HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2008 City Council Agenda Packet (2)
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 18, 2008
SPECIAL MEETING – 6:00 P.M. – SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER -
SAUNDERS ROOM - 19655 ALLENDALE AVENUE.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M.
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
June 12, 2008.)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00P.M.
1. Joint Meeting with the Home Owner Association Presidents.
Recommended Action:
Informational only.
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
Certificate of Posing of Agenda:
I, Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 12, 2008, at the office of the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location.
The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 12th day of June 2008 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC,
Acting City Clerk
1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
June 12, 2008)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
1
1. CIP Study Session Minutes - June 3, 2008
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
2. City Council Minutes - June 4, 2008
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
3. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended action:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles:
May 29, 2008
June 5, 2008
4. North Campus Fellowship Hall – Amendment - Independent Contractor Agreement
Approval
Recommended action:
1. Approve Independent Contractor Agreement with Amendment between the City
of Saratoga and Steve Benzing, Architect
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
5. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution authorizing No Parking
Recommended action:
Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No Parking” on a portion
of Kirkmont Drive
6. Award of Contract for Street Sweeping Services
Recommended action:
1. Move to award a two year Street Sweeping Contract to Universal Sweeping
Services in the amount of $90,000 per year with an additional $10,000 allocation per
year for unscheduled sweeping.
2. Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a Street Sweeping Contract with
Universal Sweeping Services.
7. Upper Old Oak Way Vacation
Recommended action:
1. Adopt Resolution vacating a portion of Old Oak Way.
2. Adopt Resolution accepting offer of dedication for Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail
purposes (Attachment 1).
8. Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Library General Obligation
Bonds
Recommended action:
Adopt the resolution which sets the FY 2008/09 property tax levy rate for the Library
General Obligation Bonds.
9. Citizen Options for Public Safety - Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds
Grant (COPS/SLESF)
Recommended action:
Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of the Citizen Options for Public
Safety Program’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (COPS/SLESF) grant as a
2
source of funds for additional public safety services.
10. Annual Approval of the City’s Investment Policy - for Fiscal Year 2008/09
Recommended action:
For the City Council to approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2008/09.
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
11. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 - Public Hearing, Approval of
Engineer’s Report, and Confirmation of Assessments for FY 08-09
Recommended action:
Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the
Diagram and Assessments for FY 08-09
OLD BUSINESS
12. 2008 Summer Issue of The Saratogan
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
NEW BUSINESS
13. Facility Naming Application for Saratoga Community Center
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
14. Saratoga Village Parking and Valet Service Report
Recommended action:
Accept report and provide direction to staff regarding Saratoga Village Parking and
Valet Service
15. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND COMMUNITY
GRANT PROGRAM PROCEDURES
Recommended action:
Provide direction to staff as to whether the City should:
1. Maintain the existing CDBG procedures or elect to have a study session prior to
the formal meeting.
2. Modify the existing CDBG application form used by applicants for City CDBG
funding.
3. Have the Community Grant Program follow a parallel process consistent with the
CDBG program application, noticing, and meeting schedule.
4. Allow the CDBG applications to take priority over the Community Grant
Programs
3
16. Review the possible formation of a CH-2 District Review Committee
Recommended action:
Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following:
1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission)
2. Confirm participants
17. Review the possible formation of a Village Economic Development Committee
Recommended action:
Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following:
1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission)
2. Participants
18. City Council Meeting Time Limits
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Association of Bay Area Government
Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Advisory Board (PAB)
Hakone Foundation Executive Committee
Santa Clara County Emergency Council
SASCC
West Valley Mayors and Mangers Association
Sister City Liaison
Council Finance Committee
Highway 9 Safety AdHoc
TEA AdHoc
Vice Mayor Chuck Page
Chamber of Commerce
Hakone Executive Board
West Valley Sanitation District
Council Finance Committee
Village AdHoc
Valley Transportation Authority PAC
Councilmember Kathleen King
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities
Santa Clara County Cities Association
City School AdHoc
TEA AdHoc
Councilmember Jill Hunter
Historic Foundation
KSAR
4
Library Joint Powers Association
Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission
Village AdHoc
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association
Councilmember Aileen Kao
County HCD Policy Committee
Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board
Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee
(JEDPC)
City School AdHoc
Highway 9 Safety AdHoc
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II)
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing
agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 12,
2008, 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 12th day of June 2008 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, CMC
Acting City Clerk
5
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City
Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2008
6/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with HOA Presidents
7/2 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission
and Historic Foundation
7/16 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with SASCC
8/6 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation
8/20 Summer Recess – No Meeting
9/3 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees
9/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Saratoga Union Elementary School
District
10/1 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts
10/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High
School District
11/5 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Ministerial Association
11/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery
12/3 Regular Meeting – Reorganization
12/17 Regular Meeting – Traffic Safety Commission
6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: CIP Study Session Minutes – June 3, 2008
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following meeting:
CIP Study Session – June 3, 2008
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Minutes from CIP Study Session – June 3, 2008
7
1
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
CIP STUDY SESSION
JUNE 3, 2008
Mayor Waltonsmith called the CIP Study Session to order at 7:00PM.
PRESENT: Councilmembers:
Jill Hunter, Aileen Kao, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann
Waltonsmith
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
Thomas Scott, Facilities Manager
Shawn Gardner, Park Lead Worker
Director Cherbone began the meeting by highlighting the results of the two previous CIP Study
Sessions:
May 7, 2008:
o Preliminarily fund two Operational Efficiency Projects; 1) Community Development
Document Imaging Project at $60,000 and 2) City Website Upgrade Project at $50,000.
o Gather any additional information available connected to the feasibility of the proposed City
Hall Solar Project.
o Develop a list of building efficiency projects to add to the Operational Efficiency Project
List.
o Park and Trail Projects for 2008/09 to be prioritized by the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Advisory Committee.
May 21, 2008:
o Continue funding both General CIP Projects and Operational Efficiency Projects at $600,000
apiece for a total of $1.2 million.
o Submit a list of hillside infrastructure needs.
o Schedule a third Study Session to be held on June 3rd to continue the discussion of the FY
2008/09 CIP.
Total Funding Available for Operational Efficiency Projects: $600,000
Projects Preliminarily Funded at the May 7th Study Session: (110,000)
Remaining Funds Available: $490,000
8
2
Total Cost of Remaining Operational Efficiency Projects: $1,643,326
Director Cherbone went on to explain the results of the Parks and Recreation Commission and
Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Advisory Committee’s prioritization of the Parks and Trail
Projects for 2008/09; which are:
1. Park Restroom Improvement Work
2. Lower Tank Trail (Parker Ranch) Repair Project
3. Village Creek Trail
4. De Anza Trail Phase II
5. Petanque Court at Azul Park
6. Heritage Orchard Monument Sign
There was discussion regarding the inclusion of the first set of prioritized trail projects; which included
Hakone Gardens that was voted on two years ago by Council, and to include those projects in this new
list.
Council proposal:
1) Combine prioritized ranking list of Parks and Trail Projects for 2008/09 as noted on Attachment
5 of the CIP Staff Report; and current approved priority list of Parks & Trails Projects;
2) Exclude the Hakone project from this ranking and authorize Parks and Recreation Commission
and Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Advisory Committee to complete prioritization of
combined list.
Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page and Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
were in agreement with the above proposal. Motion passed 4 – 1 with Councilmember Jill Hunter
opposing.
In addition, Council directed staff to ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to create a new “trails
only” priority list and rank in order of the highest number to the lowest – with the highest number being
the highest on the priority list; and bring the results forward for future discussion.
Council moved on to discuss Operational Efficiency Projects noting there were seven (7) items on this
list totaling $1,643.326; with a total of $490,000 available for funding.
Director Cherbone stated the list of seven projects is being presented to fulfill the intentions of the
operational efficiencies criteria of the CIP, to “increase efficiencies in the operation of the City which
can include money savings, power savings, staff time savings, and increased level of service to the
public at a lower cost. He also noted some of the facility projects are currently included in the
preventative maintenance schedule.
There was discussion regarding the use of solar power to the Community Center and Maintenance
Building by constructing a solar array on top of a new equipment shelter structure, which would be
located in the Corporation Yard.
Shawn Gardner presented solar project development information: 1) Purchase and install the smaller
system at the Recreation/Center and Corporation Yard and consider it a long-term investment. 2) If the
City wishes to install the entire 227 kW system for the entire City Hall buildings, then consider a Power
Purchasing Agreements (PPA) where the City could contract with a company to do all the work; but the
9
3
City doesn’t own any of the equipment. He noted if the City decides to implement the solar energy
project for the Community Center and Maintenance Building, it would cost $444,326; it would not have
to be paid in full up front; a PPA could be written and payments would be made based on the agreement.
Councilmember King raised the question as to what was discussed at the February 2008 Retreat
regarding $600,000 for Operational Efficiencies and $600,000 for Capital Improvement Projects.
City Manager Dave Anderson explained that at the February 2008 Retreat, Council provided direction to
staff regarding the 2008/09 budget. He noted that after considerable discussion, Council directed $1.2
million dollars from unallocated end of year savings to be equally allocated to two types of reserve
accounts, namely 1) Operational Efficiencies, and 2) General Capital Improvements. He noted this
decision has been reflected in the recent CIP meetings and budget discussions.
Councilmember King stated she wasn’t in favor of using $600,000 for Capital improvements funding
and $600,000 for efficiency funding – why not put everything together and prioritize in that manner.
Councilmembers Page, Kao, Hunter and Mayor Waltonsmith were in favor of keeping the 1.2 million
dollars as separate categories – the CIP prioritization and Operational Efficiencies prioritization.
Discussion then continued regarding operational efficiency options and what the City could do to
become more “green”. Councilmember King brought up a previous suggestion from Chuck Page to turn
the Saratogan green through email distribution, rather than paper distribution.
Mayor Waltonsmith suggested that they continue discussion regarding the seven items on the
Operational Efficiency (OE) list and asked Director Cherbone if they allocated some funds for the
Operational Efficiency list, could he begin the implementation process on some of the items. Director
Cherbone stated Council could specify which item/s on the list they would prefer to start with and that it
would be implemented throughout City Hall, not just in specific areas. He noted Council could prioritize
the items on the OE list and they could specify the amount of money to be funded – the total amount to
do the project or only a portion of the project.
Mayor Waltonsmith asked the Council to voice their opinions regarding the seven items on the
Operational Efficiency list and if the Solar Project was something they wanted to consider along with
the remaining six items; or separate it from the rest of the items on the list.
The Mayor also noted the City has strict rules in place for building requirements and we urge citizens to
think “green” when they do remodeling and feels the City of Saratoga should be a leader in “green”
building. She also feels the State will soon be setting higher energy efficient requirements.
Discussion took place regarding the City Hall Solar Project and Councilmembers noted their opinions
regarding solar energy.
Members of the audience stated the City should do more research regarding the pay back in savings with
solar energy and that it is premature to install solar at this time. More changes are coming regarding
solar energy.
Councilmember King – objects to solar; could focus on financing North Campus improvements,
Prospect Avenue median improvements, Hakone Gardens; and feels this isn’t a good use of $490,000.
She noted she would not support funding for any of the seven items on the OE list at this time. She
prefers to move forward with the CIP projects and hear everything – CIP and OE projects – at one time.
10
4
Councilmember Hunter – agrees with members of the audience that new changes are coming all the time
with regard to solar energy and feels the City should wait and doesn’t support the solar issue.
Councilmember Kao – supports some of the items on the OE list – such as motion-control lighting and
double pane windows.
Vice Mayor Page – agrees that solar technology is changing all the time and is concerned about the rate
of payback; but feels that if we “spot fix” buildings now, we will continue to do that all the time. We
need to lower our carbon footprint for the League of California Cities and we need to make some kind of
commitment to solar energy. He feels that if we take the lead in solar energy, other people will follow
our lead.
Mayor Waltonsmith – prefers to move forward with solar energy and realizes that it is expensive;
supports PPA to do the work. She feels it is time to kick-start projects that were introduced five years
ago and is comfortable with allocating $150,000 to $200,000 to go forward with the process. She feels
Operational Efficiencies are an important sub-group of the CIP.
Facilities Supervisor Thomas Scott noted that some of the items on the list will be done regardless, due
to annual maintenance. He cited the roof issue – when it needs repair or replacement, staff will think
energy efficiency and go with the “cool roof”.
Councilmember King noted one option for funding some of the OE items would be to set aside $100,000
from TEA allocations and set aside another $100,000 – making it a total of $200,000 for this year, with
staff prioritizing the projects on the OE list.
City Manager Dave Anderson noted Council already had set aside $100,000 from TEA.
Councilmember Hunter noted deferred maintenance has to be done anyway; is a big part of the budget,
and supports the allocation of an additional $200,000 to the $100,000 TEA monies to begin projects on
the OE list.
Mayor Waltonsmith then asked Director John Cherbone to move forward to the CIP projects. Director
Cherbone went on to explain the various items regarding the 1) General CIP Projects; 2) the Existing
Unfunded CIP Projects; and 3) Park Development Projects. He also noted item 23 – Hakone Gardens
Well and Koi Pond Repairs (on the Facility Improvement Project category) -was just added due to the
newly discovered well problem with the Koi Pond. He noted the need for immediate repair work in
order to save the Koi fish.
He also noted the following on Attachment 3 – the Unfunded CIP Projects:
Items 2 and3 – Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements: Premature to fund these items at this time.
Item 5 – Glen Brae Avenue Median Choker: Is a Traffic Calming issue.
Item 6 – Komina Walking Path: Just had second meeting on this issue; premature to fund at this time.
Item 7 – Saratoga Elementary School Driveway & Sidewalk Modifications: Premature to fund at this
time.
Item 8 – El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements: Beneficial to City. Consider
funding at this time.
Item 9 – Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements: Beneficial to City; consider funding at this time.
Items 1, 4, 5, and 10 – are items Council should consider funding.
11
5
Lon Saavedra, Executive Director for Hakone Gardens, was present and thanked Director Cherbone for
summarizing the Koi Pond situation and went on to explain in more detail the problems with the Koi
pond and the need to re-drill the well. He also addressed the Council regarding the need for funding
support to help create a bigger gift shop and a Visitors Center where people can sit down and have tea
and rice cakes. He feels this expanded service could dramatically increase the annual profits for Hakone
Gardens.
Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment.
The following people spoke in support of a multi-purpose room at Redwood Middle School and asked
for Council funding:
Pat Vogel
Kathy Clark
Carolyn Doles
Doug Robertson
Dawn Glajchen
Dan Douglass
Sarah Rothenberg
Francesca Contini-Ruff
Mark Linsky
Marc Hoffman
Emily Lo
Kelly Berman
Tom Alexander
Kelly Berryhill
Katherine Tseng
(Marc Hoffman also requested to speak off-line regarding the solar energy issue.)
City Manager Dave Anderson responded to a suggestion that use of City facility credits at West Valley
College might help with obtaining playing time for MJB basketball. He also asked for Marc Hoffman’s
contact information to follow up.
Mayor Waltonsmith thanked all the speakers and closed the public comments. She then asked Council
for their comments.
Councilmember Hunter noted she would support the demolition of the Community Recreation Center
and rebuild with a multi-purpose room in it. She also noted schools are very successful in getting bonds
passed for projects such as a multi-purpose room.
Mayor Waltonsmith expressed her thanks to Doug Robertson for his diligent support of the Utility User
Tax effort when it was presented to the community.
Vice Mayor Page thanked everyone for their comments and hoped the community did not view this
Council as being anti-children. He emphasized the many projects Council has approved with the
children of the community in mind, such as the many park improvements. He also noted the City only
receives 5.45% of the property tax dollars, the schools receive 54% of the property tax dollars and the
Saratoga Fire District receives 10% of the tax dollars. He noted it is his objective to start with a base of
$50,000 to begin building something for the community.
12
6
Councilmember King noted that out of 30,000 residents only 18 people came to this meeting to share
with the Council what they feel is important to the community. She thanked them for coming and
encouraged them to speak to more community members regarding this issue.
Mayor Waltonsmith stated she is more concerned about finding the funds to repair and/or replace the
items that need funding and has a difficult time considering funding for new buildings.
Councilmember Kao thanked the speakers for sharing their thoughts and noted the Council has listened
to public input by keeping the North Campus. She noted funding for improvements to the North Campus
has been included in the CIP projects and that Council has committed to setting aside money each year
to create something for the entire community to use and enjoy – such as a multi-purpose room.
Mayor Waltonsmith noted the lateness of the hour and asked Council to provide direction to staff
regarding the CIP discussion.
It was the consensus of Councilmembers Kao, Hunter, Vice Mayor Page and Mayor Waltonsmith to
keep the Operational Efficiency Projects and the General CIP Projects separate and prioritize them
separately. Councilmember King does not support this method and prefers to combine the two lists and
then prioritize the items.
Councilmember Hunter asked about the Hakone Koi Pond issue and what should be done to solve that
problem. Council agreed to add the item to the June 4th Council Meeting Agenda as an Urgency Item
allocating $50,000 from Unallocated Funds.
Council also directed staff to schedule another CIP meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Sullivan
Acting City Clerk
13
7
14
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – June 4, 2008
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting – June 4, 2008
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Minutes from June 4, 2008
15
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 4, 2008
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session in the Administrative
Conference Room at 5:30 p.m.
MAYOR’S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Waltonsmith stated there was no reportable information on Closed Session.
The City Council held a Joint Meeting at 6:00PM with the Saratoga Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Jill Hunter, Kathleen King,
Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
ABSENT: None
ALSO
PRESENT:
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Michael Taylor, Recreation Director
Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 4, 2008 was properly posted on May 29,
2008.
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith announced that on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, Council was asked
by the Hakone Foundation to add an Urgency Item to the June 4, 2008 Council agenda
regarding the Koi fish pond at Hakone Gardens.
City Manager Dave Anderson presented the facts regarding the Urgency Item stating the
Koi Pond at Hakone Gardens was failing and needed immediate repairs and re-drilling of
the well to preserve the Koi fish in the pond.
City Attorney Richard Taylor advised Council they could place an Urgency Item on the
Council meeting agenda after the agenda had been posted; however, they would need a
motion by a four fifths vote to authorize adding the item to the agenda and determine
where on the agenda they would like to place the Urgency Item for discussion.
16
2
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADD HAKONE KOI POND URGENCY ITEM TO
THE AGENDA AND PLACE IT AT THE END OF THE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION. MOTION PASSED 5 - 0.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Janice Gamper – addressed the Council regarding the blinking speed limit sign and asked
if it could be returned to Chester Avenue to monitor speeds. She noted that when the
speed monitor was on Chester Avenue, people didn’t speed as much.
Mehran Madani – spoke to Council regarding a neighbor on Bohlman Road who is
removing trees on his property for quite some time, and was concerned that the tree
removal could cause potential land slides. He felt the tree removal was an invasion of his
privacy and was diminishing the aesthetic appearance and value of his home.
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Mayor Waltonsmith responded to Janice Gamper’s request stating the blinking speed
limit sign was on a rotational schedule and that it would return to Chester Avenue later on
in the schedule.
Council directed staff to follow up with Mr. Madani’s concern regarding the tree removal
in his neighborhood. City Manager Dave Anderson stated he would have the City
Arborist contact Mr. Madani the very next day to research this issue.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
Tom Soukup, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, addressed the Council
regarding their 6:00PM Joint Meeting that evening. He noted the commission had been
suspended for some time and had just recently been reinstated. He spoke about the
commission’s work plan for the coming year and noted the commission has established
three categories of interest:
1) Naming the North Campus facility.
2) Playground improvements.
3) Community involvement by more use of the community parks and facilities;
using the parks for healthy living and life styles; and the possibility of using the
parks for music/art in the parks.
He also noted their long term planning involved working with the Planning Commission
on the Parks and Trails Master Plan.
Council Direction to Staff
Council thanked Mr. Soukup for his presentation, welcomed the Commission back, and
to keep up the good work.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Jill Hunter announced the Village Sidewalk Sale on the upcoming
Friday, Saturday and Sunday and invited people to participate. She also invited everyone
17
3
to come and enjoy the live band in the Bank of America parking; which would start at
6:30 in the evenings.
Mayor Waltonsmith announced the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors was having a
fund raiser for the City of Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos on Sunday, August 3,
2008. The association had purchased all the tickets for the San Jose Giants baseball
game for that day and all proceeds from the sale of those tickets would go to the Saratoga
Recreation Summer Youth Program and to the Los Gatos Recreation program.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1. APPOINTMENT OF LIBRARY COMMISSIONER AND OATH OF OFFICE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing one new member to the Library
Commission and direct the Acting City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-033
HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ONE NEW
MEMBER TO THE LIBRARY COMMISSION AND DIRECT THE ACTING
CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED
5 – 0.
Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan administered Oath of Office to new Library
Commissioner Javed S. Khan.
2. APPOINTMENT OF ELEVEN YOUTH COMMSSIONERS AND OATH OF
OFFICE.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing eleven members to the Youth Commission
and direct Acting City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
RESOLUTION NO. 08–034
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELEVEN
MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION AND DIRECT ACTING CITY
CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan administered Oath of Office to ten new Youth
Commissioners: Aditya Dev, Justin El-Diwany, Kaitlin Finch, Tara Fatemi, Sammy
Rao, Cory Rateau, Elena Reese, Natalie Tkolcevic, Tiffany Tseng, and Cynthia Zhou.
Kia Fariba was absent.
3. COMMENDATIONS HONORING FOUR OUTGOING YOUTH
COMMISSIONERS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Present commendations.
18
4
Mayor Waltonsmith presented commendations to Elli Rezaii and Shireen Gupta.
Youth Commissioners Kelly Langstaff and Ted Scalvos were absent.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES – MAY 13, 2008.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES FOR
MAY 13, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
5. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING MAY 20, 2008.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
Councilmember King removed this item for discussion. Councilmember King stated
she was not present at this meeting and requested the records show she was absent.
KING/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR
MAY 20, 2008, AS AMENDED . MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
6. CIP SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – MAY 21, 2008.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE CIP SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES –
MAY 21, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
7. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 21, 2008
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve minutes.
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 21,
2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
19
5
8. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTERS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts
Payable cycles:
May 15, 2008
May 22, 2008
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE
FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CYCLES – MAY 15, 2008, MAY 22,
2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
9. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept Treasurer's Report for the month ended December 31, 2007
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ACCEPT TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE
MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
10. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution approving the Gann Appropriations Limit for FY 2008/09
RESOLUTION NO. 08-035
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GANN
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY2008/09. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
11. RESOLUTION CALLING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION –
NOVEMBER 4, 2008.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council adopts the Resolution Calling the General Municipal Election for
November 4, 2008.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-036
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION CALLING THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2008. MOTION
PASSED 5 – 0.
12. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY A
PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE POSSESSION OR
CONSUMPTION BY A PERSON UNDER TWENTY-ONE AND IMPOSING A
20
6
FEE FOR THE COSTS OF PROVIDING A SECOND POLICE RESPONSE
TO PUBLIC DISTURBANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the ordinance requiring supervision by a parent or guardian of alcoholic
beverage possession or consumption by a person under twenty-one and imposing a
fee for the costs of providing a second police response to public disturbances.
ORDINANCE NO. 258
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRING
SUPERVISION BY A PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION BY A PERSON UNDER
TWENTY-ONE AND IMPOSING A FEE FOR THE COSTS OF PROVIDING
A SECOND POLICE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC DISTURBANCES. MOTION
PASSED 5 – 0.
13. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION
AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF
THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter
into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement (JPA) to
undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities pursuant to Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act, as amended for the period of October
1, 2008 to September 30, 2011.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-037
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONAUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT JPA) TO UNDERTAKE
OR TO ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES
PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACT, AS AMENDED FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1,
2008 T0 SEPTEMBER 30, 2011. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
BY REMOVAL OF HAZAARDOURS VEGETATION (BRUSH).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Open public hearing; listen to public testimony and close public hearing. Adopt
resolution over-ruling objections and ordering hazardous vegetation abatement
(brush).
Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan presented staff report and announced that all non-
compliance properties on the abatement list were now in full compliance.
21
7
Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing for comment.
No one spoke on this item.
Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-038
PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OVER-RULING
OBJECTIONS AND ORDERING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION
ABATEMENT (BRUSH). MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
OLD BUSINESS
15. ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution approving the Proposed FY 2008/09 Operating and Capital Budgets,
directing staff to incorporate within the final adopted budget any changes related to
minor corrections, carry forward appropriations, refined estimates, grant approvals,
claim reimbursements, pass-through appropriations, or additional direction from
Council upon adoption of the budget.
Administrative Services Director Mary Furey presented staff report.
Mary Furey began her presentation addressing budget questions Council had asked at
the May 21, 2008 proposed FY 2008/09 Operating & Capital Budget hearing and
referred Council to the Staff Report provided to them reflecting the responses to the
questions Council had presented.
There was council discussion regarding the wording pertaining to the division of the
undesignated fund balance for the CIP and Operational Efficiency Projects.
Councilmember King stated she did not agree with the statement “divide” the
remaining undesignated fund balance. She noted it should be divided “in half – based
on the needs each year.
Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment.
The following people spoke:
Marty Goldberg – stated he would like the Council to designate monies for the
Prospect Median Project. He also noted the City should consider additional
advertisement methods regarding city budget study sessions.
Ray Muzzy – stated he would like to see Council designate $150,000 as “good faith
money” for the Prospect Road Median Project.
Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public comment.
22
8
Council agreed to pass the proposed FY 2008/09 budget in two separate motions:
RESOLUTION NO. 08-039
KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PROPOSED FY 2008/09 OPERATING AND CIP BUDGETS, DIRECT STAFF
TO INCORPORATE WITHIN THE FINAL ADOPTED BUDGET ANY
CHANGES RELATED TO MINOR CORRECTIONS, CARRY FORWARD
APPROPRIATIONS, REFINED ESTIMATES, GRANT APPROVALS,
CLAIM REIMURSEMENTS, PASS-THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS AS
DIRECTED BY COUNCIL; INCLUDING THE AMOUNTS, BUT
EXCLUDING HOW TO APPORTION CIP/OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ALLOCATE $1.2 MILLION FOR
CIP/ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY PROJECTS, RESERVING FUNDS FOR
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS FOR WEB DEVELOPMENT AND
MICROFICHE SCANNING IN THE AMOUNT OF $110,000. MOTION
PASSED 4 – 1 – 0 WITH MAYOR WALTONSMITH OPPOSING.
NEW BUSINESS
16. PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – MASTER PLAN
APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Master Plan for Prospect Road Median Improvement Project.
Public Works Director John Cherbone presented staff report.
Director Cherbone stated the Saratoga Public Works Department held two public
meetings regarding the City of Saratoga and City of San Jose Prospect Road Median
Improvements with approximately a total of 25 residents from both cities in
attendance. He noted the Saratoga City Council had approved funding of $50,000 for
the Master Plan with the expectation of the City of San Jose committing to half of the
funding for the joint project – which they were unable to commit to financially during
the Master Plan phase. Director Cherbone went on to explain the total estimated cost
of the project is $3.4 million dollars. He noted funds are not currently allocated to this
project; however, there is a line item in the CIP proposal for discussion during the
CIP Study Sessions and subsequent public hearings, to determine if funding at any
level will be allocated to the project.
Director Cherbone proposed a change to the Master Plan regarding the intersection at
Scully and Prospect Avenue; instead of a left turn lane onto west bound Prospect
Avenue – the Traffic Engineer recommends a merge lane (refuse pocket) be
incorporated into the intersection in the final plan; in addition to any other changes
Council recommends.
Director Cherbone stated the City of San Jose has been a part of the Master Plan
process and has been informed of this recommended change as well as any additional
changes Council recommends.
23
9
Councilmember Page had a question regarding the height of plants shown on the
Master Plan.
Director Cherbone stated the project consultant would be providing information
regarding the types of plants, trees, etc.
Councilmember King asked if San Jose Public Works Department had participated in
the meetings.
Director Cherbone stated the assistant to Pete Constant (District Representative) had
attended the last public meeting and had communicated the Master Plan project
results to Mr. Constant.
Councilmember King also asked Director Cherbone if the City of San Jose was able
to commit their share of funding for this project.
Director Cherbone noted the City of San Jose has indicated this would be a low
priority for them and that they would not be able to commit to any funding at this
time. He stated he would be looking for possible grants from VTA for future
funding.
Councilmember King noted that the City of San Jose had stated they would look at
this project in a different level of importance if the project involved traffic safety
issues – as opposed to only beautification of Prospect Road.
Director Cherbone stated there are sections of the project that do have safety issues
such as the Titus Road area and the City of San Jose is aware of this section and have
already agreed to placing this section of the project higher on their priority list – if
Saratoga finds funding and moves forward with the project. He also noted there are
more opportunities to find funding for traffic and pedestrian safety purposes –
especially if you have a joint application for a project.
Councilmember Page asked about the neighborhood participation at the public
meetings and Cherbone stated it was good, with approximately 50/50 resident
participation from the San Jose side and Saratoga side; with more San Jose residents
attending the first public meeting and less at the second meeting.
There was additional discussion regarding the total cost of the project, funding
possibilities, landscape and lighting district, and “tree fine” funding for trees.
At the conclusion of Director Cherbone’s presentation, City Manager Dave Anderson
noted the discussion regarding the status of low priority for the City of San Jose’s
funding commitment to split the direct cost of construction of the median project and
asked if Council was willing to consider any other form of in-kind or real costs that
they apply to Saratoga – such as pavement management, use of sports fields, or
recreation areas/credits. Basically, how flexible would Council be in order to receive
some sort of in-kind contribution from the City of San Jose showing their
commitment, but not necessarily in the form of actual dollars, in order to meet their
half of the construction project?
24
10
Councilmember King asked if this topic should be agendized as another discussion
item, and City Manager Dave Anderson replied that the question is related to this
agenda item as a policy issue.
Mayor Waltonsmith noted Council would be voting this evening on approval of the
Master Plan and council direction to staff.
Councilmember Hunter also stated that she had an opportunity to speak to Mr.
Constant’s aid at the second public meeting and she said the City of San Jose was not
in a position to commit any funding for this project at this time.
City Manager Anderson stated that is the reason for his question regarding Council’s
flexibility on receiving any other form of in-kind or real costs from San Jose for their
share of the project.
Councilmember Kao asked if the San Jose City Council has had an opportunity to
review this project and the Master Plan.
Director Cherbone said Pete Constance and the San Jose city staff has the project
material; however, he is not familiar with their city policy regarding master plan
reviews and approval; whereas, in the City of Saratoga, Council reviews and approves
master plan proposals.
Mayor Waltonsmith noted the City of San Jose has approved the process of the design
phase.
Director Cherbone concluded his presentation and invited the project consultant to
present additional information regarding the proposed Master Plan.
Project Consultant, Marie Mai, representative from Calendar & Associates, provided
additional information regarding the media project. She noted that public input
regarding this project was very important to them and listed the following items of
importance:
• safety for both pedestrians and vehicles
• maintain existing traffic circulation patterns
• existing views of the surrounding hills
• design of median
• low maintenance landscaping
• provide seasonal color
• preserve existing right-of-way – bike lane width
• environmentally friendly
• Clarkspur Lane traffic concerns
• Scully Avenue & Larkin Avenue safety concerns
The consultant noted that overall most of the residents were supportive of the project
and several of them expressed an interest in getting involved in fund-raising efforts
for the project. She continued with a slide presentation depicting proposed
landscaping and median designs. She also concurred with Director Cherbone’s
recommendation of phase implementation due to the cost of the project and displayed
five different phases that could be massaged based on available funding.
25
11
She also noted proposed traffic improvements to two areas for safety reasons:
o Clarkspur Lane – changes that would allow for a signal light intersection in
the future facilitating a left turn lane from Prospect Avenue into the North
Campus parcel.
o Scully & Larkin Avenue – extension of current median on Prospect Avenue to
the west allowing a left turn onto Scully Avenue; and removal of left turn lane
onto Larkin. She noted some residents expressed concern regarding this
proposed change because it would impact their ability to exit and enter their
neighborhood. Existing patterns of traffic would be changed – redirecting
traffic to other neighborhoods.
o Proposed pedestrian refuge at “the nose of the median” – this allows for
pedestrians to stop mid-block, wait for traffic to clear and then continue
crossing movement. In addition to this, trees would be set back from the
median to maintain clear sight lines for vehicles.
o Modification of existing striping for proposed median at Provincetown
allowing for vehicle refuge as they make a left turn onto Prospect.
o Titus/Prospect Avenue intersection crossing improvements for McAuliffe
Elementary School.
Mayor Waltonsmith asked Council if they had any questions or comments:
Councilmember:
Hunter – suggested preserving the existing oak trees when possible.
King – noted City of San Jose and Saratoga has a “tree fine” fund; could use
some of these funds for the proposed tree/shrub planting
Kao – asked for clarification of amendment to master plan regarding left turn onto
Prospect Avenue from Scully Avenue.
Page – asked if San Jose’s approval of proposed changes to Master Plan would be
required even if they did not provide their share of funding for the
project; Cherbone stated they would seek their approval and if there
was a conflict with the proposed change, they would try to work it out.
He also noted that since Saratoga was paying for the Master Plan,
Saratoga would draw up the plans and make a notation of any changes the
City of San Jose objected to.
Mayor Waltonsmith – noted the North Campus area should be fully vetted prior
to proposed changes on Prospect.
Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment and the following people spoke on this
item:
Marty Goldberg – spoke in favor of this project and advocates the City moving
forward with the Master Plan approval.
26
12
Gail Stanislow – San Jose resident stated that if Larkin Avenue is closed off, there
will be a lot of traffic on Clarkspur Lane. If Saratoga funds this project, does that
mean Saratoga can close off these streets on the San Jose side?
Mayor Waltonsmith responded that based on the earlier discussion the proposed
changes in traffic flow/direction, is due to traffic safety concerns.
Ms. Stanislow responded by saying she was under the impression that the City of San
Jose had not yet approved this Master Plan.
Director John Chebone’s response – the City of San Jose has seen the proposed
Master Plan through every phase of the design process and as per the agreement
between the two cities, they review the plans and add comments such as: change this
median, add this, etc., and the City of Saratoga has worked jointly with them in this
process.
Ms. Stanislow also spoke about the proposed increase in median width for safety
purposes on Prospect Avenue at Larkin Avenue. She questioned the safety issue
when you are narrowing the width of the street in order to widen the median, and
have cars parked on the side of the street; which happens all the time.
Director Cherbone’s response – Narrowing lanes and widening medians generally
calms traffic and as a result people drive slower.
City Manager Dave Anderson asked Director Cherbone what the lane size is currently
and what is the proposed lane width?
Director Cherbone’s response – the City of San Jose requested “mow strips” on their
side of Larkin Avenue and as a result the median has to be widened; therefore,
approximately one foot would be removed from each lane side. He noted this is a
schematic plan and the exact measurements would not be necessary; however, the
lane width would still be approximately12 feet and even at 11feet they would be fine.
He stated the wider the lanes are the faster traffic will go.
Ms. Stanislow also stated that not everyone on the City of San Jose side received
proper noticing regarding this project.
Director Cherbone’s response – the Public Works Department from the City of
Saratoga sent out equal amounts of notices to both sides of Prospect Avenue for both
public meetings, totaling $3,200 for each noticing. In addition, notices regarding the
meeting for this evening were sent to those people that had attended both public
meetings held prior to the meeting this evening.
Bob Alley – agreed with the unsafe left turn issue from both directions onto Scully
Avenue from Prospect Avenue, and expressed his support to the proposed “merge
lane” from Scully Avenue onto Prospect Avenue and feels safety is a major concern
in this area.
Jerry Streb – San Jose resident, noted he participated in the first public meeting and
fully supports the proposed changes on Prospect Avenue. He stated it would
eliminate the illegal u-turns on Prospect Avenue near Ascension Parish and Beth
David Parish. He supports the proposed plan and agrees the “phased” approach
27
13
would be a prudent way to proceed with the median improvements. In addition, he
stated he received prior notification to the first scheduled public meeting, provided
his name and address, received subsequent meeting notification and felt the system
works the way it is supposed to work, and fully supports the proposed median
improvements.
Julie Tomlin – stated she attended the first public meeting and fully supports this
Master Plan. She also noted that not only is it a beautification project, it will help
calm the traffic on Prospect Avenue and supports the proposed narrowing of lanes.
She recommended the City of Saratoga move forward with this proposal in phases.
Ray Muzzy – stated both San Jose residents and Saratoga residents have waited 35
years to see the proposed plans and feels a lot of thought has been put into the
proposed plans to get to the stage where they are today. He noted that the vast
majority of citizens that live on both sides of Prospect Avenue support the plan that
has been presented this evening and Director John Cherbone needs the necessary
support to get this project funded – Council’s approval of the proposed plans and the
commitment of seed money to show the City is ready to move forward with this
project. He asked the Council to consider the commitment of $150,000 to make this
project a reality.
Seeing no additional speakers on this item, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public
comment.
KING/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL FOR
PROSPECT AVENUE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITH
MODIFICATIONS – 1) PRESERVE AS MANY OAK TREES AS POSSIBLE,
2) ACCEPT THE SCULLY AVENUE MERGE LANE RECOMMENDATION,
AND 3) PROVIDE FUTURE FUNDING LATITUDE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
Mayor Waltonsmith brought the Hakone Gardens Koi Pond Urgency Item forward
for discussion.
Public Works Director John Cherbone presented the facts regarding the status of the
Koi Pond.
Director Cherbone stated the Koi Pond well at Hakone Gardens is in need of
immediate repairs and re-drilling in order to preserve the Koi fish. He also stated the
pond system needs to be updated and managed by a professional pond maintenance
person.
Hakone Executive Director Lon Saavedra addressed the Council stating all the assets
of Hakone Gardens are owned by the people of the City of Saratoga and if the City of
Saratoga approves professional management of the Koi pond, Hakone is prepared to
provide funding for the professional maintenance program.
KING/PAGE MOVED TO ALLOCATE $50,000 FROM UNALLOCATED
FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR IMMEDIATE REPAIRS AND RE-DRILLING OF
WELL IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE KOI FISH IN THE POND AT
HAKONE GARDENS. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
28
14
17. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH LSA ASSOCIATES
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES AND
METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP, INC. FOR LAND-USE PLANNING
CONSULTANT SRVICES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with LSA Associates (LSA)
to prepare environmental documents for land development applications within the
City of Saratoga (City). The agreement would include a three year contract with an
option of two additional years of service if approved by the City Council.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Metropolitan Planning
Group (M-Group) for land-use planning consultant services within the City. The
Agreement would include a three year contract with an option of two additional years
of service if approved by the City Council.
Michael Fossati presented staff report.
HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION –
1) AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH LSA ASSOCIATES (LSA) TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE
CITY OF SARATOGA (CITY). THE AGREEMENT WOULD INCLUDE A
THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH AN OPTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL
YEARS OF SERVICE IF APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
2) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGEEMENT
WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP (M-GROUP) FOR LAND-USE
PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY. THE
AGREEMENT WOULD INCLUDE A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH AN
OPTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS OF SERVICE IF APPROVED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
SASCC – reported SASCC has elected four new people to the board and has provided an
informational flyer.
Vice Mayor Chuck Page
Chamber of Commerce – reported he is unavailable to attend the next meeting and
Councilmember Jill Hunter will be attending in his place.
West Valley Sanitation District – reported he will be unable to attend the next meeting
and recommended Alternate Aileen Kao attend in his place.
Residents off Bainter Way want to be hooked up to the sewer system and are planning to
attend the next scheduled meeting.
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – reported he will resign from this
committee due to conflict of interest. Alternate Jill Hunter will attend the remaining two
meetings of this year.
29
15
Village AdHoc – reported they met recently to discuss Village sidewalk improvements.
Valley Transportation Authority PAC – reported the board meets on June 12th and he will
be attending in place of Dolly Sanders.
Councilmember Kathleen King
Peninsula Division, League of California Cities – reported she will be attending the
Peninsula Division dinner on June 19, 2008.
Santa Clara County Cities Association – reported there will be an update at the June
meeting developing solar panel criteria that would be similar for all cities.
City of San Jose is looking at going bagless at all grocery stores in San Jose and is hoping
other cities will consider going bagless in grocery stores as well.
The Leadership Group gave a talk on the “Turkey Trot” challenge between the cities and
she will have more information on this item later on.
Artsopolis will be giving a presentation at the June Meeting.
TEA AdHoc – reported the four cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and
Saratoga are still waiting to hear the outcome of AB 1827 and the four cities will be
sending a letter to Asemblymember Jim Beall, Jr. thanking him for his sponsorship of this
bill. City Manager Dave Anderson added that bills have a cut off date and if they don’t
make it out of the Committee by a certain date, the bill dies; which is what happened with
Bill AB 1827, and that the cities will meet again in the Fall of 2008 to develop a strategy
for the following year regarding the TEA increment dollars. The letter thanking
Assemblymember Beall is being circulated for signatures among the four cities.
Councilmember Jill Hunter:
Library Joint Powers Association – reported she will be attending the next meeting on
Thursday, June 5, 2008.
Councilmember Aileen Kao:
Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board – reported the May 28th meeting
was cancelled. Instead of attending this meeting she attended the Airport Land Use
Committee meeting; which discusses land use for the airports of San Jose, San Martin
and Palo Alto.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember King asked to agendize on a future council agenda what the 2005 budget
cuts were of the $1.2 million that was never brought back.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:30PM. MOTION
PASSED 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
30
16
Ann Sullivan, CMC
Acting City Clerk
31
Dave Anderson
Melanie Whittaker Anil Paul
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles:
May 29, 2008
June 05, 2008
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Check Registers for:
Date
Ending Check
No.
05/29/08 107941 107989 49 $102,749.81 05/29/08 05/22/08 107940
06/05/08 107990 108043 54 $140,945.14 06/05/08 05/29/08 107989
Total $243,694.95
AP Date Check No. Issued to Dept.Amount
05/29/08 107953 Various $22,838.89
05/29/08 107975 Various $23,308.53
06/05/08 108010 CIP Activity $15,043.37
06/05/08 108021 CIP Activity $29,911.82
06/05/08 108026 Public Works $18,802.75
06/05/08 108040 CIP Activity $27,757.23
On-Line Striping
Services General 2008 Traffic Striping
Top Grade Construction,
Inc Saratoga/Sunnyvale PH 2 Sara/Sun Rd Rehab / Overlay
Various
Irrigation and Electrical repairs -
Civic Center
MPA Design, Inc Kevin Moran Kevin Moran Landscape Design
Hydrotec Irrigation
Equipment
Gachina Landscape Various Landscaping - Monthly Services
Shute Mihaly &
Weinberg Various
Legal Fees/City Attorney/
Litigation - Monthly Services
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure:
Fund Purpose
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers.
Type of Checks Date
Starting
Check
No.
Ending
Check No.Total Checks Amount
Checks
Released
Prior Check Register
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR:
32
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued:
AP Date Check No. Issued to Amount
5/29/2008
6/5/2008 107837 (36.07)
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund:
Fund #AP 5/29 AP 6/05 Total
001 General 63,652.64 49,246.14 112,898.78
201 Manor Drive Landscape 160.00 160.00
202 Ferdericksburg Landscape 132.00 132.00
203 Greenbriar Landscape 399.00 399.00
204 Quito Lighting -
205 Azule Lighting -
206 Sarahills Lighting -
207 Village Lighting 219.00 219.00
209 McCartysville Landscape 384.44 384.44
210 Tricia Woods Landscape 75.00 75.00
211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 85.00 85.00
212 Leutar Court Landscape 85.00 85.00
215 Bonnet Way Landscape 127.00 127.00
216 Beauchamps Landscape 85.00 85.00
217 Sunland Park Landscape 2,351.38 2,351.38
222 Prides Crossing Landscape 450.00 450.00
224 Village Commercial Landscape -
225 Saratoga Legends Landscape 471.50 471.50
226 Bellgrove Landscape 1,985.00 1,985.00
227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscp 145.00 145.00
228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 620.00 620.00
229 Tollgate LLD 90.00 90.00
231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 320.00 320.00
232 Gateway Landscape 245.00 245.00
233 Carnelian Glen 135.00 135.00
270 CDBG Administration -
271 Saratoga Housing & Rehab.Prg.-
320 Library Expansion Cap Prg.-
400 Library Bond Debt Service -
501 Equipment Replacement ISF -
502 Information Technology 3,992.84 3,992.84
503 Facility Improvement 327.30 1,611.31 1,938.61
504 Facilities 4,458.06 7,501.49 11,959.55
505 Information Technology 126.08 539.95 666.03
506 Office Stores Fund 1,639.58 365.83 2,005.41
510 Liability/Risk Mgt -
511 Workers' Comp -
701 Traffic Safety -
702 Highway 9 Safety -
704 -
706 Sidewalk Annual Project -
708 27,757.23 27,757.23
The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: (cont.)
Economy Lumber Void
Fund Description
Annual Street Resurfacing
Saratoga Sunnyvale PH 2
Description
No Manual / Void Checks
33
Fund #AP 5/29 AP 6/05 Total
716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain -
720 KSAR/CATV Agency Fund -
724 Village Newsrack Enclosures -
726 2 Solar Radar Feedbacks -
727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement -
731 Storm Drain Upgrades -
732 Median Landscape/Irrigation -
734 Civic Center Landscape 3,098.79 7,370.00 10,468.79
735 Village Lights (Zone 7A)-
736 Village Trees Lighting -
738 Cox Ave Railroad Crossing -
739 -
744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter -
746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway -
747 -
748 El Ca Grante/Monta Vista -
749 Sara-Sun Gateway Sidewalk -
751 Financial System Upgrade -
752 -
755 Warner Hutton House Improv.-
760 Facility Projects -
761 2,584.00 2,584.00
762 North Campus/19848 Prospect -
766 Historical Park Fire Alarm 1,711.00 1,711.00
778 -
780 -
783 -
785 4,909.00 8,843.37 13,752.37
786 -
788 -
789 -
790 8,232.35 8,232.35
791 752.77 29,911.82 30,664.59
792 1,504.08 4,995.00 6,499.08
793 -
794 -
795 -
796 -
797 San Marcos OP Space Trail -
102,749.81 140,945.14 243,694.95
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Registers in the A/P Checks By Period and Year report format
Trail Segment #3 Repair
Teerlink Ranch Trail Repair
Hakone Garden D/W
Wildwood Park Improvement
Carnelian Glen Footbridge
UPRR/De Anza Trail
El Quito Park Improvement
Beauchamp Park Fund
TOTAL
Kevin Moran
Alternative Soccer Field
Parks/Trails Repair
Heritage Orchard Path
Wildwood Park - Wtr/Seat
Citywide Tree Replanting
Prospect Road Medians
Sara-Sun ADA Curb Ramps
Document Imaging Project
Fire Alarm McWill&Book Go
Fund Description
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Senior Engineer Public Works
SUBJECT: North Campus Fellowship Hall – Independent Contractor Agreement Approval
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve Independent Contractor Agreement with Amendment between the City of Saratoga and
Steve Benzing, Architect
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
REPORT SUMMARY:
In February 2007, Recreation Department solicited bids for architectural services for the design and
construction drawings for the renovation and addition of the North Campus Fellowship Hall. The lowest
bid in the amount of $19,500 was submitted by Steve Benzing, Architect. Since the contract amount was
below threshold of $25,000, City Council approval of the contract was not required. Resulting plans were
approved by the City Council at their September 19, 2007 meeting and, subsequently, the construction
contract was awarded by the City Council on February 20, 2008. Construction is currently progressing as
scheduled.
The Architect has submitted a proposal in an amount not to exceed $8,000 for construction administration
for the Fellowship Hall and electrical design work associated with the electrical service upgrade. In
addition, $1,000 is needed for securing approval from County Environmental Health Department. The
additional $9,000 will increase the total contract amount to $28,500, which per current City purchasing
policy requires City Council approval. The additional services for project administration and electrical
design are needed in order to proceed with the project construction.
It is therefore recommended the City Council approve attached Independent Contractor Agreement
between the City of Saratoga and Steve Benzing, Architect with Amendment.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for the North Campus Fellowship Hall independent contractor services is available in the
adopted budget.
Page 1 of 2
44
Page 2 of 2
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Steve Benzing, Architect will not provide additional services.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The Independent Contractor Agreement with Amendment shall be executed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Independent Contractor Agreement
2. Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement
3. Proposal from Steve Benzing
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Public Works Analyst
SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution authorizing No Parking
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No Parking” on a portion of Kirkmont
Drive
REPORT SUMMARY:
The City received a request from Park Saratoga Homeowners Association to restrict parking at the
corner of Atrium Circle where it meets Kirkmont Drive. Residents of the complex are concerned
with difficulty entering and exiting Atrium Circle when parked cars are parked too close to the
corner. Atrium Circle is a narrow street and when one car is leaving the complex and another is
trying to enter at the same time usually one car has to give the other the right away. The site
distance while exiting Atrium Circle is also compromised when cars are parked too close to the
corner.
This item was brought before the Traffic Safety Commission at the May 8, 2007 meeting. It was
reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and recommended by the Commission that parking be restricted
for ten feet on each side of Atrium Drive where it meets Kirkmont due to the lack of visibility and
potential safety hazard. It is therefore recommended that parking along this section of Kirkmont
Drive be designated as “No Parking Anytime”. In order to enforce the new parking restriction on
Kirkmont, it is necessary that the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Approximately $250 in labor and materials is required for the City to post signs. These
improvements are paid through the CIP which has a fund devoted to Traffic Safety.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The MV Resolutions would not be adopted and traffic conditions would continue as is.
Page 1 of 2
72
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The signs will be posted and the Sheriff’s Department will be notified of the new restrictions.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Motor Vehicle Resolution
2. Memo from Fehr & Peers
3. Map
73
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON KIRKMONT DRIVE
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following parking restrictions
shall be designated on Kirkmont Drive:
NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION
Kirkmont Drive Beginning of the southeastern edge No Parking or
of the southwestern exit of Atrium Circle Stopping Anytime
on Kirkmont Dr. and continuing east for ten
feet. Beginning at the southeastern exit
of Atrium Circle on Kirkmont Dr. and
continuing west for ten feet, and beginning at the
southeastern exit of Atrium Circle on Kirkmont Dr.
and continuing east for ten feet.
This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of June, 2008, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
74
75
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 11, 2008
To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga Public Works Director
From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid
Subject: Review of Potential Red Curbs at the Two Kirkmont Drive/Atrium Circle
intersections, Saratoga, California
1025-446-1
Fehr & Peers has completed an evaluation of traffic concerns at the two Kirkmont Drive/Atrium
Circle intersections in Saratoga, California. The intersections are located south-east of the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road intersection. Atrium Circle is a private roadway that
provides circulation through the Park Saratoga townhome development and intersects with
Kirkmont Drive at two points. The first intersection is located approximately 150 feet east of
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the second intersection is located approximately 360 feet east of
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. During the May 8, 2008, Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission (TSC)
meeting, the Park Saratoga Homeowners Association (HOA) requested six to ten feet red curbs
on the south side of Kirkmont Drive east and west of the Atrium Circle intersections. After review
of the item and input from the HOA and Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended that red curbs be
painted east of the first intersection and on both sides of the second Atrium Circle intersection.
This memorandum summarizes the traffic concerns and recommendations for the red curb
installation.
Atrium Circle is a private roadway that intersects with Kirkmont Drive, which is a public local
street. Atrium Circle is about 20-feet wide and provides the minimal roadway width generally
required for two-way traffic. Currently, “T-markers” are painted on the south side of Kirkmont
Drive between the two Atrium Circle intersections and east of the second Atrium intersection to
indicate where vehicles can park. The “T-markers” indicate that vehicles should not park within
eight to ten feet of the Atrium Circle intersections. It should be noted that the paint for the “T-
markers” has faded in some locations and thus no longer clearly delineates where vehicles can
park.
The concern raised at the May 2008 TSC meeting is that vehicles are parking too close Atrium
Circle and thus blocking visibility of drivers in vehicles exiting Atrium Circle. The HOA requested
that the City install red curbs on the south side of Kirkmont Drive six to ten feet east and west of
the Atrium Circle intersections.
Fehr & Peers conducted field observations at the Kirkmont Drive/Atrium Circle intersections in
May 2008. The field visit showed that the markings of the parking “Ts” on the Kirkmont Drive are
fading in some locations (especially closets to the first Atrium Circle intersection). Additionally, the
field visit confirmed that vehicles are parking too close to Atrium Circle and thus blocking visibility
for exiting drivers on Atrium Circle, as shown in Figure 1.
Based on the field observations, Fehr & Peers presented two alternative recommendations:
• Repaint the existing T-markers
76
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 2 of 2
• Remove the existing T-markers and paint up to ten feet of curb red east of the first Atrium
Circle intersection and on both sides of the second Atrium Circle intersection.
Each of the recommendations would effectively provide the same benefit to clearly delineate
where vehicles can park on Kirkmont Drive and provide sufficient visibility to vehicles exiting at
Atrium Circle. Neither of these measures would physically prevent a vehicle from parking too
close the Atrium Circle driveway. To ensure compliance with the parking restrictions, periodic
enforcement will be required.
After deliberation and input from the resident and Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended the curbs
be painted red. The red curbs at this location would not change the existing parking supply on
Kirkmont Drive, but rather clearly delineate to drivers where they can park on Krikmont Drive.
Figure 1: Visibility for Vehicles Exiting Second Atrium Circle Intersection
77
78
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ______
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: Rick Torres DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Street Sweeping Services
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Move to award a two year Street Sweeping Contract to Universal Sweeping Services in the
amount of $90,000 per year with an additional $10,000 allocation per year for unscheduled
sweeping.
2. Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a Street Sweeping Contract with Universal
Sweeping Services.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On May 20, 2008 Request for Proposals were mailed to seven contractors for street sweeping
services.
The City received proposals from three contractors namely Universal Sweeping Services of San
Jose, Clean Sweep of Gardena, and Vipur of Morgan Hill. Universal Sweeping Services
submitted the low proposal at $90,000 annually, Clean Sweep was second at $96,500, and Vipur
was third at 116,000.
An additional day of street sweeping was added to the Village sweeping schedule and the Village
will now be swept twice weekly on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Additionally, staff recommends approving $10,000 for unscheduled sweeping to the annual
contract amount. Unscheduled sweeping is performed normally on an as needed basis in
particular in the fall when leaf accumulation is high.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Funding for this work is programmed in the 08/09 budget.
79
2 of 2
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Universal Sweeping will not be awarded a Street Sweeping Contract and the City would not meet its
obligations as mandated by California Regional Water Control Board.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Council could direct staff to solicit additional proposals.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The contract will be executed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposals submitted by Contractors.
2. Contract for Universal Sweeping Services.
80
81
82
83
FY 2008-09
CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT
CITY OF SARATOGA
This Contract is made at Saratoga, California, as of July 1, 2008, by and between the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Universal Sweeping Services,(“Contractor”),
who agree as follows:
1. Scope of Service. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract,
Contractor shall provide to City the services described in Exhibit A. Contractor shall
provide said services at the time, place and in the manner specified in Exhibit A.
2. Term. The Term of this Agreement commences on July 1, 2008 and extends through
June 30, 2010 or the completion of the project, whichever occurs first, unless it is
extended by written mutual agreement between the parties, provided that the parties
retain the right to terminate this agreement as provided in Exhibit D at all times.
3. Payment. City shall pay Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this Contract at the
time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B. The payments specified in Exhibit B shall
be the only payments to be made to Contractor for services rendered pursuant to this
Contract not to exceed $100,000.00. Contractor shall submit all billings for said services
to City in the manner specified in Exhibit B.
4. Facilities and Equipment. Except as set forth in Exhibit C, Contractor shall, at its sole
cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment, which may be required for
furnishing services pursuant to this Contract. City shall furnish to Contractor only the
facilities listed as City Obligations in Exhibit C according to the terms and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C.
5. General Provisions. The general provisions set forth in Exhibit D are part of this
Contract. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any
other terms or conditions of this Contract, the other term or condition shall control insofar
as it is inconsistent with the general provisions.
6. Standard of Performance. The performance standards set forth in Exhibit E shall be
achieved.
7. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this reference
incorporated herein.
8. Termination. City has the right to terminate this Contract at any time upon written
notice given to the Contractor. The effective date of the termination shall be set forth in
the written notice.
9. Notices. Any written notices to Contractor shall be sent to:
Attention: Gina Vella
Universal Sweeping Services
P.O. Box 28010
681 Lenfest Road
San Jose, Ca 95159-8010
Page 1 of 16
84
Telefax: (408-258-0122)
Any written notices to City shall be sent to:
To the City:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
FAX (408) 867-8559
with a copy to: Rick Torres
(which copy shall Public Work Manager
not constitute City of Saratoga
notice) 19700 Allendale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
FAX (408) 868-1278
10. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered on behalf
of City by Rick Torres ("Administrator"). The Administrator has complete authority to
receive information, interpret and define City's policies consistent with this Agreement,
and communicate with Contractor concerning this Agreement. All correspondence and
other communications shall be directed to or through the Administrator or his or her
designee.
Executed as of the day first above stated:
Contractor: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
By _____________________ By ____________________
City Manager
Name ___________________ Attest: _________________________
City Clerk
Its ______________________ Approved as to form:
_____________________________
City Attorney
Approved as to budget authority and insurance:
____________________________________
Finance Director
Page 2 of 16
85
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
Definitions and General Information
1. This contract is for Professional Street Sweeping Service for a period beginning July 1,
2008 and ending June 30, 2010.
2. The contractor shall meet or exceed all minimum requirements of this contract.
3. The City has approximately 65 arterial curb miles of roadway to be swept. The city has
approximately 210 residential curb miles of roadway to be swept. The City has parking
lot areas to be swept including 4 Village Parking Districts, Hakone Gardens, Congress
Springs Park, El Quito Park (West Hope Church Lot) and Civic Center. In addition, the
City may have seasonal leaf drop street sweeping and other unscheduled street sweeping
needs.
4. The term ”debris” shall mean all materials normally picked up by a mechanical sweeper,
such as sand, glass, paper, cans, and other litter and materials.
5. The term “street” shall mean the paved area between the normal curb line of a roadway
whether an actual curb line exists or not. It shall not include any ways that would cause
damage to the equipment used. It does not include sidewalks, areas adjacent to the
roadway or parking lots.
6. The term “parking lot” shall mean the paved area where cars park.
7. “Adverse weather conditions” shall mean heavy rains, extreme cold and other weather
conditions as so designated by the Administrator.
8. “Holidays” shall be New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day,
Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving,
and Christmas.
Scope of Work
1. The Contractor will sweep designated streets and parking lots currently owned and
maintained by the City.
2. The Contractor will sweep the following:
• Sweep monthly arterial streets totaling approximately 65 curb miles.
• Sweep monthly citywide residential streets totaling approximately 210 curb miles.
• Sweep weekly 4 Village Parking District parking lots witch includes Big Basin Way,
3rd Street, 4th Street and 5th street
• Sweep monthly Civic Center parking lots, City Hall, Community Center and
Corporation Yard.
• Sweep monthly the Hakone Gardens parking lot.
• Sweep monthly parking lot adjacent to Congress Springs Park.
• Sweep monthly parking lot adjacent to El Quito Park (West Hope Church lot)
• Perform other sweeping as requested.
Page 3 of 16
86
3. Sweeping will be performed between the hours of 6 A.M. and 6 P.M., Monday through
Friday, except the Village Parking District Lots where the contractor can start sweeping
at 5 AM. Sweeping may occur outside of these hours only when the City determines that
a noise problem would not result, and only upon written approval of the City.
4. The contractor will supply and maintain all labor and equipment necessary to accomplish
the scope of work.
5. The Contractor will dump all materials swept up at 19700 Allendale, or locations
designated by the City.
6. The Contractor may be required to sweep certain areas at times other than stated above.
When this occurs, contractor shall be compensated at an hourly rate as referred to in
Exhibit B.
7. All streets shall be swept with the normal flow of traffic.
8. The Contractor will distribute public information notices about the street sweeping
program annually at no additional cost to the City. The cost of distributing other public
information such as reminder tags and/or newspaper advertisements shall be negotiated.
(Annual notice, and maintenance of web site)
9. Contractor shall maintain a principal office that shall at all times during the term of this
Contract be located either in the City or within twenty (20) miles of the City. The office
shall be opened at a minimum from 8A.M. to 4:30P.M. Monday through Friday, holidays
excluded. Calls received before office hours begin shall be returned the following
morning. A representative of Contractor shall be available during office hours at
Contractor’s office for communication with City representatives and the public.
10. Contractor’s principal office shall be accessible by a local (toll-free to caller) telephone
number at least during the office hours of 8 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. At Contractor’s expense,
the telephone number shall be listed under Contractor’s name in the telephone directories
for Saratoga.
11. The Contractor shall investigate all public complaints concerning street sweeping.
Complaints brought to the Contractor’s attention prior to 3:00 P.M. shall be investigated
that day. Those brought to the Contractor’s attention after 3:00 P.M. shall be investigated
before noon of the following day. A complaint log shall be filled out for each complaint
referred to or received by the Contractor. The log, which must be approved by the City,
shall be filed with the City on the first working day following the day the complaint was
received. The Contractor shall report what actions were necessary to resolve each
complaint.
12. Documentation (hardcopy) in a narrative and a graphic format prescribed by the City of
all work will be provided by Contractor on a monthly and annual basis.
13. Equipment, when in operation, shall travel under 5 miles per hour to ensure that streets
are swept in a satisfactory manner. If it can be proven to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works that the equipment maybe operated at a higher speed, and still operate
effectively, written permission to do so may be granted.
14. Equipment operators shall be able to speak, read, and write in English.
Page 4 of 16
87
15. The Contractor must submit sweeping documentation in a format prescribed by the City
on a monthly and annual basis.
16. The Contractor shall maintain the agreed upon frequency of sweeping as closely as
possible, subject to adverse weather conditions, defined under the terms of this Contract.
The Contractor will be required to perform hand blowing in parking lots as directed by
the City. In addition, the City may require the Contractor to return to sweep areas
previously blocked by parked vehicles or other obstructions. If so required, Contractor
shall perform the re-sweeping within 24 hours of notification.
17. Contractor shall propose separate schedules for arterial and residential sweeping. The
City shall approve both schedules before work under the contract begins. Changes to the
approved schedules must be approved in writing by the Director of Public Works before
Contractor can proceed to implement such changes.
Page 5 of 16
88
Exhibit B1
Payment Schedule
1. As full compensation under the terms of this Contract, the City shall pay the
Contractor the following:
Unit Price Description of Service
$22.92*per Monthly sweeping of approximately 65 curb mile of arterial streets
curb mile
$22.92*per Monthly sweeping of approximately 210 curb mile of residential streets
curb mile
$200.00 Weekly sweeping of 4 Village Parking District Parking Lots,
Which includes 3rd St, 4th St and 5th St
$80.00 Monthly sweeping of Hakone Gardens Parking Lot
$80.00 Monthly sweeping of Parking Lot at Congress Springs Park
$80.00 Monthly sweeping of Civic Center Parking Lots
$80.00 Monthly Sweeping of West Hope church parking lot
$7489.00 Total Monthly Charges for above sweeping
$90.00 per hour Unscheduled Sweeping
Included at no Monthly and Annual Documentation of Street Sweeping
cost to City
Included at no Public Information to be mailed annually and maintain web site
cost to City
Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of the
Contract, based on the cost for services performed prior to the invoice date.
2. City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for services satisfactorily
performed. City shall make no payment for any extra, further or additional service
pursuant to this Contract unless such extra service and the price therefore is agreed to by
the Director of Public Works prior to the time such extra service is rendered.
3. Send invoices to: City of Saratoga
Department of Public Works
19700 Allendale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Page 6 of 16
89
* In the event a change in the number of curb miles to be swept increases or decreases by
more than twenty-five percent (25%) during the term of this contract, either party may
request an adjustment to the unit price. Both parties shall meet to determine the appropriate
adjustments.
Page 7 of 16
90
Exhibit C
Facilities and Equipment
Equipment Specifications
1. The Contractor shall have proof of ownership, or a signed lease for the duration of the
Contract, of at least one (1) motorized machine suitable for meeting the requirements of
this Contract. A description of the machine shall be submitted to the City before work
under the contract can begin. Where new equipment will be purchased, the Contractor
shall provide a signed quotation from an equipment dealer, with guaranteed delivery date,
in order to ensure that work can begin on time. Equipment that is not new shall have
been rebuilt within two years prior to the start of work. For the purposes of this Contract,
“rebuilt” means, at a minimum, replacement of worn parts and reconditioning or
replacement of hydraulic systems, transmissions, differentials, electrical systems,
engines, and brake systems. In addition, the vehicles must be repainted and tires must
have at least eighty-five percent (85%) of tread remaining.
2. The Contractor shall, at all times, maintain the ability to place at least one (1) back-up
machine into service in the event of any mechanical failure of the primary machine which
renders it incapable of operating or performing to the standards of this contract, or at the
direction of the City. In either case, the back-up machine shall be operational within two
(2) hours from when the primary machine experiences mechanical failure, or from when
the City directs the Contractor to place the back-up machine into service. The Contractor
shall provide satisfactory evidence of the availability of a back-up machine. The back-up
machine shall conform to all of the standards and specifications applicable to the primary
machine.
3. All street sweeping machines used by Contractor in the performance of services shall be
of sufficient quality to perform the work required.
4. Machines must be capable of transporting debris to locations designated by the City.
5. Machines must be equipped with an efficient water spray system for dust control, and the
spray system must be maintained in good operating condition.
6. Machines must be properly registered and insured in accordance with the motor vehicle
laws of the State of California.
7. Contractor shall maintain street-sweeping equipment in a clean and presentable condition
and in good repair at all times. All parts and systems of the collection equipment shall
operate properly and be maintained in a condition satisfactory to the City. If a machine
becomes inoperative, a replacement street sweeping machine shall be put into service
within 2 hours. City of Saratoga identification shall be affixed to right and left side of
vehicle i.e.: “Sweeping Saratoga” or other name agreed upon by Contractor and the
Director of the Department of Public Works.
8. A sufficient supply of spare brooms or vacuum and other parts must be kept on hand to
ensure the timely and continuous fulfillment of the services.
9. Equipment must be capable of removing litter, leaves, and debris sufficiently to meet
applicable industry, NPDES Program, State, Federal, and City standards.
Page 8 of 16
91
10. Equipment must conform to all Federal, State, and Local regulations regarding emissions,
safety, and operating standards.
11. Vehicles must be of the regenerative air type and equipped with dual gutter brooms and
main broom capable of sweeping at a minimum of a nine-foot path.
City’s Obligations
1. The City will provide and maintain adequate disposal site(s) for dumping debris picked up
by the Contractor.
2. The City will provide routine safety efficiency checks.
Contractor’s Obligations
1. The Contractor will be responsible for securing adequate hydrant access throughout the
City for filling water spray systems. In addition, the Contractor will be responsible for
securing any necessary permits from the San Jose Water Company.
2. The Contractor will provide fuel, water, and maintenance for all vehicles and for
equipment.
Page 9 of 16
92
Exhibit D
General Provisions
1. Service Standards. Contractor shall perform all services under this Contract in a
thorough and professional manner. Street sweeping services described in Exhibit A of
this Contract shall be performed except during adverse weather conditions. Additionally,
all services described in Exhibit A of this Contract shall be performed professionally, on
schedule, and courteously.
2. Labor and Equipment. Contractor shall provide and maintain all labor, equipment,
tools, facilities, and personnel supervision required for the performance of Contractor’s
obligations under this Contract. Contractor shall at all times have sufficient backup
equipment and labor to fulfill Contractor’s obligations under this Contract. No
compensation for Contractor’s services or for Contractor’s supply of labor, equipment,
tools, facilities or supervision shall be provided or paid to Contractor by City except as
expressly provided by this contract.
3. Holiday Service. Contractor shall not be required to perform services under this
Contract on ten (10) holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s
Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day,
Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Street sweeping services that would be performed but for
Holidays shall be rescheduled to the day immediately following the Holiday, or
subsequent regular street sweeping day, unless otherwise specifically approved in
advance in writing by the Director of Public Works.
4. Independent Contractor. In the performance of services pursuant to this Contract,
Contractor shall be an independent contractor and not an officer, agent, servant or
employee of City. Contractor shall have exclusive control over the details of the services
and work performed and over all persons performing such services and work. Contractor
shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees,
contractors, and subcontractors, if any. Neither Contractor nor its officers, employees,
agents, contractors, or subcontractors shall obtain any right to retirement benefits,
Workers’ Compensation benefits, or any other benefits which accrue to employees of
City, nor Contractor expressly waives any claim it may have or acquire to such benefits.
Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes,
including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes, and in connection therewith
Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability that City
may incur because of Contractor's failure to pay such taxes. City shall have no obligation
whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor.
5. Law to Govern. The laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations,
duties and liabilities of City and Contractor under this Contract and shall govern the
interpretation of this Contract.
6. Venue. Any litigation between City and Contractor concerning or arising out of this
Contract shall be filed and maintained exclusively in the Municipal or Superior Courts of
Santa Clara county, State of California, or in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to the fullest extent permissible by law. Each party
consents to service of process in any manner authorized by California law.
7. Assignment. Neither party shall assign its rights nor delegate or otherwise transfer its
obligations under this Contract to any other person without the prior written consent of
Page 10 of 16
93
the other party. Any such assignment made without the consent of the other party shall
be void and the attempted assignment shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.
For purposes of this exhibit, “assignment” shall include, but not limited to:
A. A sale, exchange or other transfer or substantially all of Contractor’s assets
dedicated to service under this agreement to a third party.
B. A sale, exchange or other transfer of ten percent (10%) or more of the
outstanding common stock of Contractor to a person other than the
shareholder(s). Establishment of a living trust will not constitute such a transfer,
provided that control of the Company is retained by the shareholders.
C. Any reorganization, consolidation, merger, recapitalization, stock issuance or
reassurance, voting trust, pooling agreement, escrow arrangement, liquidation or
other transaction to which Contractor or any of its shareholders is a party which
results in a change in ownership or control of ten percent (10%) or more of the
value or voting rights in the stock of Contractor; and
D. Any combination of the foregoing (whether or not in related or contemporaneous
transactions) which has the effect of any such transfer or change of ownership.
8. Subcontracting. The use of a subcontractor to perform services under this contract shall
not be permitted.
9. Binding on Successors. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit to and
be binding on the successors and permitted assigns of the parties.
10. Parties in Interest. Nothing in this Contract, whether express or implied, is intended to
confer any rights on any persons other than the parties to it ant their representatives,
successor and permitted assigns.
11. Compliance with Law. In the performance of this contract, Contractor shall comply
with all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and codes of the federal, state and local
governments, including without limitation the Municipal Code of City.
A. Employment Eligibility. Contractor shall ensure that all employees of Contractor
and any subcontractor retained by Contractor in connection with this Agreement have
provided the necessary documentation to establish identity and employment
eligibility as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Failure
to provide the necessary documentation will result in the termination of the
Agreement as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
B. Discrimination Prohibited. Contractor assures and agrees that Contractor will
comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws prohibiting
discrimination and that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color,
disability, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, religion, Vietnam era veteran's
status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit factors be excluded from
participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination
under this Agreement.
C. Drug-free Workplace. Contractor and Contractor's employees and subcontractors
shall comply with the City's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. Neither
Page 11 of 16
94
Contractor nor Contractor's employees and subcontractors shall unlawfully
manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess or use controlled substances, as defined in
21 U.S. Code Section 812, including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines,
at any facility, premises or worksite used in any manner in connection with
performing services pursuant to this Agreement. If Contractor or any employee or
subcontractor of Contractor is convicted or pleads nolo contendere to a criminal drug
statute violation occurring at such a facility, premises, or worksite, the Contractor,
within five days thereafter, shall notify the City.
12. Permits and Licenses. Contractor shall obtain, and shall maintain throughout the term
of this Contract, all necessary permits, licenses and approvals required for Contractor to
perform the work and services agreed to be performed by Contractor to perform the work
and services agreed to be performed by Contractor pursuant to this Contract. Contractor
shall show proof of such permits, licenses or approvals and shall demonstrate compliance
with the terms and conditions of such permits, licenses and approvals upon the request of
the Director of Public Works.
13. Ownership of Written Materials. All reports, documents, brochures, public education
materials, and other written, printed or photographic materials developed by city or
Contractor in connection with the service to be performed under this Contract or in
connection with the Street sweeping Services, whether developed directly or indirectly by
city or Contractor, shall be and shall remain the property of City without limitation or
restriction on the use of such materials by City. Contractor shall not use such materials in
connection with any project not connected with this Contract without the prior written
notice to and consent of the Director of Public Works. Such consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
14. Waiver. The waiver by City or Contractor of any breach or violation of any term,
covenant or condition of this Contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other
term, covenant or condition or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of
any other term, covenant or condition. The subsequent acceptance by City of any fee,
tax, or any other moneys, which may become due from Contractor to City shall not be
deemed to be a waiver by city of any breach or violation of any term, covenant or
condition of this Contract.
15. Prohibition Against Gifts. Contractor shall not offer any city officer or other employees
any gift.
16. Notices. All notices and other communications required or which may be given under
this Contract shall be deemed given when deposited in the United States mail or when
personally delivered or telefax to the parties as specified in this Exhibit. In the case of a
notice or communication by telefax, the telefax shall be sent to the number specified
below and a written copy shall be mailed or personally delivered within three (3) days of
the transmittal of the telefax. All notices or other communications sent by mail shall be
sent postage prepaid and return receipt requested to the address specified in section 9 of
this agreement. Either party may designate a different mailing address or a different
telefax number by providing notice to the other party as provided in this Exhibit. Such
notice shall be deemed to be effective when received if served personally or sent via
Federal Express, and three days after being deposited in the mail.
17. Transition to Next Contractor. In the event Contractor is not awarded an agreement to
continue to provide services following the expiration or earlier termination of this
Page 12 of 16
95
Contract, Contractor shall cooperate fully with City and any subsequent contractor(s) to
assure a smooth transition of services described in this Contract.
18. City Representative. Except as otherwise provided in this Contract, City
Representatives shall be authorized to act on behalf of City in the administration of this
Contract.
19. Contractor’s Records. Contractor shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account,
invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or
relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a
minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law.
Contractor shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate performance
under this Contract for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period
required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Contract.
Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this contract shall be
made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon
written request by the Director of Public Works or other designated representative.
Copies of such documents shall be provided to city for inspection at City Hall when it is
practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records
shall be available at Contractor’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Contract.
Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded
due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Contractor’s business, City may, by
written request or demand of any of the above-named officers, require that custody of the
records be given to City, and that the records and documents shall be granted to any party
authorized by Contractor, Contractor’s representative, or Contractor’s successor-in-
interest.
20. Amendment. This Contract may be amended or modified only by written agreement
duly authorized by contractor and the City Council, and executed by their authorized
representatives.
21. Severability. Should one or more of the provisions if this Contract be held by any court
to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless remain
and continue in full force and effect, provided that the continuation of such remaining
provisions does not materially change the duties or obligations of either party from those
duties or obligations originally contemplated by this Contract.
22. Time. Contractor shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Contract as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Contractor’s
obligations pursuant to this Contract.
23. Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
contract “occurrence coverage” insurance against claims for injuries to persons or
damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contract unit prices.
The Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance of at least $1 million dollars,
and property damage insurance of at least $1 million dollars. The Contractor shall also
maintain property damage and bodily injury insurance of at least $1 million dollars.
Employees will be covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The City shall be
Page 13 of 16
96
named as an additional insured on all policies except in workers’ compensation.
Evidence of current insurance shall be provided in the form of a certificate to the City
prior to the start of work.
The Contractor makes the following certification, required by section 1861 of the
California Labor Code:
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I
will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the
work of this contract.
24. Hold Harmless and Responsibility of Contractors. Contractor shall take all
responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly
resulting to him, to the City, to City officers and employees, or to parties designated by
the City, on account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties,
accidents, occurrences, or other causes predicted on active or passive negligence of the
Contractor. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers,
officials, directors, employees and agents from and against any or all loss, liability,
expense, claim, costs (including costs of defense), suits, and damages of every kind,
nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the performance of the work.
This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt the City, its employees and officers from
its own fraud, willful injury or violation of law whether willful or negligent. For
purposes of Section 2782 of the Civil Code, the parties hereto recognize and agree that
this Contract is not a construction contract. By execution of this Contract, Contractor
acknowledges and agrees that it has read and understands the provisions hereof and that
this paragraph is a material element of consideration. Approval of the insurance contracts
does not relieve the Contractor from liability under this paragraph.
26. Default and Remedies.
A. Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default
hereunder:
1. Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach immediately upon receiving notice of such breach, if the breach
is such that the City determines the health, welfare, or safety of the public is
immediately endangered; or
2. Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such breach, if the
breach is such that the City determines that the health, welfare, or safety of
the public is not immediately endangered, provided that if the nature of the
breach is such that the City determines it will reasonably require more than
fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in default if Contractor
promptly commences the cure and diligently proceeds to completion of the
cure.
B. Remedies upon default. Upon any Contractor default, City shall have the right
to immediately suspend or terminate the Agreement, seek specific performance,
contract with another party to perform this Agreement and/or seek damages
including incidental, consequential and/or special damages to the full extent
Page 14 of 16
97
allowed by law.
C. No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default hereunder shall
not constitute a waiver of any other rights hereunder or any right to seek any
remedy for any subsequent default.
D. Litigation. If any litigation is commenced between parties to this Agreement
concerning any provision hereof or the rights and duties of any person in relation
thereto, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
27. Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree
to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, and
volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the City.
28. Entirety. This Contract and the exhibits attached hereto represent the entire agreement
of City and Contractor with respect to the services to be provided under this Contract.
No prior written or oral statement or proposal shall alter any term or provision of this
Contract.
Page 15 of 16
98
Page 16 of 16
Exhibit E
Performance Standards
The primary objective of street sweeping is to remove all leaves, paper, dirt, rocks, glass, bottles,
cans and other litter and debris from streets to ensure free flow of water in the gutter and to
maintain streets in an overall state of cleanliness. The City will make the final determination as
to whether the work has been satisfactorily completed and will order the Contractor to re-sweep
areas not swept in a satisfactory manner.
99
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Public Works Director Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Upper Old Oak Way Vacation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Adopt Resolution vacating a portion of Old Oak Way.
2. Adopt Resolution accepting offer of dedication for Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail purposes (Attachment
1).
REPORT SUMMARY:
In 2001 David House approached the City to ask that the upper end of Old Oak Way be relinquished to
him. State law provides that this may be accomplished by vacating the public right of way in the street.
Because Mr. House owns all the land surrounding the portion of the street to be vacated, the request was
considered feasible. The section of roadway to be vacated is relatively short (584 feet) and is surrounded
entirely by land owned by Mr. House. (Attachment 2) The effect of the vacation would be to transform
Old Oak Way from a street terminating within Mr. House’s property to one terminating at the property
boundary as is typically the case.
Vacation of City roadways is not a common occurrence. Usually they deal with abandoned right-of-ways
that were never improved but still encumber a property. The proposal to relinquish the end of Old Oak
Way is unique because it is a fully improved road with properties both sides of the City’s right-of-way
owned by the same party. The City considers three main issues when considering a vacation request: 1)
How will public and emergency access be impacted? 2) What are the financial benefits or detriments to
the City? 3) Does the proposed vacation conform to the City General Plan?
1) Public Trails and Emergency Access:
Because there are no anticipated plans or developments which would extend Old Oak Way beyond its
current limits, staff determined that for the proposed relinquishment only non-motorized public access
needed further investigation i.e. pedestrian and equestrian access.
Because this area of the City has many interconnecting public trails the issue was forwarded to the
Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) to investigate any potential
trail opportunities.
100
The PEBTAC determine there was an opportunity for trial links which would enhance the connectivity of
the City’s trail system. Mr. House was notified of the proposal and agreed to investigate the feasibility of
trail linkages through his property.
Over the ensuing time, the City Council Ad Hoc comprised of Ann Waltonsmith and Kathleen King, the
PEBTAC, Mr. House, the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, the Garrod Family, and City staff
explored various routes that might provide trial linkages.
The final agreed upon trail easement location (Attachment 2) will provide the opportunity for a future link
with the Garrod property.
Additionally, Mr. House Agreed to pay for improvements to the “Upper Tank Trail” located in Parker
Ranch, which provides connection to the Fremont Older Open Space area (Attachment 2). This trail
segment, in its current state, is virtually unusable and improving it will provide safe passage for both
pedestrians and equestrians. Mr. House has provided the City with $61,000 to pay for these
improvements.
For emergency vehicular access the Fire Department conditioned a hammer head turn around area be built
at the new terminus of the road (Attachments 2 and 3). If the relinquishment of Old Oak Way is
approved, the City will need to accept a street dedication for the emergency turnaround area (Attachment
4). Once the turn around area is constructed by Mr. House, the City would take action via resolution to
accept the street dedication encompassing the emergency turnaround area. Mr. House will be providing a
cash bond to ensure the work is completed.
2) Financial Considerations:
If upper Old Oak Way were relinquished by the City, the City would save future costs associated with
maintenance of the road. Annualized savings are approximately $2,800.
The developer of the subdivision funded the original road improvements therefore no City funds were
expended in there construction.
3) General Plan Conformity:
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed vacation for conformity with the City’s General
Plan and determined that the proposal is in conformity as discussed in the attached Planning Commission
resolution (Attachment 7).
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Depends on City Council direction.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The relinquishment and acquisitions would not move forward at this time.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
101
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Staff will follow Council’s direction regarding relinquishment of upper Old Oak Way.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Interested parties were contacted regarding the issue.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement
2. Overall Aerial View
3. Fire Truck Turn Around
4. Offer to dedicate Property for Street Purposes
5. Resolution Accepting the Offer to Dedicate the Trail Easement
6. Resolution Summarily Vacating a Portion of Old Oak Way
7. Planning Commission Resolution Regarding General Plan Conformity for Vacation of Old Oak
Way
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
.
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ACCEPTING OFFER TO DEDICATE TRAIL EASEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has received the Offer to Dedicate the Trail
Easement on property owned by David L. House as Trustee under David L. House Living
trust U/A 9/6/00 (APN 503-15-076) attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Trail Easement Offer
of Dedication”) and the Offer to Dedicate Property for Street Purposes on property
owned by David L. House as Trustee under David L. House Living trust U/A 9/6/00
(APN 503-15-074) attached hereto as Exhibit B (“Street Offer of Dedication”).
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the acceptance of the Trail
Easement Offer of Dedication would provide opportunity for a future trail connection and
would be in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the property subject to the Street Offer of Dedication is needed for
construction of an emergency vehicular access and turn around and the owner of the
property has agreed to construct said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA hereby:
1. Accepts the Trail Easement Offer of Dedication as described hereinabove and
attached hereto; and
2. Will await completion of improvements on the property subject to Offer to
Dedicate Property for Street Purposes as described hereinabove and attached
hereto and then evaluate the acceptance of the said Offer; and
2. Authorizes and directs City Clerk to accept the Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement.
114
Passed and adopted by on the 18th day of June, 2008. by the CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SARATOGA by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
Attest: City of Saratoga
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
115
116
117
118
119
120
Attachment 7
The Planning Resolution regarding General Plan Conformity was approved with minor
modifications at the Planning Commission’s June 11th Meeting. The Assistant City
Attorney will be revising the Resolution on Monday and the Attachment will be
forwarded to City Council once available.
121
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Library General Obligation Bonds
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council adopt the attached resolution which sets the FY 2008/09 property tax levy rate for the
Library General Obligation Bonds at $.01040 per $100 of Assessed Valuation to provide for the Library
Bond’s debt service requirements over the fiscal year.
REPORT SUMMARY
Background
In March 2000, the citizens of Saratoga approved the issuance of City of Saratoga General Obligation
Bonds to pay for improvements to the City’s library building. The General Obligation Bonds were issued
in May of 2001, and the debt service payments began in February 2002.
With this bond approval, property owners are to be assessed an additional property tax levy over thirty
years to fund the debt service resulting from the bond issuance. The annual tax levy is calculated each
year to determine the assessment rate to charge property owners in order to fund the debt service
payments (principal and interest), as the tax levy rate adjusts each year due to ongoing increases in
property values.
The County of Santa Clara requires that the local jurisdictions approve a tax levy rate to meet the debt
service payments and notify the County no later than August 1st of each year, prior to the County
preparing and mailing the property tax bills.
Discussion
The Library bond’s principal and interest requirements for FY 2008/09 total $1,012,756. The tax levy
rate calculation is structured to yield an amount approximately equal to this debt service.
The property tax levy is a percentage of property tax valuation. As the Santa Clara County’s Auditor-
Controller’s Office does not provide the City of Saratoga’s secured assessed valuation for the upcoming
fiscal year until days before the tax levy rate is due to the County, an estimate is used in the tax rate
calculation.
The FY 2008/09 estimated assessed property valuation is calculated by increasing the FY 2007/08
assessed valuation by 4%:
FY 2007/08 assessed property valuation: $ 9,329,953,365
FY 2008/09 estimated valuation with 4% increase: $ 9,703,151,500
122
The property tax levy is then subsequently determined by dividing the annual debt service per $100 of
estimated assessed valuation:
Fiscal Year 2008/09 Calculation
Debt Service – Principal $ 310,000
Debt Service – Interest 702,756
Total Debt Service $1,012,756
Property Tax Levy Calculation:
Total Debt Service $ 1,012,756
Divided per $100 estimated valuation $ 97,031,515
Property Tax Levy Rate: .01044 Æ shown as 5 decimal points but
rounded to 4 decimals = .01040
Therefore, it is estimated that a property tax levy rate of .01040 per $100 of assessed valuation will fund
the $1,012,756 of debt service payments in FY 2008/09. The Library Bond Fund’s fund balance reserves
will provide for the estimated $5,200 of annual administrative costs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The tax levy funds the annual debt service requirements of the voter approved General Obligation Bond,
and tax revenues are included in the City’s operating budget, within the Library Bond Debt Service Fund.
A reserve balance is maintained in the Library Bond Fund to provide sufficient funding for the debt
service prior to the property tax levy remittance to the City. With the adoption of this property tax levy,
the debt service payment is funded with the supplemental tax assessment, and would not impact city
operations.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the property tax levy is not approved, supplemental funds would not be collected by the Santa Clara
County Tax Assessor for the debt service related to the Library General Obligation Bond, and the debt
service payments would be funded from City reserves.
FOLLOW UP ACTION
Direct the City Clerk to send a certified copy of the resolution setting the property tax levy for the Library
General Obligation Bond no later than August 1, 2007 to:
Mu-Hua Cheng
County of Santa Clara
Controller-Treasurer Department
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 2nd Floor
San Jose, CA 95110-1705
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution authorizing the Tax Rate Levy for the General Obligation Bonds and reporting the levy
rate to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector.
123
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY
FOR THE DEBT SERVICE OF THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
FOR 2008/09 AT $.01040 PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUATION
WHEREAS, in March 2000, the citizens of Saratoga approved an increase in their property tax
rate to pay for the debt service and other expenses of the general obligation bonds for construction of the
Library, and
WHEREAS, the general obligation bonds were sold on April 24, 2001, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council of the City of Saratoga to establish an annual
property tax levy to provide funds for the debt service and related expenditures due in FY 2008/09.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2008/09 Property Tax Levy for debt service
on the Library General Obligation Bonds be established at $.01040 per $100 of assessed valuation.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City
Council held on the 18th day of June 2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
City of Saratoga
ATTEST:
____________________________
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
City of Saratoga
124
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Admin Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Citizen Options for Public Safety - Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds Grant
(COPS/SLESF)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of the Citizen Options for Public Safety Program’s
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (COPS/SLESF) grant as a source of funds for additional public
safety services.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Assembly Bill 3229, Chapter 134, Statue of 1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety
(COPS) Program. Under this program, compliant cities are allocated a proportionate share of COPS
funds by the State, for the exclusive purpose of funding supplemental front line law enforcement
services. Proportionate shares are based on population estimates determined by the California
Department of Finance. The City of Saratoga is eligible to receive a grant amount of $100,000 each year.
Funds from this program cannot supplant existing funding and are to be used for personnel and/or
equipment. On an annual basis, the spending plan of the City must be submitted to the County’s
Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee for review and certification. Upon Council’s
approval authorizing the use of these grant funds, this report and attached resolution will be submitted to
the County to provide compliance with this requirement.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
For Fiscal Year 2008/09 the City of Saratoga will allocate the $100,000 COPS/Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) grant funding for the supplemental law enforcement and patrol
officer hours and neighborhood resource officer, as provided by Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office.
The proposed contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for Fiscal Year 2008/09 will include
the following supplemental services:
1. 1,046 additional law enforcement at a cost of $144,474
2. 3,889 additional patrol hours at a cost of $489,690
3. and the addition of a neighborhood resource officer at a flat fee of $100,000
The $100,000 in Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funding pays for 12.24% of the additional
services in the FY 2008/09 contract.
125
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City would become ineligible for the $100,000 in Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
grant funding.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Direct the City Clerk to send a copy of the report; a certified copy of the resolution; and the Supplemental
Law Enforcement Form, to the County of Santa Clara, Office of the District Attorney.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution
Attachment B – Supplemental Law Enforcement Form
CC:
Captain Terry Calderone (electronically – Terry.Calderone@sho.co.santa-clara.ca.us)
126
ATTACHMENT – A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
REPORTING THE USE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUNDS (SLESF)
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
WHEREAS, the State of California has made additional funding available to supplement City
funds for front line municipal public safety services;
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined the best use of the SLESF funds is to improve
public safety with supplemental patrol officer hours and neighborhood resource officer;
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is required to report planned use of such funds to the County of
Santa Clara, Office of the District Attorney annually;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves to approve the use of the $100,000 available from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services
Fund for supplemental patrol officer hours and neighborhood resource officer;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council wishes to notify the District
Attorney’s Office of their approved spending plan by copy of this resolution.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City
Council held on the 18th day of June, 2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
127
ATTACHMENT – B
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE -$
Prior Year Adjustment -
Prior Year Encumbrance Reversals -
RESTATED FUND BALANCE -$
REVENUES
State Funding 100,000
Interest Revenue -
Other Revenue -
TOTAL REVENUES 100,000$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries & Benefits 100,000
Services & Supplies -
Equipment -
Administrative Overhead -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 100,000$
ENCUMBRANCES
Current Year
Services & Supplies -
Equipment -
Total Current Year -$
NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE -$
ENDING FUND BALANCE -$
Hours Rate Cost
Additional General Law Enforcement Hours 1,046.00 147.28 154,055
Supplemental Patrol Hours 3,888.90 144.81 563,152
Neighborhood Resource Officer Flat Rate 100,000
Total Supplemental Cost 817,206
Percent paid by SLESF Funds 12.24%
From SCC Sheriff's FY 2008/09 Contract Proposal dated 4/18/08
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARIZED FORM
Oversight Committee Summary
For FY 2008/09
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES EXPENSE
128
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Admin Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Annual Approval of the City’s Investment Policy - for Fiscal Year 2008/09
RECOMMENDED ACTION
For the City Council to approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2008/09.
REPORT SUMMARY
California Government Code Section 53600 et seq., City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2-20.035,
and Section 16.0 of the City of Saratoga Investment Policy require the City Council to annually review
and approve the City’s Investment Policy.
The Investment Policy lays the foundation for the City’s investment management functions. It serves as a
guide for setting and achieving investment objectives, defines rules and established benchmarks, prohibits
and/or restricts investment instruments and reduces the exposure to liability of both staff and City
Council. Compliance with the Policy is an element of fiscal discipline considered by the City’s auditors
and rating agencies during their respective reviews.
Last year, at the June 20, 2007 Council Meeting, the City Council approved the Investment Policy in its
current version, there are no changes recommended to that investment policy. The policy is modeled on the
policy approved by the Association of Public Treasurers of the United States and Canada (APT US&C) in
August 2002.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City would not be in compliance with State and Local regulations.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Direct Staff to make changes to the Investment Policy and return at the next meeting.
FOLLOW UP ACTION
N/A
129
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
A: Investment Policy
130
Attachment A
City of Saratoga
INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
1.0 Policy:
It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the
maximum security with the highest investment return, while meeting the daily cash flow demands of
the City and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds.
2.0 Scope:
This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Saratoga. These funds are
accounted for in the City of Saratoga's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include:
2.1 Funds:
2.1.1 General Fund
2.1.2 Special Revenue Funds
2.1.3 Capital Project Funds
2.1.4 Debt Service Funds
2.1.5 Trust and Agency Funds
2.1.6 Any new fund, unless specifically exempted
2.2 Exceptions: The following financial assets are excluded:
2.2.1 Deferred Compensation Plans-Investments are directed by the individual plan
participants.
2.2.2 Debt Service Funds Held by Trustees-Investments is placed in accordance with bond
indenture provisions.
2.2.3 Notes and Loans-Investments are authorized by separate agreements approved by
City Council.
3.0 Prudence:
Investments shall be made with judgment and care--under circumstances then prevailing--which
persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not
for speculation, but for investments, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the
probable income to be derived.
3.1 The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person"
standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers
acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising due
diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or
market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion
and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.
131
4.0 Objectives:
The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City of Saratoga's investment activities shall be:
4.1 Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of
the City of Saratoga shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of
capital in the overall portfolio. The objectives will be to mitigate credit risk and market risk.
a. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be
mitigated by investing only in investment grade securities and by diversifying the
investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will have a minimal
impact on the portfolio.
b. Market risk, defined as market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general
level of interest rates, shall be mitigated by limiting the average maturity of the City’s
investment portfolio to two years and the maximum maturity of any one security to five
years, and by structuring the portfolio based on cash flow analysis so as to avoid the need
to sell securities prior to maturity.
4.2 Liquidity: The City of Saratoga's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable
the City of Saratoga to meet all operating requirements, which might be reasonably anticipated.
4.3 Return on Investments: The City of Saratoga's investment portfolio shall be designed with the
objective of attaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate
with the City of Saratoga's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the
portfolio.
5.0 Delegation of Authority:
Authority to manage the City of Saratoga's investment program is derived from the following:
California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2-20.035.
Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the City Manager who
shall be responsible for supervising all treasury activities of the Administrative Services Director and
who shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with
this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, delivery vs. payment,
investment accounting, wire transfer agreements, banking service contracts and collateral/depository
agreements. Such procedures shall include explicit delegations of authority to persons responsible for
investment transactions. No person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under
the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the City Manager. The City Manager shall
be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the
activities of subordinate officials.
6.0 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest:
Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business
activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair
their ability to make impartial investment decisions. These officers and employees involved in the
investment process shall disclose to the City Manager any material financial interests in financial
institutions that conduct business with the City. Employees and investment officials shall refrain
from undertaking personal investment transactions with individuals with who business is conducted
on behalf of the City of Saratoga.
7.0 Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions:
132
The City Manager will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment
services to the City. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker/dealers
selected by credit worthiness and who are authorized to provide investment services in the State of
California. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities &
Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made
except in a qualified public depository as established by state laws.
All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment
transactions must supply the City Manager with the following: personal interview, firm description
and audited financial statements, proof of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD)
certification, proof of State of California registration, completed broker/dealer questionnaire and
certification of having read the City of Saratoga's investment policy and applicable depository
contracts.
An annual review of the financial condition and registrations of qualified bidders will be conducted
by the City Manager.
A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and
broker/dealer with which the City of Saratoga invests prior to any transaction.
8.0 Authorized and Suitable Investments:
The City of Saratoga is empowered by Government Code Section 53601, and further limited by this
investment policy, to invest in the following types of securities:
Type Guarantee Limits
Term to
Maturity
LAIF State Fund $40,000,000 On Demand
U.S. Treasury Bills U.S. Treasury No Limit 1 Year
U.S. Treasury Notes U.S. Treasury No Limit 5 Years
U.S. Govt. Agency Issues (e.g. FNMA,
GNMA)
Federal
Agencies
No Limit 5 Years
Certificates of Deposit (California Bank
or Savings & Loan Companies)
FDIC/FSLIC
and Collateral
20% portfolio per institution;
30% total portfolio
3 Years
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Issuing
Institution
20% portfolio per institution;
30% total portfolio
5 Years
Investment Grade Obligations of
California, or Local Governments, or
Public Agencies
Public Entity 20% portfolio per institution;
30% total portfolio
5 Years
Money Market Mutual Funds Fund 10% portfolio per institution;
20% total portfolio
On Demand
Passbook Savings Account and Demand
Deposit
Issuing Bank Minimum necessary for
current cash flow
On Demand
133
The City shall not engage in leveraged investing, such as margin accounts, or any form of borrowing
for the purpose of investing.
The City shall not invest in instruments whose principal and interest could be at risk contrary to
Section 4.1 of this policy. Examples of these instruments are options and future contracts.
The City shall not invest in "derivatives".
See Glossary for description of above securities.
9.0 Collateralization:
Collateralization will be required on certificates of deposit and other deposit-type securities. In order
to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level
will be 110% of market value of principal and accrued interest, in accordance with California
Government Code Section 53651 and 53652.
The City of Saratoga chooses to limit collateral to those listed in Section 8.0.
Collateral will always be held by an independent third party with whom the entity has a current
custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied
to the City of Saratoga and retained.
The right of collateral substitution may be granted.
10.0 Safekeeping and Custody:
All security transactions entered into by the City of Saratoga shall be conducted on a delivery-versus-
payment (DVP) basis. Securities will be held by a third party custodian, in the City of Saratoga's
name and control, designated by the City Manager and evidenced by safekeeping receipts.
11.0 Diversification:
The City of Saratoga will diversify its investments by security type and institution. Limits are
provided for in Section 8.0. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities and authorized pools, no
more than 30% of the City of Saratoga's total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security
type or 20% with a single financial institution.
12.0 Maximum Maturities:
To the extent possible, the City of Saratoga will attempt to match its investments with anticipated
cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City of Saratoga will not directly
invest in securities maturing more than five (5) years from the date of purchase. However, the City of
Saratoga may collateralize its certificates of deposits using longer-dated investments not to exceed ten
(10) years to maturity.
Debt reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding five (5) years if the maturities of such
investments coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds.
The City of Saratoga will retain a general operating reserve adopted annually by the City Council.
The amount of active deposits and inactive investments with maturity of one year or less shall always
134
be equal to or greater than the required general operating reserve. The report discussed in Section
15.0 shall demonstrate this policy is in effect.
13.0 Internal Control:
The City of Saratoga is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure
designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal
control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The
concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the
benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and
judgments by the City Manager and staff.
Accordingly, the City shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor.
This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. The
internal controls shall address the following points:
• Control of collusion.
• Separation of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping.
• Custodial safekeeping.
• Avoidance of physical delivery of securities.
• Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members.
• Written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers.
• Development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third-party custodian.
14.0 Performance Standards:
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of obtaining a reasonable rate of return
throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and
cash flow needs.
14.1 Market Yield (Benchmark):
The City’s investment strategy is passive. Given this strategy, the benchmark used by the City of
Saratoga to determine whether market yields are being achieved shall be the one year U.S. Treasury
Bill.
15.0 Reporting:
The City Manager is charged with the responsibility of including a market report on investment
activity and returns in the City of Saratoga's Cash and Investment Report. The report will be in
compliance with California Government Code Section 53646.
16.0 Investment Policy Adoption:
The City of Saratoga's investment policy shall be reviewed and adopted by the City Council annually.
135
GLOSSARY
Broker
Someone who brings buyers and sellers together and is compensated for his/her service.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
The City’s annual financial statements and footnotes, along with an executive summary, financial outlook,
statistical information, and other financial information.
Certificates of Deposit
Commonly called time deposit certificates or time deposit open accounts. These are nonnegotiable.
Collateralization
Process by which a borrower pledges securities, property or other deposits for the purpose of securing the
repayment of a loan and/or security. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public
monies.
Custodian
A bank or other financial institution that keeps custody of stock certificates and other assets.
Dealer
Someone who acts as a principal in all transactions, including buying and selling from his/her own account.
Delivery vs. Payment
The preferred method of delivering securities, with an exchange of money for the securities.
Demand Deposits
A deposit of monies which are payable by the bank upon demand of the depositor.
Derivative
Securities that are based on, or derived from, some underlying asset, reference date, or index.
FDIC
Federal Depository Insurance Corporation
FSLIC
Federal Savings and Loans Insurance Corporation
Liquidity
An asset that can easily and rapidly be converted into cash without significant loss of value.
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
The LAIF was established by the State of California to enable treasurers to place funds in a pool for
investments. There is a limitation of $30 million per agency subject to a maximum of ten (10) total
transactions per month. The City uses this fund when market interest rates are declining as well as for short-
term investments and liquidity.
Money market mutual funds
Mutual funds that invest in short term securities and strive to maintain a share price of $1.
136
Negotiable certificates of deposit
A bank deposit issued in negotiable form (i.e., one that can be bought or sold in the open market).
Passive Investment Strategy
An approach to managing the investment portfolio, which entails a “buy and hold” strategy in which
investments are generally held until they mature.
Portfolio
Combined holding of more than one stock, bond, commodity, cash equivalent or other asset. The purpose of a
portfolio is to reduce risk through diversification.
Primary Dealer
A group of government securities dealers that submit daily reports of market activity and security positions
held to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its oversight.
Regional Dealer
A dealer who is not a primary dealer, and therefore not monitored by the Federal Reserve, but is registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Safekeeping
Offers storage and protection of assets provided by an institution serving as an agent
U.S. Treasury Bills
Commonly referred to as T-Bills these are short-term marketable securities sold as obligations of the U.S.
Government. They are offered in three-month, six-month and one-year maturities. T-Bills do not accrue
interest but are sold at a discount to pay face value at maturity.
U.S. Treasury Notes
These are marketable, interest-bearing securities sold as obligations of the U.S. Government with original
maturities of one to ten years. Interest is paid semi-annually.
U.S. Government Agency Issues
Include securities, which fall into this category. Issues, which are unconditionally, backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States, e.g. Small Business Administration Loans.
137
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ______
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 - Public Hearing,
Approval of Engineer’s Report, and Confirmation of Assessments for FY 08-
09
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and
Assessments for FY 08-09.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the final Resolution, which requires adoption by the Council to complete the renewal
of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for FY 08-09 (Attachment 1).
Once adopted, the Resolution approves the appropriate Engineer’s Report and confirms the
assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The Council can consider the Resolution only after
the close of the Public Hearing.
Zone 31, Horseshoe Drive
This year the City has asked the property owners within Zone 31, Horseshoe Drive, to consider
increasing their assessment to maximum of $175.00 for FY 08-09 from the current FY
assessment of $98.50 (Attachment 2). Currently, the operating cost to administer and maintain
Zone 31 exceeds the maximum allowed assessment.
A ballot was mailed to each property owner in Zone 31 asking whether or not they want the City,
through its Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District, to continue providing for the
maintenance of the frontage landscaping to the Horseshoe Drive area through a private
contractor at the current level of maintenance at an increased cost (Attachment 3). The ballot
asks each property owner to vote on the approval of a maximum annual assessment of $175 for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008, along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent
years.
Any increase in the assessment above this level will require further approval by property owners.
Because each property owner’s assessment would be the same, each property owner’s vote will
138
be weighted equally. Thus, the results of the balloting will be determined by a simple majority
of those voting.
If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment proposal exceeds the number of
votes received in support thereof, the City will be legally obligated to abandon the proposal for
an increase in assessment for Zone 31. In that event, the City would be unable to continue
providing for the maintenance of the landscaping at the current level. Instead, the level of
maintenance would be reduced to match the available revenue under the existing assessment
amount.
Property owners from Zone 31 can return their ballots to the City Clerk. Ballots may be
submitted at the public hearing and all ballots must be received by the close of the Public
Hearing. Following the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the Council continue
consideration of this item to a point later in the meeting to allow the City Clerk time to tabulate
the results of the balloting. If the increase is approved, Council is authorized to approve the
attached resolution together with the Engineer’s Report attached as Attachment 4. If the increase
is not approved, Council may approve the attached resolution only if it uses the Engineer’s
Report attached as Attachment 5.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
All of the costs associated with the administration and operation of the Landscape & Lighting
Assessment District are recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The Resolution would not be adopted and the assessments would not be confirmed. If this
occurs, the Council will need to direct staff accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
The assessment roll will be finalized and transmitted to the County Auditor by August 10 for
placement on the upcoming tax roll.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The Resolution of Intention and Notice of Hearing have been published a locally distributed
newspaper as prescribed by law.
ATTACHMENTS:
139
1. Resolution Confirming Assessments.
2. Letter to Zone 31 Property Owners Dated April 11, 2008.
3. Letter to Zone 31 Property Owners Dated with Ballot Dated April 30, 2008
4. Engineer’s Report #1 Based on Increased Zone 31 Assessment
5. Engineer’s Report #2 Based on Existing Zone 31 Assessment.
140
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ORDERING
THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING
THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on the 5th day of March, 2008, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 08-
010, "A Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for
Fiscal Year 2008-2009" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
LLA-1, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Assessment
Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act
and by said Resolution No. 08-010; and
WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon
said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part
thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of said
Act and said Resolution No. 08-010, including (1) plans and specification of the existing
improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the
District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and
manner required by said Act; and
WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and every part thereof was
sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent
proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant to the requirements of said Act,
appointed Wednesday, the 18th day of June, 2008, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. of said day in the
City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place
for hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 2008-
2009, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; and
WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were duly and regularly published
and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and
Certificates on file with said Clerk, and that all notices and ballots required by Article XIIID,
Section 4(c) and (d) of the California Constitution, were mailed to all property owners of record
subject to the assessment at least 45 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed
assessment or increase, as evidenced by the Affidavit and Certificates on file with the City Clerk,
whereupon said hearing was duly and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice;
and
141
2
WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to or in favor of, said improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or any
zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs
thereof, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all
matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the assessments for said
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and
considered by said Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows:
1. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council does
hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or
installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more
particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto.
2. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1
and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or
installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are
situate in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof
on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of
the territory included in said District and any zone thereof and the general location of said
District.
3. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the
proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof
contained in said report, be, and they hereby are, finally adopted and approved.
4. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said
improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith, contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally adopted and approved.
5. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby
order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's
Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said
improvements.
6. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district
referred to and described in said Resolution No. 08-010, and also the boundaries of any zones
therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot
or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies,
each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as
contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally approved and confirmed.
142
3
7. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of said
improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements,
and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto
contained in said report be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 be, and the same hereby
is, finally adopted and approved as a whole.
9. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the
said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as
confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the
date thereof.
10. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and
the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the plans and
specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained
in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to
said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised or corrected by, or pursuant to
and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting
thereof held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
City of Saratoga
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Ann Sullivan, CMC
Acting City Clerk
143
April 11, 2008
SUBJECT: Horseshoe Drive Area Frontage Landscape Maintenance Services
Dear Horseshoe Drive Area Property Owner,
In 1999 the 52 homeowners in your greater Horseshoe Drive area initiated and funded,
the landscaping project fronting your homes. This neighborhood driven effort allows the
City to provide the Horseshoe Drive area with additional services to keep your
community well maintained. As part of the initial agreement the City of Saratoga was
chosen to maintain this frontage landscaping. The Cost of maintaining this area is paid
for by the 52 homeowners in your annual property tax assessment via the “Horseshoe
Landscaping Assessment District (Zone 31)”. This same mechanism is used in all of the
Landscape and Lighting Assessment District Zones administered by the City for the
benefit of homeowners.
The annual per parcel maintenance cost, charged to your property tax bill, covers the
cost of the monthly maintenance contract, the cost of water and power for irrigation
systems, plant replacement, and a share of certain related City administrative costs.
Essentially, it keeps the Horseshoe Drive entrance to your neighborhood beautiful.
Currently, the operating cost to administer and maintain your neighborhood landscaping
exceeds the maximum allowed assessment. The assessment is currently at $98.50 per
parcel per year. Unfortunately, the City can no longer provide adequate maintenance of
the project at this level of funding, and must ask you to vote on raising your yearly
assessment from the current rate to $175.00, equivalent to about $6.40 per month to
continue providing high quality services. In addition, the proposed increase includes an
annual plant replacement fund that will cover the cost of replacing plants when they
have reached the end of their lifecycle. Replacement plants are essential to maintaining
project design integrity, without which the project would revert to pre-landscaping status
in appearance.
The cost increases affecting your neighborhood are not unique in the City. They are
impacting all of the Landscape Zones. For your information, the number of homes in
each of the Landscape Assessment Zones in the City range from 9 to 698 and the
yearly assessments range from $59 per year to $773 per year per parcel. Every
144
Landscape Zone has varying proportions of maintenance costs versus number of
parcels to which total costs have to be allocated.
At the end of April, the City will be mailing each property owner in your neighborhood an
official notice of the proposed assessment increase and a ballot asking you whether or
not you want the City of Saratoga, through its Landscaping & Lighting Assessment
District, to continue providing for the maintenance of the frontage landscaping to the
Horseshoe Drive area through a private contractor at the current level of maintenance at
an increased cost. It will ask you to approve a maximum annual assessment of $175
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008, along with a 5% maximum adjustment in
subsequent years. Any increase in the assessment above this level will require further
approval by property owners. Because each property owner’s assessment would be
the same, each property owner’s everyone’s vote will be weighted equally. Thus, the
results of the balloting will be determined by a simple majority of those voting.
If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment proposal exceeds the
number of votes received in support thereof, the City will be legally obligated to
abandon this proposal. In that event, the City would be unable to continue providing for
the maintenance of the landscaping at the current level. Instead, the level of
maintenance would be reduced to match the available revenue. Whatever your opinion,
please be sure to vote when you receive your ballot.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue that directly affects your
property. If you have any questions about this letter, please call me directly at (408)
868-1241.
Sincerely,
John Cherbone
Public Works Director
145
April 30, 2008
SUBJECT: Horseshoe Drive Area Frontage Landscape Maintenance Services
Dear Horseshoe Drive Area Property Owner,
In early April, the City mailed an informational letter to each property owner in your
neighborhood regarding a proposed assessment increase for maintaining the frontage
landscaping to the Horseshoe Drive area (please see attached letter dated April 11).
Additionally, the letter indicated that a ballot would be mailed to you at the end of April
to enable you to vote on the matter.
Please find attached a ballot asking you whether or not you want the City of Saratoga,
through its Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District, to continue providing for the
maintenance of the frontage landscaping to the Horseshoe Drive area through a private
contractor at the current level of maintenance at an increased cost. The ballot asks
you to vote on the approval of a maximum annual assessment of $175 for the fiscal
year beginning July 1, 2008, along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent
years. Any increase in the assessment above this level will require further approval by
property owners. Because each property owner’s assessment would be the same,
each property owner’s everyone’s vote will be weighted equally. Thus, the results of the
balloting will be determined by a simple majority of those voting.
If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment proposal exceeds the
number of votes received in support thereof, the City will be legally obligated to
abandon this proposal. In that event, the City would be unable to continue providing for
the maintenance of the landscaping at the current level. Instead, the level of
maintenance would be reduced to match the available revenue. Whatever your opinion,
please be sure to vote when you receive your ballot.
You can return your ballot to the City Clerk at any time up until the closing of the Public
Hearing on June 18, 2008.
146
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue that directly affects your
property. If you have any questions about this letter, please call me directly at (408)
868-1241.
Sincerely,
John Cherbone
Public Works Director
147
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT LLA-1
ENGINEER'S REPORT
on the
Levy of an Assessment
for the
2008-2009 Fiscal Year
April 2008
JOHN H. HEINDEL - CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
ENGINEER OF WORK
148
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Assessment & Cost Summary 1-3
Rules for Spreading Assessment 4-5
Description of Improvements 6-8
Cost Detail 9-13
Assessment Roll
Assessment Diagram
Certificates
149
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1
A S S E S S M E N T
for Fiscal Year 2008-2009
______________________________________
WHEREAS, on ______________ , 2008, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, pursuant to
the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 08-010
describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 2008-2009,
more particularly therein described, and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 08-010 directed the Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report
presenting plans and specifications for the proposed improvements, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the
assessment district, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable lots
or parcels of land within the assessment district, to which Resolution reference is hereby made for further
particulars,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John H. Heindel, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the
order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga, hereby make the following assessment to cover the
portion of the estimated cost of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and
the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the Fiscal Year 2008-
2009:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUMMARY*
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Wages & benefits $ 14,345
Attorney 500
Assessment engineer 8,500
Other 300
$ 23,645
OPERATIONS
Wages & benefits $ 65,826
Contract Services 99,500
Repair services 275
Maintenance services 94,983
Irrigation water 39,625
Electric power 78,580
378,789
INDIRECT COSTS 40,263
Total costs $442,697
Previous year carryover (185,208)
150
Estimated property tax revenue (160,596)
Net cost $ 96,893
Carryover not recovered (9,775)
Carryover not reimbursed 199,237
Assessment $ 286,355
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONE*
As Preliminarily Approved As Confirmed
Zone No. Total Per Parcel Total Per Parcel
1 $ 3,166 109.18 $ $
2 6,828 80.32
3 17,134 97.36
4 -0- 0.00
5 -0- 0.00
6 7,801 121.90
7A -0- 0.00
7B -0- 0.00
9 12,750 265.62
10 2,586 287.34
11 20,048 80.20
12 3,639 404.34
15 5,218 127.26
16 8,055 146.46
17 17,706 88.52
22 51,307 59.46
24 -0- N/A
25 7,940 529.34
26 72,727 773.70
27 6,859 221.26
28 9,432 589.50
29 9,453 154.96
31 9,090 174.80
32 11,421 6.12**
33 3,195 159.74
Total $286,355 $
* See Cost Detail herein for breakdown
** Plus $11.42 per front foot
-2-
151
And I do hereby assess and apportion said portion of the estimated cost of the improvements, including
the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots
or parcels of land liable therefor and benefited thereby, and hereinafter numbered to correspond with
the numbers upon the attached diagram, upon each, severally and respectively, in proportion to the
benefits to be received by such property, respectively, from the construction and installation of the
improvements, and from the maintenance and servicing thereof, and more particularly set forth in the
Assessment Roll hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof.
As required by said Act, a diagram is hereto attached showing the assessment district, and also the
boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots or parcels of land within said assessment district, as the
same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution No. 08-010. The diagram and assessment
numbers appearing in the Assessment Roll herein under the column headed "A.P.N." are the diagram
numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description
of said property.
I hereby place in the Assessment Roll, opposite the number of each lot or parcel of land assessed, the
amount assessed thereon. Each lot or parcel of land is described in said Assessment Roll by reference to
its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Santa Clara for the Fiscal Year 2008-
2009, and includes all of such parcel.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: _____________________, 2008
______________________________
John H. Heindel, RCE 13319
Engineer of Work
-3-
152
RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT
The amounts to be assessed against the assessable lots or parcels of land to pay the estimated cost of the
improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental
thereto, shall be based upon the estimated benefits to be derived by the various lots or parcels of land
within the assessment district.
The assessment for administrative costs shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located
in the assessment district.
The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zones 1
through 7B, 9 through 12, 15 through 17, 22, 25 through 29, 31, and 33, as described in Resolution No.
08-010, shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located within each said respective zone
of the assessment district.
The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zone 24, as
described in Resolution No. 08-010, shall be spread as follows:
Costs related to street lights and street trees shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land located within
said zone, proportional to usable parcel area.
Costs related to the Village Parking District (VPD) parking lots shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of
land in commercial use located within said zone, proportional to the number of parking spaces existing in
the VPD parking lots that are assigned to each parcel within said zone, rounded to the nearest one tenth
(0.1) of a parking space. Spaces shall be assigned by adding the total number of spaces in the VPD
parking lots and the total private spaces existing on assessable parcels, distributing this sum
proportionally by weighted building area, and deducting the number of private spaces, if any, from the
resulting number for each parcel. Weighted building area shall be defined as actual building area
multiplied by a factor dependent on parcel use, as follows: Retail = 1.0; office/service = 0.5; restaurant =
2.0.
The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zone 32, as
described in Resolution No. 08-010, shall be spread proportionally to the frontage on Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road of each of the lots or parcels of land located and benefited within Zone 32.
Zones 0, 8, 13, 14, 18 through 21, 23, and 30 have been either detached or merged with other zones. A
portion of Zone 4 was redesignated Zone 26 in 1997.
Notwithstanding the above, the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for each parcel in Zones 2,
3, 6, 11, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 29 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 1 attached hereto; the
assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 for each parcel in Zones 1, 9, 12, 17, 27, and 28, shall not
exceed the amount indicated in Table 2 attached hereto; the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2004-2005
for each parcel in Zone 32 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 3 attached hereto; and the
assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for each parcel in Zones 31 and 33 shall not exceed the
amount indicated in Table 4 attached hereto. In subsequent years, the maximum assessment for each
parcel shall be the amount calculated by multiplying its maximum assessment for the previous year by
1.05.
-4-
153
TABLE 1 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
ZONE 1999-2000 2008-2009
2 $ 52.50 $ 81.44
3 $ 63.00 $ 97.73
6 $ 78.75 $122.17
11 $ 52.50 $ 81.44
16 $ 94.50 $146.60
22 $ 52.50 $ 81.44
25 $341.25 $529.39
26 $498.75 $773.72
29 $100.00 $155.13
TABLE 2 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
ZONE 2000-2001 2008-2009
1 $ 75.00 $110.81
9 $180.00 $265.94
12 $275.00 $406.30
17 $ 60.00 $ 88.65
27 $150.00 $221.62
28 $400.00 $590.98
TABLE 3 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS – ZONE 32
FRONT FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
A. P. N. FEET 2004-2005 2008-2009
366-12-054 110 $ 1,052.16 $ 1,278.91
366-12-065 118 $ 1,125.66 $ 1,368.25
366-12-066 160 $ 1,511.48 $ 1,837.21
366-22-023 149 $ 1,410.44 $ 1,714.40
386-30-035 106 $ 1,015.42 $ 1,234.25
386-30-036 -0- $ 41.66 $ 50.64
386-30-037 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94
386-30-038 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94
386-30-039 100 $ 960.30 $ 1,167.25
386-52-032 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10
386-52-033 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10
993
TABLE 4 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR
ZONE 2008-2009
31 $175.00
33 $160.00
-5-
154
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of
landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other
ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places,
including traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults,
conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts,
switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances,
including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof; providing for the life,
growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing
and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric
current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or
operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other
improvements.
This work specially benefits the parcels assessed therefor since 1) the work is adjacent to the
neighborhoods within which said parcels are located, and results in a) helping to identify, distinguish and
enhance these neighborhoods, including the entrances thereto; b) helping to improve the quality of life in
these neighborhoods by reducing the potential for graffiti, eliminating dust and litter, providing sound
attenuation, eliminating the potential for blight, and providing added security and safety through lighting
and an added City presence; and 2) in the absence of this assessment district, the work and improvements
would not be otherwise accomplished by the City.
Benefits Provided within Each Zone:
Zone 1 (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor
Drive median and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage along Tract 3822.
Zone 2 (Fredericksburg Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Cox
Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777, 4041 and 4042.
Zone 3 (Greenbriar Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Seagull Way
entrance to Tracts 4628, 4725 and 4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue
and Guava Court.
Zone 4 (Quito Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting and landscape maintenance in the El
Quito Park residential neighborhood: Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700.
Zone 5 (Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential
neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, 787, 1111, and 1800.
Zone 6 (Sarahills Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential
neighborhood: Tracts 3392 and 3439.
Zone 7 (Village Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential
neighborhoods surrounding Saratoga Village, and in Saratoga Village. Includes all or a
portion of Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2,
McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams, and Tracts 270, 336, 416, 2399, 2502, 4477,
5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419, and 6731, and Saratoga Village.
-6-
155
Zone 9 (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for Landscape maintenance along the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944.
Zone 10 (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 7495. (Maintenance and water shared with
Zone 27).
Zone 11 (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Via
Monte entrances to all or a portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 3036, and 4344.
Zone 12 (Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance of the Leutar
Court frontage in Tract 6996.
Zone 15 (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - Provides for monthly landscape maintenance along
Bonnet Way: Tract 5462.
Zone 16 (Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect
Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision: Tract 7763.
Zone 17 (Sunland Park Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the Quito
Road frontage of Tracts 976 and 977.
Zone 22 (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for periodic landscape maintenance
along Prospect Road between the Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue, and along
Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing andSaratoga Creek. Includes all properties
bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek with the exception of the
Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493, 1644, 1695, 1727, 1938, and 1996).
Zone 24 (Village Commercial Landscape District) - Provides for routine maintenance of Village
Parking Districts 1-4 and Big Basin Way landscaping.
Zone 25 (Saratoga Legends Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of, and pedestrian pathways within, Tract 8896.
Zone 26 (Bellgrove Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for common area landscape
maintenance and lighting associated with Tract 8700.
Zone 27 (Cunningham Place/Glasgow Court Landscape District) - Provides for landscape
maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tracts 6199 and 7928.
(Maintenance and water shared with Zone 10).
Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) - Provides for landscape maintenance along the
Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue frontages of Tracts 8559 and 8560.
Zone 29 (Tollgate Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for maintenance of the common area
landscape and lighting improvements along Tollgate Road at the entrance to Tracts 3946
and 5001.
-7-
156
Zone 31 (Horseshoe Drive Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for landscape maintenance
along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road frontage of Tract 247.
Zone 32 (Gateway Landscape and Lighting District) - Provides for maintenance of frontage
landscaping along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between Prospect Road and the Union Pacific
railroad tracks.
Zone 33 (Carnelian Glen Landscape and Lighting District) – Provides for maintenance of
landscaping along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road frontage of APNs 397-21-031 and 397-37-
015.
-8-
157
COST DETAIL
Zone Number 1 2 3 4 5
Administration $ 178 $ 521 $ 1,078 $ 4,276 $ 735
Operations
Wages $ 589 $ 1,728 $ 3,579 $ $
Contract Services 2,800 2,300 14,700
Repairs
Maintenance 1,920 1,590 4,788 19,500
Water 300 250 1,250 200
Electric ______ ______ ______ 17,600 3,500
$ 5,609 $ 5,868 $ 24,317 $ 37,300 $ 3,500
Indirect Costs 579 639 2,539 4,158 424
Total Costs $ 6,366 $ 7,028 $ 27,934 $ 45,734 $ 4,659
Carryover (2,800) 500 (6,000) (17,057) (105,000)
Property Tax (3,200) (700) (4,800) (46,000) (23,700)
Net cost $ 366 $ 6,828 $ 17,134 $(17,323) $(124,041)
C'over not recov.
C'over not reimb. 2,800 ______ _ ____ 17,323 124,041
Net assess. $ 3,166 $ 6,828 $ 17,134 $ -0- $ -0-
No. of Parcels 29 85 176 698 120
Assmt./Pcl. $ 109.18 $ 80.32 $ 97.36 $ -0- $ -0-
-9-
158
COST DETAIL
Zone Number 6 7A 7B 9 10
Administration $ 392 $ 2,978 $ 1,802 $ 294 $ 55
Operations
Wages $ $ 5,289 $ $ 976 $ 183
Contract Services 2,700 9,450
Repairs
Maintenance 5,000 2,580 475
Water 1,500 500
Electric 4,000 35,000 ______ 200 30
$ 6,700 $ 45,289 $ -0- $ 14,706 $ 1,188
Indirect Costs 709 4,826 180 1,500 125
Total Costs $ 7,801 $ 53,093 $ 1,982 $ 16,500 $ 1,368
Carryover (1,500) (31,009) (5,500) 1,468
Property Tax _______ (52,414) (1,982) _______ _______
Net cost $ 6,301 $ (30,330) $ -0- $ 11,000 $ 2,836
C'over not recov. (250)
C'over not reimb. 1,500 30,330 1,750 _______
Net assess. $ 7,801 $ -0- $ -0- $ 12,750 $ 2,586
No. of Parcels 64 486 294 48 9
Assmt./Pcl. $ 121.90 $ -0- $ -0- $ 265.62 $ 287.34
-10-
159
COST DETAIL
Zone Number 11 12 15 16 17
Administration $ 1,532 $ 55 $ 251 $ 337 $ 1,225
Operations
Wages $ 5,083 $ 183 $ 834 $ 1,118 $ 4,066
Contract Services 16,000 1,700 575 5,225
Repairs
Maintenance 1,020 1,020 1,530 1,020 4,080
Water 500 350 1,100 650 1,500
Electric _______ _______ _______ 500 _______
$ 22,603 $ 3,253 $ 3,464 $ 3,863 $ 14,871
Indirect Costs 2,413 331 371 420 1,610
Total Costs $ 26,548 $ 3,639 $ 4,086 $ 4,620 $ 17,706
Carryover (9,500) (1,650) 1,932 3,435 (3,411)
Property Tax ______ _______ _______ ______ ______
Net cost $ 17,048 $ 1,989 $ 6,018 $ 8,055 $ 14,295
C'over not recov. (800)
C'over not reimb. 3,000 1.650 _______ _______ 3,411
Net assess. $ 20,048 $ 3,639 $ 5,218 $ 8,055 $ 17,706
No. of Parcels 250 9 41 55 200
Assmt./Pcl. $ 80.20 $404.34 $ 127.26 $ 146.46 $ 88.52
-11-
160
COST DETAIL
Zone Number 22 24 25 26 27
Administration $ 5,288 $ 809 $ 92 $ 576 $ 190
Operations
Wages $ 17,546 $ 18,553 $ 305 $ 1,911 $ 630
Contract Services 25,000 2,900 6,275 2,100
Repairs 275
Maintenance 6,000 3,060 23,820 1,740
Water 1,200 3,000 2,250 16,000 1,500
Electric 700 ______ 100 15,000 75
$ 50,446 $ 24,453 $ 11,990 $ 57,006 $ 6,045
Indirect Costs 5,573 2,526 1,208 5,758 624
Total Costs $ 61,307 $ 27,788 $ 13,290 $ 63,340 $ 6,859
Carryover (15,800) (1,282) (7,300) 9,387 (3,767)
Property Tax _______ (27,800) _______ _______ _______
Net cost $ 45,507 $ (1,294) $ 5,990 $ 72,727 $ 3,092
C'over not recov.
C'over not reimb. 5,800 1,294 1,950 _______ 3,767
Net assess. $ 51,307 $ -0- $ 7,940 $ 72,727 $ 6,859
No. of Parcels 863 132 15 94 31
Assmt./Pcl. $ 59.46 $ -0- $ 529.34 $773.70 $ 221.26
-12-
161
COST DETAIL
Zone Number 28 29 31 32 33 .
Administration $ 98 $ 374 $ 319 $ 67 $ 123
Operations
Wages $ 325 $ 1,240 $ 1,057 $ 224 $ 407
Contract Services 1,975 3,800 1,000 1,000
Repairs
Maintenance 4,080 1,080 3,840 5,440 1,400
Water 2,000 500 1,400 2,700 975
Electric 75 1,600 100 100 _______
$ 8,455 $ 8,220 $ 7,397 $ 9,464 $ 2,782
Indirect Costs 856 859 772 973 290
Total Costs $ 9,409 $ 9,453 $ 8,488 $ 10,504 $ 3,195
Carryover 23 (621) 9,327 917
Property Tax _______ _______ ______ _______ ______
Net cost $ 9,432 $ 8,832 $ 17,815 $ 11,421 $ 3,195
C'over not recov. (8,725)
C'over not reimb. 621 _______ ______
Net assess. $ 9,432 $ 9,453 $ 9,090 $ 11,421 $ 3,195
No. of Parcels 16 61 52 11 20
No. of Front Feet 993
Assmt./Pcl. $ 589.50 $ 154.96 $ 174.80 $ 6.12 $ 159.74
Assmt./front foot $ 11.42
-13-
162
I, Cathleen Boyer, the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in
the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved", with the diagram
thereto attached, was filed with me on _____________________________, 2008.
______________________________
Cathleen Boyer
I, John H. Heindel, the Engineer of Work for the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing
assessments, in the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved",
have been recomputed in accordance with the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga as
expressed by Resolution No. 08-010, duly adopted by said City Council on __________________, 2008,
said recomputed assessments being the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Finally
Confirmed"; provided, however, if the column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed" is blank, the
figures in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved" were confirmed without change.
Dated _____________________, 2008 ______________________________
John H. Heindel, RCE 13319
I, Cathleen Boyer, the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in
the amounts set forth in the Column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed" (unless said column is
blank, in which event the amounts in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved"
apply), with the diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City
of Saratoga on ____________________, 2008.
______________________________
Cathleen Boyer
The Assessment and Assessment Diagram were filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of
Santa Clara, California, on ________________________, 2008.
______________________________
County Auditor
163
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1
A S S E S S M E N T
for Fiscal Year 2008-2009
______________________________________
WHEREAS, on ______________ , 2008, the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, pursuant to
the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 08-010
describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 2008-2009,
more particularly therein described, and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 08-010 directed the Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report
presenting plans and specifications for the proposed improvements, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the
assessment district, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable lots
or parcels of land within the assessment district, to which Resolution reference is hereby made for further
particulars,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John H. Heindel, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the
order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga, hereby make the following assessment to cover the
portion of the estimated cost of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and
the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the Fiscal Year 2008-
2009:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUMMARY*
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Wages & benefits $ 14,345
Attorney 500
Assessment engineer 8,500
Other 300
$ 23,645
OPERATIONS
Wages & benefits $ 65,826
Contract Services 98,500
Repair services 275
Maintenance services 92,593
Irrigation water 39,625
Electric power 78,580
375,399
INDIRECT COSTS 39,924
Total costs $438,968
Previous year carryover (185,208)
164
Estimated property tax revenue (160,596)
Net cost $ 93,164
Carryover not recovered (9,775)
Carryover not reimbursed 199,237
Assessment $ 282,626
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONE*
As Preliminarily Approved As Confirmed
Zone No. Total Per Parcel Total Per Parcel
1 $ 3,166 109.18 $ $
2 6,828 80.32
3 17,134 97.36
4 -0- 0.00
5 -0- 0.00
6 7,801 121.90
7A -0- 0.00
7B -0- 0.00
9 12,750 265.62
10 2,586 287.34
11 20,048 80.20
12 3,639 404.34
15 5,218 127.26
16 8,055 146.46
17 17,706 88.52
22 51,307 59.46
24 -0- N/A
25 7,940 529.34
26 72,727 773.70
27 6,859 221.26
28 9,432 589.50
29 9,453 154.96
31 5,361 103.10
32 11,421 6.12**
33 3,195 159.74
Total $282,626 $
* See Cost Detail herein for breakdown
** Plus $11.42 per front foot
-2-
165
TABLE 1 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
ZONE 1999-2000 2008-2009
2 $ 52.50 $ 81.44
3 $ 63.00 $ 97.73
6 $ 78.75 $122.17
11 $ 52.50 $ 81.44
16 $ 94.50 $146.60
22 $ 52.50 $ 81.44
25 $341.25 $529.39
26 $498.75 $773.72
29 $100.00 $155.13
TABLE 2 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
ZONE 2000-2001 2008-2009
1 $ 75.00 $110.81
9 $180.00 $265.94
12 $275.00 $406.30
17 $ 60.00 $ 88.65
27 $150.00 $221.62
28 $400.00 $590.98
31 $70.00 $103.43
TABLE 3 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS – ZONE 32
FRONT FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
A. P. N. FEET 2004-2005 2008-2009
366-12-054 110 $ 1,052.16 $ 1,278.91
366-12-065 118 $ 1,125.66 $ 1,368.25
366-12-066 160 $ 1,511.48 $ 1,837.21
366-22-023 149 $ 1,410.44 $ 1,714.40
386-30-035 106 $ 1,015.42 $ 1,234.25
386-30-036 -0- $ 41.66 $ 50.64
386-30-037 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94
386-30-038 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94
386-30-039 100 $ 960.30 $ 1,167.25
386-52-032 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10
386-52-033 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10
993
TABLE 4 - MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR
ZONE 2008-2009
33 $160.00
-5-
166
COST DETAIL
Zone Number 28 29 31 32 33 .
Administration $ 98 $ 374 $ 319 $ 67 $ 123
Operations
Wages $ 325 $ 1,240 $ 1,057 $ 224 $ 407
Contract Services 1,975 3,800 1,000
Repairs
Maintenance 4,080 1,080 1,450 5,440 1,400
Water 2,000 500 1,400 2,700 975
Electric 75 1,600 100 100 _______
$ 8,455 $ 8,220 $ 4,007 $ 9,464 $ 2,782
Indirect Costs 856 859 433 973 290
Total Costs $ 9,409 $ 9,453 $ 4,759 $ 10,504 $ 3,195
Carryover 23 (621) 9,327 917
Property Tax _______ _______ ______ _______ ______
Net cost $ 9,432 $ 8,832 $ 14,086 $ 11,421 $ 3,195
C'over not recov. (8,725)
C'over not reimb. 621 _______ ______
Net assess. $ 9,432 $ 9,453 $ 5,361 $ 11,421 $ 3,195
No. of Parcels 16 61 52 11 20
No. of Front Feet 993
Assmt./Pcl. $ 589.50 $ 154.96 $ 103.10 $ 6.12 $ 159.74
Assmt./front foot $ 11.42
-13-
167
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell
Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 2008 Summer Issue of The Saratogan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
After discontinuing publication of The Saratogan in 2004, the City of Saratoga began reissuing
the quarterly publication in February 2008. The spring issue was mailed to residents in May
2008. The summer issue is scheduled to be released in July 2008.
The newsletter is used as a tool to improve communications with residents and ensure the public
has access to important information. In the past it has been used to conduct public surveys and
call attention to City services.
The spring issue highlighted the City’s commitment to be better, not bigger. Article topics
included the budget, paperless City Council meetings, the North Campus, and 2008 Council
priorities, including civic participation, environmental sustainability, and financial security.
Feature articles focused on each of these themes were placed on the first and second page of the
newsletter. The third and fourth pages were dedicated to supplementary articles highlighting
important information for residents.
Staff has started to develop article topics for the summer 2008 issue. The stories are centered on
the proposed theme, “Acting now for the future”. Below is a preliminary list of feature and
supplementary articles.
Feature Articles:
• CERT training
• City’s green building policy and residential building checklist
• Recreation surveys
• Saratoga Library’s Monday hours
• Defensible fire space
Page 1 of 2
168
Page 2 of 2
Supplementary Articles:
• Preventing West Nile Virus
• Development of youth assets through recreational programs
• Saratoga trails
• SASCC update
• Travel safety
• West Valley Clean Water Program cartoon
To ensure The Saratogan meets the expectations of the City Council, staff is seeking input and
suggestions for the summer issue.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff will move forward without Council input on the theme, article topics, or other aspects of
the summer issue of The Saratogan.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: The Saratogan Spring 2008 issue
169
SaratoganTheCITY o f S A RATOG
A
CALIF O R N I A1956
Spring 2008
The Value of Being Better, not Bigger
When the first settlers arrived in this area in the
1800’s they faced a remote wilderness. People
relied upon their imagination, resourcefulness
and ingenuity to move beyond the hardships and
carve out a life in this rugged area. When the City
government was being formed in 1956, residents
retained a desire for self-sufficiency.
Since 1956, there has been a continued focus on
delivery of high quality, essential city services that
has assured Saratoga’s self-reliance. Although much
as changed, Saratoga is still a place that attracts
resourceful, forward-thinking people who understand
the value of being better, not bigger.
The City
Council,
your elected
representatives,
and City staff
work together
as a team to
efficiently
provide
essential
services, reduce
waste, invest
in the future,
and capitalize
on assets—large
and small.
Focusing on
essentials:
The City’s
commitment
to maintaining
basic City
services at the
highest level
is reflected in
the City’s Operating Budget. Learn more about the
budget process on page 2.
Reducing waste: As we all become aware of global
warming and our impact on the planet, the City is
turning toward more efficient use of resources—as
one small example, paper supplies. Read more in the
next article.
Investing in the future: The Council recently decided
to invest in the North Campus to make improvements
that will increase uses at the facility without
Saratoga Going Paperless
Adopting environmentally
sustainable practices can often
be simple and inexpensive. Going
paperless is one of the easiest ways
to conserve resources. In September
2007, Saratoga City Council started
holding paperless Council Meetings
and the benefits are already clear!
Holding paperless City Council Meetings has saved:
100,000 pages in copies•
200 reams of paper •
$640 in paper costs •
56 staff hours spent copying•
Calabazas Creek Picnic Area
straining the City’s budget. To learn more about how
the City is maximizing the use of the North Campus,
turn to page 2.
Capitalizing on assets: Easily accessible open space is
prized in the community, yet it presents a challenge
as demand for development increases. Consequently,
the City has taken care to maximize available open
space by developing pocket parks and maintaining
trail easements on the property of other public
agencies located in Saratoga. As an example, the
recently opened Calabazas Creek Picnic Area is a
Santa Clara Valley Water District easement improved
and maintained by the City.
Saratoga Recognized as Tree City USA
Tree City USA is a nationwide program that
recognizes cities throughout the United States for
making a special commitment to urban forests.
In April 2008, the City was formally recognized as
a Tree City USA
and celebrated
the award with
an Arbor Day
tree planting in
El Quito Park.
The Skillet
Lickers kicked
off the event
with songs about
Saratoga and its
trees, followed
by a poetry reading by Willys Peck and the planting
of a 24-inch box tree donated by Saratoga Rotary.
Betty Peck ended the ceremony with a tree blessing.
170
Saratoga Balancing the Budget
Spring is in full bloom and that means the end
of the City’s fiscal year is quickly approaching.
Each year, California cities are required by state
law to adopt a budget and develop a financial plan
for the year ahead.
The initial phases of the budget process typically
begin in January, with final adoption of the budget
in June before the start of the new fiscal year on
July 1st. The proposed budget is presented to the
Council in a public hearing, where it is reviewed
and revised by the Council. The public also has the
opportunity to recommend changes. The revised
budget is then brought back to the City Council for
final approval in June.
Important Dates for FY 2008/09 Budget:
May 21, 2008: Public Hearing on FY 2008/09 •
Proposed Budget
June 4, 2008: Adoption of FY 2008/09 Budget•
June 30, 2008: End of FY 2007/08•
The budget is divided into the Operating Budget
and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget. The
greatest source of revenue comes from property
tax allocations; over 30% of the Operating Budget’s
revenues comes from property taxes.
Operating Budget Expenditures:
City Council support•
Code compliance•
Maintenance of City facilities, parks, trails, •
open space, & streets
Planning services & zoning regulations•
Police patrols & emergency response •
(including 9-1-1 calls and burglary alarms)
Recreational classes•
Traffic management•
The CIP Budget is the financial plan for special
projects, acquisitions, or improvements. It is
based on a five-year CIP plan. The City has been
proactive in securing over $7.6 million in grants to
supplement City funding of the CIP Budget.
Projects Funded in the FY 2007/08 CIP Budget:
Fellowship Hall Renovations, to be completed •
Fall 2008
Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase 1, •
started Winter 2008
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Street Resurfacing, to be •
completed Spring 2008
Village Façade Improvement Program, ongoing•
Village Pedestrian Safety Improvements, •
underway
West Valley College sports field, to be •
completed Fall 2008
For more information about the City’s budget,
visit www.saratoga.ca.us.
North Campus Taking Shape
Much has changed at the North Campus since the
beginning of the year. Here’s a look at what has
happened this year.
January 2008:
Public invited to Visioning Meeting to discuss •
North Campus options
Options include proposal from Alan & Lisa Beck •
to replace Sanctuary & Education buildings
with child development center & gymnasium
March 2008:
City celebrates Fellowship Hall •
Groundbreaking &
renovations started
Council recognizes •
contributions of
Saratoga-Monte
Sereno Community
Foundation & House
Family Foundation for
Fellowship Hall
Renovations to •
Fellowship Hall
expected to be done by
end of the year
April 2008:
Becks withdraw •
proposal
Council approves plans to demolish the front 2 •
buildings—Education & Sanctuary building
Work to be done by end of the year•
Renovations to Fellowship Hall and demolition
of the unusable buildings at the North Campus will
make the site a more versatile facility for future
community use and recreational programs. To
rent a building at the North Campus, contact Nina
Walker in the Recreation & Facilities Department
by calling (408) 868-1252.
Fellowship Hall at the North Campus. Renovations
to include fully accessible bathrooms, new windows,
kitchen, and hardwood floor.
Saratoga Taiko at Fellowship
Hall Groundbreaking
171
Driving with Both Hands: New Cell Phone Laws
Starting July 1, 2008, Senate Bills 1613 and 33
will go into effect. These new laws regulate
use of wireless telephones while driving and will
require drivers age 18 and up to use “hands-free
devices” while driving and will prohibit drivers
younger than 18 from using cell phones. Before
local law enforcement starts enforcing these new
laws, take the time to learn how these new laws
will affect you. To find out more, visit www.dmv.
ca.gov.
Officers will have the authority to issue tickets •
immediately on July 1, 2008.
All drivers will be prohibited from using a •
handheld wireless telephone while operating a
motor vehicle. Motorists 18 and over may use
a “hands-free device”.
Drivers under the age of 18 may NOT use a •
wireless telephone or hands-free device while
operating a motor vehicle.
The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and •
$50 for each offence thereafter. With the
addition of penalty assessments, the fines can
be more than triple the base fine amount.
This law only applies to the person driving a •
motor vehicle, not passengers.
The new law does not prohibit dialing, but •
drivers are strongly urged not to dial while
driving.
The law allows a driver to use a handheld •
wireless telephone to make emergency calls.
Electronic and Universal Waste
Looking to get rid of any
of these items?
Computer keyboards, •
mice, monitors, &
printers, & external
hard drives
DVD & VCR players•
Electrical switches & •
relays
Fluorescent tubes & •
bulbs
Household batteries•
Laptop computers•
Mercury thermostats•
Non-empty aerosol cans•
Pilot light sensors•
Televisions•
Used Motor oil & oil filters•
Water based paints•
Call West Valley Collection & Recycling at (408)
283-9250 today to schedule a free drop off for
these items Tuesday through Thursday, from 9:00
a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Updating Saratoga’s Housing Element
Every five years, State law requires California
cities to update the Housing Element—a portion
of the General Plan developed to address housing
needs. The update to the Housing Element must be
adopted by the Council prior to June 30, 2009.
The Housing Element:
Quantifies existing and projected housing •
needs;
Establishes goals, policies, objectives and •
programs for preserving, improving and
developing housing to meet the needs of all
economic sectors; and
Identifies how the City will provide its “fair •
share” of regional housing.
In the Bay Area, housing needs are determined
by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). ABAG studies regional housing needs and
each city is allocated a target for new housing
units based on income. For 2007 – 2012, ABAG’s
draft assessment allocates a goal of 292 new
housing units to Saratoga.
In response to the housing allocations, the City
provides a site inventory and analysis identifying
sites suitable for residential development. This
allows the City to compare housing allocations with
the sites available for development and determine
if the identified sites have the capacity to meet
housing targets established for each income level.
Special attention is paid to adequately providing
for affordable housing units.
Each year the City submits statistics to the
State documenting our progress in meeting housing
allocation targets as required by the State.
Here’s a look at 1999-2006:
Target
Saratoga’s
Achievement
Total New
Housing Units 539 624
Very-low
Income Units 75 60
Low Income
Units 36 1
Moderate
Income Units 108 108
The City Council recently approved a contract
with RBF Consulting to prepare the City’s Housing
Element update. RBF Consulting will be holding
several public meetings and there will be several
opportunities for public involvement. The first
public hearing to gather community input will
be on June 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the North
Campus, located at 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga.
172
Postal Customer Local
PRSRT STD
U.S. Postage
PAID
Saratoga, CA
Permit No. 136
ECRWSS
The Saratogan
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
C I T Y o f S ARATO
G
A
CALIFO R N I A1956
Directory
City Hall (408) 868-1200
Building Permits (408) 868-1240
Business Licenses (408) 868-1260
City Clerk (408) 868-1269
City Manager (408) 868-1216
Code Enforcement (408) 868-1214
Commission
Recruitments
(408) 868-1269
Employment
Opportunities
(408) 868-1252
Facility Rentals (408) 868-1259
Garbage &
Recycling
(408) 868-1269
Park Maintenance (408) 868-1245
Park Reservations (408) 868-1248
Recreation (408) 868-1249
Senior Center (408) 868-1257
Sheriff’s Office
West Valley
Division
(408) 868-6600
Storm Drains (408) 868-1245
Street Maintenance (408) 868-1245
Tree Removal
Permits
(408) 868-1276
Volunteer
Opportunities
(408) 868-1216
Contact the Editor
The Saratogan is published
quarterly by the City
of Saratoga to report on
community issues and events.
Community members are
welcome to send questions,
comments, and story ideas!
Crystal Morrow
Editor, The Saratogan
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: (408) 868-1275
Fax: (408) 867-8559
cmorrow@saratoga.ca.us
Saratoga’s Annual Cleanup Coming Soon!
West Valley Collection & Recycling (WVCR) collecting
unlimited number of items at your curb for free!
Cleanups will take place between July and
September and will be done on a neighborhood by
neighborhood basis. Two weeks before your clean up
date, WVCR will send a notice and exact details about
acceptable clean up item.
To prepare for your cleanup date, hold a garage
sale! Reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills
and donate unsold garage sale items to a charitable
organization for a tax deduction!
For more information about the Annual Cleanup, visit
www.westvalleyrecycles.com or call WVCR at
(408) 289-9250.
Friendly Bugs and Green Gardens
If you use pesticides in
your lawn and garden,
your yard may not be
the healthy green oasis
that you have in mind.
Instead of pesticides, try
using “beneficial bugs”
that eat insect pests.
Ladybugs, Lacewings,
and other garden-
friendly bugs are great
partners in sustainable
gardening.
Be sure to check
your shelves for
unsafe pesticides that
contain DIAZINON or
CHLORPYRIFOS. These products have been taken off the market and
should be properly disposed of by dropping them off at the County’s
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) site. You can make an appointment to
drop of pesticides or other dangerous products by calling (408) 299-7300.
To learn more about beneficial bugs, visit www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/
NE/index.html. Photos courtesy of University of California.
Below: lacewing. Right: ladybug larvae.
173
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell
Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Facility Naming Application for Saratoga Community Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
On April 30, 2008, the City of Saratoga received a facility naming application from the
Committee to Honor Joan Pisani proposing to name the Saratoga Community Center the Joan
Pisani Community Center. The City’s policy on naming Saratoga facilities and parks requires
that all applications are sent to the appropriate City Commission to provide the Council with a
recommended action. Once the application has been reviewed by a Commission, policy requires
the final decision and staff direction on the naming proposal to be made by the City Council.
The application submitted by the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani was reviewed by the Parks
and Recreation Commission during their meeting on May 13, 2008. During the meeting, the
Commission unanimously recommended approval of the naming application.
For facilities to be named after a current or former employee, the policy requires that three of the
following criteria are met:
- Made contributions over and above the normal duties required by his/her job;
- Had a positive impact on the past and future development of programs or facilities in the
City of Saratoga;
- Made significant volunteer contributions to the community outside the scope of his/her
job;
- Had exceptionally long tenure with the City of Saratoga (i.e. over 25 years);
- Significant public support for a memorial to the employee on the occasion of his/her
death or retirement.
The Committee to Honor Joan Pisani has stated in their application that their proposal meets all
of the mandatory criteria and has provided an explanation in Attachment B.
During the June 18, 2008 City Council Meeting, Thomas Soukup, Chair of the Parks and
Recreation Commission, has been asked to present the Commission’s recommendation to
Page 1 of 2
174
Page 2 of 2
approve the facility naming application submitted by the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani.
Additionally, Paul Conrado, on behalf of the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani, will be reviewing
the application and will be available to answer Council questions regarding the proposal.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There are no direct fiscal impacts, as applicants are required to cover the cost of new signage
according to the City’s policy on facility naming. Exceptions can be made in the case of
economic hardship and if City funding is available to cover the expense.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Facility naming application from Committee to Honor Joan Pisani
Attachment B: Facility naming application supplemental information (spiral bound document)
Attachment C: City’s policy on facility naming
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD:
John Cherbone, PW Director John Cherbone, PW Director
SUBJECT: Saratoga Village Parking and Valet Service Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept report and provide direction to staff regarding Saratoga Village Parking and Valet Service.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The report is divided into two parts, the first being a survey of parking demand in the Village and
the second being the evaluation of valet service in the Village.
Village Parking Survey
Background
The adequacy of parking in the Village has been an ongoing issue of interest to merchants,
property owners, patrons, and policy makers since the City was incorporated.
Over time the City created four parking districts in order to increase parking capacity in the
Village. The parking districts were financed and built by assessing property owners who directly
benefited from the proposed district. Once a parking district was established the City took over
ownership and maintenance responsibility, thus creating the public parking capacity that currently
exists in the Village.
In addition to the four Saratoga Village Parking District Lots, the City also manages on street
parking along Big Basin Way, 3rd Street, 4th Street, and 5th Street commonly used by patrons.
Discussion
At the November 7, 2007 City Council Meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive
parking study in the Village including Village Parking Districts and on-street parking.
182
Occupancy and duration surveys were performed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and compiled in a
Memorandum dated June 11, 2008 (Attachment 1).
Village Parking Survey Recommendation Summary
Parking Districts:
• Post 3 hour parking limits in Village Parking Districts 1, 2, & 4.
• Post 3 hour parking limits in Village Parking District 3 except for 70 parking spaces with
small demand.
• Post 70 spaces with 8 hour parking limits in Village Parking District 3 and mark them with
an “E” to direct employees to appropriate parking spaces that have small demand.
On-Street Parking (Motor Vehicle Resolutions Required):
• Reduce length of the loading zone beginning furthest west in front of the Plumed Horse
restaurant by the standard length of one parking space and convert the space to 2 hour-
parking.
• Change 15 min parking limit located in front of The French Tailor (14577 Big Basin Way)
from 9:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.
• Change 15 min parking limit located in front of De Mario restaurant (14444 Big Basin
Way) to 2 hour parking.
• Change loading zone located in front of the School Wear store (14527 Big Basin Way) to 2
hour parking.
Village Valet Service
Background:
In 1998, the City adopted Article 4-80 to the City Code regulating Valet Service (Attachment 2).
This Article regulates Valet Parking Services in the City by requiring a vendor to hold a City
permit, pay a $300 permit fee, and submit liability insurance.
The Article also allows for an evaluation of valet parking services operating in the City and
review of the Valet Parking Service Ordinance (Attachment 2).
Discussion:
Since adoption of the Valet Parking Service Ordinance two Village restaurants, the La Fondue
restaurant (previously Viaggios restaurant) and the Plumed Horse restaurant have offered valet
services to their patrons.
The City Traffic Engineer recently conducted an analysis of the two valet services operating in the
Village and reported them to be operating adequately (Attachment 3).
183
Village Valet Service Recommendation Summary:
• Direct staff to work with two restaurants to ensure their valet service permit information is
current.
• Amend Valet Parking Service Ordinance per City Council direction.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Staff time and material costs for new signs and paint.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Depends on City Council direction.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Staff will follow-up on Village parking issues based on City Council direction.
Ordinance Amendments and/or Motor Vehicle Resolutions will be submitted to City Council at a
future date.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notices were handed out to merchants in the Village and mailed to property owners (Attachment 4).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2008 Village Parking Survey.
2. Valet Parking Service Ordinance.
3. Village Valet Service Evaluation.
4. Notice.
184
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 11, 2008
To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director
From: Sohrab Rashid/Franziska Holtzman
Subject: 2008 Village Parking Survey in Saratoga, California
1025-446-1
In November 2007 and May 2008, Fehr & Peers completed a comprehensive parking survey of
the Village area in Saratoga, California. The Village area comprises the City of Saratoga’s
downtown and is located on Big Basin Way extending from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to 6th
Street. The Village includes four designated Parking Districts (1, 2, 3, and 4) located behind
Village businesses, as well as, on-street parking along Big Basin Way, and other private lots
serving individual businesses or centers. Parking Districts 1 and 3 are surface parking lots
located behind the business on the north side of Big Basin Way, while the surface parking lots in
Parking Districts 2 and 4 are located behind businesses on the south side of Big Basin Way.
Figure 1 shows the Village area and the location of the Parking Districts.
This study included both parking occupancy and duration surveys in all four parking districts and
on-street parking spaces at half-hour intervals from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm on one weekday and
one Saturday. In addition to the number of occupied parking spaces, Fehr & Peers evaluated
parking duration by collecting the last four digits of each parked vehicle’s license plate. The
purpose of these surveys was twofold:
a. To evaluate parking supply to determine if it is sufficient to accommodate the existing
demand
b. To evaluate the duration that vehicles are parked to determine if current time limits
are appropriate based on existing demand.
This memorandum summarizes our findings in three sections. First, findings from Parking
Districts 2 and 4 are discussed, followed by a section describing the findings for Parking Districts
1 and 3. On street-parking is evaluated in the third section. This memorandum concludes with a
summary of the findings presented in this memo.
PARKING EVALUATION FOR PARKING DISTRICTS 2 AND 4
Fehr & Peers completed occupancy and duration surveys in Districts 2 and 4 on Thursday,
November 15, 2007, and Saturday, November 17, 2007. Our findings are presented below.
Existing Parking Supply
Parking Districts 2 and 4 are located south of Big Basin Way, behind the businesses located
between 3rd and 5th Streets. Parking District 2 (west of 4th Street) has a total of 57 public parking
spaces, in addition to 16 private valet parking spaces for the La Fondue restaurant, while Parking
District 4 (east of 4th Street) includes 61 public parking spaces. Both districts have spaces with
different posted time limits. Two-hour and four-hour parking restrictions are posted on some
spaces, while others are not time-restricted at all. Table 1 summarizes the number and type of
spaces available in Parking Districts 2 and 4.
185
186
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 3 of 15
TABLE 1
PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY FOR PARKING DISTRICTS 2 AND 4
IN THE VILLAGE OF SARATOGA
Parking
District
2-Hour
Parking Limit
9am to 5pm
2-Hour
Parking Limit
(4pm to 12am)
4-Hour Parking
Limit
(4pm to 12am)
Private
Valet
Parking
Handicap
Parking
No
Parking
Restriction
Total
Parking
Supply
2 32 0 0 16 1 24 73
4 0 35 19 0 2 5 61
Total 32 35 19 16 3 29 134
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.
District 2 and 4 Parking Occupancy
As shown on Figure 2, Parking Districts 2 and 4 are on average about 85 percent to 90 percent
occupied for most of the late afternoon and evening. The peak parking demand occurred on
Thursday at 7:30 pm with nearly 100 percent of the parking spaces occupied (128 out 134). Other
than this time period the parking demand on Saturday typically exceeded the Thursday parking
demand. In the evening after 8:30 pm, the parking demand dropped off quickly on Thursday,
while the Saturday demand had a more gradual decline. For the 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm time period,
the average parking occupancy was 81 percent on Thursday and 87 percent on Saturday.
These parking occupancies show similar trends to data collected in the Village in July of 2002.
The 2002 data showed that Parking Districts 2 and 4 were between 60 percent and 100 percent
occupied from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm.
Figure 3 shows the occupancy by individual districts. District 2 was approximately 83 percent
occupied on average on Thursday and Saturday, and District 4 was approximately 87 percent
occupied. The data for District 2 includes the La Fondue valet parking lot in the occupancy rate.
Without the valet lot, District 2 was approximately 96 percent occupied. La Fondue opens for
dinner at 5:00 pm and their valet parking lot was approximately 50% to 60% occupied on average
between 5:00 pm and 10:00 pm on Thursday and Saturday.
In summary, both parking Districts 2 and 4 are near capacity on Thursday and Saturday
evenings. Parking occupancy is slightly higher on Saturday than on Thursday, and District 2
(excluding the valet parking lot) has a higher occupancy rate than District 4.
187
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 4 of 15
Figure 2: Parking Occupancy – Parking Districts 2 & 4 by Day of Week
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00
Time Period
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
p
a
c
e
s
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
Thursday Saturday
Figure 3: Average Daily Parking Occupancy for Parking Districts 2 & 4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00
Time Period
Oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
District 2 (no LF) Average Daily District 2 Average Daily District 4 Average Daily
188
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 5 of 15
District 2 and 4 Parking Duration
In addition to parking occupancy rates, data was collected on the duration that vehicles parked in
each space in both districts.
In those parking spaces that do have parking restrictions (2-hour or 4-hour), nearly 10 percent of
all parked vehicles exceeded the designated parking time on both Thursday and Saturday. The
percent of parking violations was fairly even for both Districts 2 and 4. However it should be noted
that Parking District 2 has less restrictive limits than District 4 for the data collection time period
between 3:00 pm and 10:00 pm.1
During the survey period, approximately 300 and 330 different vehicles parked in the two districts
on Thursday and Saturday, respectively. Of the total parked vehicles, approximately 35 percent
(or 100 vehicles) parked for at least three hours on both Thursday and Saturday. Nearly 20
percent parked for at least five hours on Thursday and Saturday, for a total of approximately 60
vehicles each day. Similarly, approximately six percent parked for at least seven hours on
Thursday and nine percent on Saturday. This translates to 18 vehicles on Thursday and 29
vehicles on Saturday that parked for at least seven hours. Those vehicles that parked for at least
seven hours are likely owned by employees that work at the retail and restaurant locations on Big
Basin Way.
Table 2 summarizes the average duration by parking restriction zone. For all parking spaces, the
average parking duration was approximately 3.6 hours and 3.4 hours for Thursday and Saturday,
respectively. In the 2-hour parking limit zones the average parking duration exceed the posted
limit by at least one hour on both days. The average parking duration for the 4-hour zones was
within the posted limit.
TABLE 2
AVERAGE PARKING DURATION BY ZONE FOR DISTRICTS 2 AND 4
Parking Zone Thursday Saturday
2-hour 3.1 3.0
4-hour 3.4 3.8
No Limit 4.4 5.0
Valet Parking 2.9 2.6
All Parking Spaces 3.6 3.4
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007.
Summary Conclusions for Parking Districts 2 and 4
Based on the observed parking demand, the parking supply in Parking Districts 2 and 4, with the
exception of the valet parking lot, is near capacity during the evening peak hours from 5:00 pm to
8:00 pm. The average parking occupancy for both parking districts is approximately 3.5 hours.
This indicates that the 2-hour parking restriction from 4:00 pm to 12:00 am is not being enforced
regularly and demand is for a period of approximately three hours.
1 Data was collected between 3:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Parking District 2 has 2-hour time restrictions between 9:00am and
5:00 pm, while Parking District has 2- and 4-hour parking restrictions between 4:00 pm and 12:00 am.
189
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 6 of 15
To increase the available supply and turnover, all spaces could be posted with a three-hour limit
at all times of the day. This would force employees to park in a different lot (likely District 3) and
make at least 16 spaces available in both lots. The three-hour limit would also accommodate the
typical time a costumer spends in the Village as evidenced by the surveys.
The City has the opportunity to lease 22 spaces in two privately owned lots located south Big
Basin Way off of 3rd Street to increase the supply for District 2. Because Districts 2 and 4 have
high occupancy rates, the addition of these parking spaces would help to address the high peak
parking demand in the immediate vicinity of 4th Street/Big Basin Way. If the spaces are leased by
the City, they should be posted with the three-hour limit to accommodate the average parking
duration, and would increase the District 2/4 supply by 16 percent.
To ensure compliance with the limits and provide reasonable parking turnover, periodic
enforcement will be required.
PARKING EVALUATION FOR PARKING DISTRICTS 1 AND 3
Fehr & Peers completed occupancy and duration surveys in Parking Districts 1 and 3 on
Thursday, May 1, 2008, and Saturday, May 3, 2008.
Existing Parking Supply
Parking Districts 1 and 3 are located north of Big Basin Way, behind the businesses located
between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and 5th Street. Parking District 1 (located between 5th Street
and east of 4th Street) has a total of 127 public parking spaces, with an additional 41 private
parking spaces for The Inn at Saratoga. Parking District 3 (east of 4th Street to Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road) has 219 public parking spaces. Parking District 1 does not have any parking
restrictions, while Parking District 3 has parking spaces with varied posted time limits. Some
spaces are posted with 2-hour limits and a few are restricted to 15 minutes, while others are not
time restricted at all. Table 3 summarizes the number and type of parking spaces available in
each district.
TABLE 4
PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY FOR DISTRICTS 1 AND 3
Parking
District
2-Hour
Parking Limit
15-Minute
Parking Limit
Private
Parking
Handicap
Parking
No Parking
Restriction
Total Parking
Supply
1 0 0 41 8 119 168
3 91 4 0 7 117 219
Total 91 4 41 15 236 387
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008.
District 1 and 3 Parking Occupancy
As shown in Figure 4, Parking Districts 1 and 3 are about 40 percent to 50 percent occupied on
average for most of the late afternoon and evening. The peak parking demand occurred on
Thursday at 3:00 pm with nearly 60 percent of the parking spaces occupied (232 out 387).
Thursday typically exceeded the Saturday parking demand from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. In the
evening after 6:30 pm the Saturday demand was almost always higher than the Thursday parking
demand. From 3:00 pm to 6:30 pm, both days showed a steady decline in demand, while a
190
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 7 of 15
secondary peak occurred on Saturday between 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm. For the 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm
time period, the average parking occupancy was 44 percent on Thursday and 43 percent on
Saturday.
Figure 5 shows the occupancy by individual districts. District 1 was approximately 44 percent
occupied on average on Thursday and Saturday, and the average occupancy in District 3 was
approximately 43 percent on these days. The data for District 1 includes The Inn at Saratoga
parking lot in the occupancy rate summary. Without the private parking lot, District 1 was
approximately 80 percent occupied from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, with a significant drop in occupancy
after 5:00 pm.
Figure 4: Parking Occupancy – Parking Districts 1 & 3 by Day of Week
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00
Time Period
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
p
a
c
e
s
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
Thursday Saturday
In summary, parking demand in District 1 (excluding the private parking lot) varied between 78
and 92 percent of capacity on Thursday and Saturday from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, while the parking
demand in District 3 was consistently below half of its capacity for the entire survey period.
Occupancy was slightly higher on Thursday prior to approximately 6:30 pm but this trend is
reversed after 6:30 pm with an increase attributed to demand caused by weekend evening dining.
Parking District 1 (both including and excluding the private parking lot) has a higher occupancy
rate than District 3 until late at night.
The maximum desirable parking occupancy level in most lots is 85 to 90 percent so that drivers
do not spend an inordinate amount of time searching for a parking space when a lot is close to
fully occupied.
191
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 8 of 15
Figure 5: Average Daily Parking Occupancy for Districts 1 and 3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00
Time Period
Oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
District 1 Average Daily District 1 w/o Private Parking District 3 Average Daily
District 1 and 3 Parking Duration
In addition to parking occupancy rates, data was collected on the duration that vehicles parked in
each space in both districts.
In those parking spaces that do have parking restrictions, nearly 15 percent of all parked vehicles
exceeded the designated parking time on both Thursday and Saturday. As noted previously,
District 1 has no spaces with time restrictions. This data excluded the four spaces with the 15-
minute limit due to limitations of the surveyed time-interval of 30 minutes.
During the survey period, approximately 460 and 470 different vehicles parked in the two districts
on Thursday and Saturday, respectively. Of the total parked vehicles, approximately 25 percent
(or 116 vehicles) parked for at least three hours on both Thursday and Saturday for each of the
districts. Nearly 10 percent or 50 vehicles parked for at least five hours on each day surveyed.
Similarly, approximately five percent parked for at least seven hours on Thursday and seven
percent on Saturday. This translates to 23 vehicles on Thursday and 33 vehicles on Saturday that
parked for at least seven hours. Those vehicles that parked for at least seven hours are likely
owned by employees that work for the businesses within the Village.
Table 5 summarizes the average duration by posted time limit. For all parking spaces, the
average parking duration was approximately 3.1 hours for both Thursday and Saturday. In the 2-
hour parking limit spaces, the average parking duration exceed the posted limit by almost one
hour on both days. The average parking duration for the 15-minute zones was not included due to
the limitation of 30-minute data collection periods.
192
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 9 of 15
TABLE 5
AVERAGE PARKING DURATION BY ZONE FOR DISTRICTS 1 AND 3
Parking Zone Thursday Saturday
2-hour 2.7 3.4
No Limit 3.2 3.1
Private Parking 4.4 3.1
All Parking Spaces 3.1 3.1
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008.
Summary Conclusions for Parking Districts 1 and 3
Based on the observed parking demand, Parking District 1 (excluding the private parking lot for
The Inn at Saratoga hotel) had an average parking demand of 80 percent of its capacity during
the afternoon peak hours from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Occupancy in District 3 was consistently
below 50 percent throughout the study period. The average parking duration for both parking
districts was approximately 3.1 hours. This indicates that the 2-hour parking restriction is not
being enforced regularly and actual demand is for a period of approximately three hours.
As recommended above all spaces in District 1 and 3 could be posted with a three-hour limit at all
times to accommodate the typical parking duration. The greater parking demand for Districts 2
and 4 as compared to Districts 1 and 3 indicates that parking in the even numbered lots is more
desirable to patrons. Since more than half of the parking supply in District 3 is available
(approximately 110 available spaces) and with District 2 and District 4 near capacity during the
surveyed period, District 3 could be used for designated employee parking in the Village with
longer time limits (e.g., up to 8 hours). For all four districts combined, approximately 40 to 60 of
vehicles were observed parking for seven hours or more. Allowing for a ten percent fluctuation in
daily parking demand, 70 parking spaces in District 3 could be designated for employee parking
with a posted time limit of 8 hours or more. These could be marked with an “E” to direct
employees to the appropriate parking spaces. However, without a permitting process, visitors to
the Village could park in these spaces as well. This will free up some spaces within Districts 2
and 4 for more short-term customer parking. The remaining spaces in District 3 could be posted
with a three-hour time limit.
ON-STREET PARKING EVALUATION
Fehr & Peers completed occupancy and duration surveys for on-street parking spaces in the
Village area. The surveys were conducted on Thursday, May 29, 2008, and Saturday, May 31,
2008.
Existing Parking Supply
On-street parking is located on both sides of Big Basin Way between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
and 6th Street, as well as on one or both sides of 3rd, 4th and 5th Streets. A total of 124 on-street
spaces and 8 loading zone spaces are available in the Village. Most spaces are posted with 2-
hour limits and a few are restricted to 15 minutes. Table 6 summarizes the number and type of
parking spaces available on Big Basin Way and Figure 6 illustrates the Village’s on-street parking
inventory.
193
6
t
h
S
t
.
6
t
h
S
t
.
5
t
h
S
t
.
5
t
h
S
t
.
4
t
h
S
t
.
4
t
h
S
t
.
3
r
d
S
t
.
3
r
d
S
t
.
Saratoga Los Gatos Rd.Saratoga Los Gatos Rd.SR 9 S R 9
Bi
g
B
a
s
i
n
W
a
y
B i g B a s i n W a y
6
t
h
S
t
.
5
t
h
S
t
.
4
t
h
S
t
.
3
r
d
S
t
.
Saratoga Los Gatos Rd.SR 9
Bi
g
B
a
s
i
n
W
a
y
1
4
12 1 2
3
5
4
9
7
6 2 3666
4 4
4 4
4
4
1 1
1 1
1 1
2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
4 4
2 2
2 2
2 2
3
3 3
5
4
12
7
7 7
9
2 2
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
zo
n
e
9
a
m
-
6
p
m
9
a
m
-
1
0
p
m
ex
c
e
p
t
Su
n
d
a
y
s
9
a
m
-
1
0
p
m
ex
c
e
p
t
Su
n
d
a
y
s
No
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
lo
a
d
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
9
a
m
-
6
p
m
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
lo
a
d
z
o
n
e
Mo
n
-
S
a
t
6
p
m
-
1
2
a
m
9
a
m
-
6
p
m
9
a
m
-
6
p
m
9
a
m
-
1
0
p
m
9 am - 6 pm except Sundays & Holidays
9
a
m
-
6
p
m
Ju
n
e
2
0
0
8
10
2
5
-
4
4
6
\
P
h
a
s
e
1
Saratoga Village Parking FIGURE 1
SA
R
A
T
O
G
A
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
(
B
I
G
B
A
S
I
N
W
A
Y
S
O
U
T
H
O
F
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
9
)
ON
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
N
LE
G
E
N
D
:
= 2-hour Parking = 15-min. Parking = Loading Zone = Number of Parking Spaces
2 2
19
4
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 11 of 15
TABLE 6
PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY FOR ON-STREET PARKING
2-Hour Parking Limit 15-Minute Parking
Limit Loading Zones Total Parking Supply
115 9 8 132
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008.
Parking Occupancy
As shown in Figure 7, on-street parking is about 80 percent occupied on average for most of late
afternoon and evening. The peak parking demand occurred on Saturday at 7:30 pm with nearly
90 percent of the parking spaces occupied (118 out of 132). Saturday typically exceeded the
Thursday demand from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm. In the evening after 8:00 pm, the Thursday demand
was higher than the Saturday parking demand. Both days showed a similar pattern, where the
peak occurred on Saturday between 7:30 pm to 8:00 pm. For the 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm time
period, the average occupancy was 72 and 76 percent on Thursday and Saturday, respectively.
Figure 7: Parking Occupancy – On-Street Parking by Day of Week
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30
Time Period
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
p
a
c
e
s
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
Thur On-Street Parking Sat On-Street Parking
Figure 8 shows the occupancy both with and without the on-street loading zones. Approximately
75 percent of spaces were occupied on average on Thursday and Saturday with loading zones
included, and the average occupancy without the zones was approximately 80 percent. Both
scenarios showed the peak demand occurring between 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
195
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 12 of 15
Figure 8: Average Daily On-Street Parking Occupancy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30
Time Period
Oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
s
On-Street Average Daily On-Street Average Daily w/o Loading Space
In summary, on-street parking demand (excluding the loading zone) varied between 76 and 78
percent of capacity on Thursday and Saturday from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm, while the parking
demand for both situations consistently stayed above 60 percent of its capacity for the entire
survey period. Occupancy was higher on Saturday prior to approximately 8:00 pm but this trend is
reversed after 8:00 pm. This increase is attributed to demand caused by weekend dining and
shopping from afternoon to early evening. On-street parking (both including and excluding the
loading zones) had a relatively high occupancy rate through out the survey period exhibiting the
desirability of spaces located closest to the entrance of most businesses.
As noted previously, the maximum desirable parking occupancy level in most lots is 85 to 90
percent so that drivers do not spend an inordinate amount of time searching for a parking space
when on-street parking is close to fully occupied.
On-street Parking Duration
In addition to parking occupancy rates, data was collected on the duration that vehicles parked in
each space in both districts. As noted previously, on-street parking in the Village includes posted
2-hour and 15-minute limits. This data excluded the nine spaces with the 15-minute limit due to
limitations of the surveyed time-interval of 30 minutes.
During the survey period, approximately 85 and 88 different vehicles parked on the street on
Thursday and Saturday, respectively. Of the total parked vehicles, approximately 19 percent (or
16 vehicles) parked for at least three hours on Thursday and 11 percent (or 9 vehicles) on
Saturday. Nearly five percent on Thursday and two percent on Saturday parked for at least five
hours. Similarly, approximately one percent parked for at least seven hours on Thursday and
196
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 13 of 15
Saturday. This translates to one vehicle on both days that parked for at least seven hours, which
is likely owned by an employee that works for the businesses within the Village.
Table 5 summarizes the average duration by posted time limit. For all parking spaces, the
average parking duration was approximately 2 hours for both Thursday and Saturday. In the 2-
hour limit spaces, the average duration exceeded the posted limit by 0.1 hour on Thursday but
was within the limit on Saturday. The loading zone parking duration was approximately 1.3 hours.
The average parking duration for the 15-minute zones was not included due to the limitation of
30-minute data collection periods.
TABLE 7
AVERAGE PARKING DURATION BY PARKING ZONE
Parking Zone Thursday Saturday
2-hour 2.1 1.8
Loading Zone 1.4 1.2
All Parking Spaces 2.1 1.8
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008.
Evaluation of On-street Designations
As indicated above in Table 6, the majority of the on-street parking spaces have 2-hour time
restrictions, while nine spaces have 15-minute time restrictions, and another eight spaces are
designated loading spaces. Between one and two of the 15-minute parking spaces are located on
each block and are located in front of businesses that generally have high-turnover rates (such as
coffee shops and dry cleaners). As noted above, the overall on-street parking demand is nearly
80 percent and provides some capacity to allow drivers to find parking. Base on the observed
parking demand and the location of the 15-minute parking spaces in front of high-turnover
businesses, the number and location of the 15-minute parking spaces are generally adequate to
meet the Village’s parking demand. One of the 15-minute parking spaces is located in front of the
De Mario restaurant. Based on discussion of City staff with restaurants owner this space could be
converted to a 2-hour space, since the restaurant is generally a sit-down restaurant rather than a
take-out facility.
As shown on Figure 6 the 15-minute parking limit is posted from either 9:00 am to 6:00 pm or
9:00 am to 10:00 pm. The 9:00 am to 6:00 pm restrictions are located east of 3rd Street in front of
a clothing alterations store and in front of the De Mario restaurant. The alterations store is
generally closed by 6:00 pm; and therefore the duration of the 15-minute time restrictions is
appropriate for this locations. As noted in the paragraph above the restaurant is a sit-down facility
and does not have a high-turn over rate. This space could be converted to a 2-hour space. The
15-minute parking spaces are located west of 3rd Street and are posted from 9:00 am to 10:00
pm. The 15-minute parking spaces between 3rd Street and 4th Street are located in front of
multiple restaurants and a coffee shop, which both have a high-turnover potential for take-out
food and beverages. Both the restaurants and coffee shop are open until 9:00pm or later;
therefore the duration of the 15-minute time restriction is considered appropriate for these
locations. Lastly, a group of three 15-minute parking spaces is located north of 5th Street in front
of tailoring business and coffee shop. Though these businesses have high turnover rates during
the daytime, they close for business in the early evening. Thus, we recommend that 15-minute
parking restriction at this location be changed to 9:00 am to 6:00pm to reflect the lower demand
197
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 14 of 15
for high turnover parking spaces. After 6 pm, these spaces would allow parking for up to 2 hours
consistent with the rest of Big Basin Way.
The loading spaces are generally grouped in two spaces to allow adequate parking length for
trucks making deliveries to Village businesses. The exception is the four-space loading area in
front of the Plumed Horse restaurant. Though, the Plumed Horse has a relatively high demand for
the loading zone the demand could be met with three spaces; and therefore it is recommended
that the loading space furthest to the west be converted to 2-hour parking. Fehr & Peers prepared
a separate memo to the City of Saratoga dated June 10, 2008, that addresses the demand for the
loading area in front of the Plumed Horse in more detail. In terms of location, the groups of two to
four loading spaces are evenly distributed on Big Basin Way and are provide sufficient loading
capacity for Village businesses. Fehr & Peers does not recommend any modifications to the
existing location of the loading areas.
City staff has discussed the potential of converting some of the 15-minute and loading spaces to
2-hour parking with business owners in the Village. Based on these conversations the 15-minute
parking space in front of the De Mario restaurant and the two-space loading area located on the
north eastern corner of Big Basin Way and 4th Street could be converted. These modifications
would convert three spaces to 2-hour parking.
Summary Conclusions for On-Street Parking
Based on the observed parking demand, on-street parking (excluding the loading zone spaces)
had an average parking demand of 85 percent of its capacity during the evening peak hours from
7:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Occupancy was consistently above 50 percent throughout the study period.
The average parking duration for both parking districts was approximately 2.0 hours. This
indicates that the 2-hour parking restriction meets the actual demand with the exception of a few
vehicles.
This approach could be maintained until parking demand increases occupancy to close to 90
percent in the future. At that time, time limits could be adjusted to increase turnover or employee
parking could be relocated to another lot.
SUMMARY OF THE 2008 VILLAGE PARKING SURVEY
The surveys show that the Village’s parking demand ranges anywhere from 40 percent to close to
100 percent depending on the location of the parking spaces. The on-street parking occupancy
was approximately 80 percent on weekday and Saturday evenings. Parking spaces located
closer to the Big Basin Way/4th Street intersection are the most desirable and have higher parking
demand rates than those located east of 3rd Street. The highest occupancy rates are in Districts 2
and 4, while District 1 spaces are less attractive due to the additional walking distance and steep
grade to get to businesses on Big Basin Way. Overall, most vehicles in the off-street lots park for
an average of three hours, while the on-street duration is two hours consistent with the posted
limits.
Parking duration studies showed that some employees are parking in the highest demand areas
and are able to due to infrequent enforcement of time limits. Accordingly, we recommend that
spaces with 8-hour time limits be designated for employees in District 3, which currently has a
substantial parking surplus. The walking distance for employees from the middle of District 3 to
4th Street is roughly 1,000 feet, which is not an unreasonable distance to be traversed as part of a
commute trip. While some locational parking deficiencies do occur at peak times within the
Village, the overall parking supply is generally sufficient to meet the area’s parking demand.
198
John Cherbone
June 11, 2008
Page 15 of 15
In addition, the time restrictions on three spaces with 15-minute limits could be reduced to allow
2-hour parking after 6 pm to increase the on-street supply. Overall, however, the on-street supply
includes 2-hour parking and we do not recommend any changes at this time.
199
4-80.010 Definition of “valet parking service.”
As used in this Article, the term “valet parking service” means the business of using the
city streets for the purposes of loading and unloading passengers to and from vehicles and
for the parking of those vehicles. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.020 Definition of “valet parking loading zone.”
As used in this Article, the term “valet parking loading zone” means a public place along
side the curb of the street or elsewhere, designated by the City as a valet parking/loading
zone and reserved exclusively for the use of valet parking service and persons using such
service. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.030 Definition of “City Manager.”
As used in this Article, the term “City Manager” means the City Manager or his designee.
(Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.040 Operation allowed only in valet parking loading zone.
A valet parking service shall only be operated in connection with a designated valet
parking loading zone. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.050 Permit required.
(a) No person shall engage in the business of operating a valet parking service in the City
without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this Article.
(b) Any person desiring to operate a valet parking service for which a permit is required
under the provisions of this Article shall also apply for and obtain a business license
pursuant to Article 4-05 of this Chapter and pay the license fee specified in Section 4-
05.100. No such business license shall be issued unless and until the applicant has first
obtained a valid permit under this Article. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.060 Application for permit; fee.
(a) Any person desiring to obtain a permit shall make application therefor to the City
Manager, which application shall contain the following information:
(1) The name, age, business address and residence of the applicant if a natural person; if a
corporation, its name, date and place of incorporation, address of its principal office, and
the names of its principal officers together with their respective addresses; if a
partnership, association or other unincorporated entity, the names of the partners or
persons comprising the association or company, with the place of business and residence
of each.
(2) The experience of the applicant in the provision of valet parking service and whether
or not any such similar permit, or license held by the applicant or any of the principals of
the applicant has ever been revoked, and if so, the circumstances of such revocation.
200
(3) The uniform or insignia to be used to designate the employees of the applicant.
(4) The street number and location of the place or places desired by the applicant as valet
parking loading zones.
(5) Whether the applicant or any of its principal officers or any of its employees have
ever been convicted of a felony, or the violation of any narcotic or other penal law
involving moral turpitude.
(6) Such further information as the City Manager may require.
(b) The application shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as
established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part),
1998)
4-80.070 Receipt and determination by City Manager.
(a) Upon receipt of the completed application and other documents and the fee as
required in Section 4-80.060, the City Manager shall conduct such investigation as he
deems appropriate to determine whether a permit should be issued.
(b) In making his determinations, the City Manager shall take into consideration the
number of valet parking services already in operation, the number of valet parking
loading zones already designated, and whether existing services and zones are adequate
to meet the public need, the probable effect of increased service on local traffic
conditions, and the character, experience and responsibility of the applicant. (Ord. 71-176
§ 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.080 Liability insurance.
(a) No permit shall be issued or continued in operation, and no person shall operate any
valet parking service in the City unless and until there is in full force and effect a motor
vehicle liability insurance policy or policies insuring such owner and covering each
employee thereof, and unless and until such owner shall file with the City Clerk a written
certificate or certificates of insurance showing that such policy or policies are in full force
and effect and that an endorsement has been issued to each such policy or policies therein
cited that the same shall not be canceled and no reduction in the amount of coverage shall
be made except upon thirty days' prior written notice to the City. Such policies shall
insure the owner and any other person loading/unloading and/or driving or parking a
vehicle in the course of operating the valet parking service, against loss from the liability
imposed on any of them by law for injury to, or death of, any person or damage to
property, arising from or growing out of the operation of such service, with coverage
limits of not less than one million dollars in public liability coverage for death or injury in
any one occurrence, and property damage coverage of not less than one hundred thousand
dollars in such amount as approved by the City Manager.
(b) In addition to the insurance required under subsection (a) of this Section, the owner
shall also furnish to the City, at his own cost and expense, a policy or policies of liability
and other insurance coverage as may be required under the applicable insurance standards
of the City for consultants or contractors. Such policy or policies shall be maintained in
full force and effect in accordance with said insurance standards during the entire term of
the permit. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
201
4-80.090 Qualifications of parking valets; permits.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to act as a valet for a valet parking service in the City
unless he fulfills the following requirements:
(1) Holds a current, active (not suspended or revoked) motor vehicle operator's license
from the State;
(2) Is at least eighteen years of age.
(b) It shall be the obligation of the owner or permit holder to engage only such parking
valets as fulfilling the above requirements. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.100 Transferability of permits.
No permit, issued pursuant to this Article, shall be sold, assigned or otherwise
transferred, and any attempted sale, assignment or transfer shall invalidate the permit.
(Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.110 Authority of City to designate street parking locations and times.
(a) The City reserves the right to determine and designate appropriate street locations and
times for the operation valet parking services.
(b) Once the City has determined and designated appropriate street locations and times
for the operating of valet parking services, the service shall be limited to parking or
loading vehicles only at those street locations and time.
(c) The City may add, modify or eliminate street locations and times authorized for the
operating of valet parking services, at any time, for any reason. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part),
1998)
4-80.120 Suspension or revocation of permit.
(a) Any valet parking service permit issued under this Article may be suspended or
revoked by the City Manager for any reason that would justify a refusal to issue the
permit originally, or by reason of any failure by the permittee to comply with the
provisions of this Article, or any other provision of this Code, or any condition of such
permit. City Manager or his designee be granted a hearing upon the merits of the
suspension or revocation. If after such hearing the permit is ordered suspended or
revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to City Council.
(b) The holder of a valet parking service permit shall be given prompt notice of the
intention to suspend or revoke his permit. Such notice shall fix a time and place, not less
than five nor more than thirty days after service thereof, at which the holder of the permit
may appear before the City Manager or his designee and be granted a hearing upon the
merits of the suspension or revocation. If after such hearing the permit is ordered
suspended or revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to the City
Council. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.130 Appeals to City Council.
202
Any decisions rendered pursuant to this Article with respect to the issuance, denial,
suspension or revocation of a permit, or the conditions thereof, may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or permittee in accordance with the procedure set forth in
Section 2-05.030 of this Code. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.140 Violation of Article; penalties.
The violation of any provision contained in this Article, or the violation of any condition
of a permit issued hereunder, is declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a
misdemeanor and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of
this Code. The enforcement of this Article pursuant to Chapter 3 shall be in addition to
any proceedings conducted under Section 4-80.120 for revocation or suspension of the
permit or any proceedings under Article 4-05 of this Chapter to revoke a business license
by reason of the same violation. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
4-80.150 Annual review.
Commencing in June 1999, and in June of every year thereafter, the provisions of this
Article shall be reviewed and a separate report made to the City Council by the City
Manager at a public hearing, setting forth an analysis of the effectiveness of the valet
parking service operations, including whether the public convenience and necessity
require the continuation of the valet parking service operations and/or whether the
provisions of this Article should be modified or repealed. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998)
203
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 11, 2008
To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director
From: Sohrab Rashid/Franziska Holtzman
Subject: Village Valet Service Evaluation
1025-446-1
In June 2008, Fehr & Peers completed a qualitative evaluation of the privately operated valet
parking for the La Fondue and Plumed Horse restaurants located near the 4th Street/Big Basin
Way intersection in the Village area of Saratoga, California. The purpose of this evaluation was
two-fold:
a. To determine the impact of the privately operated valet parking service on the public
parking supply.
b. To evaluate whether the City should consider implementing a public valet parking
service for the entire Village area in Saratoga.
This memorandum summarizes our findings and recommendations.
EXISTING OPERATIONS OF VALET PARKING
Currently the La Fondue and Plumed Horse restaurants each privately operate valet parking at
their facilities. Both restaurants charge a fee for the valet parking service (approximately $5 to
$10) and the service is limited to restaurant customers. La Fondue is located on the southwest
corner of 4th Street/Big Basin Way intersection and uses three on-street parking spaces on the
west side of 4th Street as a staging area for its valet parking service. The three spaces are
designated for passenger loading/unloading only. Vehicles are parked in the privately owned
parking lot behind the restaurant that includes 16 parking spaces. Based on parking occupancy
surveys conducted by Fehr & Peers in November 2007, the parking lot is on average 50 percent
occupied during business hours.
The Plumed Horse is located on the north side of Big Basin Way just west of the 4th Street on the
north side of Big Basin Way and uses four on-street parking spaces located in front of the building
on Big Basin Way as a passenger loading area for its valet service. The spaces are located within
a designated commercial loading zone enforced between 9 am and 6pm. The Plumed Horse
does not have a separate private lot for valet parking. Vehicles are generally parked in public
parking spaces in Parking Districts 1 and 3 (located behind businesses on the north side of Big
Basin Way) or in parking spaces available on Big Basin Way. During our observations, one or two
of the four loading spaces in front of the Plumed Horse were used for valet parking; thus reducing
the loading area to two or three spaces.
Field observations were conducted at both locations between the hours of 5:30 pm and 7:30 pm
on Thursday, June 5, 2008, and Saturday, June 7, 2008. At both facilities, a maximum of two
vehicles were observed using the valet parking service areas at one time. Based on these
observations, the loading areas for both valet service areas could be reduced by one parking
space. This would create two additional on-street parking spaces in areas of the Village where
customers prefer to park due to its proximity to many restaurants and other destinations. At
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
204
minimum, we recommend that the valet parking area at the Plumed Horse be reduced to three
parking spaces since the additional space is not needed for valet service and could be converted
to a full-time public space.
In November 2007 and May 2008, Fehr and Peers conducted parking occupancy surveys for the
four public parking districts and on-street parking in the Village area of Saratoga. The Parking
Districts provide surface parking behind businesses on both sides of Big Basin Way. The surveys
showed that Parking District 1 and 3 on the north side of Big Basin Way are generally 50 percent
occupied, while District 2 and 4 on the south side of Big Basin Way are near capacity from 3:00
pm to 10:00 pm. Based on the observed parking demands in District 1 and 3, parking from the
Plumed Horse’s valet service does not have a substantial negative impact on the availability of
public spaces in these Parking Districts.
The occupancy surveys showed that on-street parking spaces are highly desirable to Village
customers, especially during the evening hours; therefore the Plumed Horse does affect the
availability of on-street parking spaces during peak times. The Plumed Horse valet service should
be discouraged from using on-street parking spaces for its service and should only park valet
service vehicles in available spaces in District 1 and 3. This operation would make more on-street
parking available for all Village customers and would provide additional supply for patrons parked
for shorter periods of time (i.e., less than 2 hours). It should be noted that most Plumed Horse
valet service vehicles were observed parking in Districts 1 and 3.
Because the La Fondue restaurant has its own private lot to park customer vehicles, its
operations do not impact the public parking supply or traffic operations in its current configuration
on 4th Street. At one point, the valet service was located on the south side of Big Basin Way west
of 4th Street. This alternative location is not recommended since most drivers approach from the
east (i.e., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) and most vehicles would have to turn around west of 4th
Street to access the curb adjacent to the restaurant. Given the road width of Big Basin Way and
the commercial area, U-turns are infeasible and illegal, and limited local street circulation makes
turning around difficult.
VILLAGE-WIDE VALET PARKING SERVICE
This section of the memo evaluates whether the City of Saratoga should consider implementing a
Village-wide public valet parking service. The Village area extends over five blocks along Big
Basin Way from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to 6th Street. Ideally, valet passenger loading areas
would need to be located on each block for the public valet service to be successful. Providing a
valet service area at one centralized location (for example in the middle of the Village at 3rd
Street) would not likely be used by many customers.
Valet parking is primarily instituted for two reasons: 1) the service provides a convenience for
patrons and if customers have to walk too far from their final destination to reach the valet service
they will likely try and find their own parking space; and/or 2) the parking supply is severely
limited and the supply must be maximized by parking vehicles very close together in non-
standard configurations. The current valet operations in the Village are generally operated for
convenience in part due to the fact that the most desirable off-street lots in Districts 2 and 4 are
near or at capacity at peak times. While spaces are available in District 1, some are located up to
450 feet from Big Basin Way and require a walk up 4th Street which is built at a substantial grade.
Also, valet parking service in the east area of the Village would be less attractive given the
surplus of available parking in District 3 and its relatively easy access to Big Basin Way
(compared to District 1).
2
205
3
La Fondue is a popular restaurant with a seating capacity of 145 people and is generally at
capacity during dinner hours. As noted above, the parking occupancy data collected in November
2007 showed that approximately eight of its 16 valet parking spaces were occupied during the
evening hours. Field observations in May and June of 2008 confirmed these previous findings.
The occupancy surveys and field observations confirm show that most La Fondue customers
prefer to find parking on their own in lieu of using the restaurant’s valet service even with the
relatively high demand for adjacent spaces on the street and in Districts 2 and 4. This illustrates
that demand would not likely support a village-wide valet service.
Additional studies are required to ascertain the specific costs of providing village-wide valet
service at several locations through the village. Costs would include labor for valet personnel,
management expenses, and insurance among others. Given the current fiscal situation for the
City, this service would likely require funding through a business improvement district (BID) or
some other organization. In addition, this service would eliminate the use of at least two on-street
parking spaces at each valet location during peak demand times. Based on the data collected at
the La Fondue restaurant, most customers prefer not to pay for valet parking and park their own
vehicles. Thus, we do not recommend implementation of village-wide valet parking service at this
time, but do recommend its consideration should the available parking supply be reduced in the
future.
206
207
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND
COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM PROCEDURES
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to staff as to whether the City should:
1. Maintain the existing CDBG procedures or elect to have a study session prior to the
formal meeting.
2. Modify the existing CDBG application form used by applicants for City CDBG funding.
3. Have the Community Grant Program follow a parallel process consistent with the CDBG
program application, noticing, and meeting schedule.
4. Allow the CDBG applications to take priority over the Community Grant Programs
REPORT SUMMARY:
The City Council has requested the review of the Community Development Block Grant
procedures and the Community Grant Program procedures. Since both are similar in nature and
no formal procedures have been addressed for the Community Grant Program this has been
combined into one staff report to review the two processes.
DISCUSSION:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Each year the City Council reviews requests for CDBG grant funding based on applications from
various organizations. Traditionally, the Councilmember assigned to the County HCD Policy
Committee reviews the applications to make recommendations for Council action. In recent
years, the Council has seen an increase in the number of organizations requesting funding while
disbursements from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have decreased.
In the past, the job of the Council Liaison has been very standardized with the funds equaling the
requests. Since there have been fewer funds and more requests the task of making a
recommendation to the Council from the Council Liaison has become more difficult. One of the
suggestions to assist with this is to have a Study Session with the entire City Council prior to the
formal public hearing at which allocation decisions are made. This would provide opportunity
for review of the applications prior to making a decision to allocate the funding. Another
Page 1 of 3
208
suggestion has been to revise the CDBG application summary to include questions that are
oftentimes asked of applicants particularly those that pertain to Saratoga residents (see attached
original and proposed applications).
Community Grant Program
Traditionally the City of Saratoga has provided Community Grants to non profit organizations
funded by the end of year surplus funds or the Council contingency funds. Due to the state of
flux with the economy over the last ten years the City Council has not developed a set funding
mechanism or general policy for this purpose.
At the budget hearing May 21, 2008, the City Council decided to add an amount of funds equal
to the CDBG public services amount for funding the Community Grant Program and to augment
the CDBG program. The City Council also decided to allocate these funds at the same meeting
as the CDBG hearing (which is held in March of each year). Staff recommends implementing
this direction by holding the CDBG hearing first as a separate agenda item and then the
Community Grant Program item as a separate matter to be heard immediately after the CDBG
agenda item.
In the past the Community Grant Program has not been widely advertised. The Council may
consider having the same noticing process and time line as the CDBG process. It is important to
note that some community groups may not be able to apply for CDBG funds due to being a
private club or entity, but would be able to apply for the Community Grant Program. The two
processes could be completely separate but on the same time line. The Council could direct staff
to allow the CDBG applications to have priority over the Community Grant Program
applications and to roll over to the Community Grant Program when their funding is not met
through the CDBG process.
Current CDBG process
The current process for the CDBG grants begins with the advertising in the Saratoga News in
January, and sending copies of the application with a reminder to applicants who applied the
pervious year. In February all of the applications are due. After all of the applications are
collected the City Council Liaison to the CDBG meets with staff to go over the applications and
make a recommendation to the City Council for the March City Council meeting where the final
distribution of the CDBG funds is decided upon.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The funds for the CDBG and Community Grant Programs would be included in the following
year’s budget.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Continue to review applications consistent with the current procedure.
Page 2 of 3
209
Page 3 of 3
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Staff will make adjustments to application forms and schedule a study session for Council
review prior to presenting the topics during public hearing.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The agenda for this meeting was property posted on June 12, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Current Application Summary
Attachment B – Alternative Application Summary
210
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Name and Address of Applicant Organization:
Name of Project:
Please complete questions 1-8 for ALL projects:
1. Total amount of CDBG funds requested and percentage of total cost:_________________________
________________________________________________________________________________.
2. Total project cost (all sources):________________________________________________________.
3. Number of paid staff for CDBG funded project: __________________________________________.
4. Number of volunteer staff for CDBG funded project: ______________________________________.
5. Percent of budget for administration (of project): _________________________________________.
6. Anticipated cost per housing unit or per client: ___________________________________________.
7. Amount of CDBG funds requested last year: _____________________________________________.
8. Amount of CDBG funds received last year: ______________________________________________.
For Category I project only (acquisition or new construction):
9. Number of affordable units* in project: _________________________________________________.
10. Anticipated date of occupancy: _______________________________________________________.
*Units affordable to very low income and low income individuals or families paying no more than 30% of
household income.
211
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Name and Address of Applicant Organization:
Name of Project:
Please complete below questions for ALL projects:
1. What services does your organization provide?
2. Total amount of CDBG funds requested and percentage of total cost:_________________________
2. Total project cost (all sources):________________________________________________________.
3. Number of paid staff for CDBG funded project: __________________________________________.
4. Number of volunteer staff for CDBG funded project: ______________________________________.
5. Percent of budget for administration (of project): _________________________________________.
6. Anticipated cost per housing unit or per client: ___________________________________________.
7. Amount of CDBG funds requested last year: _____________________________________________.
8. Amount of CDBG funds received last year: ______________________________________________.
9. Number of Saratoga residents served by your organization:
10. Number of residents outside of Saratoga served by your organization:
11. Do Saratoga residents get priority of service?
12. If no priority, would Saratoga residents be turned away (not served) if the City was not able to
pay for the service?
13. Other organizations and amounts that you have obtained funding from:
14. What is the total leveraging of money donated?
For Category I project only (acquisition or new construction):
15. Number of affordable units* in project: _________________________________________________.
16. Anticipated date of occupancy: _______________________________________________________.
*Units affordable to very low income and low income individuals or families paying no more than 30% of
household income.
212
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Review the possible formation of a CH-2 District Review Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following:
1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission)
2. Confirm participants
REPORT SUMMARY:
At the May 13th joint City Council meeting with the Planning Commission the Council heard
from residents attending the meeting concerns about the how the zoning in the Village is split
between CH-1 and CH-2. During this discussion the City Council and Planning Commission
expressed interest in forming a committee to investigate the issues related to the two zoning
districts. Council Member King and Planning Commissioner Hlava volunteered to be on the
committee. The Council requested that staff agendize the formation of a CH-2 District Review
Committee for formal discussion at a City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Currently the first two thirds of the Village from Blaney Plaza to approximately 5th Street is
zoned CH-1 with the remainder zoned CH-2. Some of the difference between the two districts is
that the CH-2 District only allows a height up to 26 feet, requires a 15 foot front setback, and
only allows a site covered by structures up to sixty percent. The CH-1 District allows a 35 foot
height limit, requires no front setback, and allows eighty percent coverage. The difference may
be limiting new development in the CH-2 District and not consistent with the streetscape of the
rest of Big Basin Way. The committee could be charged with reviewing the two districts and
make a recommendation to the City Council on their findings. There are several options
available for structuring a committee, or as an alternative a commission:
1. As an ad hoc committee. This would consist of two Council members. They would
investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back. Their meetings would be
informal and would not require public notice. Following their final report to the City
Page 1 of 3
213
Council the ad hoc would cease operations.
2. As Council-Planning Commission advisory committee. This would consist of one
Council member and one Planning Commissioners. Like the ad hoc, the committee
would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back to the Council.
These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and procedures in
accordance with the Brown Act. Following their final report to the City Council the
committee would cease operations.
3. As a community advisory committee. A community advisory committee would include
any number of Saratoga residents as determined by the Council and could include
Council members and Planning Commissioners if desired. The committee would
investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back to the Council.
Alternatively they could report to the Community Development Director who is
responsible for economic development issues (this would be similar to the Pedestrian,
Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee that advises the Public Works
Director). The Committee could be for a limited term (e.g., until it makes its final report
to Council) or operate on a long term basis.
4. As a Commission. A Commission would be a standing body created to provide advice to
the City Council on an ongoing basis. It would be structured similar to other City
Commissions such as the Historic Preservation Commission or Parks and Recreation
Commission. These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and
procedures in accordance with the Brown Act.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The formation of an ad hoc committee would require minimal staff time and would not require
any formal noticing of the meetings. Staff would attend the meetings in an advisory capacity.
Work generated from the ad hoc committee would be implemented as part of the staff work
program. An advisory committee or commission would require additional staff time to comply
with Brown Act requirements and to provide the level of support that Council directs staff to
provide to the Committee or Commission. Depending on the types of projects pursued by the
committee or commission it may be possible to have work performed by volunteers.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
There would be no Committee or Commission to review the CH-2 zoning District and the
possible impacts it may have on development in the Village.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Discussed above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
As directed.
Page 2 of 3
214
Page 3 of 3
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CH-1 and CH-2 District requirements
215
15-19.050 C-H district regulations.
(a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this
Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2
districts: (1) professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions,
when located either above the street level or at the street level if separated from the street
frontage by a retail establishment; and (2) personal service businesses that are above
street level, and personal service businesses that are at street level but do not have
primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line.
(b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of
this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2
districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter:
(1) Professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when
located at street level and having street frontage.
(2) Theaters.
(3) Religious and charitable institutions.
(4) Mixed-use development conforming to the design standards found in Article 15-58.
(5) Personal service businesses at the street level that have primary access from Big Basin
Way or across the front lot line.
(c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C-H district shall be as follows:
District Net Site Area
CH-1 5,000 sq. ft.
CH-2 7,500 sq. ft.
(d) Site frontage, width and depth. The minimum site frontage, width and depth in each
C-H district shall be as follows:
District Frontage Width Depth
CH-1 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft.
CH-2 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft.
(e) Coverage; pedestrian open space.
(1) In the CH-1 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be eighty
percent, except that up to one hundred percent of the site may be covered by structures if,
for any structure coverage in excess of eighty percent, an equivalent area on the site is
devoted to pedestrian open space.
(2) In the CH-2 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be sixty
percent. In addition, an area equivalent to not less than twenty percent of the net site area
shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any portion of the required front setback
area may be used for pedestrian open space.
(3) The term “pedestrian open space,” as used in subsections (e)(1) and (2) of this
Section, means common areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather,
such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians
on streets, sidewalks and parking facilities adjacent to the site.
(f) Front setback area. No front setback area shall be required in the CH-1 district. The
216
minimum front setback area of any lot in the CH-2 district shall be fifteen feet.
(g) Side setback area. No side setback area shall be required in either the CH-1 or CH-2
district.
(h) Rear setback area. No rear setback area shall be required in the CH-1 district. No
rear setback area shall be required for any lot in the CH-2 district having a rear lot line
that abuts a public right-of-way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH-1
district. Where the rear lot line of any lot in the CH-2 district abuts an A, R-1, HR, or R-
M district, the minimum rear setback area shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two
feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the
rear lot line for such setback area exceeds fourteen feet in height.
(i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in each C-H district shall
be as follows:
District Height
CH-1 35 feet. No portion of a structure facing Big Basin Way
shall exceed two stories, and no portion of a structure
facing Saratoga Creek shall exceed three stories.
CH-2 26 feet. No structure shall exceed two stories.
(j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely
within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking and loading, gasoline
service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining.
(k) Exceptions to standards for historic structures. The Planning Commission shall
have authority to grant exceptions to any of the development standards contained in this
Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure
which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13-15 of this Code,
and the Planning Commission finds and determines that:
(1) The exception will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and
(2) The application and the proposed exception have been reviewed and approved by the
City’s Heritage Commission; and
(3) The exception will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in
the vicinity; and
(4) The exception will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic, or the availability of on-street parking, and will not create a hazard to the public
safety. (Amended by Ord. 71-108 § 1, 1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Ord. 230 § 2
(part), 2004; Ord. 236 § 2F, 2005; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
15-19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15-55.130 of this Chapter, any clinic operating
no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and no later than 9:00 P.M., any establishment engaged in the
sale of alcoholic beverages and any restaurant, market or delicatessen which, as of
September 6, 1989, was lawfully established and legally operating as a permitted use,
shall be exempted from the requirement for elimination after lapse of time pursuant to
Section 15-65.110 of this Chapter and also exempted from the necessity to obtain a use
permit for continuation of such use, but in all other respects shall be regarded as a
217
nonconforming use. Any mini-storage facility lawfully operating pursuant to a use permit
granted prior to September 6, 1989, may continue to operate pursuant to the terms and
conditions of such use permit.
218
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP
SUBJECT: Review the possible formation of a Village Economic Development Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following:
1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission)
2. Participants
REPORT SUMMARY:
At the May 13th joint City Council meeting with the Planning Commission the Council discussed
the economic vitality of the City. During this discussion the City Council and Planning
Commission felt that the primary need for economic development was in the Village. Vice
Mayor Page and Council Member Hunter along with Commissioners Rodgers and Nagpal
volunteered to be on a committee to review the economic development in the Village. The
Council requested that staff agendize the formation of a Village Economic Development
Committee for formal discussion at a City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
In order to build on the work of the recent Retail Site Assessment Report the Council has asked
to create some form of a Village Economic Development Committee. The committee could be
charged with reviewing the information from this report and prior reports and developing an
Economic Development Plan that they could recommend to the City Council. There are several
options available for structuring a committee, or as an alternative a commission:
1. As an ad hoc committee. This would consist of two Council members. They would
investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back. Their meetings would be
informal and would not require public notice. Following their final report to the City
Council the ad hoc would cease operations.
2. As Council-Planning Commission advisory committee. This would consist of two
Council members and two Planning Commissioners. Like the ad hoc, the committee
would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back to the Council.
Page 1 of 2
219
Page 2 of 2
These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and procedures in
accordance with the Brown Act. Following their final report to the City Council the
committee would cease operations.
3. As a community advisory committee. A community advisory committee would include
any number of Saratoga residents as determined by the Council and could include
Council members and Planning Commissioners if desired. The committee would
investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back to the Council.
Alternatively they could report to the Community Development Director who is
responsible for economic development issues (this would be similar to the Pedestrian,
Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee that advises the Public Works
Director). The Committee could be for a limited term (e.g., until it makes its final report
to Council) or operate on a long term basis.
4. As a Commission. A Commission would be a standing body created to provide advice to
the City Council on an ongoing basis. It would be structured similar to other City
Commissions such as the Historic Preservation Commission or Paks and Recreation
Commission. These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and
procedures in accordance with the Brown Act.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The formation of an ad hoc committee would require minimal staff time and would not require
any formal noticing of the meetings. Staff would attend the meetings in an advisory capacity.
Work generated from the ad hoc committee would be implemented as part of the staff work
program. An advisory committee or commission would require additional staff time to comply
with Brown Act requirements and to provide the level of support that Council directs staff to
provide to the Committee or Commission. Depending on the types of projects pursued by the
committee or commission it may be possible to have work performed by volunteers.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
There would be no Committee or Commission to actively promote Economic Development in
the Village.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Discussed above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
As directed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted.
ATTACHMENTS: None
220
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2008 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR:
Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Time Limits
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
At its May 7, 2008 meeting, the City Council briefly discussed the issue of how to limit the
duration of Council meetings. Council members noted that, as meetings extend late into the
evening (past 11:00 p.m.) the public may be discouraged from attending and participating, and,
with the late hour and lack of public participation, Council members may not make the best-
informed policy decisions.
Staff was directed to schedule the issue for a subsequent Council meeting agenda and to seek
input from neighboring jurisdictions to determine options for limiting the duration of Council
meetings. Staff received the following information:
Jurisdiction Actions taken to limit duration of Council meetings
Campbell Meetings generally run from 7:00-9:00 p.m.
Study sessions are scheduled in order to prepare the Council
prior to the meetings.
Public comment is limited to three minutes per person (unless
there are many speakers, in which case the time can be
reduced) Campbell uses a “traffic light” at the podium, which is
visible throughout the Chamber. The light stays green for two
minutes, then automatically changes color to yellow for one minute
before turning red.
Los Altos Public comment is limited to three minutes per person (unless
there are many speakers, in which case the time can be
reduced).
No new items are introduced after 11:00 unless the Council votes to
do so, at which time the Council can choose to continue items to the
next meeting.
The City Manager, Mayor and City Clerk work together to try to
create balanced agendas.
Page 1 of 3
221
Mountain View Council meetings begin at 6:30 p.m.
Public comment is limited to three minutes per person
No new items are introduced after 10:00 p.m., unless an
exception is made by vote of the Council.
Santa Clara Public comment is limited to three minutes per person; if there
are more than 10 speakers, the time is reduced to two minutes
per person. Digital timers and lights (green, yellow, red) are
used to indicate time limits.
Proclamations are not presented at Council meetings (except in
rare cases)
A “process chart” (Attachment “A”) is prominently displayed
in Council Chambers
Sunnyvale Public comment is limited to 15 minutes total (divided by # of
speakers). This may be extended or continued after the
General Business portion of the meeting at the discretion of the
Mayor.
Only Board/Commission Chairs convey official actions of their
bodies (not other board/commission members).
No new items are introduced after 11:30 p.m. unless agreed by
a majority of members present. Consideration of each new
item after 11:30 p.m. must be agreed upon by a majority.
In order to introduce a new item after 12:30 a.m., a
supermajority must agree to its consideration.
No new items may be introduced after 1:30 a.m.
Page 2 of 3
222
Page 3 of 3
DISCUSSION:
Procedural commonalities among the jurisdictions appear to be:
1. Limitation of public comment to three minutes per speaker unless there are a large number (10 or
more) in which case the time is reduced to two minutes per speaker.
2. No new items are considered after a specified time (this varies by jurisdiction) unless a majority
vote of the Council approves adding an item(s).
3. Timers and/or lights are used to indicate speaker time limits.
4. The Mayor, City Manager and staff work to balance the number of items on each agenda.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
223