller closed the public hearing for this item and asked for Council discussion. Vice Mayor Cappello stated that he could make all of the Design Review findings on this project. He asked that the city draft a letter to send to Federal officials to ask them to consider more local control on cell towers. Council Member Lo also said she could make the Design Review findings. She suggested that City staff create a page on the City’s website with the resources listed in Staff’s presentation. 49 Page 6 of 9 Council Member Bernald announced that she was on the Planning Commission when the last cell tower ordinance was created and there was lots of public input. She can also make the Design Review findings and approves of the letter suggested by Vice Mayor Cappello. Council Member Kumar stated that he thought the cell tower ordinance should be updated with more rules on height and setback. He also stated that he could not make the Design Review findings of B-2, Techniques to blend with surrounding environment and predominant background and B-5, Reasonably compatible height with existing surrounding environment. Mayor Miller stated that all of the health studies he has read give data that the cell phones give off more radio frequencies than the cell phone towers. He was able to make the Design Review findings. RESOLUTION 15-058 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVE TO DENY THE APPEAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO INSTALL A NEW CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 20455 HERRIMAN AVENUE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD. NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. CAPPELLO/LO MOVE TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A LETTER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT GIVING MORE LOCAL CONTROL ON WIRELESS FACILITIES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Mayor Miller then asked the Prospect High School students to come on stage. At 10:20 p.m., the Mayor called for a short break. 9. Zoning Amendment and Design Review to add a Planned-Combined Overlay District and a 2,425 square foot single-story addition at Sacred Heart Parish located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue. Recommended action: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the Design Review application. 3. Introduce and waive the first reading of the attached ordinance to add the Planned- Combined Zoning District (P-C) to an existing site at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue. Community Development Director Erwin Ordonez presented the staff report. Mayor Miller asked the Council for their questions to staff. Mayor Miller invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION 15-059 50 Page 7 of 9 BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE TO ADD THE PLANNED-COMBINED ZONING DISTRICT (P-C) TO AN EXISTING SITE AT 13716 & 13718 SARATOGA AVENUE AFTER FIXING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 10. Purchasing System Code Amendments Recommended action: Conduct public hearing to introduce and waive first reading of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance updates, and direct staff to place updated ordinance on consent calendar for final adoption. Finance & Administrative Services Director Mary Furey gave the staff report and also reported that the Finance Committee reviewed and approved this ordinance. BERNALD/ CAPPELLO MOVED TO INTRODUCE AND WAIVE FIRST READING OF THE CITY’S PURCHASING ORDINANCE UPDATES, AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE UPDATED ORDINANCE ON CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FINAL ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. NEW BUSINESS 11. Water Conservation Efforts Recommended action: Receive report and provide direction to staff. Public Works Director John Cherbone gave the staff report. He stated that the Public Works department had a very successful project at Beauchamps Park to convert grass to drought tolerant plants saving the City up to 381,274 gallons per year. The department has found 11 additional grass areas in parks that could be converted, many of them recouping costs through a rebate program from Santa Clara County Valley Water district. Each removal will have a posted sign at the park showing the savings and the new plants. CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO CONVERT GRASS TO DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS IN THE PARKS LISTED IN THE REPORT, EXCEPT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE AREA IN EL QUITO PARK AND DO NOT CONVERT AREAS 2 AND 3 IN KEVIN MORAN PARK, MAIL LETTERS TO NEIGHBORS ABOUT CONVERSIONS, LEAVE SIGN ABOUT CONVERSION POSTED AFTER PROJECT IS COMPLETE, AND QR CODE ON SIGN. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 12. Winter 2015 Issue of The Saratogan and Newsletter Distribution Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff on the theme of the Winter 2015 issue of The Saratogan, survey questions to be posed to residents, and possible new distribution method. 51 Page 8 of 9 Administrative Analyst Brian Babcock gave the staff report. Mayor Miller asked the Council for discussion on the theme and survey questions. The Council agreed that the theme should be focused on Saratoga’s budget, including pie charts, plus a section on public safety that includes public safety contact information. The Council thought the survey should include questions on possible future themes for The Saratogan. Mayor Miller then asked the Council for discussion on the distribution of The Saratogan. Council direction is to publish The Saratogan on the back of the Recreation Activity Guide and have a banner on the front of the Activity Guide about The Saratogan. Also publish some loose copies to distribute as well. And to promote electronic subscriptions. Mayor Miller called for a break at 11:30 p.m. 13. Transient Occupancy Tax Audit Direction Recommended action: Review report and provide direction to staff. Finance & Administrative Services Director Mary Furey gave the staff report and reported that the Finance Committee reviewed this item and wanted the Council to give direction. BERNALD/LO MOVED TO EDUCATE ABOUT THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX INSTEAD OF AN AUDIT AND TO PAY A CONSULTANT FOR THE TRAINING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 14. Discussion of Neighborhood Safety Initiatives Recommended action: Provide direction to staff. Captain Rick Sung gave the staff report and presentation, which showed that overall, the crime index has gone down from 2014, but that residential burglary is up. Council direction was to have more public safety forums with detailed information, to have safety tips translated into languages other than English, “Coffee-with a-Cop”, have the AlertSCC team send out monthly “test” alerts so residents know if they are signed up. Mayor Miller thanked the Sheriff’s Office for their excellent work in keeping Saratoga as one of California’s safest cities. 15. Discussion of San Jose's Regional Approach to Adjusting the Minimum Wage Recommended action: Provide direction to staff. Mayor Miller reported that San Jose is starting a study on regional minimum wage. To be a participant is $5000 and our City would be included in the report. LO/RISHI MOVE TO APPROVE SARATOGA JOINING THE CITY OF SAN JOSE STUDY ON ADJUSTING REGIONAL MINIMUM WAGE AND TO PAY FOR THIS 52 Page 9 of 9 STUDY WITH COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUNDS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Howard Miller –No report. Vice Mayor Manny Cappello –No report. Council Member Emily Lo –No report. Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald –No report. Council Member Rishi Kumar –No report. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS – Council Member Lo asked to agendize report on incorrect reporting in the Saratoga High School Falcon newspaper. Mayor Miller seconded. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – No report. ADJOURNMENT BERNALD/LO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:51 A.M. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk City of Saratoga 53 Gina Scott, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 9/29/2015: Period 3 BACKGROUND: The information listed below provides detail for weekly City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are listed separately as well as any checks that were void during the time period. Fund information, by check run, is also provided in this report. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending Check # 9/15/15 128995 129044 50 568,902.35 09/15/15 09/08/15 128994 9/22/15 129045 129100 56 267,465.18 09/22/15 09/15/15 129044 Accounts Payable 9/29/15 129101 129144 44 125,021.79 09/29/15 09/22/15 129100 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount 09/15/15 129006 PW 20,782.00 09/15/15 129021 SCC Office of the Sheriff General PS 414,423.33 09/15/15 129025 PW 23,830.00 09/15/15 129026 PW 25,635.75 09/22/15 129055 PW 104,952.02 09/22/15 129079 PW 24,948.45 09/29/15 129108 PW 20,350.00 09/29/15 129143 PW 26,459.75 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount 09/08/15 128336 Re-issue 1,300.00 06/09/15 128211 Re-issue 300.00 ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format 9/22/2015: Period 3 9/15/2015: Period 3 ParkPacific, Inc. CXT Inc. Portico, Inc. Gachina Landscape Various Ending Check # Reason Status Starting Check # Prior Check Register Checks Released Total Checks Amount Vista Landscape Maint.Park In Lieu Fees Issued to Sam Tobis/Pivot Learning Center Thanh Tran Never received check Never received check Type of Checks Date Accounts Payable Accounts Payable SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services Pacific Underground Const/ Colony Landscape Maint. Fund Purpose CS Baseball Field Quarry Park Park In Lieu Fees Park In Lieu Fees CIP Parks Project Hakone Master Plan Quarry Park Law Enforcement Maintenance PREPARED BY: Park In Lieu Fees General Quarry Park Quarry Park 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services Department PREPARED BY: Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Second Reading of the Purchasing Ordinance Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance BACKGROUND: At the September 16, 2015 City Council Meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing to introduce modifications to the City’s Procurement Ordinance. A copy of the City’s current Procurement Ordinance with the proposed update modifications shown in the track-changes mode was attached to the report. The first reading of the updated ordinance was waived. Council then directed staff to place the updated ordinance on the next Council meeting consent calendar for final adoption. For reference, the updated ordinance with track- changes is again attached for the second reading. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Procurement Ordinance code would not be updated. ATTACHMENTS: A: Updated Procurement Ordinance Code with track-changes. 71 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SARATOGA CITY CODE: ARTICLE 2-45: PURCHASING SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. The City Council of the City of Saratoga wishes to refine the City’s Purchasing System to include explicit definitions, exclusions, and authority that reflect and are consistent with the City’s common and longstanding operational procedures. 2. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on September 16, 2015, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended by the amending Section 2-45 as set forth in Attachment 1. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font is readopted by this ordinance. Text in italics (e.g., italics) is descriptive only and is not part of the amendments to the City Code. Section 2. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub- section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility th at the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance the amendments to the existing City Code concern internal purchasing policies for supplies and services and does not itself authorize any specific purchase of any kind therefore avoiding any possibility that it could have any impact on the environment. 72 Page 2 Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly noticed public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 16th day of September 2015 and was adopted by the following vote on October 7, 2015. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Howard A. Miller MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Bothelio, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE: Richard Taylor, CITY ATTORNEY 73 Page 3 Attachment 1 Amendments to Article 2-45 - PURCHASING SYSTEM of the Saratoga City Code 2-45.010 - Adoption of purchasing system. In order to establish efficient procedures for the purchase of supplies and services at the most competitive price commensurate with operational needs, to exercise positive financial control over such purchases, to clearly define authority for administration of the purchasing function, and to assure the quality of supplies and services purchas ed by the City, a purchasing system is hereby adopted. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000) 2-45.020 - Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise: (a) Brand name means a product, item or material described by reference to its manufacturer's name or catalogue number. (b) Brand name or equal specification means a contract or purchase order specification containing a brand name to describe the nature, standard of quality, performance, and other characteristics needed to meet the City's requirements, and which provides for the submission of equivalent products. (c) Cost, as applied to a single transaction for the purchase of supplies or services, means the total amount to be expended by the City, exclusive of sales or use taxes . Cost includes amounts expended for delivery, set-up, testing, and included maintenance services. (d) Department Director refers to a person designated as such by the Purchasing Officer. (e) Internal Service Funds means accounting funds used to accrue cost recovery funding for program charges, services, vehicles, equipment and other assets provided to City Departments. (f) Performance Bond means a financial commitment issued by, or on behalf of, the performing party of a contract in form and content approved by the City as a guarantee against the failure to meet obligations specified in the contract. (g) Purchasing Agent means any person authorized by the Purchasing Officer to seek formal or informal bids for the sale of supplies or services to the City. (h) Purchase Order - means a written agreement from the City to a named vendor for the purchase of supplies or services at agreed upon product or service 74 Page 4 specifications and cost. A purchase order is created after a purchase request is approved, entered into the financial system to reserve budget funding, and signed by the Purchasing Officer or authorized Department Director. Supplies means and includes all materials, supplies, equipment, products, and other items of tangible personal property. (h) Services means and includes labor, professional services and consulting services. Services shall not include incidental labor such as set -up, testing, and maintenance of supplies where the primary purpose is to purchase the supplies. (i) Supplies refers to and includes all goods, materials, supplies, vehicles, equipment, facility fixtures, products, and other items of tangible personal property. May include incidental labor for set-up, testing, or maintenance included with such supplies. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.030 - Exclusions from Article. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to any of the following: The Purchasing Officer’s procurement of supplies and services in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars must be approved or awarded by the City Council with the exclusion of the following which are not subject to the provisions of this Article except as specified in section 2-45.070(c) (a) The award of cContracts for public projects governed by the provisions of the State Public Contract Code or the provisions of the City's informal bidding ordinance, as contained in Chapter 12, Article 12-15 of this Code. (b) The award of cContracts governed by any State or Federal law which prescribes a different procedure. (c) The granting by the City of franchises, rights, privileges, licenses or permits, including, but not limited to, a cable television franchise granted pursuan t to Chapter 4, Article 4-25 of this Code, a garbage collection franchise granted pursuant to Chapter 7, Article 7-05 of this Code, or a franchise for installation of facilities granted pursuant to Chapter 10, Article 10-25 of this Code. (d) The purchase of utilities, including, but not limited to, electricity, water, gas or telephone service. (e) Employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements with any employees of the City and contracts for services to temporarily fill a budgeted position or perform temporary work when the need for temporary services arises. (f) The purchase of insurance, including coverage provided by any self -insurance pool in which the City is a participant. 75 Page 5 (g) Legal services and experts retained by legal counsel approved by the City Council in the adopted budget, by contract, or by direction in City Council meetings. (gh) The extension or renewal of any existing contract for technical or professional services to be performed by consultants, unless the City Council elects to award a new contract pursuant to this Article. (hi) Contracts for technical or professional services to be performed by consultants, where the cost thereof will be paid in advance by a person applying to the City for a permit, license or other approval. (j) Contracts for educational, recreational, travel or entertainment services furnished by independent contractors or consultants, where the total cost thereof is paid by the persons utilizing the services. (k) Contracts for supplies or services to be furnished by any other public agency. (l) The purchase of supplies or services made in compliance with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift or bequest to the City that is otherwise consistent with law. (m) Payments for City grants and other support of community events and services as approved by the City Council in the adopted budget, by contract, or by direction in City Council meetings. (n) Replacement vehicles, equipment, technology and facility furniture and fixtures within the Internal Service Funds, as authorized by the City Council in the adopted budget. (o) The purchase of supplies or services made in connection with an emergency described in Article 6-05 of this Code. In such instances, the Purchasing Officer shall submit to the City Council at its next succeeding meeting occurring at least three days following the expenditure a written report describing the circumstances of the emergency, the supplies or services purchased, and the cost thereof. A separate Emergency Purchasing Policy shall apply in connection with said emergency. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.040 - Centralized purchasing system; Purchasing Officer. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this Article, all purchases of supplies and services shall be centralized under the Purchasing Officer. (b) The City Manager is hereby appointed as the Purchasing Officer for the City, and as such shall have authority to: (1) Procure or supervise the procurement of all supplies and services needed by the City, in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Article and any 76 Page 6 administrative policies and procedures as may be adopted by the Purchasing Officer pursuant hereto. (2) Exercise direct supervision over the City central stores and general supervision over all other inventories of supplies belonging to the City. (3) Establish or supervise the establishment of specifications for supplies and services required by the City. (4) Inspect or supervise the inspection of all supplies purchased by the City to insure quality, quantity and conformance with the specifications therefor. (5) Prepare and adopt administrative policies and procedures not in conflict with the provisions of this Article for the purpose of implementing the purchasing system established hereunder. (6) Sell, trade or otherwise dispose of surplus supplies, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. (c) The Purchasing Officer may authorize any department head purchasing agent to investigate, solicit bids, or negotiate the purchase or award of contracts for services or supplies independently of the centralized purchasing system, provided that all such actions shall be done in conformity with the procedures prescribed by this Article or by duly adopted administrative policies and procedures perta ining thereto. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.050 - Purchase orders. The Purchasing Officer shall define purchase order procedures for the purchase of goods supplies or services, including the amount above which a purchase or der will be required. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.060 - Availability of funds. Except in cases of emergency, the Purchasing Officer shall not issue any purchase order for supplies or services unless there exists sufficient unencumbered appropriations in the fund account against which such purchase is to be charged. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.070 - Authorization for purchase orders and contracts; emergencies. (a) The Purchasing Officer is hereby authorized to issue purchase orders and award contracts for supplies or services where the cost thereof does not exceed twenty - five thousand dollars. The Purchasing Officer may delegate this authority to Department Directors subject to such administrative policies and procedures as may be adopted by the Purchasing Officer. 77 Page 7 (b) Contracts or purchase orders for supplies or services involving a cost in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars must be approved or awarded by the City Council , unless approved pursuant to procedures specified as exempt from this Article under section 2-45.030 Exclusions from Article, above. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this Section or any other provision of this Article, the Purchasing Officer may purchase supplies or services having a cost in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars in the event of emergency requiring the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and precluding action by the City Council. In such instances, the Purchasing Officer shall submit to the City Council at its next succeeding meeting a written report describing the circumstances of the emergency, the supplies or services purchased, and the cost thereof. (c) The Purchasing Officer is authorized to approve payment for authorized purchases. This includes payments above the basic $25,000 Purchasing Officer limit as noted under 2-45.030, and for all other contract and payments approved by the City Council including payments for purchases not otherwise subject to this Article. In turn, the Purchasing Officer may delegate this authority to Department Directors for payments in connection with purchases initiated by their respective departments. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.080 - Repealed. (Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.090 - Basis of award. (a) Purchases of supplies or services will be made on the basis of the bid or bids most advantageous to the City. In addition to price, the criteria for determining the most advantageous bid shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Compliance with the bid specifications. (2) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required. (3) The ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services promptly, or within the time specified, without delay or interference. (4) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the bidder. (5) The quality of the bidder's performance on previous purchases or contracts with the City. (6) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with the ordinances of the City and applicable State and federal laws. 78 Page 8 (7) The sufficiency of the bidder's financial resources to perform the contract or provide the supplies or services required. (8) The quality, availability and adaptability of the supplies or services to the particular use required. (9) The ability of the bidder to provide future maintenance, repair parts and services for the use of the supplies purchased. (10) The number and scope of conditions attached to the bid. (b) Where a formal competitive bidding procedure is required and the contract is not awarded to the bidder offering the lowest price, the Purchasing Officer shall prep are and place on file with the records of such contract a written statement of the reasons for the award. Such statement shall be open to public inspection. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000) 2-45.095 - Recycled paper. (a) The Purchasing Officer shall establish and maintain procedures and specifications for the purchase of paper and paper products which give preference, whenever feasible, to the purchase of recycled paper, and paper products containing recycled paper. (b) The Purchasing Officer shall purchase recycled paper and paper products, instead of unrecycled paper and paper products, whenever such recycled paper and paper products are available at no more than the total cost of unrecycled paper and paper products, and when fitness and quality are equal. (c) The Purchasing Officer may provide a preference to the suppliers of recycled paper or paper products equal to five percent of the lowest bid or price quoted by suppliers offering unrecycled paper or paper products. (d) The term "recycled paper," as used in this Section, shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 10391 of the State Public Contract Code. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000) 2-45.100 - Repealed. (Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.110 - Open market purchases. Purchases of supplies or services having a cost of twenty-five thousand dollars or less may be made in the open market with informal bidding procedures. Whenever practicable at least three informal price quotations will be obtained and purchases shall be awarded on the basis of the price quotation most advantageous to the City. 79 Page 9 Purchasing Agents may solicit price quotations either orally or in writing, or may utilize price information on file with the City or available elsewhere. The Purchasing Officer shall establish policies and procedures for seeking informal bids. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.120 - Competitive bidding; exceptions. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Section, all purchases of supplies or services involving a cost exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars shall be made by contract awarded pursuant to the formal competitive bidding procedure set forth in Section 2-45.130. (b) A contract for the purchase of supplies or services involving a cost exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars may be awarded by the City Council without competitive bidding in each of the following cases: (1) Where the City Council determines that the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety requires the purchase to be made wit hout competitive bids. (2) Where the supply or service required by the City can only be obtained from a single source. (3) Where the contract is for specialized or professional services such as, but not limited to, services rendered by architects, engineers, auditors, attorneys, appraisers, geologists, and other specialized consultants. (4) Where the City Council determines that use of the competitive bidding process is impracticable or impossible, or would not be likely to result in a lower price to the City from a responsible bidder, or would cause unnecessary expense or delay under the circumstances. (5) Where the City makes use of the GSA Schedule or makes use of another government's purchasing agreements or bid prices, in lieu of competitive bids, i f the City Council determines that the other city, county, or public agency's purchasing agreements or bid prices are established under similar competitive bidding procedures. (6) Where the City Council utilizes the request for proposal method of purchase , as set forth in Section 2-45.140 of this Article. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.130 - Formal bidding procedure. Where formal competitive bidding is required, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) Bid requests. Bid requests shall include a general description of the supplies or services to be purchased and the place where bid specifications can be 80 Page 10 obtained. Bid requests shall be posted at the City Hall location used for the posting of legal notices. The Purchasing Officer may also post the notice on the City's website and any other websites or publications, as appropriate. (b) Bid review. Bids shall be submitted in writing to authorized Purchasing Agents in the manner specified by the Purchasing Officer. All bids s hall be available for public inspection during regular business hours from the commencement of bid review until the contract has been awarded by the City Council. (c) Rejection of bids. If, in the opinion of the City Council, none of the bids are satisfactory, the Council may reject all bids and either purchase the supplies or services in the open market or readvertise for new bids. (d) Award of contract. Except as otherwise provided herein, a contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, taking into consideration the criteria listed in Section 2-45.090 of this Article. (e) Tie bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, and if a delay for readvertisement would not be in the public interest, the City Council may accept the bid it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders. (f) Performance bond. The City Council may require that a performance bond be furnished before entering into a contract with a successful bidder. The form and amount of such bond shall be satisfactory to the Purchasing Officer and in compliance with the contract specifications. (g) Waiver of irregularities. The City Council may waive any minor irregularities in the bids, based upon a determination that the same have no material impact upon the bidding process or other bids submitted. (h) No bids. If no bids are received in response to the notice inviting bids, the City Council may proceed to purchase the supplies or services without further competitive bidding. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.140 - Request for Proposals. (a) In lieu of formal bidding, the City Council may utilize the request for proposal method of purchasing supplies or services upon a determination that competitive bidding is not practical or advantageous to the City because: (1) Quality, capability, performance or qualification is overriding in relation to price; or (2) Delivery, installation, service, maintenance, reliability or replacement is overriding in relation to price; or (3) In the opinion of the City Council, the marketplace will respond better to a solicitation permitting a range of alternative proposals or evaluation and discussion of proposals before entering the contract. 81 Page 11 This process is typically used for selecting consultants, and for the procurement of technology related projects where there may be a number of options and the City is looking to obtain different scenarios to choose from. (b) The identity of persons responding to the Request for Proposals and the content of proposals submitted to the City may be kept confidential during the process of negotiation and until a contract is awarded. (c) The format and procedures for Requests for Proposals shall be e stablished by the Purchasing Officer. (d) The contract award shall be based upon the proposal determined by the City Council to be most advantageous to the City, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Propo sals. (e) The City Council may reject any and all proposals if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interests of the City. The Council may thereupon direct that proposals be solicited or utilize any other purchasing method set forth in this Article. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.150 - Inspection and testing. The Purchasing Officer shall inspect, or cause to be inspected, all deliveries of supplies or services to determine their conformance to specifications set forth i n the purchase order or contract. The Purchasing Officer shall have the authority to require any tests necessary to determine quality and conformance with specifications. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000) 2-45.160 - Joint purchase with other agencies. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, the Purchasing Officer may issue a joint purchase order together with any other city, county, or public agency for the purchase of supplies or services, provided the specifications for such supplies or services have been approved by the Purchasing Officer if the cost thereof is up to twenty-five thousand dollars, or by the City Council if the cost thereof exceeds twenty - five thousand dollars, and provided further that the Purchasing Officer or City Council, as applicable, determines that at least one of the other agencies has solicited or advertised for bids in a manner similar to the applicable procedures set forth in this Article. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 2-45.170 - Disposal of personal property. The Purchasing Officer shall have authority to dispose of personal property of the City which cannot be used by any department or has become obsolete or worn out. The disposition may be accomplished by negotiated sale, public auction, exch ange or trade 82 Page 12 in for other supplies or, upon a determination by the Purchasing Officer that the property has no commercial value, by abandonment, destruction or donation to a public body or a nonprofit charitable or civic organization. The disposition of a ny property having a value of five thousand dollars or more shall first be authorized by the City Council. (Ord. 199 § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 251 § 2 (part), 2007) 703145.2 703145.4 83 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Second Reading of a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned District (P-C) to an existing site at RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance District (P-C) to an existing site at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road BACKGROUND: On August 16, 2015, the City Council construction of a one story addition to S also introduced and waived the first reading of Overlay District zoning amendment (ZOA15 church site located at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Ordinance SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 Community Development Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director a Zoning Amendment to add a Planned-Combined Zoning C) to an existing site at 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road the attached ordinance to add the Planned-Combined Zoning 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road (Sacred Heart Church Parish). , the City Council approved a Design Review application for the addition to Sacred Heart Church’s Parish Center. The City Council and waived the first reading of an ordinance for a Planned-Combined (P ZOA15-0004) from R-1-10,000 to PC / R-1-10,000 for 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Road. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption. Combined Zoning Combined Zoning Parish). approved a Design Review application for the The City Council Combined (P-C) 10,000 for the This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of 84 1 ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE REZONING ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 397-30-047 LOCATED AT 13716 & 13718 SARATOGA ROAD FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT) SACRED HEART PARISH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. Saratoga City Code Article 15-16 establishes the P-C (Planned Combined) District to provide the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve the following objectives: (a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas of the City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards. (b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design. (c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations. 2. A Planned Combined District may be combined with any zoning district upon the granting of a change of zone in accord with the provisions of this Article. A Planned Combined district shall be designated by the symbol "P-C" following the zoning district designation with which it is combined. 3. The addition to the Parish Center will include an enlarged reception area, conference rooms, and storage areas with exterior access. The interior of the second floor will be completely remodeled with new offices and meeting areas and the height of the roof will be increased from 23.7 feet to 26 feet. New second story windows will be installed on the south elevation and existing second story windows on the western elevation will be relocated. An existing kindergarten classroom within the school building will be relocated to a new area that is currently used as an office. No exterior modifications to the school building are proposed. All new exterior materials and colors will match the existing building which includes tan colored stucco and composition shingle roofing. The zoning of the site is single-family residential (R-1-10,000). The floor area, building height, and site coverage of the existing church and school buildings exceed the development standards of the residential zoning district. Since the site does not comply, the placement of the Planned-Combined (P-C) Overlay District onto the existing residential zoning district would modify the standards of 85 2 development of the underlying zoning district from R-1-10,000 to P-C / R-1-10,000. By allowing the P-C district, the City will further their objectives of providing a public benefit, such as exceeding the City’s providing community facilities open to the public. 4. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council have each found that that the change is required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15- 05.020, and following additional findings required in support of the rezoning to R-1-10,000 P-C: (a) That the proposed location of the planned combined district is in accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. (b) That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (c) That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare. (d) That the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes contained within Section 15-16.010 (as set forth above, particularly purposes (b) and (c) under Finding 1 above). 5. The City Council may by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a planned combined district as applied for or in modified and/or conditional reclassification. The conditions of this rezoning are set forth in Attachment 1 hereto and include limitation of the exceptions to the City’s floor area, site coverage and height regulations as specified in Finding 3 above. 6. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on (insert date), and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council hereby amends the City Code as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Zoning Map is amended to conditionally rezone ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 397-30-047 (owned by Sacred Heart Parish and also known as 13716 & 13718 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, California from R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT) subject to the conditions specified in Attachment 1 hereto. Section 2. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, 86 3 paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The Community Development Department completed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration which included a review of the environmental impact of this Rezoning and the City Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on (insert date), and was adopted by the following vote on (insert date). COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ HOWARD MILLER CRYSTAL BOTHELIO MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 87 4 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ORDINANCE _______ 13716 & 13718 SARATOGA AVENUE, (397-30-047) SACRED HEART PARISH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This ordinance supersedes all previous use permit resolutions issued for an institutional use for this site. 2. All permitted uses per City Code Sections 15-12.020 and 15-12.030 are allowed. Additional permitted uses include a community facility, an institutional facility, a religious and charitable institution (per UP-00-007). The conditions of approval from UP-00-007 are number below as 3-9. 3. Neighbors shall be able to call a publicly published phone number to reach a Church representative during special events or activities to register concerns or complaints. The Church shall make a good faith effort to respond to these complaints. The City shall be notified if this contact telephone number changes. 4. There shall be no more than 360 classroom students on-site an any one time. 5. Delivery trucks servicing the site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Garbage collection trucks are required to service the site after 6:00 a.m. or per the City’s contract. The City shall be responsible for enforcing these hours. The Church shall maintain the garbage dumpster in an interior location where its pick-up will not disturb neighbors. 6. Special events that require outdoor amplified sound shall end by 9:00 p.m., with the exception that no more than three Friday or Saturday special events per year may go later. These three exception special events shall cease by 11:00 p.m. Special events shall be defined as any large- scale congregation of people, excluding typical school and church activities. 7. The applicant shall provide a schedule of upcoming special events to the City and to adjacent neighbors at least 30 days prior to each event. 8. The current frame used for signs is acceptable but no other signs will be allowed on site without prior approval of the City. 9. Class scheduling shall be coordinated with Saint Andrews School and Redwood Middle School to minimize overlapping peak school drop-off and pick-up times. 10. The total allowable floor area for the site shall be not greater than 78,679 square feet which is 73.5% coverage of the site. 88 5 11. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 12. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15-35 of the City Code. 13. Construction of any future structures shall comply with applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15-46 of the City Code. 14. The allowable building height shall be no taller than 26 feet with the exception of the church with is 30 feet and the bell tower which is 80 feet. 15. All uses permitted on site shall be open to the public. 89 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Debbie Bretschneider SUBJECT: Approve Donation from Saratoga 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park Grand Opening RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a donation agreement with the Saratoga Foundation and accept a donation for $626.56 for the October 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park Grand Opening. BACKGROUND: The City of Saratoga is having a one-time event of a grand opening of the Saratoga Quarry Park. The Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation has expressed an interest in sponsoring part of this event. FOLLOW UP ACTION: If approved, the City would accept the sponsorship donation from the S Foundation. Without the donation, the City would continue to use its allocated funds to pay for these items. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation Donation Agreement Attachment B- Quarry Park Grand Opening Flyer SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 City Manager’s Office Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk Approve Donation from Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation for the October Quarry Park Grand Opening Authorize the City Manager to execute a donation agreement with the Saratoga-Monte Sereno Foundation and accept a donation for $626.56 for the October 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park time event of a grand opening of the Saratoga Quarry Park. Monte Sereno Foundation has expressed an interest in sponsoring part of this ccept the sponsorship donation from the Saratoga-Monte Sereno Without the donation, the City would continue to use its allocated funds to pay for Monte Sereno Foundation Donation Agreement Quarry Park Grand Opening Flyer Monte Sereno Foundation for the October Monte Sereno Foundation and accept a donation for $626.56 for the October 31, 2015 Saratoga Quarry Park time event of a grand opening of the Saratoga Quarry Park. Monte Sereno Foundation has expressed an interest in sponsoring part of this Monte Sereno Without the donation, the City would continue to use its allocated funds to pay for 90 91 92 The City of Saratoga invites you to the Saratoga Quarry Park Event is open to the public! See the new picnic area! Come dressed for the outdoors! Water station & Restrooms available. Questions? Contact Janet Costa at cmo@saratoga.ca.us or (408) 868-1216. For more information, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/quarrypark SATURDAY, OCT. 31, 2015 · 10:30 a.m.–NOON Shuttle Service Pick-Up to Event in Saratoga Village Shuttle Service–From 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Due to limited parking at Quarry Park, guests are asked to park in the Saratoga Village. Shuttle service will be available at the corner of Big Basin Way and 4th Street. 93 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department PREPARED BY: Erwin Ordoñez SUBJECT: Saratoga Falcon Newspaper Correction RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept informational report. BACKGROUND: At the September 16, 2015 City Council meeting, the C High School newspaper article (Attachment A) Council that evening. The article cont appear that the authors had interviewed City staff. The report on this matter. On September 17, 2015, staff contacted to discuss the quotes that appeared in the article relayed Mayor Miller’s availability to be interviewed by The Journalism Advisor offered to do the following things to resolve the matter: · To immediately take down the electronic version of the story · To discuss with his students on the accepted journalistic process for obtaining and use of quotes, sourcing facts and also · To print a correction in the next printed edition of the Falcon A correction was printed in the September 25 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – 9/11/15 Article Attachment B— 9/25/15 Correction SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 5 Community Development Department Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Saratoga Falcon Newspaper Correction At the September 16, 2015 City Council meeting, the Council raised concerns over a Saratoga High School newspaper article (Attachment A) on a Design Review appeal considered by the The article contained several errors and non-attributed quotes that made it appear that the authors had interviewed City staff. The Council directed staff to agendize a ember 17, 2015, staff contacted Saratoga High School Journalism Advisor Michael Tyler to discuss the quotes that appeared in the article and requested a correction. Additionally, be interviewed by the students. offered to do the following things to resolve the matter: To immediately take down the electronic version of the story To discuss with his students on the accepted journalistic process for obtaining and use of also the Mayor’s availability. To print a correction in the next printed edition of the Falcon Newspaper. A correction was printed in the September 25th issue of the Falcon (Attached B). ouncil raised concerns over a Saratoga a Design Review appeal considered by the attributed quotes that made it Council directed staff to agendize a Michael Tyler Additionally, staff To discuss with his students on the accepted journalistic process for obtaining and use of 94 95 Saratoga Falcon Newspaper September 25, 2015 Page.2 Correction 96 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Debbie Bretschneider SUBJECT: Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Open public hearing, accept public testimony, close public hearing, and adopt resolution confirming report and assessment of hazardous vegetation abatement charges. BACKGROUND: Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the s on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this hazardous vegetation abatement program is administered by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. As part of the abatement program, prope owners that are out of compliance are notified that they must meet abatement requirements. If the property owner fails to do so, a contractor hired by the County will perform abatement work and the cost of removal will be applied to the property owner’s property tax. The attached list, Attachment B, notes the parcels that are expected to receive assessments through the hazardous vegetation abatement programs in Santa Clara County. Potential assessments include the cost of the County contractor to perform abatement work, a $250 inspection fee, $41 administrative fee for new properties added to the abatement program database this year, and an administrative fee of $169. The total amount will be includ special assessment on the property owner’s tax bill following confirmation of charges. If the attached resolution is adopted by Council, the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner will proceed with the abatement program assessments. FISCAL STATEMENT: There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Saratoga as a result of the weed and brush abatement programs if the attached resolution is adopted. Associated costs are charged to property owners. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 City Manager’s Office Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program Open public hearing, accept public testimony, close public hearing, and adopt resolution confirming report and assessment of hazardous vegetation abatement charges. Under State and local laws, local governments routinely abate the seasonal hazardous vegetation on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this hazardous vegetation abatement program is administered by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. As part of the abatement program, properties are inspected for hazardous vegetation and property owners that are out of compliance are notified that they must meet abatement requirements. If the property owner fails to do so, a contractor hired by the County will perform abatement work and cost of removal will be applied to the property owner’s property tax. The attached list, Attachment B, notes the parcels that are expected to receive assessments through the hazardous vegetation abatement programs in Santa Clara County. Potential ents include the cost of the County contractor to perform abatement work, a $250 inspection fee, $41 administrative fee for new properties added to the abatement program database this year, and an administrative fee of $169. The total amount will be includ special assessment on the property owner’s tax bill following confirmation of charges. If the attached resolution is adopted by Council, the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner will proceed with the abatement program assessments. There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Saratoga as a result of the weed and brush abatement programs if the attached resolution is adopted. Associated costs are charged to Confirmation of Report and Assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program Open public hearing, accept public testimony, close public hearing, and adopt resolution easonal hazardous vegetation on undeveloped property. For the County and several cities, including Saratoga, this hazardous vegetation abatement program is administered by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. rties are inspected for hazardous vegetation and property owners that are out of compliance are notified that they must meet abatement requirements. If the property owner fails to do so, a contractor hired by the County will perform abatement work and The attached list, Attachment B, notes the parcels that are expected to receive assessments through the hazardous vegetation abatement programs in Santa Clara County. Potential ents include the cost of the County contractor to perform abatement work, a $250 inspection fee, $41 administrative fee for new properties added to the abatement program database this year, and an administrative fee of $169. The total amount will be included as a If the attached resolution is adopted by Council, the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Saratoga as a result of the weed and brush abatement programs if the attached resolution is adopted. Associated costs are charged to 97 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A notice of public hearing was published in the Saratoga News on September 25, 2015. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution Confirming Report and Assessment Charges Attachment B – 2015 Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Assessment Report 98 RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ASSESSMENT CHARGES WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on October 7, 2015, the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner submitted a report to the City Council consisting of all unpaid bills for weed and brush abatement expenses and a proposed assessment list, including the parcels against which said expenses and applicable administrative and collection costs are to be assessed, all pursuant to Article 7-15 of the Saratoga City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard said report and all objections finds that no modifications need to be made to any of said assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2015 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report, City of Saratoga, prepared by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, be and hereby is confirmed. Should the abatement work be completed by a County contractor, the property owner will be assessed the contractor’s charges plus a County administrative fee of $169 per parcel. The total amount will be included as a special assessment on the property owner’s tax bill following confirmation of the charges; and the Santa Clara County Auditor will be directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as general municipal taxes are collected. A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County Auditor. Attachments: Exhibit A – 2015 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report – City of Saratoga The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th day of October 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk 99 100 1 0 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department PREPARED BY: Erwin Ordoñez SUBJECT: Amendments to City Code Article 4 Practitioners RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Establishments and Massage Practi 3. Direct staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 2014, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1147 which reauthorized the ability of local governments to use city ordinances to regulate massage therapy establishments consistent with the applicable State Law operators. Prior to this action, a voter approved initiative pre and allowed massage establishments to operate with only State approvals and certifications from an authorized central massage board, the California Massage Therapy Council. effective on January 1, 2015. Currently, there are seven massage estab Saratoga (Attachment 3). The City’s existing massage ordinance is incorporated into the Municipal Code as Article 4 the Business Regulations Chapter. The the City’s existing massage ordinance: · Aligns with AB1147 requirements · Requires notification to the City Manager of any change in massage establishment ownership status · Requires 500 hours of education and certification for operators and employees · Requires contact information be filed for owner of establishment and lease holder · Requires certificates and identification cards · Allows City inspection of massage facilities SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 5 Community Development Department Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Amendments to City Code Article 4-55 Massage Establishments and Massage and waive the first reading of the ordinance to amend Article 4-55 Establishments and Massage Practitioners Direct staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular On September 18, 2014, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1147 which reauthorized the ability city ordinances to regulate massage therapy establishments Law regulating the certification and licensure of massage a voter approved initiative pre-empted local massage ordinances allowed massage establishments to operate with only State approvals and certifications from an authorized central massage board, the California Massage Therapy Council. AB1147 became Currently, there are seven massage establishments operating in The City’s existing massage ordinance is incorporated into the Municipal Code as Article 4 The attached ordinance includes the following refinements to Aligns with AB1147 requirements Requires notification to the City Manager of any change in massage establishment Requires 500 hours of education and certification for operators and employees information be filed for owner of establishment and lease holder and identification cards be filed for each massage employee Allows City inspection of massage facilities 55 Massage Establishments and Massage Massage Direct staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular On September 18, 2014, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1147 which reauthorized the ability city ordinances to regulate massage therapy establishments the certification and licensure of massage empted local massage ordinances allowed massage establishments to operate with only State approvals and certifications from AB1147 became lishments operating in The City’s existing massage ordinance is incorporated into the Municipal Code as Article 4-55 of attached ordinance includes the following refinements to Requires notification to the City Manager of any change in massage establishment 102 Planning Commission review of the prepared draft ordinance is not required because the proposed amendments to the City Code do not change the status of massage establishments being a permitted personal service use in Commercial Zoning Districts as long as the establishments comply with the permit requirements of the Massage Ordinance. The Sheriff’s Department has thoroughly reviewed the draft ordinance and recommends approval. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The public hearing was properly noticed in a newspaper with general circulation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A) 2. 2015 List of Saratoga Massage Establishments 3. Sample Massage Therapist Certificate 4. Sample Certified Massage Therapist Identification Card 103 Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 4-55 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE CONCERNING MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE PRACTITIONERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. The City of Saratoga wishes to amend the provisions of the City Code concerning massage establishments and massage practitioners in order to reflect recent changes in State law, ensure adequate training of City-certified massage practitioners, and provide for improved information sharing and inspection procedures with massage establishments operating in the City. 2. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2015, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption . The Saratoga City Code is amended as set forth in Attachment 1. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined ) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font is readopted by this ordinance. Section 2. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. 104 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance the amendments to the existing City Code address regulation of massage establishments and massage practitioners only and would have a de minimis impact on the environment. Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 7th day of October 2015, and was adopted by the following vote on October 21st, 2015. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Howard Miller MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Bothelio CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE: Richard Taylor CITY ATTORNEY 105 Page 1 Article 4-55 MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE PRACTITIONERS 4-55.010 - Purpose. 4-55.020 - Definitions. 4-55.030 - Exemptions. 4-55.040 - Permit required for massage establishment, managing employee, and massage practitioner. 4-55.050 - Educational and practical examination requirements for applicants intending to engage in massage for massage practitioner , massage establishment and managing employee permits. permit.. 4-55.060 - Applications for massage establishment permit, managing employee permit, massage practitioner permit and temporary massage practitioner permit . .. 4-55.070 - Processing of application, investigation. 4-55.080 - Action by city manager on permit application; grounds for denial. modified 4-55.090 - Permits nontransferable. 4-55.095 - Business license and permit or massage therapy certificate required. and Massage Establishment Permit Required. 4-55.100 - Registration and notification requirements. 4-55.110 - Hours of operation. 4-55.120 - Prohibited advertising practices. 4-55.130 - Minors. 4-55.140 - Physical facility and building code requirements. 4-55.150 - Health and safety requirements. 4-55.160 - Attire and physical hygiene requirements. 4-55.170 - Inspection by government officials. 4-55.180 - Owner and , operator and/or managing employee responsibility—Denial, revocation, restriction or suspension of business license. 4-55.190 - Remedies cumulative—Each day a separate offense. 4-55.200 - Public nuisance. 4-55.210 - Criminal penalties. 4-55.220 - Civil injunction. 4-55.230 - Administrative fines and costs. Article 4-55 - MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE PRACTITIONERS 106 Page 2 4-55.010 - Purpose. (a) In enacting these regulations the City Council recognizes that massage is a viable professional field offering the public valuable health and therapeutic services. (b) It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that the operation of massage establishments, massage practitioners , and managing employees and persons offering massage be regulated in the interest of public health, safety and welfare by providing minimum building , sanitation and health standards , and to insure that persons offering massage shall possess the minimum qualifications necessary to operate such businesses establishments and to perform such services offered. (c) It is the intent of this Article to enact regulations to insure that those offering massage services are qualified and trained and can be expected to conduct their work in a lawful and professional manner. This Article implements State law providing for certification of massage practitioners and allows the practice of massage subject to either certification in accordance with those laws or a City massage practitioner permit. (d) The further intent of this Article is to establish regulations for the massage therapy profession that are reasonable and necessary to protect public health and safety and reduce the potential for illegal and illicit activity within the City of Saratoga. This Article is not intended to be exclusive and compliance with its provision shall not excuse noncompliance with any State or other local laws. (e) If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Article is for any reason determined to be invalid, such a determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Article. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.020 - Definitions. For the purpose of this Article, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this Article are defined as follows: (a) Business massage means any massage of the neck, arms, shoulders and back area, above the waist where the client is fully clothed and done without the use of supplementary aids, such as rubbing alcohol, liniments, antiseptics, oils, powders, creams, lotions, ointments, or other similar preparations commonly used in this practice. (b (a) City Manager means the City Manager of Saratoga or his/her designee. (b) CAMTC means California Massage Therapy Council as established pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of the California Business and Professions Code, known as the Massage Therapy Act. CAMTC certified means a Massage Practitioner holding a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC. 107 Page 3 (c) Managing employee means any employee of a massage establishment who has been designated by the holder of the massage establishment permit to manage the business massage establishment in his/her absence. The managing employee may perform massages at the business massage establishment only if he/she obtains and maintains in effect a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC or a massage practitioner permit issued by the City Manager . (d) Massage means the scientific manipulation of the soft tissues, including but not limited to, any method of pressure on, or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, vibrating or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the hands, or any part of the body, or with the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus, or other appliances or devices, with or without such supplementary aids as rubbing alcohol, antiseptic, oil, powders, lotion, ointment, or other similar devices commonly used in this practice; or by baths , including, but not limited to, Turkish, Russian, Swedish, Japanese, vapor, shower, electric tub, mineral, fomentation, or any other type of bath. (e) Massage establishment means any establishment having a fixed place of business in the City in which massages are given in return for compensation of any type, including , but not limited to , any hot tub/sauna, or tanning establishment in which massage services are made available to clients, or any premises offering relaxation services. Massage establishment does not include those locations where massage is only provided on an outcall basis. (f) Massage practitioner for purposes of this Article means any a person who performs holds a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 4604 or 4604.2, or who has met all the requirements under Section 4-55.050 of this Article, and who administers massage in return for compensation of any type. . (g) Outcall massage service means the engaging in or carrying on of massage for consideration at a location other than a licensed massage establishment. (h) Permit means a written document authorizing the holder to engage in the business written on such document. (i) Person means any individual, partnership , (general or limited), firm, association, corporation, joint venture or any other combination of one or more individuals for the purpose of doing business. (j) Recognized school means any school or institution of learning which has been approved pursuant to California Education Code Section 94300 et seq. or other applicable state law or regulations, or any public school which requires a resident course of study of not less than one hundred hours within at least three months on the theory, ethics, history, practice, methods, profession or work of massage, including the study of anatomy and physiology and hygiene, and at least seventy-five hours of demonstration and practice of massage techniques, and which provides a diploma or certificate of graduation upon successful 108 Page 4 completion of such course of study or course work recognized by national professional massage or body therapy organizations. (j) “Approved school” or “approved massage school” means a school approved by CAMTC (within or outside of California) that meets minimum standards for training and curriculum in massage and related subjects, that meets any of the following requirements, and that has not otherwise been unapproved by the CAMTC council: (1) Is approved by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. (2) Is approved by the Department of Consumer Affairs. (3) Is an institution accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities or the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and that is one of the following: (A) A public institution. (B) An institution incorporated and lawfully operating as a nonprofit public benefit corporation pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 5110) of Division 2 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, and that is not managed by any entity for profit. (C) A for-profit institution. (D) An institution that does not meet all of the criteria in subparagraph (B) that is incorporated and lawfully operating as a nonprofit public benefit corporation pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 5110) of Division 2 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, that has been in continuous operation since April 15, 1997, and that is not managed by any entity for profit. (4) Is a college or university of the state higher education system, as defined in Section 100850 of the Education Code. (5) Is a school requiring equal or greater training than what is required under Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code and is recognized by the corresponding agency in another state or accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education (k) Massage Therapy Certificate means a certificate issued by CAMTC pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 10.5 of the California Business and Professions Code (commencing at section 4600 and known as the Massage Therapy Act ). ) or a certificate issued by the City Manager pursuant to this Article (l) Sole Provider means a massage business where the owner owns one hundred (100) percent of the business, is the only person who provides massage services for compensation for that business pursuant to a valid and current certificate issued by CAMTC or the City Manager and has no other employees or independent contractors. 109 Page 5 (m) Temporary Massage Permit means a massage permit that is given pending further investigation to determine if an applicant is eligible for a massage practitioner permit. A temporary massage permit may be authorized, at the discretion of the City Manager, but is not required while further investigation is pending. A temporary massage permit shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) days or until issuance of the massage practitioner permit, unless said permit has been denied, at which time the temporary massage permit shall be of no further force and effect. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.030 - Exemptions. (a) The provisions of this Article shall not apply to persons providing massage who are licensed to practice any healing art or profession under the provisions of Division 2 of the California Business and Professions Code, or to persons working under the direction of any such licensed person in any hospital, nursing home or sanitarium; nor shall this Article apply to persons licensed or as barbers or cosmetologists under the provisions of Division 3 of the California Business and Professions Code who administer such treatment in good faith in the course of licensed practice; nor shall this Article apply to or by an accredited high schools, junior colleges, colleges school, community college, college and universities university whose coaches and trainers are acting within the scope of employment. (b) The provisions of Sections 4-55.040 (c) through 4-55. 090 050 of this Article shall not apply to massage practitioners or to managing employees who administer massage and hold a valid Massage Therapy Certificate . issued by CAMTC, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 4604 or 4604.2 (c) The provisions of Sections 4-55.040 (c) through 4-55. 090 050 of this Article shall not apply to massage establishments that are a sole proprietorship, where the sole proprietor holds a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate through CAMTC , or to massage establishments that employ or use only persons who hold a valid Massage Therapy Certificate to provide massage services. For purposes of this paragraph, a sole proprietorship is a business where the owner is the only person employed by that business through CAMTC to provide massage services. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.040 - Permit required for massage establishment, managing employee, and massage practitioner. (a) Massage establishment permit. No person shall establish, operate or maintain a massage establishment within the City without first obtaining from the City Manager, and maintaining, a massage establishment permit. It is unlawful to operate, establish or maintain a massage establishment while the permit issued for such business has been suspended, revoked, or has expired. Only one permit (including a permit which has been suspended or revoked or is in the appeals process) shall 110 Page 6 be issued to a business location. No additional applications for permits will be accepted for locations which are in the appeals process, until the existing permit has expired, been revoked, or been surrendered by the applicant. (b) Managing employee permit. No person shall act as the managing employee for any massage establishment within the City unless he/she has obtained a managing employee permit from the City Manager. It is unlawful for any person to act as the managing employee of any massage establishment while his/her managing employee permit has been suspended, or revoked, or has expired. (c) (1) Massage practitioner permit. (1) No person shall engage in the practice of massage, including outcall massage, in return for compensation of any type within the City without obtaining from the City Manager and maintaining in effect a massage practitioner permit. It is unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of massage in return for compensation while his/her massage practitioner permit has been suspended, revoked, or has expired. (2) A person who obtains a massage establishment permit or a managing employee permit from the City Manager and plans to personally give massages at the business establishment , shall , unless CAMTC certified, also apply for and obtain a massage practitioner permit, and shall pay fees for administration of the written and practical examination pursuant to Section 4-55. 060 050. (d) [Change in status .] . The holder of any permit described in required by this Section shall notify the City Manager , through the massage establishment owner of which they are employed, within thirty (30) days of any change in name, address, or other contact information listed in the permit. If the holder of the permit is an independent contractor, then they must notify the City Manager within thirty (30) days of any change in name, address, or other contact information listed in the permit. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.050 - Educational and practical examination requirements for applicants intending to engage in massage for massage practitioner , massage establishment and managing employee permits. . (a) Educational requirements. All applicants for a massage establishment permit, managing employee permit and/or massage practitioner permit , must meet either of (unless CAMTC certified) must meet, and provide proof satisfactory to the City thereof, each of the following educational standards in order to qualify for such permit: (1) Possession of a diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized an approved massage school of massage , college, junior community college or university which shows satisfactory completion of at least three hundred hours of a nonrepetitive curriculum in anatomy, physiology, hygiene, sanitation, and massage theory, history, ethics and practice ; or 111 Page 7 (2) Possession of diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school of massage, college, junior college or university which shows satisfactory completion of at least two hundred hours of a nonrepetitive curriculum in anatomy, physiology, hygiene, sanitation, and massage theory, history, ethics and practice and at least one hundred hours of documented experience under the direct supervision of a licensed massage practitioner, physical therapist, or other health professional who is duly licensed to practice his/her respective profession under the laws of the State. The applicant has successfully completed the curricula in massage and related subjects totaling a minimum of five hundred (500) hours, or the credit unit equivalent, that incorporates appropriate school assessment of student knowledge and skills, including, but not limited to, documented experience under the direct supervision of a licensed massage practitioner, physical therapist, or other health professional who is duly licensed to practice his/her respective profession under the laws of the State as follows. (i) Of the five hundred (500) hours, a minimum of one hundred (100) hours of instruction shall address anatomy and physiology, contraindications, health and hygiene, sanitation, and business ethics; (ii) All of the five hundred (500) hours shall be from an approved massage school: and (iii) Proof of successful completion of courses in massage theory, history and practice. (3) The applicant has passed a massage and bodywork competency assessment examination that meets the generally recognized psychometric principles and standards currently approved by CAMTC. (b) Practical examination requirements. All applicants for a massage establishment permit, managing employee permit and/or massage practitioner permit who intend on engaging in the practice of massage shall take and pass a practical examination to demonstrate a basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, and the theory, practice, history, ethics and methods of massage. The examination shall be administered on behalf of the City, by a doctor or other licensed health professional selected by the City Manager. The City Manager shall establish procedures for the examinations in accordance with this Article. If the applicant fails the practical exam, he/she shall be permitted to retake the examination once, after at least thirty (30) but no more than sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date of the first examination, so long as the applicant pays the applicable examination fees for a second time and complies with City Manager procedures. If the applicant fails the examination a second time, the application shall be denied, and the applicant shall not be permitted to apply again for a massage establishment permit, managing employee permit or massage practitioner permit for a period of one year. (c) Exemption from educational and , practical examination requirements and medical certificate . 112 Page 8 (1) requirements. Applicants for a massage establishment permit or managing employee permit who sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that they will not personally engage in the practice of massage at the business establishment are exempt from the educational and practical examination requirements set forth in this Section and are exempt from obtaining a medical certificate. (2) Applicants for a massage practitioner permit who have completed at least three hundred hours of education and training at a recognized school and have passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Body Work are exempt from the practical examination requirements set forth in this Section. (d) Extension of time to complete educational requirements. Holders of business licenses issued by the City for at least one year before the effective date of this Article, engaged in the practice of massage within the City, and their employees who have been employed in the practice of massage by the business for at least one year before the effective date of this Article, shall be exempt from the educational requirements of subsection (a) of this Section if they have passed the practical examination set forth in this Section or hold a current valid certificate evidencing passage of the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Body Work. Holders of a business license or massage practitioner permit issued by the City, before, but less than one year before, the effective date of this Article shall have a period of one year from the effective date of this Article to satisfy the educational requirements set forth in this Section. A one-year extension may be granted provided that the applicant can document that he or she has completed at least one-half of the necessary hours required to comply with the additional requirements of this Article. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.060 - Applications for massage establishment permit, managing employee permit, massage practitioner permit and temporary massage practitioner permit . .. (a) Submittal of application. Every person, firm, corporation or partnership (general or limited), limited liability company or other form of business desiring to obtain a permit shall file a written application to the City Manager on a form provided by the City. (The applicant, firm, corporation or partnership (general or limited), limited liability company or other form of business shall designate one of its officers or partners to act as the responsible person for the business and will complete and sign all forms/applications required .) . (b) [Required information .] . The application form must contain the following information: (1) The full name, including any nicknames or other names used presently or in the past, and the present street address and phone number of the applicant; 113 Page 9 (2) The applicant's two most recent street addresses, and the dates of residence at each address; (3) The date of birth of the applicant; (4) The applicant's height, weight and , color of eyes and hair , and any other identifying features such as birth marks, scars or tattoos ; (5) The applicant's driver's license number (if any), California Identification Card (if any) and social security number; (6) The applicant's two most recent employers, including their names, street addresses, cities and phone numbers, and the position held by the applicant; (7) The names, street addresses and phone numbers of any massage establishment or any other business involving massage by which the applicant has been employed within the past ten years; and the dates of employment; (8) Any criminal conviction on the part of the applicant for offenses other than traffic violations within the ten years preceding the date of the application; (9) Whether the applicant has ever had a license, certificate, permit, or other authorization to engage in the practice of massage, or the operation of a massage establishment, or other business engaged in the practice of massage, suspended or revoked within the ten years preceding the date of the application, the dates and reasons for any such suspensions or revocations, and the name and location of the jurisdiction or agency which suspended or revoked such license, certificate, permit, or other authorization; (10) Whether the applicant, including applicant as a member of a corporation, business or partnership (general or limited), limited liability company or other form of business , has ever operated or been employed at any business which has been the subject of an abatement proceeding under the California Red Light Abatement Act (California Penal Code Sections 11225 through 11325) or any similar laws in other jurisdictions. If the applicant has previously worked at such a business, he/she should state on the application the name and address of the business, the dates on which the applicant was employed at such business, the name and location of the court in which the abatement action occurred, the applicable case number and the outcome of the abatement action; (11) If the applicant is a partnership , (general or limited), the application shall set forth the names and street addresses of each general and limited partner. If the applicant is a limited partnership, it shall furnish a copy of its certificate of limited partnership as filed with the County Clerk. If one or more of the partners is a corporation, the provisions of this subsection pertaining to corporate applicants shall apply to the corporate partner; (12) If the applicant is a corporation, the name of the corporation shall be set forth exactly as shown in its article of incorporation or charter together with the state and date of incorporation and the full legal names and street addresses of each 114 Page 10 of its current officers and directors and each stockholder holding more than five percent of the stock of that corporation; (13) Whether the applicant has met the educational requirements set forth in this Article (except for cases involving applications for massage establishments or managing employee permits, when the applicant has filed a statement under penalty of perjury that he/she will not personally give massages at the massage establishment); (14) Whether the applicant has previously applied to the city for a massage establishment permit, managing employee permit, massage practitioner permit or temporary massage practitioner permit ,,, the date of the application and every name(s) under which the application was made; (15) In the case of an application for a massage establishment permit or managing employee permit, the proposed name and street address of the massage establishment, together with the name and street address of any other massage business operated or managed by the applicant, within the ten years preceding the date of the application; (16) In the case of an application for a massage establishment permit or managing employee permit, whether the applicant intends to personally provide massage services at the business; (17) A statement under penalty of perjury that the applicant has not made any false, misleading or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact in his/her application or any other documents required by the City to be submitted with the application; (18) The name and street address of the owner or renter and the lease holder of proposed premises of which application is made. In the event the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the lease and a notarized acknowledgment from the owner of the property that a massage establishment will be located on the property; (19) (17) In the case of a massage establishment application, proof of massage malpractice insurance in the sum of no less than one million dollars; (20) 18) A description of any other business to be operated on the same premises, or on adjoining premises, owned or controlled by applicant; (21) 19) Authorization for the City, its agents and employees, to seek information and conduct an investigation into the truth of the statements set forth in the application and into the background of the applicant and responsible managing officer . ; (20) In the case of a massage establishment application, the name, residence address and telephone number, and work address and telephone number of each person that the establishment intends to employ as a massage practitioner; (21) In the case of a massage establishment application, a copy of each employee’s massage practitioner’s CAMTC certification and CAMTC identification card, or a copy of the employee’s massage practitioner permit from the City Manager; 115 Page 11 (22) This section 4-55.060(b) does not apply to massage practitioners who hold a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate through CAMTC and who are not applying for a massage establishment permit or a managing employee permit. (23) The name and street address of the owner or renter and the lease holder of proposed premises of which application is made. In the event the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the lease and a notarized acknowledgment from the owner of the property that a massage establishment will be located on the property. (24) A statement under penalty of perjury that the applicant has not made any false, misleading or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact in his/her application or any other documents required by the City to be submitted with the application. (c) Submittal of documentation. Applicants shall also submit the following information at the time of their application: (1) A birth certificate or other proof that the applicant is at least eighteen years of age; (2) A certificate from a physician, which includes the physician's street address and phone number, and states that the applicant is free from communicable diseases or other conditions which could interfere with his/her ability to engage in the practice of massage, to the public, in a safe and healthful manner. Communicable disease testing is required for Hepatitis B and tuberculosis. The medical exam must have been completed within sixty (60) days of the permit application; (3) A diploma, certificate of graduation, transcript, or other written proof acceptable to the City Manager that the applicant has met the educational requirements set forth in this Article, unless in the case of applications for a massage establishment permit or managing employee's permit the applicant has submitted with the application a written statement under penalty of perjury that he/she will not personally give massages at the establishment; (4) Other related information requested by the City Manager in order to confirm the identity of the applicant and evaluate the background and qualifications of the applicant for the permit sought; (5) Documentation to prove that the applicant has a lawful right to work in the United States. (6) This section 4-55.060 (c) does not apply if the applicant holds a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC and is not applying for a massage establishment permit or a managing employee permit. (d) Payment of massage establishment permit, managing employee permit or massage practitioner permit fees. At the time of submitting an application for a permit(s) the applicant shall pay all permit fees, examination fees and investigation fees (to defray the cost of the investigation required by this Article). Applicants who 116 Page 12 will need the services of an interpreter for their written and/or practical examination shall also pay a fee to cover the cost of these services. All fees shall be nonrefundable, except that the City shall refund examination fees if the application is denied before the applicant takes the written and/or practical examination. All fees will be set forth in the City fee schedule. A copy of the receipt(s) shall accompany the application. (e) CAMTC Certified Massage Practitioners. A massage practitioner who holds a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC is not required to apply for or obtain a massage practitioner permit from the City Manager. However, a CAMTC certified massage practitioner who intends to open a massage establishment or manage a massage establishment is required to apply for a massage establishment permit or managing employee permit. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.070 - Processing of application, investigation. (a) Processing of application, investigation. Upon receipt of an application for a permit(s) the City Manager shall review the application and supplementary material. If it is clear from the face of the application and supplementary materials that the applicant is not qualified for the permit(s) sought, the application may be denied without further investigation or testing. If it appears from the face of the application and supplementary material that the applicant may be eligible for the permit(s) sought, the City Manager may issue a temporary massage practitioner permit pursuant to Section 4-55.040(d), , and shall verify the information submitted by the applicant and shall further investigate the qualifications of the applicant as follows: (1) Photographs/fingerprints/review of criminal history. The City Manager shall photograph the applicant and take a full set of the applicant's fingerprints and shall submit the fingerprints to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for evaluation. Upon receipt of the report from the DOJ and FBI, the City Manager shall review the criminal history (if any) of the applicant. This provision does not apply if the applicant holds a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC. (2) Investigation of location and premises of massage establishment. Upon receipt of an application for a massage establishment permit, the City Manager shall refer the application to the City's fire, building, planning, health and code enforcement departments, who shall review the application and inspect the premises to ensure that the designated site will comply with applicable City zoning, building, fire safety ordinances, and any other applicable City ordinances; (3) Additional investigation. The City Manager may conduct additional investigations in a manner authorized by law when necessary to determine if the applicant meets the qualifications for a permit pursuant to this Article. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 117 Page 13 4-55.080 - Action by city manager on permit application; grounds for denial. (a) Grant or denial of application for massage establishment permit, managing employee permit or massage practitioner permit. The City Manager shall grant or deny the application for a permit(s) within ninety (90) days of the applicant's submission of a completed application and all required supplementary material. When necessary, the City Manager may extend the time in order to conduct a complete investigation and hearing. (b) Granting of application. In considering a massage establishment permit, the City Manager may grant the application for a permit as applied for or in modified or conditional form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City Manager makes all of the following findings: (1) The property on which the massage establishment will be conducted and the operation thereof complies with all building, zoning, fire, health and safety codes and with the requirements of this Article; (2) The proposed location of the massage establishment is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; (3) None of the grounds for denial of the permit, as listed in subsection (j) of this Section, exist; (4) The massage establishment and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to properties in the vicinity or disturbing to the occupants thereof. (c) Conditional granting of application. In considering a massage establishment permit the City Manager may grant the application subject to such conditions and restrictions as he/she deems reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, including without limitation, any or all of the following: (1) Restriction on hours of operation; (2) Parking requirements; (3) Prohibition against the sale or serving of food or beverages or the conducting of nonmassage non-massage business on the premises. (d) Notice. If the application for a permit is granted pursuant to this Section, the City Manager shall send a notice of the approval, and a statement of all conditions thereof, to the applicant and to the Sheriff and all appropriate staff the City deems necessary . After full compliance by the applicant with all conditions imposed by the City Manager for issuance of the permit and provided no appeal has been filed from the decision of the City Manager and the period for such appeal has expired, the City Manager shall issue the permit. (e) Expiration and renewal of massage establishment permit, managing employee permit and massage practitioner permit. All permits shall expire one (1) year after the date of their issuance, unless revoked sooner by the City Manager. Applications for renewal of permits must be submitted to the City 118 Page 14 Manager no later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of such permit on a form provided by the City, which shall require the applicant for renewal to update the information contained in the original application. (f) Medical certificate; renewal. Any applicant requesting the renewal of a massage practitioner permit must also submit, with the renewal application, a certificate from a medical doctor stating that the applicant has, within the past thirty (30) days immediately prior to the filing of the application, been examined and found to be free from any communicable disease capable of being transmitted to the public or to fellow employees by the type of conduct and interaction involved in the performance of massage. (g) Fee; renewal. The applicant must pay the City a nonrefundable fee set forth in the City fee schedule, at the time of filing the application for renewal. After investigating the application for renewal, the City Manager may renew the permit(s) if the applicant continues to meet the standards for the issuance of a permit and none of the grounds for denial of a permit set forth in this Article exist. (h) Notice. The City Manager shall give the applicant for renewal written notice of his/her decision within sixty (60) days of the submittal of the completed application for renewal. If the application is denied, the notice shall be sent via certified mail and shall state the specific grounds for the denial and notify the applicant that he/she may appeal through the procedures set forth in this Article. (i) Failure to file timely notice. If the holder of the permit does not file a completed renewal application at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the permit or certificate, the applicant shall be required to file an application for a new permit and will be required to pay the applicable fees for a new permit. (j) Grounds for denial of application. The City Manager shall deny an application if any of the following circumstances exist: (1) The application is incomplete and /or the applicant failed to submit required materials requested by the City within thirty (30) days of the City’s request, or the applicant failed to submit required supplementary materials are not submitted requested by the City within thirty (30) days of the date of application; the City’s request. (2) The applicant does not have proof of the required educational requirements, unless the applicant is exempt from these requirements as established in this Article, and can show proof of qualifications for exemption; (3) The applicant has previously had a massage establishment permit, managing employee permit, massage practitioner permit, or any similar license, certificate or permit revoked by the City or any other public agency; (4) The applicant has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement or omission of fact in his/her application or other materials submitted with the application; (5) The applicant, including applicant as a corporation or , partnership (limited or general), limited liability company or other form of business , or former employer of the applicant while the applicant was so employed, has been successfully 119 Page 15 prosecuted under the Red Light Abatement Act (California Penal Code Sections 11225 through 11325) or any similar laws in another jurisdiction; (6) The applicant has been convicted of: (i) An offense which requires registration pursuant to California Penal Code Section 290, or a violation of Penal Code Sections 266 (i), 311 through 311.7, 314, 315, 318, 647(b) or (d), or equivalent offenses under the laws of another jurisdiction, even if expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4 , or equivalent expungement process under the laws of another jurisdiction, (ii) A prior offense which involves violation of California Health and Safety Sections 11351, 11352, 11358 through 11363, 11378 through 11380, 11054, 11056, 11057, 11058, any other violation(s) involving illegal possession for sale, or sales of a controlled substance, or equivalent offenses under the laws of another jurisdiction, even if expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4 , or equivalent expungement process under the laws of another jurisdiction, (iii) Any offense involving the use of force or violence upon another person, (iv) Any offense involving sexual misconduct with children, or (v) Any offense involving theft; (7) The operation of the massage establishment at the proposed site would violate the City's Zoning, Building, Fire Regulations, or other provisions of the City ordinances; (8) Any violation of this Article if previously licensed at any other location during the pendency of the application. (k) Notice to applicant of grounds for denial of application. The City Manager shall give written notice of the grounds for denial to the applicant for a permit. If the application is denied, the notice shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or hand delivered to the managing employee on the business massage establishment premises; and shall advise the applicant of his/her right to appeal the decision. (l) Appeal of denial of application for a permit. Upon the denial of an application for a permit, the applicant may appeal through the following procedures: (1) The applicant shall file a written request for an appeal hearing, which states the specific grounds on which the decision of the City Manager to Clerkto deny the permit is contested, within ten (10) days after service of the notice of the written decision, by deposit of the notice, addressed to the holder of the permit, by certified mail and/or by hand delivery. At the time of submitting the written request for an appeal hearing, the applicant shall pay an appeal hearing fee, set forth in the City fee schedule, to help defray in part the additional cost to the City. If the applicant does not request an appeal hearing within the ten - (10) day period, no further notice is required and the application will remain denied. 120 Page 16 (2) In order to hear and decide appeals of denials of applications for permits made by the City Manager, there The appeal shall be heard and is created decided by a Board of Appeals consisting of members Hearing Officer appointed by the City Council. The City Manager shall be an ex officio member and shall act as Secretary pursuant to City Code Section 3-15.070 and conducted pursuant to such Board but shall have no vote upon any matter before the Board. Copies of any the rules or regulations adopted by the Board shall be delivered to the City Manager, who shall make them freely accessible to the public. of procedure established in accordance with Section 3-15.070. . The Board Hearing Officer shall have no authority to waive requirements of this Article. (3) As soon as practicable after receiving the written appeal, the Secretary of the Board of Appeals Hearing Officer shall fix a date, time and place for the hearing of the appeal by the Board. .Such date shall not be less than five (5) working days nor more than thirty (30) working days from the date the appeal was filed with the City Manager Clerk . Written notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by certified mail at least five (5) working days prior to the date of the hearing to the appellant by the Secretary of the Board City Clerk either by causing a copy of such notice to be delivered to the appellant personally or by mailing a copy thereof, postage prepaid, addressed to the appellant at the address shown on the appeal. (4) Failure of an applicant to file an appeal in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section shall constitute a waiver of the right to an administrative appeal hearing and adjudication of the notice and order or any portion thereof. (5) At the hearing both the appellant and the City shall have the right to appear and be represented by counsel and to present evidence and arguments which are relevant to the grounds for the appeal. (6) Within ten (10) working days of the hearing, the Board Hearing Officer shall issue a written decision which states whether the decision of the City Manager is upheld, modified or reversed. The decision of the Board Hearing Officer shall be served on the appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision of the Board Hearing Officer shall be final. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.090 - Permits nontransferable. A massage establishment permit issued pursuant to this Article shall not be assignable or transferable, either as to the named permittee or the location specified therein. The permit shall automatically terminate upon any attempted transfer thereof, or upon any sale or transfer of the property, if the permit was issued to the owner thereof, or upon any termination or assignment of the lease or other right of possession, if the permit was issued to the occupant of the property, or if, by reason of any other circumstances, the massage establishment is not being operated or managed by the person to whom the permit was issued. 121 Page 17 (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.095 - Business license and permit or massage therapy certificate required. and Massage Establishment Permit Required . (a) Business license. Any person desiring to operate a massage establishment shall also apply for and obtain a business license pursuant to Article 4-05 of this Code and pay the license fee specified therein. No such business license shall be issued unless and until the applicant has first obtained a valid permit under this Article or provided evidence that the applicant holds a valid Massage Therapy Certificate. (b) Current permit or certificate required. No person shall accept or continue employment as a massage practitioner at any massage establishment in the City unless the owner or , operator and/or managing employee of such establishment holds both a current business license and Massage Establishment permit issued pursuant to this Article or a valid Massage Therapy Certificate. . (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.100 - Registration and notification requirements. (a) Every massage establishment shall: (1) Provide the City of Saratoga with a copy of the massage practitioner permit or proof of a valid Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC of every person who is employed or retained by the business or establishment to provide massage therapy, within thirty (30) calendar days of the commencement of such person's period of employment; and (2) Maintain on its premises a copy or other evidence of each such massage therapy license establishment permit, managing employee permit and massage practitioner permit or a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC, for each employee for review by the City of Saratoga .; (3) Notify the City of any new employees or departed employees; (b) Every CAMTC certified massage practitioner or holder of a massage practitioner pursuant to this Article shall: (1) Display his or her original certificate wherever he or she provides massage for compensation. A certificate holder shall have his or her identification card in his or her possession while providing massage services for compensation; (2) Provide his or her full name and certificate number (if applicable) upon the request of a member of the public, the City, the CAMTC council (if CAMTC certified), a member of law enforcement, or a local government agency charged with regulating massage or massage establishments, at the location where he or she is providing massage services for compensation; (3) Include the name under which he or she is certified and his or her certificate number in any and all advertising of massage for compensation. 122 Page 18 (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.110 - Hours of operation. No holder of a permit issued pursuant to this Article or holder of a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC , and no nonexempt massage business or establishment, or massage business or establishment described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code, ,shall provide massage therapy to the public for compensation between the hours of ten (10) p.m. and seven (7) a.m. of the following day . (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.120 - Prohibited advertising practices. (a) It is a violation of this Article for any person who does not possess a valid CAMTC Massage Therapy Certificate or massage practitioner permit issued pursuant to this Article, and for any massage business or establishment that employs or retains such a person, to: (1) State or advertise or put out any sign or card or other device, or to represent to the public through any print or electronic media, that such person is certified, registered or licensed by a governmental agency as a massage therapist or massage practitioner; or (2) Hold oneself out or use the title of "certified massage therapist," "certified massage practitioner," or any other term, such as "licensed," "registered," or "CMT," that implies or suggests that such person is the holder of a CAMTC Massage Therapy Certificate or massage practitioner permit issued pursuant to this Article. (b) It is a violation of this Article for any massage business or establishment, licensee, or any other person providing massage therapy to the public for compensation, to advertise through any print or electronic media that is classified for adults only or similar classification. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.130 - Minors. It shall be unlawful for any holder of a permit issued pursuant to this Article, nonexempt massage business or establishment, and for any massage business or establishment described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code, to: to: (a) Employ or retain any person who is under the age of eighteen (18) years to provide any massage therapy to the public for compensation; or 123 Page 19 (b) Provide massage therapy to any person who is under the age of eighteen (18) years, except at the special instance and request of a parent or other person in lawful custody of the minor. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.140 - Physical facility and building code requirements. The following physical facility and building code requirements shall be applicable to all holders of massage establishment permits issued pursuant to this Article, nonexempt massage businesses or establishments, and to all massage businesses or establishments described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code : (a) Except when there is no staff available to assure security for massage therapy patrons and staff who are behind closed doors, no massage therapy may be carried on behind locked, closed doors. (a) All internal and external doors must remain unlocked at all times when massage therapy is being provided, unless otherwise expressly authorized in this Article; except that where a massage establishment is a business entity owned by one individual with one or no employees or independent contractors, it may lock its external doors. (b) All doors to dressing rooms, toilet rooms and massage therapy rooms or cubicles shall open inward and shall be self-closing. Draw drapes, curtain enclosures, or accordion-pleated closures in lieu of doors are acceptable on all inner dressing rooms and massage therapy rooms or cubicles. (c) Minimum lighting equivalent to at least one forty-watt (40) light shall be provided in each massage therapy room or cubicle. (d) A massage table shall be used for all massage therapy, with the exception of "Thai ," " , Shiatsu ," , and similar forms of massage therapy, which may be provided on a padded mat on the floor, provided the patron is fully attired in loose clothing, pajamas, scrubs or similar style of garment. The Massage tables should shall have a minimum height of eighteen (18) inches. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the premises of the business or establishment. Massage tables shall be covered with a clean sheet or other clean covering for each patron. After a towel, covering or linen has once been used it shall be deposited in a closed receptacle and not used until properly laundered and sanitized. Pads used on massage tables shall be covered with material acceptable to County Department of Environmental Health. (e) All locker facilities that are provided for the use of patrons shall be fully secured for the protection of the patron's valuables, and the patron shall be given control of the key or other means of access. (f) The business or establishment shall comply with the following state building standards as adopted at Chapter 16 of this Code: (1) Have a system of adequate ventilation in accordance with the provisions of Section 705 of the Uniform Building Code of 1982, as referenced in Part 2, 124 Page 20 Chapter 7 of the matrix adoption tables, of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (2) Have a supply of hot and cold running water in accordance with Part 5, Section 1001(d)(1), of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (3) Have a supply of potable drinking water in accordance with Part 5, Section 1001(d)(3), of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (4) Provide hand-washing facilities in accordance with Part 5, Section 1001(d)(2), of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (5) Provide public toilet rooms in accordance with Part 5, Sections 910(b) and 910(c), and Table No. C-1, of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.150 - Health and safety requirements. The following health and safety requirements shall be applicable to all holders of massage establishment permits issued pursuant to this Article, all nonexempt massage businesses or establishments, and to all massage businesses or establishments described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code: :: (a) The business or establishment shall at all times be equipped with an adequate supply of clean sanitary towels, coverings and linens, and all massage tables shall be covered with a clean sheet or other clean covering for each patron. After a towel, covering or linen has once been used it shall be deposited in a closed receptacle and not used until properly laundered and sanitized. Towels, coverings and linens shall be laundered either by regular commercial laundering or by a noncommercial laundering process which includes immersion in water at least one hundred forty (140) degrees Fahrenheit for not less than fifteen (15) minutes during the washing or rinsing operation. Clean towels, coverings and linens shall be stored in closed, clean cabinets when not in use. (b) All massage therapy rooms or cubicles, wet and dry heat rooms, toilet rooms, shower compartments, and hot tubs and pools shall be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected as needed, and at least once each business day the premises are open and such facilities are in use. All bathtubs shall be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected after each use. (c) All liquids, creams, or other preparations used on or made available to patrons shall be kept in clean and closed containers. Powders may be kept in clean shakers. All bottles and containers shall be distinctly and correctly labeled to disclose their contents. When only a portion of a liquid, cream or other preparation is to be used on or made available to a patron, it shall be removed from the container in such a way as not to contaminate the remaining portion. 125 Page 21 (d) No invasive procedures shall be performed on any patron. Invasive procedures include, but are not limited to: (1) Application of electricity which contracts the muscle; (2) Application of topical lotions, creams, or other substances which affect living tissue, such as chemical peel preparations or bleaches; (3) Penetration of the skin by metal needles; (4) Abrasion of the skin below the nonliving, epidermal layers; (5) Removal of skin by means of any razor-edged instrument or other device or tool; and (6) Any needle-like instrument which is used for the purpose of extracting skin blemishes and other similar procedures . (.(e) All bathrobes, bathing suits and/or other garments that are provided for the use of patrons shall be either fully disposable and shall not be used by more than one patron, or shall be laundered after each use pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section. (f) All combs, brushes, and/or other personal items of grooming or hygiene that are provided for the use of patrons shall be either fully disposable and shall not be used by more than one patron, or shall be fully disinfected after each use. (g) No patrons shall be allowed to use any shower facilities of the business or establishment unless such patrons are wearing slip-resistant sandals or flip- flops while in the shower compartment. All footwear such as sandals or flip- flops that are provided for the use of patrons shall be either fully disposable and shall not be used by more than one patron, or shall be fully disinfected after each use. (h) The patron's genitals, pubic area, anus, and female patron's breasts below a point immediately above the top of the areola must be fully draped at all times while any employee of the business or establishment is in the massage therapy room or cubicle with the patron. No massage therapy shall be provided to a patron that results in intentional contact, or occasional and repetitive contact, with the genitals, anus, or areola the female breasts of a patron. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.160 - Attire and physical hygiene requirements. The following attire and physical hygiene requirements shall be applicable to all holders of a permit pursuant to this Article , and to all massage therapists and massage practitioners who are employed or retained hold a valid and current Massage Therapy Certificate issued by a nonexempt massage business or establishment, or by a massage business or establishment CAMTC as described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code: : 126 Page 22 (a) All persons shall be clean and wear clean and sanitary outer garments at all times. All outer garments shall be of a fully opaque, nontransparent material and provide complete covering from at least the mid-thigh to two inches below the collarbone. The midriff may not be exposed. (a) All persons shall wear attire that is not transparent, see-through, or substantially exposes the person’s undergarments , breasts, buttocks, or genitals, or dress in any manner that exposes him or herself, or private parts in violation of Section 314 of the Penal Code. Persons shall not wear swim attire, unless providing a water-based massage modality approved by CAMTC. (b) All persons shall thoroughly wash their hands with soap and water or any equally effective cleansing agent immediately before providing massage therapy to a patron. No massage therapy shall be provided upon a surface of the skin or scalp of a patron where such skin is inflamed, broken (e.g., abraded, cut) or where a skin infection or eruption is present. (c) No person afflicted with an infection or parasitic infestation capable of being transmitted to a patron shall knowingly provide massage therapy to a patron, or remain on the premises of a massage business or establishment while so infected or infested. Infections or parasitic infestations capable of being transmitted to a patron include, but are not limited to: (1) Cold, influenza or other respiratory illness accompanied by a fever, until 24 hours after resolution of the fever; (2) Streptococcal pharyngitis ("strep throat"), until twenty-four hours after treatment has been initiated and twenty-four hours after resolution of fever; (3) Purulent conjunctivitis ("pink eye"), until examined by a physician and approved for return to work; (4) Pertussis ("whooping cough"), until five days of antibiotic therapy has been completed; (5) Varicella ("chicken pox"), until the sixth day after onset of rash or sooner if all lesions have dried and crusted; (6) Mumps, until nine days after onset of parotid gland swelling; (7) Tuberculosis, until a physician or local health department authority states that the person is noninfectious; (8) Impetigo (bacterial skin infection), until twenty-four hours after treatment has begun; (9) Pediculosis (head lice), until the morning after first treatment; and (10) Scabies ("crabs"), until after treatment has been completed. Blood-borne diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B (HBV), shall not be considered infectious or communicable diseases for the purpose of this subsection. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 127 Page 23 4-55.170 - Inspection by government officials. (a) All holders of a permit issued pursuant to this Article and holders of a valid Massage Therapy Certificate issued by CAMTC , nonexempt massage businesses or establishments, and all massage businesses or establishments described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code , shall permit representatives of the County health department, the City of Saratoga, Fire Department, Community Development Department, and/or other City or County departments or agencies, to conduct a reasonable inspection of the public areas of and areas otherwise open to plain view on or within the premises, to the extent allowed by law and during the regular business hours of the business or establishment, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with state and local law, including, but not limited to, Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of the California Business and Professions Code, the requirements of this Code, or other applicable fire and health and safety requirements. (b) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to prohibit the above-described government officials from pursuing any and all available legal remedies to secure entry into and inspection of the premises of the business or establishment if such entry is refused, or for any other reason allowed by law. (c) It is a violation of this Article for the business or establishment to prohibit or interfere with such lawful inspection of the premises at any time it is open for business. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.180 - Owner and , operator and/or managing employee responsibility—Denial, revocation, restriction or suspension of business license. The following provisions shall apply to all holders of a permit issued pursuant to this Article , all nonexempt massage businesses or establishments, and all massage businesses or establishments described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 4612 of the California Business and Professions Code: :: (a) For the purpose of enforcement of the requirements of this Article, all owners and , operators , and managing employees of the business or establishment shall be responsible for the conduct of all of its employees, agents, independent contractors or other representatives, while on the premises of the business or establishment or providing massage therapy. (b) Notwithstanding any provision of Article 4-05 of this Code, the City may: (1) Require a business or an establishment regulated by this Article, in its application for a business license, or for the renewal of a business license, to provide information relevant to the administration of this Article; (2) Make reasonable investigations into the information so provided; (3) Charge a business licensing fee sufficient to cover the costs of the business licensing activities regulated by this Article; and 128 Page 24 (4) Deny, revoke, restrict or suspend a business license for either of the following causes: (a) an employee, agent, independent contractor or other representative of the business or establishment has committed a violation of this Article, or of Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 2 of the California Business or Professions Code; or (b) the business or establishment has provided materially false information in its application for a business license. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.190 - Remedies cumulative—Each day a separate offense. Any person subject to this Article who personally, or through an agent, employee, independent contractor or other representative, violates any provision of this Article shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any such violation is committed, continued or permitted by such person. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.200 - Public nuisance. Any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Article shall be and is hereby declared a public nuisance and, as such, may be abated or enjoined from further operation pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Code. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.210 - Criminal penalties. Any person subject to this Article who personally, or through an agent, employee, independent contractor or other representative, violates any provision of this Article commits a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor shall be subject to punishment by fine and/or imprisonment to the maximum extent permitted by state law. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.220 - Civil injunction. The violation of any provision of this Article shall be and is hereby declared to be contrary to the public interest and shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause for injunctive relief. Any massage establishment operated, or maintained contrary to the provisions of this chapter shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, unlawful and a public nuisance, and the city attorney may, in addition to or in lieu of prosecuting a criminal action hereunder, commence an action or actions, proceeding or proceedings, for the abatement, removal and enjoinment thereof, in the manner provided by law. Such 129 Page 25 remedies shall be in addition to any other judicial and administrative penalties and remedies available to the City. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 4-55.230 - Administrative fines and costs. In addition to the remedies set forth above, any person subject to this Article who personally, or through an agent, employee, independent contractor or other representative, violates any provision of this Article may be subject to administrative fines and costs, pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Code. (Ord. No. 278, § 1(Exh. A), 5-19-2010) 130 131 132 133 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Kate Bear, City Arborist SUBJECT: Review of local cities’ requirements RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report and provide direction to BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive review of the statewide drought, on May 6, 2015, Council directed staff to amend the City’s Tree Regulations to create an expedited process allowing residents to remove dead trees. As of October 2, 2015, staff will no longer notify neighbors that a dead tree is requested for removal and no application fee will be required upon staff verification that the tree is dead (e.g. by reviewing a photo of the dead tree). The City Council also requested at its July 1, 2015 meeting for staff to research surrounding cities’ requirements for the removal of dead trees. Council was concerned about four years of a continuing drought, hundreds of trees dying, the additional fuel load, and increased fire d Specifically, a large section of Saratoga is in a State defined Very High Fire Hazard Wildland Urban Interface. The City of Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations, Section does not require residents to remove dead tre any trees covered by the ordinance. Based on Council’s direction, staff contacted requirements for the removal of dead trees. obtain information about dead tree removal requirements Campbell, Cupertino, Hillsborough, Los Altos, Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Novato and Woodside. Most of the cities contacted do not mandate the removal of dead trees. require the removal of a dead tree are Cupertino SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2015 Community Development Kate Bear, City Arborist cities’ requirements for dead tree removal. to staff. As part of a comprehensive review of the statewide drought, on May 6, 2015, Council directed staff to amend the City’s Tree Regulations to create an expedited process allowing residents to October 2, 2015, staff will no longer notify neighbors that a dead tree is requested for removal and no application fee will be required upon staff verification that the tree is dead (e.g. by reviewing a photo of the dead tree). uested at its July 1, 2015 meeting for staff to research surrounding cities’ requirements for the removal of dead trees. Council was concerned about four years of a continuing drought, hundreds of trees dying, the additional fuel load, and increased fire d Specifically, a large section of Saratoga is in a State defined Very High Fire Hazard Wildland The City of Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations, Section 15-50, Tree Regulations residents to remove dead trees, but a tree removal permit is required to remove taff contacted 16 cities in the Bay Area regarding their respective requirements for the removal of dead trees. Additionally, staff conducted on-line research removal requirements. Cities contacted by staff Los Altos, Los Gatos, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Novato, Portola Valley, San Carlos, San Jose, Sunnyvale do not mandate the removal of dead trees. The three cities that Cupertino, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. As part of a comprehensive review of the statewide drought, on May 6, 2015, Council directed staff to amend the City’s Tree Regulations to create an expedited process allowing residents to October 2, 2015, staff will no longer notify neighbors that a dead tree is requested for removal and no application fee will be required upon staff verification that the tree uested at its July 1, 2015 meeting for staff to research surrounding cities’ requirements for the removal of dead trees. Council was concerned about four years of a continuing drought, hundreds of trees dying, the additional fuel load, and increased fire danger. Specifically, a large section of Saratoga is in a State defined Very High Fire Hazard Wildland 50, Tree Regulations) but a tree removal permit is required to remove ir respective research to by staff included Menlo Park, Monte Sunnyvale ities that 134 DISCUSSION: The three cities which require removal of dead trees include them in the nuisance definition of their respective municipal codes as a potential public safety risk. Cupertino and Mountain View require an arborist to inspect the tree to determine if the tree poses a public safety risk. Menlo Park considers all dead trees a nuisance. In these communities, once a complaint has been received, a staff person inspects the tree and makes a determination. A letter is sent to the property owner notifying them of the situation. Property owners are then given a period of time to address the issue. If the public safety risk is not addressed, the cities are authorized to abate the situation and the owner is charged for the City’s costs. The charges for the City’s abatement costs are recorded on the Title of record of the property as a lien if the property owner does not respond to the City’s reimbursement requests. Attachment A is a matrix summarizing the details of their processes. The cities of Cupertino and Mountain View have confirmed that they have not enforced mandated abatement of dead trees since their ordinances were adopted. Cupertino staff stated that their abatement process requires a nuisance abatement hearing with the City Council, a warrant to enter the property, and a requirement to put the tree removal work out to bid, which can become an onerous process. Mountain View staff indicated that once a case is turned over to their Code Enforcement Division, the matter is usually addressed at staff level without further City actions because the property owner voluntarily abates the nuisance. FISCAL STATEMENT: No fiscal impact is associated with the City Council receiving the information contained in this report. If the City Council determines that staff should prepare a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment for its consideration at a future agendized public hearing, staff will need to research the resource and fiscal impacts as part of that effort. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A – Summary Matrix of dead tree code requirements from various cities 135 Dead Tree Removal Matrix City Mandated?How Abatement is Implemented and Handled. Saratoga NO * Dead Trees are not listed as a public nusiance in the City Code. * Code (Sec 7-45.030) states that it is unlawful for property owner to allow dead, diseased, or hazardous trees . . . as unsighlty * If a Code issue is identified property owners are given a period of time in which they may comply. *If no action is taken, code enforcement officer may issue citation approved by City Attorney with fines. Cupertino YES * City Code mandates removal of Dead Trees if deemed a nusiance * City arborist inspects the tree once complaint received. * Code enforcement sends a letter in which propert owner is given up to 30 days to comply * If no work is undertaken, three options: a) administrative citation - fines of up to $100 per day or more. b)Code enforcement may take over the issue. c) Nusiance Abatement- Issue may go to City Council and the City may remove the tree. Menlo Park YES * City Code mandates the removal of dangerous trees (Sec 16.64.100 Menlo Park Municipal Code.) * Code defines Dead Trees as a public nusiance (See Sec 16.64.050): a) Issue a Compliance Letter through Code Enforcement where residents are given 10 days to comply (See Sec 16.64.080); b)If no action is taken, City Manager authorized to do work on owners property (See Sec 16.64.080); c)Cost of work plus additional fees if necessary are sent to City Tax Collector after which a lien may be issued on the property. (See Sec 16.64.090) Mt. View YES * City Code gives power to Director of Parks to remove trees which may be hazardous to the public. (See Sec 32.12 City of Mt.View Municipal Code.) * Code defines Dead Trees as being public nuisances. (See Sec 32.16) * Outline property owners responsiblity to remove dead trees. (See Sec 32.17) - 2 years to comply * If no work is taken City Council authorizes director of parks through code enforcement to implement the abatement of dead trees on the property. (See Sec 32.18) * Director will determine the cost of work plus 6% the total cost as interest, and the property owner has 30 days in which to pay the fees (See Sec 32.18) * If not paid, cost will be referred to the county auditor and this cost will be implemented as a lien on their property, and certain property restrictions will be implemented (See Sec 32.18) Campbell NO Hillsborough NO Los Altos NO Los Altos Hills NO Los Gatos NO Monte Sereno NO Morgan Hill NO Novato NO Portola Valley NO San Carlos NO San Jose NO Santa Clara NO Sunnyvale NO Woodside NO 136 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Erwin Ordoñez SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTY RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution authorizing City participation in a County BACKGROUND: On May 21, 2014, the City Council directed staff to add General Plan Housing Element that states the City of Saratoga will other Santa Clara Cities towards preparing a joint nexus study for the purpose of establishing an affordable housing impact fee and the implementation measure is of the Saratoga’s State Certified Housing Element. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation has provided a grant to help underwrite the cost for a coordinated effort that allows local cities in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to participate in County-Wide Housing Nexus Study. The attached resolution authorizes the satisfying the noted Housing Element implementation measure. not obligate the City to adopt a new affordable housing impact fee DISCUSSION: Several cities have adopted impact fees on new residential and commercial development to help fund affordable housing production. primarily due to reduced state and federal funding and loss of redevelopment agencies. Recent legal decisions on inclusionary housing requirements have prompted several cities to complete nexus studies to provide further support for their ordinances. The studies have ranged in cost from $25,000 to $40,000. The majority of cities in San Mateo County use to establish a housing impact fee. This appro sharing of county-wide data within the study. The Silicon Valley Foundation has expressed SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL October 7, 2015 Community Development Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTY-WIDE HOUSING NEXUS STUDY resolution authorizing City participation in a County-wide Housing Nexus Study. On May 21, 2014, the City Council directed staff to add an implementation measure in the draft General Plan Housing Element that states the City of Saratoga will work collaboratively with other Santa Clara Cities towards preparing a joint nexus study for the purpose of establishing an implementation measure is included in the adopted version ousing Element. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation has provided a grant to help underwrite the cost for a coordinated effort that allows local cities in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to participate in the City’s participation in the Nexus Study and would assist in satisfying the noted Housing Element implementation measure. Participation in the study does affordable housing impact fee. Several cities have adopted impact fees on new residential and commercial development to help This approach to funding affordable housing has been primarily due to reduced state and federal funding and loss of redevelopment agencies. Recent legal decisions on inclusionary housing requirements have prompted several cities to complete s to provide further support for their ordinances. The studies have ranged in cost The majority of cities in San Mateo County have jointly funded a nexus study that each city use to establish a housing impact fee. This approach has reduced the cost for each city due to the wide data within the study. The Silicon Valley Foundation has expressed WIDE HOUSING NEXUS STUDY an implementation measure in the draft work collaboratively with other Santa Clara Cities towards preparing a joint nexus study for the purpose of establishing an included in the adopted version The Silicon Valley Community Foundation has provided a grant to help underwrite the cost for a coordinated effort that allows local cities in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to participate in a City’s participation in the Nexus Study and would assist in Participation in the study does Several cities have adopted impact fees on new residential and commercial development to help This approach to funding affordable housing has been primarily due to reduced state and federal funding and loss of redevelopment agencies. Recent legal decisions on inclusionary housing requirements have prompted several cities to complete s to provide further support for their ordinances. The studies have ranged in cost a nexus study that each city can ach has reduced the cost for each city due to the wide data within the study. The Silicon Valley Foundation has expressed 137 interest in supporting cities in Santa Clara County and Alameda County and is willing to follow a similar approach in developing a joint nexus study. If authorized, staff will work with the Nexus Study consultant to develop components of the study that are unique and relevant to the Saratoga community and will report back to the City Council on the analysis results in approximately eight (8) months. FISCAL STATEMENT: The City’s share of the cost for the preparation of the Nexus Study is $25,000 and will be funded from the General Plan Update Capital Improvement Project Administrative Fund. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution authorizing participation in Nexus Study Attachment B – Draft Memorandum of Understanding Attachment C – Keyser Marston Associates proposal 138 RESOLUTION NO. 15-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTY-WIDE HOUSING NEXUS STUDY WHEREAS, the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout California in 2012 eliminated the major source of funding for affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the need for affordable housing continues to be an important regional challenge; and, WHEREAS, despite the elimination of funding, the state still mandates that cities must plan for and facilitate the provision of affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the State of California Housing and Community Development Department has certified the City of Saratoga Housing Element; and, WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Housing Element includes an implementation measure that supports the preparation of a Housing Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, an option to provide funding for affordable housing is the imposition of development impact fees or inclusionary zoning, for which a nexus study is required; and, WHEREAS, the multi-jurisdictional approach includes economies of scale and is more cost effective, costing less than half of a “stand alone” nexus study prepared for one jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, the cost sharing for the multi-jurisdictional approach would result in a base cost to City of $25,000; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The City is authorized to participate in a county-wide Housing Nexus Study to support impact fees for Affordable Housing. Section 3: The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents associated with this effort. 139 Resolution No. XX-XXX PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council on this 7th day of October 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Howard Miller Mayor, City of Saratoga 140 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between City of Saratoga and Silicon Valley Community Foundation regarding Silicon Valley/Alameda County Nexus Study Participation This Memorandum of Understanding is dated _______2015, and is entered into by and between the City of Saratoga (“City”) and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (“SVCF”). The City wishes to participate in the Silicon Valley/Alameda County Nexus Study, a county-wide collaborative effort. The purpose of the nexus study is to demonstrate the relationship between new housing or jobs and the need for affordable housing in the community. The nexus study will provide the basis for a jurisdiction’s affordable housing requirements (impact fees) and will document the permissible and recommended fee levels for each jurisdiction for both residential and commercial development. The City agrees to pay to Silicon Valley Community Foundation the maximum sum of $25,000 as its fair share of the costs of the nexus study. In exchange for the City’s financial contribution, the City will receive an affordable housing nexus study with a feasibility study specifically tailored to local market conditions for residential development and a commercial linkage nexus study with a review of non-residential total development costs specifically tailored to local market conditions for commercial development, as described in the attached scope of work from Keyser Marston Associates. The City understands that the City’s financial contribution may be used to develop support material for the nexus study, such as staff reports and presentations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date set forth above. CITY OF SARATOGA: By: _____________________________________ Printed Name: James Lindsay Title: City Manager Acknowledged by KEYSER MARSTON: By: ____________________________________ Printed Name: David Doezema Title: Principal SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION By: _____________________________________ Printed Name: Erica Wood Title: Chief Community Impact Officer 141 Proposal KMA036_ReportCover 1 5/9/06 12:12:50 PM Proposal to Provide Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies Submitted to: Silicon Valley Community Foundation Submitted by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. July 31, 2015 142 Reed T. Kawahara Kate Earle Funk Economic Development Affordable Housing Redevelopment KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES advisors Real Estate Advisors in: San Francisco A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Debbie M. Kern David Doezema Los Angeles Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo-Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom Julie L. Romey San Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE 415 398 3050 FAX 415 397 5065 www.keysermarston.com in public/private real estate development Reed T. Kawahara Kate Earle Funk Economic Development Affordable Housing Redevelopment KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES advisors Real Estate Advisors in: San Francisco A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Debbie M. Kern David Doezema Los Angeles Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo-Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom Julie L. Romey San Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE 415 398 3050 FAX 415 397 5065 www.keysermarston.com in public/private real estate development Reed T. Kawahara Kate Earle Funk Economic Development Affordable Housing Redevelopment KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES advisors Real Estate Advisors in: San Francisco A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Debbie M. Kern David Doezema Los Angeles Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo-Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom Julie L. Romey San Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE 415 398 3050 FAX 415 397 5065 www.keysermarston.com in public/private real estate development July 31, 2015 Mr. Vu-Bang Nguyen, AICP Silicon Valley Community Foundation 2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 Re: Proposal of Services: Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies Dear Mr. Nguyen, The following proposal of services is to undertake affordable housing nexus studies for multiple jurisdictions joined together in a coordinated work program. We have updated our proposal following our recent discussions with you to reflect the anticipated participation by six jurisdictions in Santa Clara County and four in Alameda County. We have also made modifications to the scope of services to reflect preparation of financial feasibility analyses as part of the base scope of services to all jurisdictions. Our experience and qualifications in preparing these nexus analyses in a wide range of jurisdictions and economic conditions is unequaled on the West Coast. We have been responsible for nexus supported affordable housing programs for clients and conditions as diverse as the cities of San Francisco, Seattle, to Mill Valley to Napa County. The overall approach and scope of services outlined in the following proposal is based on our extensive experience in doing these nexus studies. We have tried to identify the most cost effective way of doing these nexus studies for multiple jurisdictions in a manner that preserves our preferred approach of using local inputs and tailoring results to local conditions. Tailoring results to local conditions will be of particular importance considering the wide range of real estate and economic conditions in Santa Clara and Alameda counties from the affluent communities of the West Valley, to the central East Bay, and the big core Silicon Valley cities. We have arrived at a proposed approach and scope we feel strikes a good balance between realizing the cost advantages of a multi-jurisdiction approach with our conviction about using local inputs and tailoring recommendations to local conditions. We think direct interaction with the staff of the participating jurisdictions would be advisable. To that end, we are recommending two major workshops with the staff members of the various jurisdictions assembled together. The first workshop would be early in the work program. We would explain our methodology, provide examples of the input we are seeking from the participants, discuss how inputs might vary from one jurisdiction to the next, and open up a dialogue to 143 Reed T. Kawahara Kate Earle Funk Economic Development Affordable Housing Redevelopment KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATESadvisors Real Estate Advisors in: San Francisco A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Debbie M. Kern David Doezema Los Angeles Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo-Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom Julie L. Romey San Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE 415 398 3050 FAX 415 397 5065 www.keysermarston.com in public/private real estate development Reed T. Kawahara Kate Earle Funk Economic Development Affordable Housing Redevelopment KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES advisors Real Estate Advisors in: San Francisco A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Debbie M. Kern David Doezema Los Angeles Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo-Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom Julie L. Romey San Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE 415 398 3050 FAX 415 397 5065 www.keysermarston.com in public/private real estate development engage staff. The second workshop would be after we have run the nexus analyses and completed the feasibility tasks. We would walk through analysis results, step by step, talk about what the results mean and do not mean, talk about tailoring programs to local policies and conditions and what the next steps need to be. We believe such interaction will pay off at the end of the process. In this work scope, we are proposing a clear division of services – “Base Services” for all participating jurisdictions, and “Optional Services” that individual jurisdictions may contract for or not. Optional Services include working with staff on local policy objectives, tailoring programs to meet local concerns, as well as assisting in the adoption process. The Optional Services are something of a menu from which all or selected services may be contracted. We hope you will find that the refinements incorporated into this revised proposal bring us closer to a final work program we can move forward with. Of course, we are more than happy to discuss further adjustments as you continue your conversations with the participating jurisdictions. Sincerely, Kate Earle Funk David Doezema 144 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 4 Table of Contents Page 01 Statement of Qualifications 05 Firm Description Previous Nexus Experience 02 Key Personnel 16 03 Scope of Services 21 04 Timeline 32 05 Budget 33 145 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 5 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has one of the largest real estate advisory practices on the West Coast. Founded in 1973, Keyser Marston serves a diverse client base throughout the West, including nearly every major municipality in California, public housing authorities, ports, transit agencies, base closure authorities, county and special districts, school districts, colleges and universities, and hospitals. Keyser Marston’s unique strength is the depth, continuity and availability of our principals who average more than twenty years of practical experience in working with business and government. Their personal involvement is a key factor in the firm’s ongoing success. Their knowledge and expertise bring clarity to the complexities of real estate development. KMA’s many long term, on-going client relationships are a testament to the quality of our work and responsiveness to client needs. 01 Statement of Qualifications Firm Profile Keyser Marston has been at the forefront of affordable housing nexus analyses for over 25 years. We have experience with over 45 affordable housing nexus assignments. We have worked with virtually all types of land uses in economies as diverse as the City of Los Angeles and Napa County. We have recently conducted nexus work in several cities in Silicon Valley and southern Alameda County, including Cupertino, Mountain View, San Jose, Palo Alto, Fremont and Newark. KMA has also developed nexus analyses in support of fees for condominium conversion (San Francisco and San Diego), child care for about six cities, open space and a few other nexus type analyses. 146 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 6 Our nexus work commenced with an assignment for the City and County of Sacramento to design a comprehensive fee program for all types of non-residential construction throughout the City and County. The City’s ordinance was challenged by the local Building Industry Association and was tried in the Federal Courts through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the City. The builders petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case and elected not to hear it, letting stand the lower court’s decision. At all levels of the court, the sufficiency of the nexus was among the provisions challenged, and as a result we worked closely with the attorneys in the defense, preparing for the possible challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. The experience has served us well ever since. Following the Sacramento experience, KMA worked with a consultant team on the nexus analysis in support of the City of San Diego Housing Impact Fee, which was adopted in 1989. (KMA recently completed an updated nexus analysis for the City of San Diego in support of the increased fees.) For the City of Los Angeles, KMA led a consultant team in a large and lengthy work program to develop a nexus program. A unique challenge in Los Angeles was to develop a fee system to address the many high-density development locations within the broad diversity of economic conditions citywide. In 2001, KMA assisted the City of Seattle’s Office of Housing, the lead agency in a program to transform the downtown high-rise entitlement program to a housing mitigation program. The program was restructured to make payment of a substantial housing and child care “bonus” the principal means of achieving bonus FAR for developing high-rise office and hotel buildings. KMA prepared the supporting nexus analyses and assisted the City in designing the program overall. Later, we again worked for Seattle in a rezoning program for higher density residential structures in the downtown area. We prepared a nexus analysis to support requirements for affordable units or in-lieu fee payment. KMA has also assisted the cities of Walnut Creek, Mountain View, St. Helena and San Mateo with the formulation of jobs housing nexus programs, most of which are now adopted. We have also done analyses to support a number of update and expansion programs such as for San Francisco, Sacramento, Palo Alto, Napa County, City of Napa, Cupertino and San Diego. Following is a list of our commercial nexus assignments: • Santa Cruz County • City and County of Sacramento • Emeryville • San Diego • Walnut Creek • City and County of Napa • San Francisco • Los Angeles • Seattle • Mountain View • St. Helena • Palo Alto • Cupertino • San Ramon • Menlo Park* • San Mateo • San Carlos* • Redwood City* • Irvine • Signal Hill *Project specific affordable housing needs analyses Previous Nexus Experience: Commercial 147 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 7 KMA’s first market rate residential nexus analysis was prepared for the City of Seattle in 2005. KMA had previously completed an affordable housing nexus analysis on office and hotel projects in Downtown Seattle; a few years later the City approached us to undertake an analysis that would allow the City to also charge market rate residential projects a fee for affordable housing impacts. Following the Seattle analysis, KMA performed additional market rate residential nexus analyses for San Francisco to support its inclusionary program. Altogether, KMA prepared five assignments prior to the Palmer decision. Since Palmer and Patterson, KMA has now prepared or has under preparation an additional twenty similar analyses. Post-Palmer clients have included the Cities of San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, and many smaller cities throughout the Bay Area and San Diego County. Select nexus projects, both commercial and residential, are described in further detail on the following pages. Following is a list of our residential nexus assignments: • Seattle, Washington • San Francisco* - nexus analysis in support of updated inclusionary program - nexus analysis in support of a fee on conversion of units to condominiums • San Diego* • County of Napa • Fremont • Elk Grove • Bainbridge Island, Washington • Hayward • Walnut Creek • Solana Beach • Concord • Carlsbad • City of Sacramento • County of Sacramento • Daly City • Livermore • Emeryville • San Jose • Rancho Cordova • West Hollywood • Honolulu, Hawaii • Cupertino • Richmond • Newark • San Ramon • Santa Cruz County • Mill Valley • Solana Beach *work also included study of a condominium conversion fee. Previous Nexus Experience: Residential 148 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 8 As noted previously, KMA’s first nexus analysis was in support of a Housing Trust Fund fee on all non-residential construction in Sacramento. Following adoption by the City, the Commercial Builders of Northern California (“Builders”), joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation, sued the City on a host of issues, including the sufficiency of the Keyser Marston nexus analysis. The case was first heard in federal court and the City prevailed. The Builders then appealed and the case was heard by the Ninth District Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The City again prevailed and the Builders appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the lower court’s decision and the supporting material, including the KMA nexus analysis, and refused to hear the case, issuing a Writ of Certeriori, letting stand the lower court’s ruling. Throughout the process KMA worked with attorneys, particularly the consulting attorney as well as the City Attorney, in framing the arguments for the defense. Many hours were spent brainstorming key conceptual issues surrounding nexus and its application. We played “devil’s advocate” in anticipation of questions from the judges. We at KMA have always felt that the experience of going to court, which resulted in such a thorough exploration of nexus issues, has served us well in taking on future nexus assignments of all kinds. The initial Sacramento challenge was immediately following the Nollan U. S. Supreme Court decision but before the passage of AB 1600 which articulated for California much of what we had determined was advisable for all nexus based impact fees. Following the Sacramento court experience, we worked with the same consulting attorneys on other assignments and KMA had the benefit of much attorney input on the drafting of language for our reports covering key nexus concepts, how to frame disclaimers, and other aspects of the documentation. In more recent years, we have been fortunate to have the benefit of input from other attorneys in the drafting of our residential nexus documentation. KMA has not been involved in other trials; however KMA has worked in many cities where legal threats have been made to City Councils in an effort to halt the adoption of proposed program. It has been our role to make City Councils comfortable that the subject has gone to court before and that, while not all issues associated with nexus have been tested in court, we believe the City is on solid ground with our nexus analyses. As a rule, we always welcome working with attorneys, in house or consulting, on nexus assignments. We frequently urge clients to invite their attorneys to the work sessions with staff to familiarize them with the analysis methodology and to air concerns internally before entering the public arena. KMA Experience with Legal Challenges 149 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 9 City of San Jose Key Attributes Residential Nexus Study Financial Feasibility Analysis Review of Impact Fees in Other Cities Status Program adopted in 2014 KMA has prepared a residential nexus analysis to support an impact fee on market rate rental projects in San Jose. Two prototype projects, including apartments and high rise apartments, were analyzed in the nexus analysis. Other tasks included financial feasibility, in depth comparison to impact fees in other jurisdictions, and participation in the public presentation and adoption process, including a series of stakeholder meetings. The program was adopted in Decem- ber 2014. Selected Nexus Assignments: Residential and Commercial City of Sacramento Key Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Residential Nexus Study Financial Feasibility Analysis Long Term Repeat Client Status Residential Nexus Study completed 2013 Jobs Housing adopted 1989; updated 2004 Updated nexus completed 2006; program changes not adopted at that time KMA’s nexus work commenced with a jobs-housing linkage analysis for the City and County of Sacramento, conducted in 1987. As discussed earlier, the City’s resulting ordinance was challenged through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ordinance, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it, letting stand the lower court’s decision. The suffi- ciency of the nexus was among the provisions challenged but upheld. Since then, KMA has assisted the City and Coun- ty with periodic updates to the jobs-housing nexus analysis. Earlier this year KMA completed a residential nexus and real estate financial feasibility analysis for the City of Sacra- mento, and is assisting with an overhaul to the City’s Mixed Income Housing Ordinance. As the City of Sacramento experienced severely stressed real estate condition in the Recession and the recovery has been slow, there has been a strong focus on market and financial feasibility consider- ations. 150 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 10 City of Walnut Creek Key Relevant Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Update Study Residential Nexus Study Status Original program adopted 2005 Revisions adopted 2010 KMA assisted the City with the design and adoption of both an inclusionary housing and jobs housing linkage program. Most recently, KMA prepared a residential nexus analysis in support of the City’s inclusionary housing program; the study was completed in 2010. KMA had earlier prepared a jobs housing nexus study to support a linkage program with a $5 per square foot fee on all commercial uses; the pro- gram was adopted in February 2005. Many program features were customized to meet specific concerns and opportuni- ties in this city. Both programs were the subject of an extensive hearing pro- cess and careful deliberation of all features by the Planning Commission and Council. City of Fremont Key Attributes Residential Nexus Study Broad Range of Unit Types Status Adopted 2010 Updated 2014 Keyser Marston Associates prepared a residential nexus analysis as a key component of an overall program revision to allow payment of fees as an alternative to on-site provi- sion for ownership units and impact fees for rental projects. Program revision included fees per square foot of residen- tial area to address the broad range of unit types developed within the city. Revised program was adopted in 2010. KMA developed a set of recommendations regarding impact fee levels that were ultimately incorporated into the adopt- ed ordinance. KMA prepared an update in late 2014 and adjusted fees were adopted. 151 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 11 City of San Diego Key Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Update Study Residential Nexus Study Long Term Repeat Client Status Original Jobs Housing program adopted 1990 Updated Jobs Housing fees adopted 2013 Original Residential program adopted 2003 Updated Residential Program adopted 2011 KMA has prepared and updated the City of San Diego’s jobs-housing nexus analysis several times over the course of more than 20 years of working for the City. The City of San Diego Housing Impact Fee Ordinance was established in 1990; KMA performed the nexus analysis in support of the housing impact fees. Subsequently, KMA has provided updated analyses for the City in 2004, 2008, 2010, and most recently in 2013 in relation to an update to the program adopted by the City Council in 2014. KMA also prepared a residential nexus in support of the City of San Diego’s inclusionary program which KMA had original- ly helped design and adopt in 2003. The update analysis in- cluded six residential development prototypes to represent a diversity of residential projects across the City. A significant factor addressed in the analysis was the decline in residen- tial values since the peak in 2006. KMA prepared a separate nexus analysis addendum to address condominium conver- sions. Program was adopted in 2011 following an extensive public hearing process. KMA prepared an updated jobs-housing nexus analysis for the City of Mountain View in 2012. The analysis covered three land use categories: Office/High-Tech, Commercial/ Retail/ Entertainment; and Hotel. As part of this work pro- gram, KMA conducted a review of the jobs-housing impact fee programs in other jurisdictions. In addition, KMA con- ducted an Overlap Analysis to ensure that the residential and non-residential affordable housing linkage fees did not double-count new jobs. The City adopted revisions to the program in 2012 and increased fees again in late 2014. KMA also prepared the City’s original jobs-housing analysis, which was used to support the adoption of the program in late 2001. City of Mountain View Key Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Update Study Review of Programs in Other Cities Status Original Program adopted 2001 Revisions adopted 2012 152 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 12 City of Emeryville Key Relevant Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Residential Nexus Study Review of Fees in Other Cities Status Program was adopted in 2014 KMA completed both a residential nexus analysis and a non-residential analysis for this small city. Emeryville was previously almost entirely comprised of areas under Cali- fornia Redevelopment Law and had a vigorous affordable housing program funded by the mandatory 20% set aside plus its own inclusionary requirements. With the end of redevelopment, the affordable housing program is in need of full restructuring. The KMA nexus analyses and other tasks assisted the City in overhauling its program for the era ahead. The program was adopted in 2014. City and County of Napa Key Relevant Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Residential Nexus Study Repeat Client Review of Programs in Other Cities Status Original program adopted 1994 Revisions adopted 2004 Update adopted 2014 KMA undertook an economic nexus analysis for five building types in the City and County of Napa. We also assisted with the design of a companion inclusionary housing program af- fecting all residential development. The major building types included wine production facilities. An interesting aspect of this assignment was an examination of a potential nexus in the grape growing and wine production industry. Local sur- veys were undertaken for the other building types. Program was adopted in 1994. KMA performed an update of the program and the revision was adopted in the summer of 2004. In 2009, KMA reviewed and partially updated the 2004 analysis to support reconsideration of the fee levels. KMA recently prepared a third update for the County in 2014. 153 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 13 KMA conducted a housing needs analysis for the proposed Facebook Campus in Menlo Park. The analysis utilizes the KMA jobs-housing nexus methodology to estimate the housing needs by affordability tier generated by the new employees located on the Facebook campus. The study was completed in 2011. Prior to the Facebook analysis, KMA prepared a similar analysis for the 955,000 sq. ft. Menlo Gateway project. City of Menlo Park: Facebook Campus Key Relevant Attributes Housing Needs Analysis Status Project approved 2012. City of Palo Alto: Stanford Medical Center Key Relevant Attributes Housing Needs Analysis Status Project approved KMA prepared a housing needs analysis for the proposed rebuilding and expansion of Stanford University Medical Center in the City of Palo Alto. The analysis utilizes the KMA jobs-housing nexus methodology to estimate the housing needs generated by the additional employees in the expand- ed Medical Center, taking into account the unique employ- ment profile of a Tertiary Care teaching hospital. The study was completed in 2009. 154 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 14 City of San Francisco Key Relevant Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Residential Nexus Study Status Jobs Housing update adopted 2002 Residential Nexus adopted 2007 Update to residential and non residential is currently in process KMA assisted the City in an update and expansion of its jobs housing linkage program. The analysis included a close examination of space production – primarily office – during the 1980s, and job growth, and identified many dynamics of change that did not necessarily result in net new employ- ment. Keyser Marston Associates prepared financial analyses of the existing inclusionary program plus alternative update op- tions, working intensely for several months with a task force consisting of developers, housing advocates and non-profit developers. The result was a negotiated agreement that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors with minimal debate. KMA’s work included analyzing costs, sales prices, impacts on land values and profit level on prototypical residential build- ings. KMA advised on a range of other modifications to the ordinance and program to tailor it to the wide range of condi- tions in San Francisco. The update was successfully adopted in the summer of 2006. As a follow up task, KMA worked in 2007 with the City Attor- ney’s office to prepare a residential nexus study to support the inclusionary program. The analysis was developed to support on-site requirements, the higher off-site/in lieu re- quirements, and even higher requirements for special zones anticipated to be the beneficiaries of rezoning to higher den- sity levels. Report adopted by Board of Supervisors. KMA was recently engaged to provide updated nexus analy- ses for both residential and jobs-housing linkage programs. 155 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 15 In 2003, KMA prepared an economic nexus analysis demon- strating relationships among construction of new buildings, employees, households and affordable housing demand. The City decided not to adopt a commercial linkage fee program at that time. KMA also prepared a child care nexus analysis for the City in 2004, which was adopted. City of San Mateo Key Relevant Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Status Program not adopted. City of Cupertino Key Relevant Attributes Jobs-Housing Nexus Study Inclusionary Housing Study Review of Programs in Other Cities Repeat Client Status Program adopted 2007 Update adopted 2015 The City of Cupertino first established a linkage fee in 1992 to link housing needs created by the development of office and industrial projects and provide nominal fees to support the development of affordable housing for families and individuals who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. KMA was retained by the City to update the nexus analysis based on current market conditions. The updated nexus analysis addressed office, retail and hotel developments. KMA prepared updated residential and non-residential nexus analyses in 2014/15. 156 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 16 02 Key Personnel David Doezema, a Principal of Keyser Marston, will serve as Principal in Charge of the nexus analyses. Mr. Doezema served as principal in charge or had primary responsibility for the nexus on recent KMA assignments for San Jose, San Diego, Honolulu, Fremont, Newark, and Rancho Cordova. Mr. Doezema has experience with over 15 affordable housing nexus analyses and was a leader in the development of KMA’s residential nexus methodology. Other nexus experience includes the prior KMA work for San Francisco as well as assignments for Seattle, Walnut Creek, Mountain View, Sacramento, Santa Cruz County, Emeryville, Daly City, and project-specific affordable housing analyses for the Facebook Campus in Menlo Park and the Stanford Medical Center expansion in Palo Alto. Kate Funk, a Senior Principal of Keyser Marston, will serve as Consulting Principal and advise on overall policy recommendations and program direction. She will also play a key role in the workshops and other meetings envisioned in the work scope. Over the past twenty five years, Ms. Funk has pioneered the development of nexus studies to support affordable housing policy programs and is a recognized leader in structuring affordable housing inclusionary and fee programs. Initially, Ms. Funk developed a methodology for job/housing studies to support fee programs on commercial and industrial development. Under her direction, KMA has assisted over 40 jurisdictions evaluate linkage fee options. The methodology developed by Ms. Funk was subject to a legal challenge as part of a court case brought by the Commercial Builders of Northern California against the City of Sacramento. In recent years, Ms. Funk has developed and refined residential nexus studies to link market rate housing development to the need for affordable housing, often working with lawyers to tailor the analyses and programs to the ever changing legal environment. Reed Kawahara, a Principal in the San Francisco office, will be responsible for the financial feasibility analysis. Mr. Kawahara has expertise in financial feasibility and pro forma modeling of a wide variety of land use projects including large land development/subdivisions, single family residential, multi-family residential, affordable housing, retail, and mixed use projects. He is experienced in inclusionary programs, structuring financing plans involving conventional debt instruments, tax increment, tax exempt housing bonds, tax credits, and other affordable housing programs. Harriet Ragozin, a Senior Associate at Keyser Marston, will assist with the residential and non residential nexus analyses. Harriet joined Keyser Marston Associates in 2003 and has been working on affordable housing since then. She has had a role in many nexus assignments and inclusionary programs, including much of the firm’s prior work for the City of San Francisco. She has also done extensive support work on more traditional real estate assignments, including in depth financial feasibility modeling and other tasks. With her lengthy experience in numerous nexus/inclusionary jobs in recent years, she is highly qualified to prepare the nexus technical analyses. Resumes for each of the proposed staff members are included on the following pages. This team has completed dozens of housing nexus analyses together, providing Unparalleled Experience 157 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 17 Key Role Mr. Doezema focuses on affordable housing nexus, successor agency finance, fiscal impact analysis, and financial analysis and modeling. Affordable Housing Nexus Mr. Doezema has experience with more than 15 affordable housing nexus analyses in support of affordable housing requirements on residential and non-residential development and was lead principal on KMA’s recent residential nexus assignment for the City of San Jose. Other examples include San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Mountain View, Emeryville, Daly City, Newark, Fremont, and Rancho Cordova. Affordable housing analyses for specific projects include the Facebook Campus in Menlo Park and the Stanford Medical Center expansion in Palo Alto. Successor Agency Finance Mr. Doezema assists cities and counties in relation to redevelopment dissolution including preparation and review of recognized obligation payment schedules, cash flow analyses, and fiscal consultant reports for refinance of tax allocation bonds. He has been responsible for on-going pass through calculations for all 13 successor agencies in San Mateo County on behalf the County Controller’s Office. Fiscal Impact Analysis Mr. Doezema has experience preparing fiscal impact analyses on projects throughout California, spanning a wide variety of land uses including master planned communities, military base reuse plans, medical facilities, and mixed-use projects. Sports Facilities Mr. Doezema had a key role in KMA’s services to the City of Santa Clara on the Levi’s Stadium project and negotiations with the San Francisco 49ers. Mr. Doezema was involved from the initial concept through stadium opening and was responsible for analyzing numerous aspects of the project including construction finance, funding of on-going operations of the Stadium Authority, public financing, fair market rent for the City’s land, and fiscal and economic impacts. Professional Credentials Mr. Doezema holds a master’s degree in urban planning and a bachelor’s degree in civil and environmental engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. DAVID DOEZEMA Mr. Doezema is a Principal in Keyser Marston Associates’ San Francisco office. He joined KMA in 2002. Years in the Industry 15+ Keyser Marston Associates 158 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 18 Key Role With her broad experience, Ms. Funk has managed projects involving market and financial analyses, and urban economic analyses for policy planning. Affordable Housing Nexus Studies Over the past twenty five years, Ms. Funk has pioneered the development of nexus studies to support affordable housing policy programs. Initially she developed a methodology for job housing studies to support fee programs on commercial and industrial development. Under her direction, a model to perform the analysis was developed, and since then over 25 jurisdictions have been assisted in the design of jobs- housing linkage fee programs, most of them successfully adopted. In recent years she has developed and refined residential nexus studies to link market rate housing development to the need for affordable housing. Thus far, over 20 residential nexus analyses have been completed, often working with attorneys to tailor the analyses and programs to the ever changing legal environment. Other Nexus Work In addition to the affordable housing nexus work, Ms. Funk has prepared other AB 1600 analyses, linking new development to demand for childcare, parks/open space, and the arts. Examples of cities that have adopted such programs are San Mateo, West Sacramento, Santa Monica, and Seattle. Hotel and Conference Centers Ms. Funk has focused on hotel and conference center market and financial feasibility analyses, particularly those involving an in-depth examination of demand generated by local firms and institutions. Assignments have been conducted for Santa Cruz and Mountain View where local firms were extensively interviewed to determine their role in supporting a new facility. She has also assisted numerous redevelopment agencies in hotel transactions negotiations including Santa Rosa, Sacramento, Oakland, Seaside, Fremont, and Milpitas. Professional Credentials In her professional career, Ms. Funk has been a speaker for organizations such as CRA, California League of Cities, CALED, CALALHFA, and classes at UC Berkeley and USC. She is a member of the Lambda Alpha Honorary Land Economics Society. Ms. Funk received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. KATE EARLE FUNK Ms. Funk is a founder and Senior Principal in Keyser Marston’s San Francisco office. Previously with Larry Smith and Company, she has over 40 years of experience in real estate and urban economics. Years in the Industry 40+ Keyser Marston Associates 159 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 19 Years in the Industry 20+ Key Role During his tenure at Keyser Marston, Mr. Kawahara has developed expertise in financial feasibility and pro forma modeling of a wide variety of projects. He is experienced in structuring financing plans involving conventional debt instruments, tax increment, tax exempt housing bonds, tax credits, and Community Facilities District financing. Mr. Kawahara has also advised cities and agencies in the negotiation of public-private partnership agreements ranging from small residential and retail projects to large, multi- phased new communities. Areas of Specialization: Market Analysis Mr. Kawahara is experienced in analyzing real estate markets for both commercial and residential land uses. This work has ranged from traditional market studies, to retail leakage analysis, to preparation of economic development strategies. Real Estate Financial Feasibility Mr. Kawahara is experienced in pro forma modeling and financial feasibility analysis of development projects including market studies, capital cost budgets, income and expenses, multi-year cash flow projections, sources of financing, and developer return analysis. Public-Private Partnerships Over the years, Mr. Kawahara has been instrumental in negotiating partnerships between public agencies and private developers for a wide range of complex development projects including mixed-use, transit-oriented development (TOD), residential, and various retail/ office projects. Professional Credentials Mr. Kawahara received a B.A. in political science from the University of California, Davis and a master’s degree in political science and urban studies from San Francisco State University. He is a member of ICSC, the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, SPUR, and a former member of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency South Beach-Rincon Point Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Kawahara is a frequent presenter on real estate economic and financial feasibility issues to such groups as CRA, APA, NPH, CSMFO, and graduate courses at local universities. REED KAWAHARA A Principal in Keyser Marston Associates’ San Francisco office, Mr. Kawahara has over 20 years of experience in urban planning, financial feasibility, real estate development, and market analysis. Before joining KMA, Mr. Kawahara worked in real estate development with BRIDGE Housing Corporation. ! Keyser Marston Associates 160 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 20 Affordable Housing Policy Ms. Ragozin has worked extensively on affordable housing policy analyses, including inclusionary housing analyses, in-lieu fee studies, jobs-housing nexus analyses and residential nexus analyses. Former inclusionary housing and in-lieu fee work includes studies conducted for the cities of San Francisco, Palo Alto, Cupertino, Napa, Novato, and Campbell, among others. Typical tasks include the evaluation of development economics, the calculation of full cost recovery in-lieu fees for ownership and rental projects, and the evaluation of alternative program structures. She has conducted jobs-housing nexus analyses, which quantify the linkages between construction of new commercial buildings and affordable housing demand, for Napa, San Diego, Walnut Creek, Sacramento, Cupertino and others. In addition to a quantitative nexus analysis, typical tasks also include evaluation of proposed fee levels in the context of local real estate economics, recommended fee levels, and surveys of similar fees in other jurisdictions. She has also conducted many residential nexus analyses, which quantify the linkages between new market rate residential development and the demand for affordable housing, for many jurisdictions including Fremont, Hayward, Napa County, San Francisco and others. Residential Financial Analyses Ms. Ragozin has assisted in the assessment of market and financial feasibility analyses for proposed residential developments. Projects include market rate housing, affordable housing, and mixed-use projects. Such services have been provided in the cities of Santa Rosa, San Jose, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Redwood City, San Leandro, Union City, and others. Child Care Nexus Analyses Ms. Ragozin has conducted child care nexus analyses linking new real estate development to the demand for child care facilities in the jurisdiction. Example cities include San Mateo, San Francisco, and Redwood City. Professional Credentials Ms. Ragozin holds a master’s degree in public policy from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a bachelor’s degree in economics from Williams College. HARRIET G. RAGOZIN Ms. Ragozin is a Senior Associate in Keyser Marston Associates’ San Francisco office. She joined KMA in 2003 and has participated in affordable housing and child care nexus analyses, inclusionary housing analyses, residential and commercial real estate feasibility analyses, redevelopment tax increment projections, and market assessments. Years in the Industry 10+ Keyser Marston Associates 161 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 21 03 Scope of Services The following scope of services is for the preparation of residential and non-residential affordable housing nexus analyses for jurisdictions participating in a multi-jurisdic- tion effort. These affordable housing nexus analyses will enable jurisdictions to adopt housing impact fees and pro- vide support for inclusionary housing requirements. The effort will be focused on jurisdictions within Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. It is anticipated that six jurisdic- tions in Santa Clara County and four jurisdictions in Ala- meda County will participate including Campbell, Los Altos, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Saratoga, the County of Santa Clara, Fremont, Union City, San Leandro, and Albany. The scope of services and proposed budget assume that if San Jose participates, it will have a separate but parallel contract and scope of services. For Fremont, only a non-residential nexus analysis is needed. The scope of services provides for the preparation of individual nexus analyses for each jurisdiction to establish jurisdiction-specific maximum affordable housing impact fee levels for residential and commercial development. The residential nexus scope provides for an analysis of both for-sale and rental housing as part of the base scope of services. The San Jose case clarified that a nexus analysis is not needed to support inclusionary housing requirements (a nexus remains necessary to support requirements on rental projects under Palmer); however, a nexus analysis is still recommended on for-sale projects if requirements will apply to small projects or single units. In addition, potentially, some communities may wish to adopt impact fees for ownership projects in place of inclusionary requirements. For-sale units are included in the scope of work to provide jurisdictions with the flexibility to decide later whether or not for-sale units should be included in the nexus report. A series of optional services are described that individual jurisdictions may wish to consider in addition to the basic scope of services. Optional services would include assis- tance with any custom or special analyses required by individual jurisdictions, assistance with program customi- zation and participation in stakeholder meetings and public hearings as part of the adoption process. Project Initiation and Analysis Parameters To initiate the work program, a “kick-off” conference call will be held (possibly using a “webinar” format) with all the participating jurisdictions. The purpose of the initial call will be to walk through the scope, time line, and analysis approach, and outline some of the assumptions and analy- sis choices that we will be seeking feedback on during the first in-person workshop. We would also prepare a written data request list which we could review as part of the call. Data to be requested is generally readily available and will not require time consuming digging or compilation on the part of staff). The kick-off call will be followed by an in-person workshop in which staff of all the participating jurisdictions would participate. We anticipate the workshop to be held approx- imately 4-6 weeks into the work program. In advance of the work session, KMA will review available existing docu- ments such as housing elements, stock of affordable units, construction trends, and other relevant materials. We would also conduct some initial market research to help facilitate an informed discussion of residential prototypes. KMA expects initial analysis decisions to be discussed as part of the workshop would include: • Land use categories to be addressed in the commer- cial nexus study and major commercial projects in the pipeline. • Prototypical residential projects for each of the juris- dictions to be used as a starting point in the conduct of the residential nexus analysis (building types, densi- ties, etc.). The prototypes can be adjusted following completion of the market evaluation, but an initial discussion at this stage is often useful. Given the range of market conditions experienced in Santa Clara and Alameda counties, we expect the relevant residential prototypes, pricing and rent levels to vary significantly between the participating jurisdictions. • Housing affordability levels or income tiers to be ad- dressed in the residential and commercial nexus anal- yses (e.g. Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moder- ate); the selected affordability levels should align with expectations for spending the fee revenues. 162 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 22 • Affordability gaps will be discussed in concept and in terms of analysis decisions such as typical affordable units to be assisted at each affordability tier and the choice of assuming availability of tax credits to offset the cost of producing affordable units. • Selection of up to six (6) jurisdictions (in addition to the participating jurisdictions) for inclusion in a survey of affordable housing requirements as described in Task 4. An assumption of this proposal is that Baird and Driskell will assist with organization and facilitation throughout the assignment including the kickoff conference call, the initial all hands workshop and collection of requested data from individual jurisdictions. TASK 1: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES This task includes preparation of residential nexus analyses to support potential affordable housing impact fees and requirements on residential development. The tasks in this section provide the technical analysis demonstrating the linkages between new market units and the demand for more affordable units. This analysis meets the needs of the California Code for the implementation of impact fees, or AB 1600 type mitigation fees. The overall concept of the nexus analysis is as follows: Residents of new market rate residential units generate demand for services ranging from retail and restaurants to health care, education, and government. KMA’s method- ology tracks and quantifies a series of steps commencing with the price or rent levels of the new market rate unit, the income of the household that buys or rents it, the consumption of goods and services of the household, the new jobs generated by that consumption, and the fact that some of the jobs have lower paying compensation levels that result in new worker households needing affordable housing. The steps of the analysis include: 1. Identification of Market Rate Residential Proto- types Applicable to Each Jurisdiction KMA’s practice when preparing a nexus analysis for a single jurisdiction is to conduct market surveys and describe prototype projects that represent the typical range of market rate projects in that jurisdiction. For this multi-ju- risdictional effort, we anticipate that six to ten residential prototypes will be sufficient to address the range of densi- ties and configurations likely to be experienced across the participating jurisdictions. However, while the prototypes will apply to multiple jurisdictions, the price and rent levels will be customized. The result will be nexus analyses that are customized to each jurisdiction based on: • Inclusion of only those residential prototypes that are relevant to the individual jurisdiction; and • Customized price and rent levels reflective of the mar- ket conditions of each individual jurisdiction. KMA will develop a draft set of residential development prototypes representative of the types of projects likely to be experienced across the participating jurisdictions for discussion at the initial workshop. We would then follow up with individual jurisdictions with the assistance of Baird and Driskell as needed to refine the prototype assump- tions. Any final adjustments to prototypes could be made following the meeting to review the complete draft of the technical analysis. 2. Market Survey The selected residential prototypes will be articulated with prices and rents applicable to each jurisdiction based upon a market survey. KMA will utilize market data from pub- lished and purchased data sources from firms such as Real Estate Economics and Real Facts. For jurisdictions that have experienced little recent res- idential development activity, it may be necessary to estimate pricing or rents. KMA can estimate pricing by making adjustments from projects in other jurisdictions or utilizing other data sources such as resales from older existing projects. 163 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 23 3. Residential Nexus Analyses KMA’s nexus analysis tracks and quantifies a series of steps commencing with the price and rent levels of the new mar- ket rate residential units, the income of the household that buys or rents it, the consumption of goods and services of the household, the new jobs generated by that consump- tion, and the fact that some of the jobs have lower paying compensation levels that result in new worker households needing affordable housing. KMA’s nexus analysis methodology uses two models to perform the nexus analysis. It is a methodology developed more than ten years ago as part of as assignment for the City of Seattle and used in more than twenty subsequent residential nexus assignments since then. The overall concept is as follows: Residents of new market rate units generate demand for services ranging from retail and restaurants to health care, education, and govern- ment. KMA’s methodology tracks and quantifies a series of steps commencing with the price or rent of the new market rate unit, the income of the household that buys or rents it, the household consumption of goods and services, the new jobs generated by that consumption, and the fact that some of the jobs have lower paying compensa- tion levels that result in new worker households needing affordable housing. The steps used in KMA’s analysis are as follows: Step One: Household Income for Residents of New Market Rate Units – Household income and purchasing power of residents in new market rate residential units is estimated based upon the price and rent levels. Price and rent levels are established based on market research on projects sell- ing and renting in each jurisdiction. Household income is then estimated based on the income needed to qualify for a mortgage or lease for the prototype units. Step Two: Demand for Goods and Services and Resulting Jobs – Household incomes from step one are input into the commercially available IMPLAN model to estimate the jobs generated at establishments that serve new residents. All jobs serving new residents from restaurants, to retail, to schools, to healthcare are included. The IMPLAN mod- el was developed roughly twenty-five years ago and has been refined over the years. It is widely used in planning applications throughout the U.S. Data sets specific to Santa Clara and Alameda Counties are utilized in the model. The analysis is almost always run to measure the impact within the county in which the jurisdiction is located, creating effi- ciencies in running all of the jurisdictions at the same time. Step Three: Compensation Levels and Affordable Housing Demand of Workers – KMA’s jobs-housing nexus model is used to estimate affordable housing demand of the retail, education, health care and other workers who provide goods and services to new residents. The KMA jobs hous- ing nexus model was developed over 25 years ago for jobs housing impact fee programs and refined over the years. The model analyzes compensation levels of workers using detailed local data by occupation. Compensation levels for jobs are then converted to a distribution of household income that accounts for multiple-earner households. The output of the KMA model is the number of employee households at various income affordability levels. The conclusion of the nexus analysis is the number of worker households, by affordability level, associated with each new market rate unit. The number of worker house- holds quantified in the analysis conclusion varies depend- ing on the price/rent level starting point of the analysis and the square foot size of the unit used to bring the analysis conclusions down to the per square foot level. In a subse- quent task, the cost of delivering affordable units to the worker households is determined to enable findings to be converted into a maximum supported fee level per unit or per square foot. For this multi-jurisdiction effort, we will prepare two separate “base” residential nexus technical analyses which reflect the separate county-specific income limits, census demographic information, and IMPLAN data sets that are applicable to Santa Clara and Alameda counties. The base technical analyses for the two counties will then be adapt- ed for each jurisdiction using inputs specific to each of the participating jurisdictions. 164 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 24 TASK 2: NON-RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSES Non-residential nexus analyses will be prepared to support potential jobs housing linkage fee programs for each of the jurisdictions that request these services. 1. Economic Overview and Review of Market Conditions The tasks in this section provide contextual information regarding commercial development trends and expected future patterns in the participating jurisdictions. KMA will research trends in commercial development in Santa Clara County and review non-residential projects in the pipeline in the various jurisdictions. The review of market condi- tions is intended to provide context for understanding the diversity of market conditions, development prototypes, and end users of commercial space likely to be seen in the participating jurisdictions in the coming years and will serve as a foundation for identification and articulation of non-residential prototypes. 2. Building Type Selection for Non-Residential Nexus Analysis KMA will work with each jurisdiction to identify a set of commercial development prototypes that provide a repre- sentative cross section of commercial development expect- ed to occur in the coming years. Prototypes are expected to span retail, office, and hotel uses. Additional prototypes such as medical office, research and development/ biotech, and/or other non-residential use categories may be consid- ered based on input and discussions with staff and findings of the review of market conditions. KMA has customarily used prototypes of 100,000 square feet in size to make the steps of the analysis easier for readers to follow and compare by land use. The results are in all cases converted to the per square foot level in the final steps of the analysis so that the conclusions may be applied to projects of any size. If there is a desire to represent prototype sizes that are more representative of actual project sizes, we are certain- ly willing to modify this customary approach, as we have recently done for another commercial nexus assignment. 3. Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis This section produces the quantitative nexus analysis that meets the requirements of AB 1600 to demonstrate the re- lationships between the construction of the building types under study and the mitigation required (the impact fee). KMA has developed a methodology to perform the nex- us analysis in a highly efficient manner. The analysis uses employment data drawn from readily available, published government sources that provide cross matrices of oc- cupations by industry types, and local, recent compen- sation data from the state Employment Development Department, which are updated regularly. KMA updates and refines the methodology frequently, to ensure that it continues to reflect best practices. For ease of analysis and understanding, we normally conduct the analysis on prototype buildings of 100,000 square feet (as discussed above, building sizes could also be modified to reflect representative project sizes). At the conclusion of the analysis, the findings are divided by the building size to express the linkage in fractions of housing units. The maximum supported mitigation fee is ultimately expressed on a dollar-per-square-foot basis. The analysis will contain the following steps or subtasks: • Category or Building Type Definition –The types of buildings to be addressed in the study will be defined in the course of the work effort based on recent trends and expected development patterns over the next several years. • Translation to Number of Employees – The findings on employment density and trends from the macro level nexus task, above, will be utilized in this section to estimate the number of employees associated with the prototype 100,000 square foot building. • Adjustments for Workers Per Household – Using U.S. Census data, the number of employees will be ad- justed to the number of households, recognizing that many households have more than one working mem- ber. 165 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 25 • Allocation of Employee Households to Income Cat- egories – The nexus analysis then distributes the employees into an allocation by occupation and from occupation to income level using local wage and sal- ary inputs. To calculate household income, the model employs a distribution of the number of workers per household by household size. For example, four-per- son households can have one, two, three, or four workers in the household. The model uses Census data to develop a distribution of the number of work- ers per worker household, by household size. The new employee households are then placed into income categories based on household size and household income. • Conclusions on the Number of Households at Each Income Category – The conclusions are first expressed for the total prototype building and then converted to the per square foot level. The analysis produces find- ings on the number of housing units for each income classification. For this multi-jurisdiction effort, two separate “base” jobs housing nexus technical analyses will be prepared which reflect the separate county-specific income limits and census demographic information applicable to Santa Clara and Alameda counties. The base jobs housing nexus analyses for the two counties will then be adapted to each of the participating jurisdictions. TASK 3: AFFORDABILITY GAPS AND MAXI- MUM FEE LEVELS SUPPORTED This task provides the dollar link between the residential and non-residential nexus findings (from the prior tasks) and the cost of mitigation to determine the maximum justifiable fee levels. This link is made through the applica- tion of a set of affordability gaps which represent the net cost or subsidy required to produce affordable units for new worker households. 1. Affordability Gaps The mitigation cost is the cost to deliver the affordable units in demand, as concluded in the residential and non-residential nexus analyses. The mitigation cost per unit is the affordability gap, or the difference between the cost to develop the affordable unit and the affordable price or unit value. The affordability gap depends on the afford- ability level in question (i.e. Very Low, Low, and Moderate). Affordable sales prices and rent levels are determined based on Area Median Income. An affordability gap will be established at each affordability level to be analyzed in the nexus. The scope assumes three to four sets of affordability gaps will be developed that are representative of development costs within different geographic subareas, for example: • West Valley (i.e. Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, Los Altos, others) • Silicon Valley Core Cities (i.e. Santa Clara, Milpitas) • Central East Bay (i.e. Union City, San Leandro) • North East Bay (Albany) – could be merged with Union City and San Leandro pending the results of the analy- sis. Final selection of the appropriate geographic subareas for purposes of the affordability gap analysis will be based on input from participating jurisdictions and affordable unit development cost information assembled in the course of the work effort. While Fremont may be closely linked with the other Silicon Valley communities, due to its location in Alameda County with its separate income limits, it will either need to be grouped with the Alameda County cities for affordability gap purposes or occupy its own separate category. Development costs should reflect a lower end average cost experience for delivering affordable units within each of the identified geographic sub-areas. Very Low and Low Income Households are generally assumed to be accom- modated in rental units (as opposed to ownership units). Typically we assemble development cost information on 166 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 26 built or pipeline 100% affordable projects. For the mod- erate income tier, affordability gaps are typically based on a modest for-sale product such as a townhome or condominium. We assume Baird and Driskell will facilitate access to information about such projects in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. The affordability gap analysis can be conducted with or without the assumption of federal tax credits and low cost financing availability, an analysis decision to be discussed as part of the initial work session as described above. 2. Mitigation Cost and Maximum Fees The affordability gap for each income level is applied to the number of affordable units required to mitigate increased affordable housing demand from Tasks 1 and 2 to produce the total nexus cost, or the highest fee level supported by the nexus analyses. For the residential nexus analyses, findings may be ex- pressed either on a per market rate unit basis, on a per square foot basis, or both. Each of the residential proto- types identified at the outset of the nexus analysis with market prices and rents tailored for each jurisdiction will produce a different impact fee level. The conclusion of this task will be maximum supported fee levels from a legal or nexus perspective for each market rate prototype in each of the participating communities. For the non-residential nexus analyses, findings will be ex- pressed in terms of the maximum supported fee level per square foot of building area for each of the non-residential development prototypes identified in the analysis. 3. Overlap Analyses For jurisdictions that pursue fees on both commercial and residential, KMA recommends that an analysis of poten- tial overlap be prepared. There is a degree of overlap between jobs included in the residential and commercial nexus analyses. The extreme example is a mixed-use retail/ residential project where the retail almost exclusively serves the new residents in the project. In this instance, residential and commercial nexus analyses would each be counting some of the same jobs. While there is some overlap that needs to be addressed, a commercial nexus analysis typically counts many jobs that are not included in the residential nexus and vice versa. KMA has developed a methodology that examines the potential for overlap and demonstrates that the combined residential and commer- cial fees do not exceed the amount supported by the nexus after accounting for potential overlap. 4. Internal Review and Adjustment The results of the initial draft residential and non-resi- dential nexus analyses, affordability gap calculations from Tasks 1 through 3 will be refined, calibrated, and summa- rized in a concise format suitable for internal review. At this point we suggest an all hands meeting to discuss results and further options for fine-tuning analysis assumptions and inputs. Once the technical analysis has been final- ized, KMA will proceed to the report drafting phase. Each jurisdiction will also need to decide whether for-sale units are to be included in the residential nexus analysis before report drafting can begin. TASK 4: TASKS TO ASSIST WITH SELECTING FEE LEVELS 1. Summary of residential and non-residential fees in other jurisdictions KMA will survey affordable housing requirements on market rate apartment development and non-residential development for each of the participating jurisdictions plus up to six additional comparison jurisdictions. a. Residential Requirements – The survey will address affordable housing requirements applicable to rental residential development and will provide a summa- ry of key ordinance features such as thresholds and onsite alternatives. The results of the survey will be summarized in one or more charts. A brief narra- tive will summarize the key conclusions that may be drawn from the comparison. 167 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 27 b. Non-residential requirements – KMA will prepare a chart containing a comprehensive listing of jurisdic- tions that have commercial linkage fees in place. The chart will include an identification of fee levels by building type as well as a summary of key ordinance features such as thresholds and exemptions. KMA has previously assembled most of this information for oth- er assignments. A brief narrative will summarize the key conclusions that may be drawn from the chart. 2. Residential Financial Feasibility In adopting new fee programs, many jurisdictions find it informative to have an accompanying real estate financial feasibility analysis which analyzes the impacts that fees can have on the financial feasibility of new construction. Adoption of fees on new construction can be contentious with the development community and financial feasibility concerns are often raised by developers. It is for this rea- son that KMA sometimes incorporates a financial feasibility component to accompany our nexus analyses. KMA will prepare an analysis of financial feasibility for apartment projects located within each of four geographic sub areas which, as an example, could be defined as: • West Valley Cities (i.e. Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, Los Altos, others). • Silicon Valley Core Cities (i.e. Santa Clara, Milpitas, Fremont) • East Bay Central (i.e. San Leandro, Union City) • East Bay North (Albany) The financial feasibility analysis will be intended to provide a representative picture of current apartment feasibili- ty conditions within each of the four geographic areas. The focus of the feasibility analysis will be on apartment projects based on the expectation that many jurisdictions will consider impact fee requirements on apartments only based on the San Jose decision which allows existing inclusionary requirements on for-sale projects to remain in place without a need for nexus support. The feasibility analysis will be illustrative and will not analyze specific projects in specific locations on specific sites. Representa- tive figures for rent levels and fees and permit costs will need to be used for each of the sub areas understanding conditions may vary within individual communities. We will conduct the financial feasibility analysis for two apartment prototypes, which we anticipate to include a higher-density prototype with structured parking and a lower-density apartment prototype with surface parking. A survey of market rents will already have been conducted as part of the base nexus study but other feasibility compo- nents such as land costs, construction costs, and developer returns will need to be analyzed. The financial feasibility analysis will be presented as a residual land value analysis that identifies land values sup- ported by current development economics. Residual land values can then be compared against recent land sales to draw conclusions about financial feasibility. As part of the financial feasibility analysis, KMA will analyze the impact potential fee requirements would have on the financial feasibility of residential development. Pro formas model- ing the development economics of selected prototypical apartment projects will be prepared, first assuming 100% market rate projects. The pro formas will then be used as a tool to evaluate and test the ability of new apartment developments to absorb the cost of potential affordable housing fee requirements. Development Costs – KMA will estimate the cost to devel- op each prototype. Key cost components include: on-site improvements, vertical construction costs, parking costs, architectural and engineering fees, impact and planning fees, financing costs, overhead costs, and all other “indi- rect” costs of construction. These estimates will be based on KMA’s database of cost data from similar residential projects, third party data sources, as well as contacts with members of the development community. It is assumed that participating jurisdictions will provide an estimate of applicable impact and permit fee requirements and that Baird and Driskell will facilitate the collection and assembly of this information. 168 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 28 Apartment Values – KMA will use the data gathered in the market survey to estimate current rental rates for apart- ment prototypes. Additionally, KMA will collect and eval- uate the prices of recently sold apartment complexes and the capitalization rates reflected in the prices to the extent available. We obtain market data from a variety of sources including Dataquick, CoStar, Real Facts, and current mar- ket listings for new apartments on the market. Other data helpful in understanding market conditions includes build- ing permit data and trends (Construction Industry Research Board), residential absorption rates and inventories, and residential pipeline projects. It is assumed that jurisdictions will provide information on recently completed and pipeline apartment projects by completing a KMA-prepared template outlining the basic requested information such as number of units, average unit size, construction type, and number of stories. It is assumed that Baird and Driskell will coordinate the collec- tion of information about pipeline apartment projects from each jurisdiction. Warranted Investment and Financial Feasibility – In order for a new development project to be financially feasible, the projected income/revenues must exceed the devel- opment costs enough to generate a return (profit) to the developer that adequately recognizes the development risks. As a function of the large volume of residential proj- ects KMA evaluates at any given time, we are well attuned to the developer return thresholds that are required by the private marketplace. To supplement our own sources, we also utilize third party sources to adjust developer return thresholds and cap rates including Real Estate Research Corporation (RERC) and Korpacz Investor Survey, both of which provide regular updates on the housing market. Testing – KMA will utilize the financial feasibility anal- ysis to test the viability of potential affordable housing fee requirements. If the analysis indicates the potential requirements are not currently viable, KMA will estimate the degree to which land values would need to decrease or apartment rents would need to increase to render the requirements feasible. 3. Non-Residential Total Development Costs Understanding existing and proposed non-residential fee levels in the context of total development costs is another consideration that many cities include in their fee setting discussions. This task allows potential fee levels to be framed in terms of a percentage of the total development costs. Because fee levels for non-residential development tend to be far lower relative to costs compared to residen- tial, full financial feasibility testing is usually not warranted. This analysis evaluates the cost but not the rental income side of the financial feasibility equation. Total development costs inclusive of local land costs, local fees and all indirect costs will be summarized in the analysis. KMA will prepare total development cost summaries for non-residential development located within three to four geographic subareas which, as an example, could be de- fined as: • West Valley Cities (i.e. Los Gatos, Saratoga, Campbell, Los Altos, others). • Silicon Valley Core Cities (i.e. Santa Clara, Milpitas, Fremont) • East Bay (i.e. San Leandro, Union City, Albany) For this task, KMA would first identify prototype projects for each of the non-residential land uses (office, retail, etc.) within each of the subareas. KMA would review information on projects in the pipeline to ensure that the prototypes represent projects that are likely to occur over the next several years. For each of the sub areas, KMA will analyze three to five non-residential prototypes. It is assumed that jurisdictions will provide information on major pipeline projects through completion of a KMA-pre- pared template outlining the basic information requested such as square footage, construction type, parking con- figuration, and number of stories. It is assumed that Baird and Driskell will coordinate collection of information about non-residential pipeline projects from each jurisdiction. 169 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 29 Once prototypes have been established, KMA would esti- mate the cost to develop each prototype. KMA could esti- mate total development costs including estimates for land acquisition, on-site land improvements, vertical construc- tion costs, parking costs, and indirects. These estimates will be based on existing analyses done for the City, infor- mation that KMA has on similar projects, as well as data provided by members of the development community. It is assumed that participating jurisdictions will provide an estimate of applicable impact and permit fee requirements and that Baird and Driskell will facilitate the collection and assembly of this information. 4. Small For-Sale Project Fee Context One of the purposes of conducting the residential nexus analysis on for-sale projects will be to support potential fee requirements on smaller for-sale projects. While inclusion- ary requirements applicable to for-sale units do not require nexus support as affirmed by the recent San Jose decision, when requirements apply to small projects where on-site compliance is not practical, nexus support for fee alterna- tives is still recommended. To provide context for fees that apply to small for-sale projects, KMA will put potential fee levels in the context of a percentage of the sales prices for market rate units to assist in evaluating the likelihood that proposed require- ments would influence development decisions. TASK 5: WRITTEN PRODUCTS AND REPORTS 1. Residential and Non-Residential Nexus Reports KMA will prepare separate nexus study reports for each of the participating jurisdictions. Each report will include a description of the analysis, the methodology, the assump- tions, and the findings. The reports will be supported by tables, data, and other materials relevant to the analysis. Separate reports will be provided for the residential and non-residential nexus analyses. The explanation of nexus analysis approach and assumptions will be similar across the reports for each jurisdiction. KMA will prepare draft nexus reports for all of the ju- risdictions more or less concurrently unless there is a desire to prioritize reports for certain jurisdictions based upon specific timing needs. Before we can begin drafting the reports, we will need to have finalized the technical analysis and confirmed with individual jurisdictions as to whether for-sale units are to be included as part of the nexus report. If requested, KMA could provide examples of residential and non-residential nexus reports in advance to provide an early opportunity for feedback on the report “template” to be used. KMA will provide one draft and one final version of each report. Additional interim drafts for individual jurisdictions may be provided on a time and materials basis. We also anticipate an all hands conference call following circulation of the drafts to review any general comments. All jurisdictions will be responsible for providing a single set of consolidated written comments on the draft reports. 2. Summary and Recommendations Report A concise summary report covering all the analyses and recommendations will be prepared for the adoption pro- cess. The summary and recommendations report would be written for the general public and decision makers, laying out the analysis and conclusions and the context of the recommendations. Recommendations applicable to resi- dential development will focus on requirements for rental projects and small for-sale projects. All other materials would be appendix documents for those interested in the detail and for reference in the ordinance language. TASK 6: MEETINGS AND COMMUNICATIONS KMA is recommending the following meetings and confer- ence calls during the conduct of this assignment: In-Person Workshops 1. Initial Workshop – the initial workshop is envisioned approximately 4 – 6 weeks into the work program and would follow a kick-off conference call. The workshop 170 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 30 will include a walk-through of the analysis methodology. A primary objective will be to obtain input into some key analysis decisions such as the income tiers to be ad- dressed in the analysis and the residential and non-res- idential prototypes. KMA will have conducted some initial market research to enable an informed discussion of potential residential and non-residential prototypes. 2. Interim Workshop – Work session following completion of an initial draft of all the key nexus analysis findings to discuss any final refinements to be considered before moving to the report drafting stage. We expect each workshop to run approximately 3 hours in length. KMA will prepare materials in advance including power point presentations and hand out materials such as outlines for discussion, data request lists, etc. For the initial workshop, KMA will present initial prototypes (residential and non-residential), income definition specifics, affordabili- ty gap materials, etc. We will include examples from else- where to illustrate how material are assembled and used. The Interim Workshop will focus on analysis results and how the results should be used, and discussion of programs and process for adoption. All sessions are expected to be inter- active and allow staff to ask questions to make sure partici- pants understand the analysis and process. All-Hands Conference Calls In addition to the in-person workshops, we assume three all-hands phone conferences will be held including a kick- off conference call, a call to review the initial report drafts, and one additional call to be scheduled as-needed. Individual Jurisdiction Communications We are assuming a limited level of one-on-one communi- cation by phone and e-mail with individual participating jurisdictions to discuss prototype selection or other jurisdic- tion-specific issues that cannot be addressed as part of all hands workshops and conference calls. However, this pro- posal assumes that Baird and Driskell will serve as the first point of contact to jurisdictions throughout the assignment. It is assumed that Baird and Driskell will coordinate all meetings so staff can meet at the same time. In person meetings will be supplemented with phone and e-mail communication with the Silicon Valley Community Founda- tion, Baird + Driskell, and participating jurisdictions. Proposal Assumption: Common Approach To deliver the nexus studies cost effectively, KMA is propos- ing that the analyses and reports be standardized in certain respects. We believe standardization can be accomplished without compromise to the validity of the findings or legal defensibility. Additional customization, if desired by some jurisdictions, could be addressed as an optional service. The following elements are proposed to be standardized across each of the nexus analyses: • Nexus technical analyses – the nexus analyses will be based on a common approach and a common set of assumptions. Residential prototypes and pricing will vary by jurisdiction; however, most of the other un- derlying assumptions of the technical analysis will be consistent across jurisdictions. • Commercial Prototypes – the nexus studies will ad- dress a common set of commercial development prototypes representative of the breadth of commer- cial development expected to be experienced across the participating jurisdictions. The reports will address the fact that not all prototypes are likely to be built in every jurisdiction. • Affordability Levels / Income Tiers – the nexus analy- ses will address a common set of housing affordability levels (i.e. Very Low, Low, Moderate, etc.). Other tiers can be included if desired, Extremely Low or Median for example. • Reports – The residential and non-residential nexus technical reports for all jurisdictions are assumed to have a standardized format with largely common ex- planatory text and exhibits. 171 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 31 OPTIONAL SERVICES The following optional tasks are focused on assistance with program customization, additional meeting participation, and assistance with the adoption process. Optional ser- vices are not included as part of the proposed budget. For optional services, we are providing an indicative budget range rather than a firm price proposal. Costs for optional services will vary depending on the specific needs of indi- vidual jurisdictions. Optional Task A. Financial Feasibility Analysis – Addi- tional Customization or Testing An analysis of real estate financial feasibility for market rate apartment projects is included as part of the basic scope of service. The analysis will provide an analysis for four geographic sub areas but will not be jurisdiction-spe- cific. Individual jurisdictions may wish for further customi- zation to fine tune the analysis to their specific jurisdiction and / or test additional scenarios. KMA can provide addi- tional customization and testing for individual jurisdictions on a time and materials basis. Some jurisdictions may also be interested in analyzing the financial feasibility of for-sale projects. Optional Task B. Policy Evaluation/Fee Recommen- dations This additional service would entail review of the jurisdic- tions key policy documents that address housing (Housing Element, etc.), review of local market strength for residen- tial and non-residential development and other factors affecting selection of fee levels recommended to take forward for adoption. For cities that have inclusionary pro- grams that require on-site affordable units, KMA will ana- lyze the cost to the project (per market rate unit and per square foot of each market rate prototype) of the on-site requirement so that impact fee levels can be understood in the context of the on-site requirement. Following KMA review of materials and analysis of inclusionary require- ments, we would meet with the jurisdiction to discuss recommendations. In many ways, this is a more policy based, more in-depth and more customized approach to recommendations com- pared to that which will be provided in the Basic Services part of the work program. Costs will range from $2,500 to $5,000 for most jurisdic- tions. Cost range depends on number of prototypes, range of conditions within the jurisdiction, and whether there is an inclusionary program that has on-site units. Optional Task C. Local Program Customization This task offers a level of services beyond fee levels, indicated in the previous task. A fee program may include thresholds for compliance, step ups, phase in. Also cer- tain exemptions are common and need to be determined before a program is taken forward to adoption. We can also assist with findings language for the ordinance(s) and provide sample ordinances. Finally, we could arrange to subcontract with a legal services firm to draft the ordi- nance(s). Costs are anticipated to range from $1,500 to $3,000 (excluding additional legal). Optional Task D. Assistance with the Adoption Pro- cess / Additional Meetings KMA may be contracted to attend meetings and/or make presentations to Commissions, Councils and Boards. For presentations, KMA will prepare a power point and work with staff to integrate the material. Also, meetings with stakeholder groups could be added to the work program. In general, $1,500 per meeting plus expenses should be anticipated, plus an additional $1,000 for a power point and coordination with staff. 172 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 32 04 Timeline The following is an illustrative schedule for the multi-jurisdiction effort. We are anticipating the process from initiation of the assignment to completion of all work products will take approximately 8.5 months. We are happy to discuss schedule modifications that may be needed to better align with specific objectives of the participating jurisdictions. Task / Milestone Approximate Timing * All Hands Conference Call to Initiate Assignment Week 2 Initial Workshop with all jurisdictions Week 6 Completion of Initial Draft of all Technical Analyses Week 18 Second All-hands Workshop to review draft analyses Week 20 Completion of draft Non-Residential Reports (all 11 reports)Week 25 Completion of draft Residential Reports (all 10 reports)Week 27 Comments due back on Non-Residential Reports Week 27 Comments due back on Residential Reports Week 29 All Hands Conference Call to Review Comments Week 30 Final Reports Week 35 *measured from contract execution and authorization to proceed unless otherwise noted. We would also appreciate a two week hiatus over the holidays, with the ensuing dates adjusted accordingly. 173 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 33 05 Budget Total Budget (Shown @ 10 Jurisdictions) Task 1 - Residential Nexus 1 Prototype Selection for Each Jurisdiction $4,500 2 Market Survey $20,000 3 Nexus analysis $39,000 Subtotal Task 1 $63,500 Task 2 - Non-Residential Nexus 1 Review of Market Conditions $6,500 2 Non-Residential Building Type Selection $10,000 3 Jobs Housing Nexus - # of units supported $22,000 Subtotal Task 2 $38,500 Task 3 - Affordability Gaps and Maximum Fee Levels Supported 1 Affordability Gap Analysis (4 subregions)$16,000 2 Mitigation Cost and Maximum Fees a. Residential $9,000 b. Non-Residential $10,000 3 Overlap Analysis $20,000 Subtotal Task 3 $55,000 Task 4 - Tasks to Assist in Setting Fee Levels 1 $4,500 2 Financial Feasibility: Apartments (4 subregions)$35,000 3 Non-Residential Dvlpmt Cost (4 subregions)$25,000 4 Small for-sale project fee context $2,500 Subtotal Task 4 $67,000 Task 5 - Written Products and Reports 1 Residential Nexus - base report $5,000 Customization to each jurisdiction $17,000 2 Non-Residential Nexus - base report $3,000 Customization to each jurisdiction $20,000 3 Summary and Recommendations Reports $25,000 Subtotal Task 5 $70,000 Task 6 - Meetings and Communications 1 Kickoff Workshop with all jurisdictions $5,500 2 Individual jurisdiction communication $10,000 3 Workshop with all jurisdictions on results $5,000 4 All hands conf. calls (@3, w/3-4 KMA staff) $3,375 $Subtotal Task 6 $23,875 Reimbursable Expenses $4,000 Total - Base Scope of Services $321,875 Total Cost Per Jurisdiction @10 Jurisdictions $32,188 Notes: All jurisdictions must have signed on to the effort up front for the cost efficiencies assumed in this budget to be achieved. The budget estimate for tasks related to the residential nexus does not include Fremont because a residential nexus is not needed. The budget estimate will be adjusted based upon the final number of participants. The estimate does not include potential participation by San Jose which is assumed to proceed under a separate contract. BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR BASE SERVICES TO ALL JURISDICTIONS Affordable housing fees in comparison cities 174 Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Nexus Studies | Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. | July 2015 | 34 A. JERRY KEYSER*$280.00 MANAGING PRINCIPALS*$280.00 SENIOR PRINCIPALS*$270.00 PRINCIPALS*$250.00 MANAGERS*$225.00 SENIOR ASSOCIATES $187.50 ASSOCIATES $167.50 SENIOR ANALYSTS $150.00 ANALYSTS $130.00 TECHNICAL STAFF $95.00 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF $80.00 Directly related job expenses not included in the above rates are: auto mileage, parking, air fares, hotels and motels, meals, car rentals, taxies, telephone calls, delivery, electronic data processing, graphics and printing. Monthly billings for staff time and expenses incurred during the period will be payable within thirty (30) days of invoice date. * Rates for individuals in these categories will be increased by 50% for time spent in court testimony. 2015/2016 Fee Schedule 175