Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-18-2017 City Council Packet -Final
Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 1 of 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2017 5:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION Administrative Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 AGENDA ITEMS: Study Session on Council Norms of Operation Recommended Action: Provide direction on the City Council Norms of Operation. 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was posted on January 12, 2017 REPORT FROM STUDY SESSION MEETING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS Proclamation Declaring January 2017 as National Human Trafficking Awareness Month Recommended Action: Present proclamations to Saratoga Federated Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force and to Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force. Staff Report Attachment A – Proclamation for St. Andrew’s Task Force Attachment B – Proclamation for Saratoga Federated Task Force Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 2 of 7 Proclamation Declaring January 13, 2017 as Lung Cancer Awareness Day Recommended Action: Present the proclamation to representatives of the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation. Staff Report Attachment A: Proclamation 1. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains items of routine business. Items in this section will be acted on in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council Member. Any member of the public may speak on an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request that the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special City Council Meeting on December 15, 2016 and Regular City Council Meeting on December 21, 2016. Staff Report Attachment A – Minutes for the Special City Council Meeting on December 15, 2016 Attachment B – Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on December 21, 2016 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 12/20/2016 Period 6; and 01/10/2017 Period 7. Staff Report Check Register - 12-20-2016 Period 6 Check Register - 01-10-2017 Period 7 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2016 Recommended Action: Review and accept the amended Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2016. Treasurer Report for November 16 1.4. Resolution Authorizing Final Disposition of Certain City Records Recommended Action: Adopt resolution authorizing final disposition of certain city records. Staff Report Attachment A: Resolution Attachment B: List of Records Proposed for Final Disposition 1.5. Notice of Completion--2016 Pavement Management Program. Recommended Action: Move to accept the 2016 Pavement Management Program contract as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion. Staff Report Attachment A - Notice of Completion Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 3 of 7 1.6. Second Reading of City Code Amendments to conform Second (Accessory) Dwelling Unit regulations with recently enacted State Laws Recommended Action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance revising the City Code Article 15-56 (Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance). Staff Report Ordinance 1.7. Council Resolution to approve side letters of agreement for the UNION, SEA, and amend the Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution to: 1. Amend the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the UNION by adopting the Side Letter Agreement; 2. Amend the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the SEA by adopting the Side Letter Agreement; and 3. Amend the Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees. Staff Report Attachment 1: Resolution Exhibit A: UNION Side Letter Exhibit B: SEA Side Letter Exhibit C: Unrepresented Group Policy 1.8. Third Amendment to the Hakone Gardens Master Plan Development Agreement Recommended Action: Approve the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement amending funding for Master Plan improvements. Staff Report Proposed Third Amendment Hakone Development Agreement with First & Second Amendments 1.9. Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Follow-Up Request Recommended Action: Review the request and authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed response. Staff Report Proposed Follow-Up Response Request Letter 2012 Response Letter 2012 Original Report 2. PUBLIC HEARING Items placed under this section of the Agenda are those defined by law as requiring a special notice and/or a public hearing or those called by the City Council on its own volition. During Public Hearings for appeals, Applicants/Appellants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time for public comment may be reduced by the Mayor or by action of the City Council. After public comment, the Applicant/Appellants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to the City Council's approval at the Council Meeting. Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 4 of 7 2.1. APPC16-0003 - Appeal of Design Review application for a new two-story residence at Paramount Ct – Lot 7 Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. Staff Report - Appeal-Paramount Lot 7 Attachment 1 – Appeal Application w/ Comment Letters Received to Date Attachment 2 – Resolution to Deny the Appeal Attachment 3 – Applicant’s Reduced Plan Set Presented to the Planning Commission (Exhibit A) Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 5 – Planning Attachments and Meeting Materials Attachment 6 – Planning Commission Action Minutes, Dated November 15, 2016 2.2. Notice of Continuation of Appeal Hearings for Paramount Court Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5 Recommended Action: Informational only. No action needed. Staff Report 2.3. Hazardous Vegetation Program Resolution Declaring Abatement of Public Nuisance Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution. Staff Report Attachment A - Resolution Declaring Abatement of a Public Nuisance as to Specified Properties Containing Hazardous Vegetation Attachment B - 2017 Commencement Report Attachment C - Sample Informational Materials Mailed to Property Owners on Commencement Report Attachment D - Resolution 16-070 Declaring Hazardous Vegetation to be a Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing Date 3. OLD BUSINESS None 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1. 2017 America in Bloom Program Recommended Action: Approve funding for the 2017 America in Bloom Program and authorize an allocation of $17,000 from the City Council Discretionary Fund in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget. Staff Report 4.2. Adoption of City Council Assignments – Finance Committee Recommended Action: Approve the resolution amending the City Council assignments. Staff Report Attachment A – Resolution Amending City Council Assignments Attachment B – City Council Assignments Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 5 of 7 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Emily Lo Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee KSAR Community Access TV Board Public Art Ad Hoc Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority West Valley Mayors and Managers Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald Association of Bay Area Governments Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Selection Committee Hakone Foundation Board Public Art Ad Hoc Saratoga Historical Foundation West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Council Member Manny Cappello Cities Association of Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) West Valley Sanitation District Council Member Howard Miller America in Bloom Committee Saratoga Ministerial Association Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Council Member Rishi Kumar Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga Saratoga Sister City Organization Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Under this section of the City Council Agenda, members of the City Council may introduce new items for discussion or action at a future City Council Meeting. Council Members may also nominate projects to the Capital Improvement Plan under this section of the agenda. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 6 of 7 Certificate of Posting of the Agenda, Distribution of Agenda Packet, & Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act I, Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for review on January 12, 2017 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 12th day of January 2017 at Saratoga, California. Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us.Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. These materials are also posted on the City website. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 5.102- 35.104 ADA title II] To view current or previous City Council Meeting videos, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/council 01/04 Meeting Cancelled 01/18 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –5:00 p.m. Study Session –Council Norms 02/01 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery 02/03 Council Retreat – 8:30 a.m. -4:30 p.m.– Saratoga Library 02/13 5 p.m. - CIP Priorization meeting 02/15 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Study Session with PG&E 02/27 5:30 p.m. –Study session on Commission Work plans, Joan Pisani Community center, Multi-purpose room 03/01 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –5:30 p.m. Joint meeting with Planning Commission 03/15 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office 04/05 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association 04/17 6:00 p.m. Tentative Budget Study Session 04/19 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –6:00 p.m. Joint meeting with Supervisor Simitian 05/03 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 5:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga News Editor and Reporter –6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with KSAR 05/17 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Hakone 06/07 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Neighborhood’s CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING CALENDAR 2017 Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 7 of 7 06/21 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with County Fire and Santa Clara County FireSafe Council, 07/05 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –6:00 p.m. Joint meeting with Historical Foundation 07/19 Tentative -Meeting Cancelled 08/02 Tentative --Meeting Cancelled 08/16 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Chamber of Commerce and Destination Saratoga 09/06 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with SASCC 09/20 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Youth Commission 10/04 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga School Districts in Senior Center, Saunders Room 10/18 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with San Jose Animal Control 11/01 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting –6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College Board of Trustees 11/15 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Senator Beall Jr. 12/06 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Representative Low 12/20 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting – 6:00 p.m. Study session –Council Norms Unless otherwise stated, Joint Meetings and Study Sessions begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT:Proclamation Declaring January 2017 as National Human Trafficking Awareness Month RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present proclamations to Saratoga Federated Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force and to Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force. BACKGROUND: January is National Human Trafficking Awareness Month. Saratoga Federated Church and Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church have both started Anti-Human Trafficking Task Forces to identify tangible ways to help eradicate the evil of human trafficking. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Proclamation for St. Andrew’s Task Force Attachment B –Proclamation for Saratoga Federated Task Force 7 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING JANUARY 2017 AS NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, Human Trafficking is the act of illegally moving people, typically for the purposes of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation, and is a modern form of slavery; and WHEREAS, the FBI has identified the San Francisco Bay Area as one of the top 13 sites for child sex trafficking in the country and the National Human Trafficking Hotline receives more calls from California than from any other state; and WHEREAS, Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church created an Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force in 2015 to identify tangible ways to help eradicate the evil of human trafficking; and WHEREAS, the FBI recognized that Super Bowl 50 in Santa Clara County would be a magnet for human trafficking activity and the Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force sent three teams into the communities of Saratoga, South San Jose, Los Gatos, and Campbell to raise awareness; and WHEREAS, the Task Force attended the Freedom Summit hosted by the Bay Area Anti- Trafficking Coalition at Levi’s Stadium before Super Bowl 50; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has invited speakers from the Bay Area Anti-Trafficking Coalition to the Ministry Fair and Outreach Dinner held at Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church; and WHEREAS, the Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force has partnered with the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose and the Saratoga Federated Church Anti- Human Trafficking Task Force to raise awareness of human trafficking; and WHEREAS, the Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force and the Saratoga Federated Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force are working together to raise money for new safe houses for the victims of these crimes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby proclaim and recognize the month of January 2017 as National Human Trafficking Awareness Month and thanks the Saint Andrew’s Episcopal Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force for all of the work it has done to eradicate human trafficking. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 18th day of January 2017. _________________________ Emily Lo, Mayor City of Saratoga 8 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING JANUARY 2017 AS NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, Human Trafficking is the act of illegally moving people, typically for the purposes of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation, and is a modern form of slavery; and WHEREAS, the FBI has identified the San Francisco Bay Area as one of the top 13 sites for child sex trafficking in the country and the National Human Trafficking Hotline receives more calls from California than from any other state; and WHEREAS, Saratoga Federated Church created an Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force in June 2015 to identify tangible ways to help eradicate the evil of human trafficking; and WHEREAS, in 2016, during National Human Trafficking Awareness Month, the Task Force hosted an information table at Saratoga Federated Church providing attendees with information so as to grow awareness of human trafficking in the United States, including the book, In Our Backyard, by Nita Belles; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has focused its efforts on supporting The Nest, a safe house serving female victims rescued from commercial sexual exploitation, which is located in the South Bay and managed by Advent Group Ministries; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has organized several service projects at The Nest and has raised funds for special projects and holiday celebrations at The Nest; and WHEREAS, a number of Task Force members have received specialized training given by Advent Group ministries so that they could serve at The Nest; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2017 from 2-3 p.m., the Saratoga Federated Church Anti- Human Trafficking Task Force is sponsoring a human trafficking awareness event, “Hope in the Darkness.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby proclaim and recognize the month of January 2017 as National Human Trafficking Awareness Month and thanks the Saratoga Federated Church Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force for all of the work it is doing to eradicate human trafficking. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 18th day of January 2017. _________________________ Emily Lo, Mayor City of Saratoga 9 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017, 2016 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT:Proclamation Declaring January 13,2017 as Lung Cancer Awareness Day RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present the proclamation to representatives of the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation and members of Susie Nagpal’s family. BACKGROUND: November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. However, former City Council Member Susie Nagpal’s birthday is in January. The Council is declaring January 13, 2017 as Lung Cancer Awareness Day in Saratoga in honor of Susie Nagpal. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Proclamation for Lung Cancer Awareness Day 10 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING JANUARY 13, 2017 AS LUNG CANCER AWARENESS DAY IN SARATOGA WHEREAS, throughout the United States, November is recognized as Lung Cancer Awareness Month to raise awareness about this disease, eliminate the stigma often associated with lung cancer, and call attention to the need for additional research to identify new treatment options for lung cancer; and WHEREAS,the City of Saratoga is declaring January 13, 2017 as Lung Cancer Awareness Day in recognition of former Council Member Susie Nagpal’s birthday; and WHEREAS, Susie Nagpal was a Saratoga City Council Member from November 2008 to May 2010 and was diagnosed with cancer during her term as a Council Member; and WHEREAS,Susie attended Council meetings as long as she could while battling this disease and passed away while serving on the City Council in 2010; and WHEREAS,lung cancer is the deadliest cancer, with 5-year survival rate of 18 percent, and in the United States more than 224,000 people per year are diagnosed with lung cancer and almost 160,000 people die form the disease every year; and WHEREAS, lung cancer is often referred to as the “invisible cancer,” because of the late onset of symptoms, low survival rate, general lack of knowledge about the disease and its symptoms, and the misconception that only smokers suffer from lung cancer; and WHEREAS, approximately 10-15 percent of individuals with lung cancer have never smoked and 60 percent of cases are former smokers, with only 20.9 percent of lung cancer patients are current smokers; and WHEREAS, Bonnie Addario founded the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation in 2006 after her own battle with lung cancer and has since raised millions of dollars to fund lung cancer research, developed programs that support patients and lung cancer awareness, and supported the Saratoga community during and after Susie’s illness; and WHEREAS,the key to saving the lives of lung cancer patients starts with early diagnosis and funding research to advance early diagnosis and develop new and more effective treatment options. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby proclaim January 13, 2017 as Lung Cancer Awareness Day in the City of Saratoga and recognizes the dedication of the many volunteers in Saratoga and elsewhere who strive to bring awareness to lung cancer, care for those with the disease, and seek new ways to treat and cure lung cancer. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 18th day of January, 2017. Emily Lo, Mayor City of Saratoga 11 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special City Council Meeting on December 15, 2016 and Regular City Council Meeting on December 21, 2016. BACKGROUND: Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Minutes for the Special City Council Meeting on December 15, 2016 Attachment B –Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on December 21, 2016 12 Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 1 of 3 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2016 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Mayor Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Manny Cappello, Vice Mayor Emily Lo, Council Members Mary-Lynne Bernald, Howard Miller, Rishi Kumar ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to City Manager John Cherbone, Public Works Director Mary Furey, Finance & Administrative Services Director Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Taylor, Recreation & Facilities Director Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst Mayor Manny Cappello thanked Cooper-Garrod, Cinnabar, and House Family Vineyards for their wine donations. He then introduced special guests in attendance. Council Member Miller announced that the City earned the Silicon Valley Turkey Trot Mayors Cup again and presented the trophy to Mayor Cappello. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Declaration of Results of November 8, 2016 General Municipal Election Recommended Action: Approve resolution declaring the results of the November 8, 2016 General Municipal Elections. Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to the City Manager, presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Cappello invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION NO. 16-069 MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, MILLER, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2. Oath of Office for Newly Elected Council Members Recommended Action: Direct City Clerk or designee to administer the Oath of Office to newly elected Council Members.13 Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 2 of 3 Congresswoman Anna Eshoo administered the Oath of Office to Manny Cappello, newly reelected to the City Council. City Clerk/Asst. to the City Manager Crystal Bothelio administered the Oath of Office to Howard Miller, newly reelected to the City Council. 3. Remarks from Newly Elected Council Members Recommended Action: Hear remarks from newly elected Council Members, City Council, and public. Mayor Cappello provided remarks on his reelection. Council Member Miller commented on his reelection. Members of the City Council commented on the reelection of Mayor Manny Cappello and Council Member Howard Miller to the City Council. Mayor Cappello invited public comment. No one requested to speak. 4. Remarks from Outgoing Mayor Recommended Action: Hear remarks from outgoing Mayor Manny Cappello, members of the City Council, and public. Mayor Cappello commented on his term as Mayor. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo recognized Mayor Manny Cappello and Vice Mayor Emily Lo. Mayor Cappello invited public comment. No one requested to speak. 5. Appointment of Mayor & Vice Mayor Recommended Action: Appoint Mayor and Vice Mayor: 1) City Clerk declares the offices of Mayor and Vice Mayor to be vacant; 2) Nomination of the Mayor; 3) Administer Oath of Office to New Mayor; 4) Nomination of the Vice Mayor; and 5) Administer Oath of Office to New Vice Mayor. City Clerk Crystal Bothelio declared the office of Mayor and Vice Mayor to be vacant. She then invited nominations for the position of Mayor. BERNALD/KUMAR NOMINATED EMILY LO TO THE POSITION OF MAYOR. MOTION PASSED. AYES, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, MILLER, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 14 Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 3 of 3 Congresswoman Anna Eshoo administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Emily Lo. Mayor Emily Lo requested nominations for the position of Vice Mayor. CAPPELLO/MILLER NOMINATED COUNCIL MEMBER MARY-LYNNE BERNALD TO THE POSITION OF VICE MAYOR. MOTION PASSED. AYES, LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo administered the Oath of Office to Vice Mayor Mary- Lynne Bernald. 6. Remarks from New Mayor and Vice Mayor Recommended Action: Hear remarks from newly appointed Mayor and Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, and public. Mayor Lo remarked on her appointment as Mayor. Vice Mayor Bernald commented on her appointment as Vice Mayor. Members of the City Council spoke about the appointment of Mayor Emily Lo and Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald. Mayor Lo invited public comment. The following people requested to speak: Pastor Derek Engfelt, Immanuel Lutheran Church Cynthia Chang, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Trustee Rina Shaw, Heritage Preservation Commission Chair ADJOURNMENT BERNALD/MILLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:29 P.M. MOTION PASSED. AYES, LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to the City Manager City of Saratoga 15 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2016 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 6:00 p.m., the Saratoga City Council held a Joint Meeting with representatives of San Jose Animal Care and Services in the Administrative Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. At 7:05 p.m., Mayor Emily Lo called the Regular Session to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Emily Lo, Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald, Council Members Manny Cappello, Howard Miller ABSENT:Council Member Rishi Kumar (excused) ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to City Manager John Cherbone, Public Works Director Mary Furey, Finance & Administrative Services Director Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Taylor, Recreation & Facilities Director Sung Kwon, Senior Planner Nicole Johnson, Planner II Tony McFarlane, Finance Manager Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst I REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA City Clerk Crystal Bothelio reported that the agenda was property posted on December 15, 2016. REPORT FROM JOINT MEETING Staycee Dains, Shelter Manager with San Jose Animal Care and Services provided an overview of the City Council’s Joint Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Mary Robertson addressed the City Council regarding water rates and water conservation tier allotments. Rita Benson addressed the City Council regarding the California Public Utilities Commission. Kedar Abhyankar and students of Saratoga High School Associated Student Body recognized Council Member Manny Cappello. 16 A speaker thanked the City Council for efforts related to the June Way appeal. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Miller reminded residents of the threat of package theft and to report stolen packages to 911. Council Member Cappello announced the displays of light from different faith-based organizations at Blaney Plaza. Mayor Lo shared information about the Neighborhood Watch Grant Program. 1. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1.1 Commendation for Amit Seth Recommended Action: Present the commendation to Amit Seth. Mayor Lo and members of the City Council presented the commendation to Amit Seth. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Before voting on the Consent Calendar, Council Member Miller commented on the partnership between the City and the Cooper-Garrod families. 3.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on December 7, 2016. MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 7, 2016. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 3.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 12/06/2016 Period 6; and 12/14/2016 Period 6. MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 12/06/2016 PERIOD 6; AND 12/14/2016 PERIOD 6. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 17 3.3. 2017 Hazardous Vegetation Program Commencement Resolution Recommended Action: Approve resolution declaring hazardous vegetation (weeds) as a public nuisance and setting a public hearing on January 18, 2017 to consider objections to the Abatement List. RESOLUTION NO. 16-070 MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DECLARING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION (WEEDS) AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 18, 2017 TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS TO THE ABATEMENT LIST.MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 3.4. Montalvo Emergency Access Easement Relocation Recommended Action: 1. Accept Grant of Emergency Access Easement on Montalvo Arts Center property and adopt acceptance resolution. 2. Approve summary vacation/abandonment of a portion of the existing Emergency Access Easement on the same property and adopt vacation resolution. RESOLUTIONS NO. 16-071 & 16-072 MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO:1. ACCEPT GRANT OF EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT ON MONTALVO ARTS CENTER PROPERTY AND ADOPT ACCEPTANCE RESOLUTION; 2. APPROVE SUMMARY VACATION/ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE SAME PROPERTY AND ADOPT VACATION RESOLUTION. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 3.5. Highway 9 Improvements Phase IV - Construction Management and Inspection Services Contract Award Recommended Action: 1. Award Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services for Highway 9 Phase IV Improvements Project to Bellecci & Associates in the amount of $139,849.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 2. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract for unforeseen circumstances up to $13,000. MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO:AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR HIGHWAY 9 PHASE IV IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,849.00 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME; AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT FOR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES UP TO $13,000. MOTION 18 PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 3.6. Trail Easements Acceptance on Cooper-Garrod Winery and Garrod Farms Properties Recommended Action: Accept three separate Offers to Dedicate Trail Easement on properties knows as Cooper- Garrod Winery and Garrod Farms (APNs 503-12-001, 503-10-044 and 503-10-067) and adopt acceptance resolutions RESOLUTIONS NO. 16-073, 16-074, & 16-075 MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ACCEPT THREE SEPARATE OFFERS TO DEDICATE TRAIL EASEMENT ON PROPERTIES KNOWS AS COOPER- GARROD WINERY AND GARROD FARMS (APNS 503-12-001, 503-10-044 AND 503-10-067) AND ADOPT ACCEPTANCE RESOLUTIONS.MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 3.7. Commission Qualifications and Terms Expiring in 2017 Recommended Action: Accept the list of Commission qualifications and terms expiring in the 2017 calendar year. MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE LIST OF COMMISSION QUALIFICATIONS AND TERMS EXPIRING IN THE 2017 CALENDAR YEAR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 4.PUBLIC HEARING 4.1. Formation of Arrowhead Community Facilities District Recommended Action: Open the continued public hearing and receive public testimony on formation of the Arrowhead Community Facilities District (No. 16-1); adopt a Resolution of Formation for Community Facilities District (No. 16-1), authorizing the levy of a special tax and preliminarily establishing appropriations limits for the district; adopt a Resolution Determining the Necessity to Incur Bond Indebtedness within Community Facilities District No. 16-1; and adopt a Resolution Calling for a Special Election in Community Facilities District No. 16-1. Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to the City Manager, presented the staff report on this item. Paul Hansen with Arrowhead Cooperative addressed the City Council. Mayor Lo invited public comment. 19 No one requested to speak. RESOLUTIONS NO. 16-076, 16-077, & 16-078 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF FORMATION FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (NO. 16-1), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX AND PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS LIMITS FOR THE DISTRICT; ADOPT A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BOND INDEBTEDNESS WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-1; AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-1. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 4.2. City Code Amendments to conform Second (Accessory) Dwelling Unit regulations with recently enacted State Laws Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance. 3. Direct staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director, presented the staff report for this item. Mayor Lo invited public comment. The following person requested to speak: Rina Shaw No one else requested to speak. BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO:1) INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE; 2) DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE ORDINANCE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR ADOPTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AND 3) PLACE AN ITEM ON THE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT AGENDA TO CONSIDER IN ANTICIPATION OF STATE LEGISLATION RELATED TO HOUSING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 5.OLD BUSINESS None 20 6.NEW BUSINESS 6.1. Recommendation of Support of Designating the National Heritage Area by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution supporting designation of Santa Clara County as a National Heritage Area. Sung Kwon, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Rod Diridon delivered a presentation to the City Council on National Heritage Area designations. Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION NO. –16-079 BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DESIGNATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AS A NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 6.2. Beekeeping Regulations Recommended Action: Review proposed modifications and direct staff to prepare an amendment to Saratoga’s Beekeeping Ordinance (Section 7-20.230 of the Municipal Code). Nicole Johnson, Planner II, presented the staff report. Ken McKenzie, President of the Santa Clara Valley Beekeepers Guild, addressed the City Council. Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item. The following people requested to speak: Ken McKenzie, President of the Santa Clara Valley Beekeepers Guild Ann Waltonsmith No one else requested to speak. MILLER/BERNALD MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SARATOGA’S BEEKEEPING ORDINANCE (SECTION 7-20.230) 21 AND FURTHER DIRECTED STAFF TO HELP PROMOTE BEEKEEPING EDUCATION AND TO PLACE THE MARCH BEEKEEPING WORKSHOP ON THE CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 6.3. Annual Audit Reports Recommended Action: 1. Review and accept the following annual audit reports for Fiscal Year 2015/16: A. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) B. Transportation Development Act Audit Report (MTC Grants) C. Appropriation Limit Report (Gann) D. SAS 114 Report E. SAS 112 Report F. State Controller’s Office Financial Transaction Report Summary Tony McFarlane, Finance Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/16: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR); TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AUDIT REPORT (MTC GRANTS); APPROPRIATION LIMIT REPORT (GANN); SAS 114 REPORT; SAS 112 REPORT; AND STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE FINANCIAL TRANSACTION REPORT SUMMARY. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 6.4. Community Event and Street Closure Grant Program Recommended Action: Provide Direction on Fiscal Year 2017/18 Community Event Grant Program and Street Closure Grant Process. Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst I, presented the staff report for this item. Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO ALLOCATE $35,000 TO THE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 WITH $19,500 OF THAT TOTAL RESERVED FOR SIX TRADITIONAL EVENTS/ORGANIZATIONS SHOWN BELOW AND THE REMAINING $15,500 AVAILABLE THROUGH THE REGULAR APPLICATION PROCESS: 22 BLOSSOM FESTIVAL $5,000 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EVENTS $8,000 FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION $2,500 MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVANCE $1,000 SARATOGA COMMUNITY BAND $1,000 SARATOGA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL $2,000 STAFF WAS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ALLOCATE $20,000 TO THE STREET CLOSURE GRANT PROGRAM AND RESERVE THAT FUNDING FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 6.5. Consideration of Co-Sponsoring Community Conversations with the Saratoga Ministerial Association. Recommended Action: Direct staff accordingly. City Manager James Lindsay introduced the item. Council Member Cappello provided additional information. Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item. The following person requested to speak: Ann Waltonsmith No one else requested to speak. CAPPELLO/MILLER MOVED TO CO-SPONSOR COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SARATOGA MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION BY PROVIDING VENUES AND PROVIDING ASSISTANCE IN PROMOTING EVENTS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 6.6. Adoption of City Council Assignments Recommended Action: Approve the resolution adopting the 2017 City Council assignments. Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to the City Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Lo invited public comment. No one requested to speak. MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2017 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER AND 23 VICE MAYOR BERNALD ASSIGNED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. MOTION FAILED. AYES: CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: LO, BERNALD. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. RESOLUTION NO. –16-080 CAPPELLO/MILLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2017 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS, NOT INCLUDING THE FINANCE COMMITTEE; AND TO PLACE ASSIGNMENT OF FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Emily Lo No report Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald Hakone Foundation Board – Vice Mayor Bernald attended the Hakone Foundation Executive Committee meeting in place of Mayor Lo. During the meeting, the group decided to proceed with a remodel of the CEC instead of constructing a new building and discussed the pond. Additionally, the CPA reported that Hakone’s finances are solidly in the black. Council Member Manny Cappello Cities Association of Santa Clara County – Council Member Cappello requested a draft letter to the California Public Utilities Commission. Council Member Howard Miller Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors – Procurement agreements have been established and it looks like the Authority will be able to offer 100% greenhouse gas free electricity at a lower price than PG&E, as originally expected. Saratoga Ministerial Association – during the last meeting, discussion was primarily focused on the community conversation events that the City Council agreed to co-sponsor. VTA Board West Valley Cities Alternate – a meeting with representatives of BART was held at San Jose City Hall, including the BART Executive Board and Chief Operation Officer. During the meeting, the lack of funding available to purchase new cars transporting passengers to San Jose was discussed. Council Member Rishi Kumar No report 24 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Council Member Miller requested that staff add signage at doggy bag dispensers in City park and trails to remind residents that cats and dogs need to be licensed. Council Member Cappello supported the request. Council Member Miller requested discussion of Commission work plans at the City Council Retreat. Council Member Cappello supported the request. Council Member Miller requested discussion of the City Council seating arrangement at the dais to be included during the study session on City Council Norms. Council Member Cappello supported the request. Council Member Miller suggested that the Mayor consider raising the idea of a water community choice aggregation, similar to the one for energy, at West Valley Mayors and Managers. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager James Lindsay requested clarification on the letter requested by Council Member Cappello for the Cities Association. He also requested if the intent of Council Member Miller and Council Member Cappello was to discuss Commission work plans at the City Council Retreat. Council Member Miller said that the intent was to discuss the work plans at the Retreat, but it would be fine to do it at another appropriate time. It is beneficial to discuss the work plans at the Retreat, since that is when the Council is planning activities and priorities for the year. ADJOURNMENT CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:56 P.M. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. Minutes respectfully submitted: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk City of Saratoga 25 Gina Scott, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 12/20/2016 Period 6 1/10/2017 Period 7 BACKGROUND: The information listed below provides detail for weekly City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are listed separately as well as any checks that were void during the time period. Fund information, by check run, is also provided in this report. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending Check # 12/20/16 132302 132372 71 588,329.58 12/20/16 12/14/16 132301 1/10/17 132373 132440 68 264,424.85 01/10/17 12/20/16 132372 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount 12/20/16 132312 PW 35,356.30 12/20/16 132318 PS 32,429.46 12/20/16 132348 PS 431,347.75 01/10/17 132383 Rec 23,310.00 01/10/17 132419 CC 43,445.00 01/10/17 132430 CDD 25,000.00 01/10/17 132437 PW 21,897.00 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format Gas Tax Fund General Various Fall Field Rental SCC Office of the Sheriff Vista Landscape Maintenance Fund Purpose Landscape Mtc 2016 Election General General CIP Admin Projects Housing Study Law Enforcement Animal Control SvcsGeneral Prospect Ped Imp Campbell Union School Dist Registrar of Voters Silicon Valley Foundationc Bellecci & Associates City of San Jose SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services PREPARED BY: Ending Check #Type of Checks Date Starting Check # Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Issued to N/A Reason Status Prior Check Register Checks Released Total Checks Amount 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2016 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the amended Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2016. BACKGROUND: California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035 designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this requirement. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL STATEMENT: Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of November 30, 2016, the City had $272,360 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $16,842,607 on deposit with LAIF. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1, 2016: for cash flow purposes and to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of November 30, 2016 is $17,114,967 and exceeds the minimum limit required. City’s Current Financial Position In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially well positioned and able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. As of November 30, 2016, the City’s financial position (Assets $17.9M, Liabilities $2.6M and Fund Equity $15.3M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future. Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank 272,360$ Deposit with LAIF 16,842,607$ Total Unrestricted Cash 17,114,967$ Cash Summary 39 The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Unrestricted Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available. Fund Balance Designations In accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, the components of fund balance are categorized as follows: “non-spendable fund balance”, resources that are inherently non-spendable from the vantage point of the current period; “restricted fund balance”, resources that are subject to enforceable legal restrictions; “committed fund balance”, resources whose use is constrained by limitations the government imposes upon itself through formal action at its highest level of decision making and remains binding unless removed in the same manner; “assigned fund balance”, resources that reflects a government’s intended use of resources, such intent would have to be established at either the highest level of decision making, by a body, or an official designated for that purpose; and “unassigned fund balance”, net resources in excess of what can properly be classified in one of the other four categories. Currently, the City’s fund balance reserves fall into one of the four spendable categories; restricted, committed, assigned, or unassigned fund balance. ATTACHMENTS A – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund under GASB 54 B – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project C – Change in Cash Balance by Month D – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates + Total Unrestricted Cash 17,114,967$ Plus: Assets 835,590 Less: Liabilities (2,602,520) Ending Fund Balance 15,348,037$ Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance 40 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE UNDER GASB 54 Fund Descri ption Fund Balance 7/1/16 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Oct Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 11/30/16 General Fund Restricted Fund Balances: Environmental Services Reserve 313,182 - - - - - 313,182 Committed Fund Balances: Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - 210,000 790,000 Assigned Fund Balances: Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 1,472,408 - - - - 1,410,648 61,760 Facility Reserve 1,200,000 - - - - - 1,200,000 Carryforwards Reserve - - - - - - - Unassigned Fund Balances: - Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 2,250,000 - - - - - 2,250,000 Development Services Reserve 719,562 - - - - - 719,562 Compensated Absences Reserve 209,937 - - - - - 209,937 Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution 2,475,531 (4,070,457) 1,802,632 1,190,825 - - (983,119) General Fund Total 10,640,620 (4,070,457) 1,802,632 1,190,825 - 1,620,648 5,561,322 Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 1,005,796 (143,885) 33,208 26,741 - - 868,377 Capital Project Street Projects 1,559,080 (359,756) 29,275 101,751 1,305,000 - 2,431,848 Park and Trail Projects 471,639 (10,322) - 3,604 98,000 23,000 532,713 Facility Projects 245,639 (1,163) - 1,122 190,648 - 434,002 Administrative Projects 667,699 797 4,230 15,435 167,394 117,394 707,291 Tree Fund Projects 94,100 1,257 125 3,665 - - 91,817 Park In-Lieu Fees Projects 495,465 (3,870) 900 1,434 - - 491,061 CIP Grant Street Projects 25,310 (7,253) - 816 - - 17,241 CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 21,206 - - - - - 21,206 CIP Grant Administrative Projects - (14,934) - - - - (14,934) Gas Tax Fund Projects 1,135,927 (446,317) 93,931 41,006 - - 742,536 CIP Fund Total 4,716,065 (841,561) 128,461 168,832 1,761,042 140,394 5,454,781 Debt Service Library Bond 922,952 (657,353) 1,094 - - - 266,693 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 376,488 (153,096) 150,399 13,459 - - 360,332 Workers Compensation 304,401 124,175 (87,500) 39,527 - - 301,549 Office Support Fund 96,172 247,148 (236,473) 4,675 - - 102,172 Information Technology Services 274,223 (41,758) 125,477 27,772 - - 330,171 Equipment Maintenance 165,949 376,005 (325,000) 12,157 - - 204,797 Building Maintenance 370,717 (201,380) 362,500 60,731 - - 471,106 Equipment Replacement 611,708 58,904 - 196 - - 670,416 Technology Replacement 274,339 54,075 - 1,164 - - 327,250 Building FFE Replacement 339,222 87,500 12,500 10,145 - - 429,077 Total City 20,098,652 (5,161,683) 1,967,296 1,556,224 1,761,042 1,761,042 15,348,037 41 ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT CIP Funds/Pro jects Fund Balance 7/1/16 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Oct Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 11/30/16 Street Projects Annual Road Improvements 630,647 (255,573) 29,275 75,455 550,000 - 878,894 Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 51,574 (19,750) - 15,200 50,000 - 66,624 Highway 9 Safety Project - Phase IV 120,149 (6,000) - 1,052 - - 113,097 Beaumont Traffic Circle 30,000 - - - - - 30,000 Village LED Streetlights 4,835 - - - - - 4,835 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance& Repair 88,517 (59,106) - 10,044 200,000 - 219,367 Village Pedestrian Improvements - Phase II 18,424 - - - 105,000 - 123,424 EL Camino Grande SD Pump 142,988 - - - - - 142,988 Storm Drain Capture Device 30,000 - - - - - 30,000 Wildcat Creek Outfall 40,000 - - - - - 40,000 Fourth Street Bridge Widening 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Quito Road Bridge Replacement 157,830 - - - - - 157,830 Quito Road Bridge - ROW ACQ 45,373 (419) - - - - 44,953 Damon Lane Retaining Wall - - - - 190,000 - 190,000 Bainter Ave Retaining Wall - (18,908) - - 210,000 - 191,092 Underground Project 98,744 - - - - - 98,744 Total Street Projects 1,559,080 (359,756) 29,275 101,751 1,305,000 - 2,431,848 Parks & Trails Projects Park/Trail Repairs 618 - - - - - 618 Sustainable Landscaping 72,160 (2,400) - 3,604 - - 66,157 Magical Bridge Playground - - - - 32,000 - 32,000 Hakone Gardens Miscellaneous Improvements 96,548 (7,922) - - - 23,000 65,626 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 122,435 - - - - - 122,435 Hakone Gardens Koi Pond Improvements - - - - 66,000 - 66,000 Saratoga to Sea Trail - Construction 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Joe's Trail at Saratoga/De Anza 33,997 - - - - - 33,997 Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 45,880 - - - - - 45,880 Total Parks & Trails Projects 471,639 (10,322) - 3,604 98,000 23,000 532,713 Facility Projects Security Locks 23,375 - - - - - 23,375 CIP Facility Building Improvement - (1,130) - - 70,648 - 69,518 ENG/CDD Window Replacement 2,238 (228) - - - - 2,010 Civic Theater Improvements 90,660 5,096 - 1,122 - - 94,634 CC/SC Panel Upgrade - - - - 120,000 - 120,000 SPCC Furniture & Fixtures 13,896 - - - - - 13,896 Library Building Exterior Maintenance Projects 15,470 (4,900) - - - - 10,570 Library - EV FC Station 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Total Facility Projects 245,639 (1,163) - 1,122 190,648 - 434,002 Administrative and Technology Projects COMB Document Imaging Project 43,973 (3,973) - 6,124 - - 33,876 City Website/Intranet 69,409 - - - 15,000 - 84,409 Development Technology 44,113 10,819 3,280 - - - 58,212 Trak-It Software Upgrade 42,733 (4,450) - 4,200 - - 34,083 LLD Initiation Match Program 24,000 - - - - - 24,000 Horseshoe Beautification 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Citywide Transportation Needs Assessment - - 950 4,550 50,000 - 46,400 General Plan Update 200,000 - - - - 52,394 147,606 Village Façade Program 15,751 - - - - - 15,751 Village Specific Plan Update 47,606 (1,599) - 561 52,394 - 97,840 Wildfire Protection Plan 25,000 - - - - 25,000 - Risk Management Project Funding 90,115 - - - 50,000 - 140,115 CIP ADMIN - UNALLOCATED 40,000 - - - - 40,000 - Total Administrative and Technology Projects 667,699 797 4,230 15,435 167,394 117,394 707,291 42 ATTACHMENT B (Cont.) FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT CIP Funds/Projects Fund Balance 7/1/16 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Oct Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 11/30/16 Tree Fund Projects Citywide Tree Planting Program 70,850 1,257 - 3,665 - - 68,442 Tree Dedication Program 21,500 - 125 - - - 21,625 SMSCF Tree Donation Program 1,750 - - - - - 1,750 Total Tree Fund Projects 94,100 1,257 125 3,665 - - 91,817 CIP Grant Street Projects Highway 9 - Phase IV - (4,017) - 816 - - (4,833) Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (40) - - - - - (40) Citywide Signal Upgrade II (965) - - - - - (965) Saratoga Ave Sidewalk 26,316 - - - - - 26,316 Quito Road Bridge - ROW ACQ - (3,237) - - - - (3,237) Total CIP Grant Street Projects 25,310 (7,253) - 816 - - 17,241 CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects AB8939 Beverage Container Grant Funding 8,397 - - - - - 8,397 Joe's Trail at Saratoga/De Anza 12,809 - - - - - 12,809 Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 21,206 - - - - - 21,206 CIP Grant Facility Projects - - - - - - SC - Restroom ADA Upgrade - (14,934) - - - - (14,934) Total CIP Grant Facility Projects - (14,934) - - - - (14,934) Park In-Lieu Fees Projects Magical Bridge Playground - - - - 128,000 - 128,000 Quarry Park ADA Access - (3,870) - 1,434 250,000 - 244,696 Unallocated Park Fees 495,465 - 900 - (378,000) - 118,365 Total park In-Lieu Fees Projects 495,465 (3,870) 900 1,434 - - 491,061 Gas Tax Fund Projects Annual Roadway Improvements 572,850 (416,202) 93,931 3,042 - - 247,537 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 395,244 (30,115) - 37,964 - - 327,165 Citywide Signal Upgrade II 99,759 - - - - - 99,759 Quito Road & Paseo Olivos Storm Drain 40,000 - - - - - 40,000 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs 20,990 - - - - - 20,990 Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085 Total Gas Tax Fund Projects 1,135,927 (446,317) 93,931 41,006 - - 742,536 Total CIP Funds 4,716,065 (841,561) 128,461 168,832 1,761,042 140,394 5,454,781 43 ATTACHMENT C CHANGE IN CASH BALANCE BY MONTH 44 ATTACHMENT D March June September December 1977 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45 1978 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32 1979 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06 1980 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47 1981 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91 1982 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71 1983 9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18 1984 10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41 1985 10.32 9.98 9.54 9.43 1986 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48 1987 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97 1988 8.01 7.87 8.20 8.45 1989 8.76 9.13 8.87 8.68 1990 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27 1991 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52 1992 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67 1993 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36 1994 4.25 4.45 4.96 5.37 1995 5.76 5.98 5.89 5.76 1996 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58 1997 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71 1998 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46 1999 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49 2000 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52 2001 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52 2002 2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31 2003 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56 2004 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00 2005 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63 2006 4.03 4.53 4.93 5.11 2007 5.17 5.23 5.24 4.96 2008 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54 2009 1.91 1.51 0.90 0.60 2010 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.46 2011 0.51 0.48 0.38 0.38 2012 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.32 2013 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.26 2014 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.25 2015 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.37 2016 0.46 0.55 0.60 Quarterly Apportionment Rates Local Agency Investment Fund 45 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017, 2016 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT:Resolution Authorizing Final Disposition of Certain City Records RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution authorizing final disposition of certain city records. BACKGROUND: On December 7, 2016, the City Council approved a new Records Retention Schedule. In accordance with the schedule, staff and the City Attorney review archived documents to determine those that are nonessential and can, therefore, be shredded. In order to comply with State law, processing expired records for destruction is a multi-step process: 1.Staff in each department identifies records for which the retention period has expired in accordance with the approved records retention schedule. Each box is looked through to make sure it does not include records that must be retained. 2.Department directors review and approve the list of records to be destroyed in their departments. 3.The City Clerk and City Attorney review and approve a combined list of all expired records. 4.The list of records is presented to the City Council along with a resolution authorizing the shredding of listed documents. Records may not be shredded without the authorization of the City Council. At this time, staff has identified 37 boxes of expired records and is requesting authorization from the Council to proceed with shredding the documents. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Consistent with the City’s standard policy, the records will be held for seven days for review pursuant to the Public Records Act.If no request for review is submitted, they will be promptly destroyed.If a request for review is submitted, the records will be destroyed between 20 and 30 days after they have been made available for review. 46 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 -Resolution Authorizing the Final Disposition of Certain City Records Attachment 2 -Exhibit A: List of Records Proposed for Final Disposition 47 RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 et seq. authorizes City department heads to destroy certain records, documents, instruments, books or paper after the same are no longer required with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: 1.Department heads are hereby authorized to have destroyed those certain records, documents, instruments, books or paper under their charge as described in Exhibit ‘A. 2.The records, documents, emails, instruments, books or paper described in Exhibit ‘A shall be held for seven days for review pursuant to the Public Records Act prior to destruction. If no request for review is submitted within that time, they shall be promptly destroyed. If a request for review is submitted, the records shall be destroyed not less than twenty days and not more than thirty days after the records have been made available for review. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18 th day of January, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Emily Lo, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk CITY ATTORNEY CONSENT TO DESTRUCTION OF THE RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRUMENTS, BOOKS OR PAPER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT ‘A.: __________________________ Richard Taylor City Attorney 48 Destruction for Jan. 2017 Retention Guide AU = Audit, CL =Closure, CU = Current Year, T = Terminated Number of Box Department Description of Documents Retention date Retention CMO1 City Clerk Solicitors permits 2009-11, Special Event permits 2005-2011, Block party permits 2002-2004, Grand Jury reports 1972-74, Youth commission agendas 1972-74 1/1/2014 CL+2, CU+10 HR1 Human Resources Misc. Documents 1977-2012, Position Recruitment 1998- 2002 1/1/2015 CU + 2, CL + 3 19C City clerk Terminated Contracts 2004-2005 SCANNED 1/1/2017 CL+10 27C CMO Summons 1989-1991, Contracts 1982, AB1234 paperwork 2008-2011 1/1/2017 CU+7, CU + 10, CU+ 5, 42A CDD CDBG and HCD 1979-1982 1/1/1990 CL+4 42D CDD CDBG and HCD 1979-1982 1/1/1990 CL+4 67D CDD Inspection Permit logs 1976-1987 1/1/1991 CL+2 69B CDD CDBG and HCD 1990-1991 1/1/2005 CL+4 IT IT Unsuccessful bids for copiers 2013 1/1/2016 CU+2 131D-1 Finance Accounts Payable FY2005-06 1/1/2012 AU+4 240 City Clerk Terminated Contracts, Form 700's 2007-2009 SCANNED 1/1 2017 CL+10 328 Public Works Geotechneical Review -some 2007, 2011, 2012 1/1 2017 CL+2 394 City Clerk Supplemental Council agendas -partial 2012, 2013, partial 2014 SCANNED 1/1 2017 CU+2 626 Finance Bank Statements and Reconciliations FY 2009 6-30-2016 AU+5 673 Finance Terminated Employees -Employee Payroll files 01-01-2006 thru 12-31-2006 12-31-2016 T+6 675 Finance FY 2010-2011 Bank Statements and Reconiliations 12/31/2016 AU+5 676 Finance FY 2010/2011 Bank Statements and Reconiliations 12/31/2016 AU+5 694 Finance AP FY 2010-11 Closed Purchase orders 12-31-2016 AU + 4 710 Finance Cash receipts July-Aug 2011 12/31/2016 AU + 4 711 finance Cash Receipts Sept.-Oct. 2011 12/31/2016 AU + 4 712 finance Cash Receipts Nov.-Dec. 2011 12/31/2016 AU + 4 713 finance Cash Receipts Jan.-Feb. 2012 12/31/2016 AU + 4 714 finance Cash Receipts March-April 2012 12/31/2016 AU + 4 715 finance Cash Receipts May-June 2012 12/31/2016 AU + 4 716 finance Accounts Payable (AP) FY 2011/2012 Weekly Check Run & register 12/31/2016 AU + 4 717 finance AP FY 2011-2012 Weekly Check Run & register 12/31/2016 AU + 4 718 finance AP FY 2011-2012 Weekly Check Run & register 12/31/2016 AU + 4 719 finance AP FY 2011-2012 Weekly Check Run & register 12/31/2016 AU + 4 720 finance AP FY 2011-2012 Weekly Check Run & register 12/31/2016 AU + 4 721 finance AP FY 2011-2012 Weekly Check Run & register through Period 13 12/31/2016 AU + 4 722 finance AP FY 2011-2012 Weekly check run & register through Period 13 Payroll EFT A/P Checks 12/31/2016 AU + 4 49 726 finance Cash receipts (parking citations paid by residents) FY 2011-12 12/31/2016 AU + 4 727 Finance A-Z Cash Receipts backup FY 2011-12 12/31/2016 AU + 4 731 finance Banking Records -Bank deposit receipts FY 2010-11 12/31/2016 AU + 5 735 finance Accounts Receivable FY 2011-12 and False Alarm cards Calendar Year 2012 12/31/2016 AU + 4 783 Finance CY 2012 Business license renewals 12/31/2016 T+4 818 Finance Payroll reports 1/2009-3/2009 12/31/2015 AU+6 819 Finance Payroll reports 3/2009-7/2009 12/31/2015 AU+6 50 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:Public Works, Street and Fleet Division PREPARED BY:Rick Torres, Public Works Manager SUBJECT:Notice of Completion--2016 Pavement Management Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to accept the 2016 Pavement Management Program contract as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion. BACKGROUND: All work for the 2016 Pavement Management Program has been completed by the City’s contractor,G.Bortolotto and Company Inc., and has been inspected and accepted by Public Works Staff. The scope of work of this project included street paving, rehabilitation of failed roadway sections, micro-surfacing of roadways, repair of dislocated curb and gutter, and restriping. On May 4, 2016,Council awarded a construction contract in the amount of $939,999 and a contingency of $220,000 for a total of 1,159,999. The contract was completed at a final cost of $1,157,431and the remaining balance of $2,568 will be unencumbered back into the CIP Roadway Resurfacing Fund. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance / warranty period, staff recommends that Council accept the project as completeand authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract. This action will commence the requisite 30-day stop notice for filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Notice of Completion for the 2016 Pavement Management Program 51 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:Community Development PREPARED BY:Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Second Reading of City Code Amendments to conform Second (Accessory) Dwelling Unit regulations with recently enacted State Laws RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance revising the City Code Article 15-56 (Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance). BACKGROUND: On December 21, 2016, the City Council introduced amendments to City Code Section Article 15- 56 (Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance)and directed staff to place the ordinance on the Consent Calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Ordinance 52 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance Page 1 Ordinance No. An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the City Code Related to Accessory (Second) Dwelling Units Pursuant to 2016 State Legislation The City Council of the City of Saratoga finds that: 1.The State of California adopted new legislation in October 2016 requiring cities to update local regulations related to Accessory (Second) Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units by January 1, 2017; and 2.The City General Plan contains policies and objectives supporting accessory (second) dwelling units, to create additional opportunities to provide housing for people of all ages and economic levels. 3.The City Code has contained provisions to help achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan since at least 2003. 4.The City desires to make amendments to update the City Code to assure compliance with the 2016 State Legislation, and 5.An opportunity for public participation was provided through a Planning Commission Study Session held on November 1, 2016 and a duly noticed Public Hearing on November 9, 2016, and 6.The Planning Commission considered the draft Ordinance, supporting documents, the Staff Report, CEQA exemption, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing, and recommended that the City Council find that the proposed amendments to the City Code comply with the 2016 State Legislation and are consistent with the Cityof Saratoga General Plan, and 7.The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on December 21, 2016, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. The City Council adopted this ordinance at a duly noticed public meeting on January 18, 2017. The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows: Section 1.Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A. Section 2.California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this action to update the City Code regarding Accessory(Second) Dwelling Units is exempt under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) which provides that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment, and that where, as here, it can be seen with certaintythat there is no reasonable possibility that the 53 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance Page 2 activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activityis not subject to CEQA. Section 3.Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub- section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase is held invalid, the CityCouncil declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 4.Publication. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a dulynoticed public hearing, the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on December 21, 2016, and was adopted by the following vote on January 18, 2017. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SIGNED: Emily Lo MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Crystal Bothelio CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: Date: RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 54 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 1 Attachment A – An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the City Code Related to Accessory (Second) Dwelling Units The sections of the Saratoga Municipal Code as set forth below are amended or adopted as follows: Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code. Where the explanatory text indicates that a new section is being added to the City Code, the new section is shown in plain text. This Ordinance amends several portions of the Municipal Code. For ease of review, the amendments advancing the primary objective are presented first followed by conforming amendments. There is a separate heading in bold underlined italics for each portion of the Code being amended. 1.Amendments to Article 15-56 – SECOND DWELLING UNITS Article 15-56 – SECOND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 15-56.010 - Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter Article is to authorize the establishment of second accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zoning districts to comply with state law and to help achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Controlled construction of second accessory dwelling units will promote a stable heterogeneous community with a balanced social and economic mix. 15-56.015 – Definitions The following definitions apply only to this Article: (1)Accessory dwelling unit is defined in Article 15-06. (2)“Junior accessory dwelling unit” is a type of accessory dwelling unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single- family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. (3)“Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. 55 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 2 (4)“Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. 15-56.020 - One second accessory dwelling unit per site lot. Only one second accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on any one site lot and only if the lot is zoned for single-family use and contains an existing, single-family dwelling unit. 15-56.030 - Development standards. Except as otherwise provided in Section 15-56.050, each second accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all of the following development standards: (a)Newly constructed accessory dwelling unit. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, each newly constructed accessory dwelling unit is required to satisfy the following criteria: (1)Lot size. The net site area of the lot upon which the second accessory dwelling unit is located shall not be less than ninety percent of the minimum standard prescribed for the district applicable to such lot. Minimum standards for lots located in the HR Residential District are determined per Section 15-13.060(a) of the City Code. (2)Building codes.The second accessory dwelling unit shall comply with applicable building, health and fire codes. (3)Zoning regulations.The Unless otherwise provided in this Article, the second accessory dwelling unit shall comply with applicable zoning regulations (including, but not limited to, required setbacks,floor area limits, site coverage, and height limits). A one-time ten percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area may be granted by the CommunityDevelopment Director if the new second accessory dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. (4)Sale prohibited. The unit shall not be intended for sale, or sold, separately from the main dwelling. (5)Unit size and use.Location and configuration. The accessory dwelling unit must be either (i) attached to the existing main dwelling (including being located within the living area of the existing main dwelling) or (ii) detached from the existing main dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing main dwelling. (6)Floor Area. 56 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 3 (A)The minimum floor area of any accessory dwelling unit shall be 400 square feet. (B) The maximum floor area limit for an second accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows: i.an attached accessory dwelling unit, shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing living area, with a maximum size of 1,200 square feet, not including the garage. ii.a detached accessory dwelling unit,shall not exceed one thousand two hundred 1,200 square feet of living space, not including the garage. (C) If a an second accessory dwelling unit has a basement or an attic, the that area of the basement is included as part of the total maximum floor area allowed. (D)Floor area limit. Both the accessory dwelling unit and the main dwelling unit shall count toward the total floor area limit set by applicable zoning regulations. (7)Construction above garage. Notwithstanding other setback requirements in the City Code, a setback as low as five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be allowed for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage that is non-conforming as to setbacks. (8)Parking. Parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows: (A)Unless otherwise provided in this section, a minimum of one off-street covered parking space within a garage shall be provided for the second accessory dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. The garage requirement may be waived if the second accessory dwelling unit is deed restricted so that they it may only be rented to below market rate households. If the garage requirement is waived, an open off-street parking space must be provided. (B)No parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: i.The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in California Public Resources Code § 21064.3 or included in the regional transportation plan; ii.The accessory dwelling unit is located within a designated historic district; iii.The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing main dwelling or an existing residential accessory structure intended for human habitation; iv.When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; v.When there is a car share vehicle, in a location determined by the Community Development Director to have at least three dedicated 57 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 4 parking spaces, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; or vi.The unit is permitted as a junior accessory dwelling unit. (C)When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, any lost off- street parking spaces required for the main dwelling must be replaced with off-street covered parking. However, the construction of additional parking will not be required for the accessory dwelling unit in any of the instances described in subsection 15-56.030(a)(8)(B). (9)Access.The second accessory dwelling unit shall be served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (10)Common entrance.If the second accessory dwelling unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second accessory dwelling unit and the main dwelling must be served by either a common entrance or a separate entrance to the second accessory dwelling unit must be located on the side or at the rear of the main dwelling. (11)Fire sprinklers. An accessory dwelling unit may be required to provide fire sprinklers, but only if they are required for the main dwelling. (12)Passageway. No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (13)Owner-occupation. The lot containing the accessory dwelling unit shall remain occupied by the ownerof the lot, as evidenced by a valid Homeowners’ Property Tax Exemption. The accessory dwelling must be vacated within one year after the termination of the owner-occupier’s Homeowners’ Property Tax Exemption, unless and until an owner-occupier reobtains the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption. (14)Limitations on number of bedrooms.A An second accessory dwelling unit may not have more than two bedrooms. (15)Appearance.All new construction to create a an second accessory dwelling unit must match the existing main structure in color, materials and architectural design. (Amended by Ord. 218 § 2 (part), 2003; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006). (16)Sewage disposal. An accessory dwelling unit shall be connected to a public sewer system. (b)Permitting (1)Construction of additional floor area. Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Department shall ministerially process for approval any application for a building permit for a newly created accessory dwelling unit that meets all the criteria in subsection 15-56.030(a). 58 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 5 (2)Conversion of existing floor area. The following provisions shall apply to a complete application for a building permit to convert existing floor area of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure to an accessory dwelling unit: i.The Community Development Department shall ministerially approve within 120 days any complete application for an accessory dwelling unit building permit. ii.The accessory dwelling unit must: 1.be located within a single-family residential zone; 2.be contained within the existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure; 3.have independent exterior access from the existing main dwelling; 4.have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire safety as determined by the fire agency having jurisdiction; and 5.comply with all building codes and health and safety regulations. iii.Parking. 1.When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, any lost off-street parking spaces required for the main dwelling must be replaced with off-street covered parking. 2.No additional parking will be required for the accessory dwelling unit in instances where the accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing main dwelling or an existing residential accessory structure intended for human habitation. iv.Fire sprinklers. The accessory dwelling unit may be required to provide fire sprinklers only if they are required for the main dwelling. v.Converted garage setbacks. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit. vi.Junior accessory dwelling unit. One junior accessory dwelling unit may be permitted that complies with all provisions contained in Government Code § 65852.22 and all applicable building, health, fire, and zoning codes, provided that the single-family residential lot does not already contain an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. 15-56.040 - Inspections. (a) Where the application is for legalization of an any existing second accessory dwelling unit or approval of a proposed accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the main dwelling,an inspection 59 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 6 of the property shall be conducted to determine that the existing or proposed second accessory dwelling unit, and any main dwelling to which a an second accessory dwelling unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. Such inspections shall be performed by the City or by an independent contractor retained by the City for such purpose, and the applicant thereof shall pay the cost. (b) Each existing second accessory dwelling unit and a main dwelling, to which a an second accessory dwelling unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall Marshal or his the Fire Marshall’s Marshal’s designated representative. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall Marshal shall be included as conditions for the granting of a building permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second accessory dwelling unit to an existing or proposed early warning fire alarm system installed in the main dwelling. (c) The inspections to be conducted pursuant to this Section shall not constitute an assumption by the City, or by anyone acting in its behalf, of any liabilitywith respect to the physical condition of the property, nor shall the authorization to construct a new second accessory dwelling unit or the legalization of an existing second accessory dwelling unit, pursuant to this Code, represent a warranty by the City to the owner of the property or any other person that such property fully complies with all applicable building, health and fire codes. 15-56.050 - Legalization of existing second accessory dwelling units. (a)Purpose of Section.It is in the public interest that all residents of the City live in safe, sanitary housing conditions. Second Accessory dwelling units currently exist which were created prior to the adoption of this Article. In order to encourage the legitimating of such units under the law, the owners of property on which second accessory dwelling units are located should be encouraged to legalize such units provided the units are determined to be both safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy. Conversely, if existing second accessory dwelling units are not safe and sanitary for continued human occupancy, the City has the responsibilityto either insure they are made both safe and sanitary or their use for human occupancy is discontinued. The purpose of this Section is to establish special procedures and standards for legalization of existing second accessory dwelling units that are or can be made fit for human occupancy. (b)Scope of Section.This Section shall apply only to second accessory dwelling units established prior to February 19, 2003 but after August 18, 1984 within a structure for which a building permit was issued, or otherwise was lawfully constructed, and which complied with any applicable zoning or development standards in force at the time of construction. Any second accessory dwelling unit established from and after February 19, 2003, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article. 60 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 7 (c)Contents of application.Application to legalize an existing second accessory dwelling unit shall be filed with the CommunityDevelopment Director on such form as shall be prescribed. The application shall be accompanied by the following: (1) A vicinity map showing the location of the site. (2) An accurate scale drawing showing the location of all structures, trees, landscaping and off-street parking spaces on the site. (3) Inspection reports by an independent contractor and the Fire Marshall Marshal, as required under Section 15-56.050 of this Article. (4) A preliminary title report covering the site, or other evidence showing the applicant to be the owner of the property. (5) If the site is a hillside lot, either or both of the following documents shall be furnished if requested by the CommunityDevelopment Director: (i) a topographic map of the site showing contours at intervals of not more than five feet; and/or (ii) a geologic report on the site prepared by a certified engineering geologist or a registered civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. (6) If the existing second accessory dwelling unit is served by a septic system, a description thereof together with a drawing showing the location of the septic tank and leach field on the site. (d)Standards.Existing second accessory dwelling units shall comply with the following standards: (1) Where the second accessory dwelling unit is located upon a hillside lot, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the second accessory dwelling unit is not subject to actual or potential damage from landslide, earth movement or other geologic hazard hazards. (2) In lieu of compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the second accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by the City and shall otherwise comply with applicable health and fire codes. (3) Provided that not less than three off-street parking spaces are available on the site, the requirement of a covered parking space for the second accessory dwelling unit may be waived if there is no feasible location on the site for either a garage or carport. In such event, the parking space for the second accessory dwelling unit shall be screened from view from the street, if possible; otherwise, the driveway on the site may be utilized as a parking space for the second accessory dwelling unit. (4) Where the second accessory dwelling unit is served by a septic tank, the septic system shall be inspected and approved by the County Health Department. In addition, the applicant shall execute and record a deferred improvement agreement wherein the applicant and his the applicant’s successors will be obligated to connect the second accessory dwelling unit, and the main dwelling if also served by a septic system, to a 61 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 8 sanitary sewer whenever the same becomes available and to pay his the applicant’s or the applicant’s successors’ proportionate share of the installation cost. (e)Disqualified existing units. Anysecond accessory dwelling unit established prior to February 19, 2003 which does not qualify for legalization under this Section by reason of not having been lawfully constructed, shall be deemed a new unit subject to the remaining provisions of this Article, except as follows: (1)The existing second accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the standards set forth in subsection (d) of this Section. (2)The existing second accessory dwelling unit shall comply with current zoning regulations, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15-70 of this Chapter. (f)Burden of proof.Wherever in this Section the legalization of an existing second accessory dwelling unit depends upon the establishment of any event occurring on or before a specified date, the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant. 62 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 9 OTHER INCIDENTAL CHANGES 2.Amendments to Article 7-05 - GARBAGE DISPOSAL 7-05.020 - Definitions. (n) Single-unit dwelling means one or more rooms and a single kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family for residential purposes. Each dwelling unit within a condominium project, duplex, townhouse project or apartment, and each second accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter Section 15-06.240, shall constitute a separate single-unit dwelling to which garbage collection service is provided or made available, unless the owner or occupants thereof arrange for garbage collection service to be provided to all dwelling units upon the premises at commercial rates. 3.Amendment Article 9-65 - HILLSIDE STREET REPAIR FEE 9-65.020 - Exemptions. (c) Second Accessory dwelling units, as defined in Chapter 15. 4.Amendments to Article 14-05 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 14-05.060 - Exclusions from Chapter. (d) The construction, financing or leasing of a an second accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter 15, but this Chapter shall be applicable to the sale or other transfer of ownership of such units where the sale or transfer does not include the entire site. 5.Amendments to Article 14-10 - DEFINITIONS 14-10.300 - Structure. (b) Accessorystructure means a structure which is: (1) detached from the main structure on the lot such that the distance between any part of the two structures is thirty-six inches or more; (2) subordinate and incidental to, and customarily associated with, the main structure or the principal use of the lot; and (3) located on the same lot as the main structure or principal use. Notwithstanding the foregoing,an accessory dwelling units are is not an accessory structures structure as that term is used in this Code. 6.Amendments to Article 15-06 - DEFINITIONS 63 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 10 15-06.022 - Accessory structure. "Accessory structure" means a structure which is: (a) detached from any other structure such that the distance between any part of the two structures is thirty-six inches or more; and (b) incidental and subordinate to, and customarily associated with, the main structure or principal use on the lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a an second accessory dwelling units are is not an accessory structures structure as that term is used in this Code. No accessory structure is permitted in any zone district in the absence of an existing or concurrently established main structure or principal use on the lot. 15-06.240 - Dwelling. (d)Second Accessory dwelling unit means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit, built or legalized pursuant to this Chapter, which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, cooking, sleeping and sanitation on a parcel lot within the A, R-1, or HR district where a legally created single-family dwelling is situated. Second Accessory dwelling units are not to be sold separately from the primary main dwelling, but may be rented.An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (A)An accessory dwelling unit that is an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (B)An accessory dwelling unit that is a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. 7.Amendments to Article 15-11 - A: AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 15-11.060 - Site density. Each lot shall have not less than two and one-half acres of net site area for each dwelling unit on the lot, excluding any second accessory dwelling unit. 8.Amendments to Article 15-12 - R-1: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 15-12.020 – Permitted uses. (c) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including garages and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home hobby shops, cabanas, structures for housing swimming pool equipment, one second accessory dwelling unit or one guest house. 64 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 11 15-12.040 – One dwelling unit per site. Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, except for a an second accessory dwelling unit. 9.Amendments to Article 15-35 - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES 15-35.030 - Schedule of off-street parking spaces. Use Spaces Required (a) Single-familydwelling, excluding second accessory dwelling units Two covered spaces within a garage. (b) Second Accessory dwelling unit One covered space within a garage, except as otherwise provided in Article 15-56. 15-35.040 - Design standards for off-street parking facilities. (e) Each parking space shall be accessible from a street or alley, independent of any other parking space; provided, however, in the case of off-street parking for a single-family dwelling or a an second accessory dwelling unit, the approving authority may permit tandem parking. 10.Amendments to Article 16-71 - OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS 16-71.010 - Definitions. (c) Single-familydwelling means a detached dwelling unit, or a condominium or townhouse unit, which is separatelyowned and intended for occupancy by one family. A site containing a single- family dwelling as the main structure thereon and a an second accessory dwelling unit shall be treated as a single-family dwelling for purposes of this Article. 11.Amendments to Article 17-05 - EXISTING LAWS 17-05.010 - Greenhouse gas reduction policies. 65 2016 Accessory (Second)Dwelling Units Ordinance –Attachment A Page 12 (m) 15-56 Second Accessory dwelling units.Section 15-56.030(d)(a)(3) allows additional site coverage and allowable floor area in a an second accessory dwelling unit, if that unit is deed restricted to only be rented to below market rate households. 845628.2 66 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Attorney PREPARED BY:Richard Taylor, City Attorney SUBJECT:Council Resolution to approve side letters of agreement for the “UNION” (Northern CA Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board and Their Affiliated Local Unions), “SEA” (Saratoga Employee Association), and amend Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution to amend Memorandum of Understanding (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019) between the City and the “UNION” (Northern CA Carpenters Regional Council, Carpenters Forty Six Counties Conference Board and Their Affiliated Local Unions)by adopting the Side Letter Agreement (Exhibit A); amend Memorandum of Understanding (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019) between the City and the “SEA” (Saratoga Employee Association) by adopting the Side Letter Agreement (Exhibit B); and amend the Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees (Exhibit C). BACKGROUND: The documents include clarification language as agreed upon by the City and represented units for compensation and comparable clarification language for the unrepresented group. There is no fiscal impact as there are no increases in compensation. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Current terms and conditions of employment for UNION, SEA, and Unrepresented employees would remain unchanged. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the Council meeting. 67 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A – UNION Side Letter of Agreement 3. Exhibit B – SEA Side Letter of Agreement 4. Exhibit C – Amended Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees 857180.1 68 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING (1)SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH UNION (2)SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT WITH SARATOGA EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION (SEA) (3)AMENDED COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT POLICY FOR UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, representatives of the City and the UNION have reached agreement on matters relating to the employment conditions of said employees, as reflected by the written Side Letter of Agreement, which is attached hereto (Exhibit A) and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Side Letter of Agreement was initially ratified by the UNION membership on January 4, 2017 and presented to and ratified by the City Council on January 18, 2017; and WHEREAS, representatives of the City and the SEA have reached agreement on matters relating to the employment conditions of said employees, as reflected by the written Side Letter of Agreement, which is attached hereto (Exhibit B) and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Side Letter of Agreement was initially ratified by the SEA membership on January 10, 2017 and presented to and ratified by the City Council on January 18, 2017; and WHEREAS, this Council finds that the terms and conditions contained in Side Letter of Agreements for UNION and SEA are fair and proper and in the best interest of the City; and WHERAS, this Council finds that the terms and conditions contained in Amended Compensation and Terms of Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees attached hereto (Exhibit C) and made a part hereof are fair and proper and in the best interest of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that the terms and conditions contained in Side Letters of Agreement attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this resolution and Amended Employment Policy for Unrepresented Employees attached as Exhibit C to this resolution are hereby adopted. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Emily Lo, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Morrow, City Clerk 857182.1 69 70 71 Adopted January 18, 2017 CITY OF SARATOGA UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS COMPENSATION AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT I.INTRODUCTION This Resolution establishes the compensation and other terms for benefited regular full-time unrepresented job classifications that are not included in a collective bargaining agreement, memorandum of understanding, or employment contract. Unrepresented classifications are subject to the City's Personnel Rules and Policies adopted by the City Council and are subject to the terms in this Resolution (except as modified by subsequent personnel rules and policies and resolutions, if any, applicable to such an unrepresented, regular, full-time employee). The terms in this document, once adopted by the City Council, supersede the terms in Resolution 16- 002. II.UNREPRESENTED JOB CLASSIFICATIONS Community Development Director Finance and Administrative Services Director Public Works Director Recreation and Facilities Director City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager Finance Manager Human Resources Manager Parks Division Manager Streets and Fleets Division Manager Human Resources Technician Any other job classification determined not appropriate to be included in a represented bargaining unit. III.COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT Each employee shall receive an annual cost-of-living adjustment of no less than one percent (1.0%)and no greater than two and one-half percent (2.5%) as based upon the annual average for the 12 month period of January 1 to December 31 of the U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics,"All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)"for the "San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose" region. If the annual average falls below one percent (1.0%),each employee shall nevertheless receive a minimum one percent (1.0%)cost-of-living adjustment;if the above Index increases above two and one-half percent (2.5%),each classification shall nevertheless receive a maximum two and one-half percent (2.5%)cost-of-living adjustment. 72 Adopted January 18, 2017 IV.EMPLOYEE BENEFITS A.Health and Dental Premium Contributions Effective January 1, 2016, the City will provide a monthly health insurance contribution for each employee’s selected level of coverage as follows in the chart below: Employee Employee Plus One Employee Plus Two (Family) $800.00 $1,600.00 $2,080.00 The City’s monthly health insurance contribution will be adjusted annually as follows. 1.Prior to the beginning of the CalPERS open enrollment period, the City will compare the average monthly cost of all plans offered in the next calendar year for each level of coverage (Employee, Employee + 1, and Employee +2) with the current year average monthly costs for each level of coverage. The average will be calculated by adding the cost for each plan at the same level of coverage and then dividing by the number of plans. 2.If the average cost for a level of coverage in the next calendar year will exceed the average cost for the same level in the current year, then the City’s monthly contribution for that level of coverage will be increased by 50% of the difference of the two yearly averages. 3.If the average cost for a level of coverage in the next calendar year is below the average cost for the same level in the current year, then the City monthly contribution for that level of coverage will not change. The adjusted City contribution for each level of coverage for the next calendar year will be provided to the employees prior to the beginning of the open enrollment period and become effective on January 1 of each year. Examples: (1)The 2016 (base year) City monthly contribution for the family level of coverage is $2,080 and the average cost of all plans at the family level offered in 2017 will be $2,366. The City’s monthly contribution will be increased to $2,168 ($2,366 -$2,190 = $176, 50% of the $176 difference = an increase of $88). The employee would pay the balance of $88 for the plan selected. (2)The 2017 average monthly contribution for the family level of coverage is $2,168 and the average cost of all plans at the family level offered in 2018 will be $2,554. The City’s monthly contribution for 2018 would be increased from $2,168 (the 2017 rate) to $2,262 ($2,554 -$2,366 = $188, 50% of the $188 difference = an increase of $94). The employee would pay the balance of $94 for the plan selected. If an employee selects a health insurance plan with a monthly premium above the City contribution, the employee will pay the amount above the City contribution as a pre-tax payroll deduction. The CITY contributes 100%of the dental premium for regular,full-time employees. B.Health and Dental -In-Lieu Payments An employee who completes and submits required documents (1)to prove that the employee has other health insurance coverage and (2)to waive City-provided health insurance coverage will receive a payment per month of $350.00 as additional taxable wages. 73 Adopted January 18, 2017 The employee must complete and submit any required documents and provide proof of other health insurance coverage during open enrollment (in or around October)to be eligible for the cash-in-lieu payment beginning the following January 1. Only qualifying events as defined by law allow employees to make a change to their health, dental,and/or in-lieu enrollment elections during the year (outside of the annual open enrollment period). Any employee who declines to accept coverage in the Dental Plan,evidenced by signing a waiver form,shall receive a monthly in-lieu payment of $25.00. V.PTO CASH-OUT OPTION A PTO Cash-Out Option will not be made other than at the time of termination, except for the optional PTO cash-out plan described as follows: If an employee has used the required minimum of 80 accrued hours of PTO in the prior fiscal year, the employee is eligible to cash out up to a maximum of 200 accrued hours of PTO per fiscal year on approximately September 1 and/or March 1. An employee must maintain a minimum balance of 200 hours of accrued PTO after the cash out. VI.ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE Administrative Leave is compensated time off given to regular, full-time exempt employees of the CITY. This leave shall be taken in a manner consistent with Paid Time Off (PTO). Use of administrative leave is a privilege and is provided in recognition that CITY projects often require employees to devote whatever hours are necessary, irrespective of a regular scheduled workweek, to fulfill the obligations of the job. Sixty-five (65) hours of Administrative Leave is granted to the following exempt employees: Community Development Director Finance and Administrative Services Director Public Works Director Recreation and Facilities Director City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager Finance Manager Human Resources Manager Parks Division Manager Streets and Fleets Division Manager Administrative leave cannot be carried over from year to year, and must be used by June 30th of the fiscal year in which it was provided. Administrative Leave must be exhausted prior to using PTO. 74 Adopted January 18, 2017 VII.RETIREMENT (PERS) The CITY is a contracting agency of the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Regular employees become members immediately upon employment and become vested after five years of full-time service. Tier 1: CalPERS Retirement Plan of 2%@55 for Employees Hired Before July 1, 2011: The CITY, through its contract with PERS, provides for retirement benefits for any employee hired before July 1, 2011 as defined by the 2%@55 retirement plan formula (contract effective date: September 1, 1999). The City’s 2%@55 contract with PERS includes Government Code 20042 – the final compensation is the average full-time monthly pay rate for the highest 12 consecutive months. As of July 1, 2011, each employee covered by the 2%@55 retirement plan formula will pay 7% of the employee’s compensation on a pre-tax basis for the employee’s 7% fixed share of the CalPERS defined benefit retirement program. Tier 2: CalPERS Retirement Plan of 2%@60 for Employees Hired July 1, 2011 Through December 31, 2012: Each employee covered by the 2%@60 plan will pay 7% of the employee’s compensation on a pre-tax basis. New Hire CalPERS Retirement Plan For Employee Hired January 1, 2013 and After: Any employee hired on or after January 1, 2013, who does not meet the exceptions as specified in state law to be a “classic” member of PERS, will receive the following 3rd tier retirement option: a) A retirement plan of 2% at 62 as required by state law (PEPRA). b) Each employee will pay on a pre-tax basis 100% of the employee’s contribution as determined by PERS toward the CalPERS 2%@62 retirement plan. An employee hired after January 1, 2013 who meets an exception under state law to be a “classic” member of PERS will receive the second tier plan of 2% at 60 noted above. VIII.SALARY STEPS 6 AND 7 An employee who has remained at Step 5 of a job classification’s salary schedule for five (5) years is eligible for an additional increase of five percent (5%) of pay following the 5-year anniversary of employment in that job classification as a step 6 (105% of step 5). Five (5) years after meeting the criteria for the initial step 6 wage level described above, an employee who has remained at step 6 of the same job classification’s salary schedule for five (5) years is eligible for an additional salary increase of five percent (5%) above step 5, for a maximum of 10% above Step 5, following the 10-year anniversary of employment in that job classification as a step 7 (110% of step 5). IX.WORKING CONDITIONS The City operates on a 9/80 work schedule determined by the City Manager where a full-time work week, constitutes forty (40) hours within seven consecutive 24 hour days, also defined as one hundred sixty-eight (168) hours. Employees on a 9/80 schedule are scheduled to work 8 nine hour days, 1 75 Adopted January 18, 2017 eight hour day, and have one day off every two weeks.An employee's workweek begins in the middle of the employee's 8 hour day and the employee's day off is on the same day of the week in the following week. For example, the standard 9/80 work schedule is as follows: Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 4 (end) off 9 9 9 9 4 (start)off off (end) off 9 9 9 9 off (start)off 4 (end) off 9 9 9 9 4 (start)off off (end) off 9 9 9 9 off (start)off The City Manager has discretion to require Unrepresented employees to work a schedule different from the standard 9/80 schedule including a schedule that is not 9/80. Fridays when the City is not open for business are referenced as "off-Fridays." Thework period (payperiod) is the period encompassing two consecutive workweeks. A holiday furlough will exist whereby the CITY operations are closed from December 24 through January 1 of every year. Two furlough days shall be compensated as a regular day’s salary. To be paid for a furlough day, an employee must be on paid status the week of the furlough with the City. All part- time employees and employees on short-term disability shall receive furlough pay on a pro-rata basis. For any remaining furlough days, employees shall utilize their available balances (earned paid time off or earned compensatory time), if applicable. Employees that utilize unpaid leave due to an insufficient leave balance shall maintain regular benefit status. Employees may not utilize unpaid leave prior to exhausting their available balances, except with prior written authorization signed by the City Manager. X.AT-WILL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS The following positions are at-will and serve at the pleasure of the City Manager: Community Development Director Finance and Administrative Services Director Public Works Director Recreation and Facilities Director A. Severance Should the City Manager choose to terminate an at-will employee, the following severance provisions apply and will be made available to the employee if the separated employees signs and agrees to be bound by a written general release agreeing not to sue and waiving claims and recovery against the City and all City representatives and agents. 76 Adopted January 18, 2017 Starting on the one-year anniversary of the date of hire, employee shall be eligible for a general release agreement with (A) a severance payment equal to three (3) month’s salary; and (B) Health Insurance and Dental Insurance benefits specified in this agreement for a three (3) month period after termination. The severance payment and continuation of benefits listed above shall be increased by one (1) month for each year on the employee’s anniversary date up to a maximum of six (6) months’ severance pay and benefits. At the discretion of the employee whose employment has been terminated, the severance payment shall be paid either in a lump sum, or in bi-weekly payments, beginning within ten (10) days of the effective date of termination or within ten (10) days of the effective date of the signed general release, whichever is later. If an employee selects bi-weekly payments, the employee may later choose to receive a lump sum payment for the balance of the monthly severance payments. The change from bi-weekly payments to a lump sum payment for the balance will be processed as soon as reasonably feasible and by no later than two weeks after the employee chooses to change to a lump sum payment for the balance. The severance payment shall be based on the employee’s then monthly salary. Severance benefits will be provided as follows: Health Insurance: The employee must enroll in COBRA, directly through their existing health plan provider, for extended health insurance. The employee must pay the health insurance premium directly to his/her provider and submit a copy of the premium invoice and proof of payment to the City for reimbursement. Dental Insurance: The City is able to directly enroll the employee in COBRA, through the City’s carrier, for extended dental insurance. The employee must contact the Human Resources Division and complete any requested documents to activate acceptance of COBRA for dental insurance. The Human Resources Division will provide to the employee a letter detailing all of the above instructions, and providing the necessary paperwork in a timely fashion, sufficient to ensure that the employee does not become ineligible for continued coverage. B.Deferred Compensation or Alternative and In-Lieu of Option The City will contribute $250.00 per month, on behalf of each at-will employee, to an account with the City-provided IRS Section 457 deferred compensation plan. Alternatively and in-lieu of the City contribution to a deferred compensation account of $250.00 per month, each employee may elect to instead receive the $250.00 per month (or a portion thereof), in taxable wages if that member informs the Human Resources Division in writing during open enrollment (in or around October) to be eligible for the cash-in-lieu of the City contribution to a deferred compensation account of $250 per month beginning the following January 1. C.Car Allowance Each at-will employee shall receive a monthly $275.00 car allowance. 857183.1 77 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:James Lindsay, City Manager SUBJECT:Third Amendment to the Hakone Gardens Master Plan Development Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement amending funding for Master Plan improvements. BACKGROUND: In April 2014, the City Council approved a Development Agreement with the Hakone Foundation for the development of a Master Plan for Hakone Gardens. The Agreement contains the process by which the City and the Foundation jointly developed the Master Plan and the funding commitment of each party. The City committed up to $250,000 for the Master Plan preparation and future improvements related to the Plan. The Foundation’s contribution totaled $150,000 which has been paid in full. The Master Plan was completed last year and approved by the City Council on April 18, 2016. Approximately $96,000 remains unspent from the City’s original commitment. The Second Amendment to the Agreement (approved November 2015) envisioned the remaining funds to be used for noise reduction improvements identified in the Plan. The Plan identified a wall could be constructed between the Cultural Exchange Center and the Zen Garden House to reduce noise from outdoor events occurring on the Madrone Mound. DISCUSSION: The City hired the Papadimos Group to conduct a noise assessment of outdoor events at Hakone during the summer of 2016 and to also provide input on the effectiveness of a wall between the two buildings. The conclusion of the assessment was that the monitored outdoor events complied with the thresholds of the City’s noise ordinance. Also, the acoustical engineers did not believe a wall would be an effective noise barrier given the difference in elevation between the Mound and the homes located across Highway 9. The report and conclusions of the assessment were shared with the neighbors who have had concerns about event noise. While the conclusion were accepted and the neighbors saw no need 78 for the wall to be built, they continued to have concerns about the City’s ability to monitor compliance with the noise ordinance. With this input and the need to update our equipment for effective enforcement, a noise monitoring system was purchased by the City which will be used primarily to monitor Hakone events, but is portable and can be used for other enforcement cases. The Third Amendment to the agreement removes reference to the noise barrier and instead gives the City Council the flexibility to fund one or more Master Plan improvement projects using the remaining City funds. The amendment also removes the 2018 expiration date and matching percentage for unused City funds. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Third Amendment 2. Original Development Agreement with the First & Second Amendments 79 1 HAKONE GARDENS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 3 The City of Saratoga (“Saratoga”) and the Hakone Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California (“Foundation”), each individually a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”, entered into a Master Plan Development Agreement effective April 30, 2014 amended February 24, 2015 and November 24, 2015 (“Agreement”) and wish to amend the Agreement to replace sections 3, 4, and 5 (as adopted by the November 24, 2015 amendment) as follows: 1.Section 3 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: 3.Master Plan Implementation. Foundation shall notify City when it wishes to proceed with other improvements identified in the approved Master Plan. 2.Section 4 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: 4.Funding. The foregoing work will be funded by Foundation and Saratoga as set forth below, provided, however that consistent with the Lease, the total expenditures by the City of Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement and exclusive of costs for City staff time shall not exceed $250,000. A.Preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and Master Plan as described in sections 1 and 2, above, shall be funded fifty percent by Foundation and, subject to the $250,000 limit above, fifty percent by City. Prior to release of the RFP (i) City shall establish a deposit account with $150,000 less any costs incurred in preparation of the RFP from City (e.g. for City Attorney review) and (ii) Foundation shall deposit $75,000 to the deposit account. Foundation shall deposit an additional $75,000 to the deposit account in two installments: $35,000 prior to May 31, 2016 and $40,000 prior to September 30, 2016. If the cost of the contract with the selected Master Plan Consultant and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City traffic engineer) plus a ten percent contingency will exceed the amount in the deposit account, the parties shall each deposit one half of the amount required to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations plus a ten percent contingency prior to City approval of the contract with the Master Plan Consultant. If Foundation fails to make any payment required by this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies available at law, the City’s obligations to consult with the Foundation shall be of no further force and effect. B.If funds remain after the completion of the RFP and Master Plan the City agrees to use the remaining funds to provide funding for Master Plan implementation projects selected by the City Council and carried out in accordance with applicable laws. 3.Section 5 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following:80 2 5.This Agreement shall take effect on the date last signed below and shall terminate upon City’s expenditure of $250,000 pursuant to this Agreement. 4.In all other respects the Agreement remains in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below. City of Saratoga Hakone Foundation By: _________________________ James Lindsay, City Manager Date: ________________________ By: _________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Board President Date: ________________________ Attest: __________________________ Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk Date: ________________________ Approved as to Form: __________________________ Richard Taylor, City Attorney Date: ________________________ 855609.2 81 HAKONE GARDENS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2 The City of Saratoga ("Saratoga") and the Hakone Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California ("Foundation"), each individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties", entered into a Master Plan Development Agreement effective April 30, 2014 amended February 24, 2015 ("Agreement") and wish to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. Section 3 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: 3. Master Plan Implementation. A. City shall undertake noise reduction measures identified in the Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $100,000. B. Foundation shall notify City when it wishes to proceed with other improvements identified in the approved Master Plan. 2. Section 4 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: 4. Funding. The foregoing work will be funded by Foundation and Saratoga as set forth below, provided, however that consistent with the Lease, the total expenditures by the City of Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement and exclusive of costs for City staff time shall not exceed $250,000. A. Preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and Master Plan as described in sections 1 and 2, above, shall be funded fifty percent by Foundation and, subject to the $250,000 limit above, fifty percent by City. Prior to release of the RFP (i) City shall establish a deposit account with $150,000 less any costs incurred in preparation of the RFP from City (e.g. for City Attorney review) and (ii) Foundation shall deposit $75,000 to the deposit account. Foundation shall deposit an additional $75,000 to the deposit account in two installments: $35,000 prior to May 31, 2016 and $40,000 prior to September 30, 2016. If the cost of the contract with the selected Master Plan Consultant and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City traffic engineer) plus a ten percent contingency will exceed the amount in the deposit account, the parties shall each deposit one half of the amount required to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations plus a ten percent contingency prior to City approval of the contract with the Master Plan Consultant. If Foundation fails to make any payment required by this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies available at law, the City's obligations to consult with the Foundation shall be of no further force and effect. B. City shall provide up to $100,000 to fund the noise improvements described in section 3.A above. If funds remain after the completion of the noise improvements then the City agrees to use the remaining funds to provide twenty - 1 82 five percent funding for Master Plan implementation projects as described in section 3.B provided that Foundation has made all payments due under this Agreement. The Foundation shall be responsible for seventy-five percent of the funding for such projects. Prior to approval of any contract by the City, each Party shall deposit its share of funds sufficient to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City geotechnical consultant) plus a ten percent contingency. 3. Section 5 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: 5. This Agreement shall take effect on the date last signed below and shall terminate December 31, 2018. Any unused funds in the deposit account not required to pay outstanding obligations to contractors shall be returned to the Party that contributed the funds. 4. In all other respects the Agreement remains in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below. City of Saratoga Hakone Foundation B By: , am s L ay, Ci Mana er D. te: I( 19 Ihi Ann Waltonsmith, Board President Date: /, • a y - is Attest; i ebbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk Date: li/-Aifti Approve i a -0 Fo i• • Catherine Engberg, A ' t'k g City Attorney Date: 11 / I S/ 15 717029.1 2 83 HAKONE GARDENS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 The City of Saratoga("Saratoga") and the Hakone Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California("Foundation"), each individually a"Party" and collectively the"Parties", entered into a Master Plan Development Agreement ("Agreement") effective April 30, 2014 and wish to amend the Agreement (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference) as follows: 1. Section 4 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following: 4. Funding. The foregoing work will be jointly funded by Foundation and Saratoga as set forth below, provided, however that consistent with the Lease, the total expenditures by the City of Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement and exclusive of costs for City staff time shall not exceed $250,000. A. Preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and Master Plan as described in sections 1 and 2, above, shall be funded fifty percent by Foundation and, subject to the $250,000 limit above, fifty percent by City. Prior to release of the RFP (i) City shall establish a deposit account with$150,000 less any costs incurred in preparation of the RFP from City (e.g. for City Attorney review) and (ii) Foundation shall deposit $75,000 to the deposit account. Foundation shall deposit an additional $75,000 to the deposit account prior to December 31, 2015. If the cost of the contract with the selected Master Plan Consultant and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City traffic engineer) plus a ten percent contingency will exceed the amount in the deposit account, the parties shall each deposit one half of the amount required to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations plus a ten percent contingency prior to City approval of the contract with the Master Plan Consultant. If Foundation fails to make any payment required by this Agreement, in addition to any other remedies available at law, the City's obligations to consult with the Foundation shall be of no further force and effect. B. Preparation of the Retreat Center and Tea Room final engineering and design and Retreat Center and Tea Room construction as described in section 3 above shall be funded seventy-five percent by Foundation and, subject to the $250,000 limit above, twenty-five percent by City provided that Foundation has made all payments due under this Agreement. Prior to approval of any contract by the City, each Party shall deposit its share of funds sufficient to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City geotechnical consultant) plus a ten percent contingency. 2. Section 6 is replaced in its entirety with the following: 1 46 84 The designated representatives of the parties and the address for any notices pursuant to this agreement are as follows: Saratoga Foundation John Cherbone Ann Waltonsmith City of Saratoga Hakone Foundation 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 21000 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 3. This amendment shall take effect on the date last signed below. Upon the effective date of this Amendment Foundation will have a surplus of$75,000 in the deposit account referenced in Section 4.a. City shall deliver a check in that amount payable to Foundation not less than ten business days following the effective date of this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below. CitIV of S rato a Hakone Foundation By: By: 6— Ze:dsa , Ann Waltonsmith, anage I Board President D a3 Date: .?-15 Attest- CCry lio, City Clerk Date: 7 t Approved as to Richard Taylor, City Attorney Date: 2 •ZG• l S' Exhibit List Exhibit A -HAKONE GARDENS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (April 30, 2014) 659124.2 2 47 85 HAKONE GARDENS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The City of Saratoga ( "Saratoga ") and the Hakone Foundation, a not - for - profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California ( "Foundation "), each individually a "Party" and collectively the "Parties ", hereby enter into this Master Plan Development Agreement ( "Agreement ") WHEREAS, the City leases the City owned property known as Hakone Gardens and located at 21000 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, California to Foundation pursuant to a long term lease; WHEREAS, City and Foundation have long shared the objective of developing a Master Plan for Hakone Gardens; WHEREAS, the lease provides that the City will facilitate development and adoption of the Master Plan by retaining and managing relevant professionals and contributing $250,000 in accordance with a Master Plan Development Agreement between City and Foundation providing a minimum one -to -one funding match from Foundation for costs associated with Master Plan preparation, preliminary engineering and design of the visitor and conference center, and environmental review and a three -to -one match from Foundation for other costs associated with master plan implementation (e.g., final engineering and design and construction); WHEREAS, the Hakone Foundation has proposed that the Visitor and Conference Center referenced in the lease be planned and developed instead as a Retreat Center and Tea Room and the City is agreeable to this change; and WHEREAS, City and Foundation wish to enter the Master Plan Development Agreement contemplated by the lease as set forth below. Now therefore the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Request for Proposals. A. City and Foundation will cooperate to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) for preparation of a Master Plan for Hakone Gardens to build on the draft Master Plan attached as Exhibit A, including preliminary engineering and architectural design of a retreat center and tea room at a sufficient level of detail to permit project level environmental review, public and private use policies, and programs to address the needs assessment attached as Exhibit B. B. In light of the historic character and specific Japanese design features of Hakone Gardens the request for proposals will require all proposals to include the services of an architect or designer with experience in designing traditional Japanese architectural structures and gardens as well the services of a historic resource consultant to assist in the preparation of the environmental review. C. City will coordinate preparation and, following approval by Foundation's representative, distribution of the RFP. City will accept and process responses to the RFP and 86 coordinate review and selection of a proposal that is mutually agreeable to Foundation and City. 2. Master Plan Preparation Process. A. Following selection of a proposal that is mutually agreeable to Foundation and City, City will enter and administer a contract with the selected proposer ( "Master Plan Consultant "). B. The scope of work for the Master Plan preparation contract shall include a timeline specifying deliverables required under the contract and shall include specific periods for review and comment by Foundation and City representatives in addition to standard opportunities for public review and comment. Foundation representatives can include design professionals advising the foundation on traditional Japanese architectural design. Foundation and City representatives shall meet regularly during the plan preparation process to coordinate plan review pursuant to that timeline. C. Following conceptual approval of a draft Master Plan by Foundation and City, the Master Plan Consultant will prepare environmental review documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code sections 21000 et seq.) and City shall administer the environmental review process. D. Following completion of the environmental review process, Foundation and City shall each consider the proposed Master Plan for approval. In the event that either Foundation or City wishes to propose revisions to the proposed Master Plan (for example in response to impacts identified in the environmental review process), Foundation and City representatives shall meet and confer to develop mutually agreeable revisions as needed. 3. Retreat Center and Tea Room Final Engineering, Design and Construction. A. Foundation shall notify City when it wishes to proceed with final engineering, design, and construction of the Retreat Center and Tea Room in accordance with the approved Master Plan. B. City staff will solicit a contract with a consultant for final engineering and design. Upon completion of construction plans satisfactory to Foundation and City and completion of a contract administration workplan approved by Foundation and City, City staff will seek bids for construction, and administer the contract for construction including: Solicitation of proposals for design and engineering services and award of contract. Obtaining such permits as may be required from other governmental agencies for construction of the project. Contracting for the preparation of construction plans and specifications and submission of the same for review and approval by Foundation. Preparation of bid documents, advertisement for bids and award of construction contract s), subject to approval thereof by Foundation. 2 87 Administration of the construction contract(s), including supervision and inspection of the work to assure compliance with the approved plans and specifications, disbursement of payments to the contractor(s) based upon work satisfactorily completed, and processing of any change orders. Issuance of final Project approval, with the concurrence of Foundation, and recordation of Notices of Completion. C. Foundation shall promptly review and respond to all materials submitted by the Master Plan Consultant or Saratoga for review and approval in connection with the project. No approval in connection with the project shall be unreasonably withheld. 4. Funding. The foregoing work will be jointly funded by Foundation and Saratoga as set forth below, provided, however that consistent with the Lease, the total expenditures by the City of Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement and exclusive of costs for City staff time shall not exceed 250,000. A. Preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP) and Master Plan as described in sections 1 and 2, above, shall be funded fifty percent by Foundation and, subject to the $250,000 limit above, fifty percent by City. Prior to release of the RFP (i) City shall establish a deposit account with $150,000 less any costs incurred in preparation of the RFP from City (e.g. for City Attorney review) and (ii) Foundation shall deposit $150,000 to the deposit account. If the cost of the contract with the selected Master Plan Consultant and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City traffic engineer) plus a ten percent contingency will exceed the amount in the deposit account, the parties shall each deposit one half of the amount required to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations plus a ten percent contingency prior to City approval of the contract with the Master Plan Consultant. B. Preparation of the Retreat Center and Tea Room final engineering and design and Retreat Center and Tea Room construction as described in section 3 above shall be funded seventy -five percent by Foundation and, subject to the $250,000 limit above, twenty -five percent by City. Prior to approval of any contract by the City, each Party shall deposit its share of funds sufficient to ensure that the deposit account includes funds necessary to satisfy all contract obligations and any expected related projected expenditures (e.g., review by City geotechnical consultant) plus a ten percent contingency. 5. This Agreement shall take effect on the date last signed below and shall terminate December 31, 2016. Any unused funds in the deposit account not required to pay outstanding obligations to contractors shall be returned to the Party that contributed the funds. 6. The designated representatives of the parties and the address for any notices pursuant to this agreement are as follows: Saratoga I Foundation 88 John Cherbone Lon Saavedra City of Saratoga Hakone Foundation 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 21000 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga CA 95070 7. This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 8. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 9. Neither Foundation or Saratoga nor their respective Board and City Council, employees, officers, agents and assigns shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the other party in connection with carrying out this Agreement. 10. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. 11. Waiver of any term, condition or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant or breach of any other term, condition or covenant. 12. This Agreement may be amended only through the unanimous written agreement of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below. City of Saratoga Hakone Foundation By: Dave Anderson, City Manager Date: y — ° - z° By: Saave , Executive Director Date: 2 Attest: Cry Bothelio, City Clerk Date: n, Approved as to Form: ^ Richard Tayto , C{'ty ttomey Date: `t— 4 1 1 2 89 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:James Lindsay, City Manager SUBJECT:Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Follow-Up Request RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the request and authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed response. BACKGROUND: In September 2012, the Council reviewed the 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report titled “An Analysis of Pension and Other Post Employment Benefits” (Attachment D) and authorized the Mayor to sign the City’s response (Attachment C). State law requires the City to respond to each Civil Grand Jury finding and recommendation directed at the City. DISCUSSION: The Civil Grand Jury requested a follow-up response from the City through a letter to Mayor Lo (Attachment B). Staff has prepared a response letter that addresses the points requested for the Council’s review and authorization.(Attachment A) ATTACHMENTS: A.Proposed Follow-Up Response B.Letter requesting a follow-up response C.Saratoga’s September 2012 Response D.Original Civil Grand Jury Report 90 Incorporated October 22, 1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mary-Lynne Bernald Manny Cappello Rishi Kumar Emily Lo Howard Miller January 18, 2017 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Superior Court Attention: Tamara Davis, Deputy Manager of Jury Services 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Dear Santa Clara County 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury, Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the City of Saratoga’s progress in addressing the 2011-2012 Civil Grand Jury’s concerns regarding the financial impacts of Pensions and Other Post- Employment Benefits on local government operations. The Saratoga City Council has continued its commitment to be fiscally responsible in managing both current and future financial resources, particularly with strategic efforts to contain employee costs. The City successfully modified employee retirement and medical benefits, and accelerated the CalPERS unfunded liability payment to reduce overall costs and provide long-term structural reforms necessary to sustain city operations. Per your request, the City of Saratoga has compiled the following responses to explain the Council’s actions: 1. How the City views the various recommendations. As communicated to the Civil Grand Jury on September 5, 2012, the City of Saratoga shares the Civil Grand Jury’s (CGJ) concerns. Four of the recommendations were implemented prior to the CGJ inquiry or shortly thereafter. Three of the recommendations were not applicable to the City of Saratoga and therefore could not be implemented. The remaining three recommendations required further review, and our subsequent actions are explained in question 2 under response C. 2. Whether the recommendations were accepted. A. Recommendations applicable to the City of Saratoga that were accepted and implemented are as follows: Recommendation 1: The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages. Prior to the CGJ report, the City of Saratoga had successfully negotiated and adopted a second tier CalPERS retirement benefit plan for employees hired on or after May 12, 2012 that increased 91 the retirement age from 2% @55 to 2% @60, with the benefits based on a 3-year final average compensation period. Shortly thereafter, State law (the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 201, PEPRA) created a third tier for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 that established a 2% at 62 retirement benefit plan also based on a 3-year final average compensation period. Recommendation 2A: Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans. As noted in Recommendation 1, the second tier (2% at 60) was implemented on May 12, 2012; several months prior to the report date, and the third tier (PEPRA) went into effect January 1, 2013. As of January 1, 2017, 18 of the City’s 58 benefited employees (31%) fall into the second or third tier benefit platform. This percentage is expected to increase to more than 50% over the next five years and to more than 70% over the next ten years, thereby providing ongoing reductions in retirement benefit costs. Recommendation 2C: All cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension plan caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. As noted above, implementation of the second and third tiers have raised the retirement age. Additionally, employee negotiations completed in 2011 resulted in significant ongoing cost savings through employees agreeing to pay the 7% employee contribution rather than the City. And lastly, before PEPRA, CalPERS retirement benefit plans did not include salary caps, meaning the City of Saratoga had no ability to implement this recommendation. However, under PEPRA’s 2% at 62 benefit plan CalPERS did include a salary cap on final compensation thereby ensuring pensions do not exceed salary. Recommendation 4A: The cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan. As noted above, this recommendation was implemented in 2011. All City of Saratoga employees pay the maximum employee contribution rate of 7% of wages under Tier 1 and 2, and the required employee match as determined under PEPRA for Tier 3 employees. B. Recommendations that were not applicable to the City of Saratoga include: Recommendation 2B: For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both. Not applicable as this recommendation refers to other cities. Recommendation 5: 92 The cities should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible. Not applicable as the City of Saratoga does not provide Other Post-Employment Benefits. Recommendation 6: The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension –funded ratio is less than 100%. Not applicable as this recommendation refers to another city. C. The final three recommendations required further analysis and the City subsequently took the following actions: Recommendation 3: The cities should adopt policies that do not permit benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement to prevent an increase in unfunded liability. This recommendation was not applicable as the City of Saratoga had not enhanced benefits in the past, and with recent pension changes to restrain benefit enhancements the City does not anticipate benefit enhancements would occur in the future. Recommendation 4B: The cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service Cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the benefits being offered. On page 10 of the CGI’s report titled “2011-2012 An Analysis of Pension and Other Post- Employment Benefits” published as an analysis of the 2011-2012 survey responses, the CGI included CalPERS explanation as to the three primary reasons causing an Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL): 70% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to market performance 15% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to retroactive benefit enhancements 15% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to other actuarial assumption changes. At this time, Council has not determined whether employees should contribute toward this liability, or how to assess the UAL against a “proportion of the benefits being offered” as the City’s UAL did not include retroactive benefit enhancements. The City will continue to research this as new information becomes available, and the Council will retain this recommendation for further analysis and consideration. The City would like to note that this recommendation will require bargaining pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, and as such, the City is not be able to definitively commit to implementing this recommendation in advance of negotiations. Recommendation 7: The cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented. 93 As noted in the 2012 response, the City of Saratoga contracts with CalPERS for retirement benefits, and at this time, CalPERS does not offer a defined contribution plan alternative. Should CalPERS make this an option in the future, the City plans to explore the opportunity. 3. If there is a plan for future action The City of Saratoga continues to review ways to appropriately contain ongoing employee costs in conjunction with pension laws, benefit changes, and competitive salary and benefit packages. The fluctuating economy, revenue streams, workplace demands, and employee negotiations contribute to the City’s ability to make these changes. As part of a CalPERS risk pool, the City received Unfunded Accrued Liability balance information in late 2014. In early 2015, the Council directed immediate payment of a significant portion (42%) of the $7.7 million UAL to eliminate the Pre-2013 liability base. In addition, Council directed annual contributions be increased to $500,000 to condense the CalPERS payment plan timeline from 30 years to 15 years. With the recent CalPERS actuarial assumption change and upcoming discount rate reduction, the UAL is expected to grow significantly. Council will revisit the UAL discussion as part of the FY 2017/18 budget discussion, and again consider options to modify the City’s debt retirement strategy once more information is known. The City of Saratoga is strongly committed to being fiscally prudent, not pushing debt onto future generations, and is diligent in addressing long-term liabilities proactively. Please contact me at (408) 868.1216 or Saratoga City Manager James Lindsay at (408) 868.1213 if you seek additional information or have any questions regarding this response. Sincerely, Emily Lo Mayor 857271.2 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 2011-2012 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 1 AN ANALYSIS OF PENSION AND OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Issue After reviewing the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) of all cities, towns and the County of Santa Clara (hereafter referred to as City or Cities1), the Grand Jury was struck by the extent that the pensions and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) (collectively “Benefits”) were underfunded. Subsequently, the Grand Jury sought to answer the following question: “Is the cost of providing pension and other post employment benefits interfering with the delivery of essential City services and is the ultimate cost to the taxpayers a bearable burden?” Introduction The Grand Jury developed a survey to gather information from the Cities and the County. The Survey and responses are important to this report and the Grand Jury encourages readers to read the Survey questionnaire provided in Appendix A before continuing. Due to the technical complexity of this report, the Grand Jury has provided a glossary of the terminology used throughout this report (Appendix B). Acronyms are also included in the glossary. CalPERS2 requires Cities to contribute sufficient funds, held in trust, to pay for pension benefits as they are earned. This helps to ensure sufficient funding is in place to provide the promised pension benefits. This trust money is invested and expected to return a long-range investment return as high as 7.50%3 (after expenses). It is these investment earnings that are expected to pay for as much as 70%4 of the cost of pension benefits. 1 Cities as defined in this report include: Santa Clara County; the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale; and the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, 2 The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that manages pension and health benefits for California public employees, retirees, and their families.[ 3 CalPERS recently reduced this rate from 7.75%. 4 Expected to decline as investment yield declines. 102 2 According to interviews, historically high investment earnings in the early 1990s spawned the belief that expensive pension enhancements could be granted and paid for by the excess investment earnings without compromising the Cities’ ability to afford other services. Once these pension enhancements are granted to an employee, they generally cannot be retracted unless a substantially comparable replacement is offered, a concept referred to as vested rights. Cities reported that they felt compelled to enhance benefits to attract and retain the best work force possible. In addition to pensions, employers provide OPEB consisting primarily of health care benefits. Unlike pension funding requirements, there is no requirement for Cities to pre- fund the cost of OPEB benefits. As a result, most Cities have not funded OPEB benefits and have accrued large OPEB debts. Escalating health care costs, the largest component of OPEB, compound this debt problem. As a result of an economic downturn, the average investment rate of return (investment earnings) for the last ten years is considerably below what experts and Cities agree is the still optimistic assumed rate of 7.5%. This return on investment (ROI) leads to an increase in the Cities’ annual payment into the pension fund to make up the difference. The rising costs of pension and OPEB (collectively hereinafter referred to as Benefits), combined with the downturn of the economy have resulted in very large budget shortfalls. These must be paid by current and future tax revenue, which is limited. Thus, according to interviews, paying for these rising costs will come at the expense of other City services. With this in mind, the Grand Jury assessed the viability and sustainability of Cities’ public employee Benefits. This assessment sought to answer the following questions: What are the costs of public employee Benefits and who pays for them? Will Cities’ projected revenues keep up with projected expense of Benefits? What is being done and what can be done to control Benefit costs? Why are public employee Benefits different from those in the private sector? Background Several cities have declared bankruptcy. While the reasons for bankruptcy vary from one municipality to another, and include lower tax revenues and decreased home values, one common reason cited is large unfunded liability associated with providing pension and healthcare benefits to its public employees. Locally, the City of Vallejo declared bankruptcy in 2009 after failing to negotiate pay cuts in the face of $195 million in unfunded pension obligations. Stockton is falling into bankruptcy with less than 70 103 3 cents set aside for every dollar of pension benefits its workers are owed5. A recent Stanford University study regarding public pension funds statewide emphasizes this predicament: “public pension shortfalls of $379 billion or $30,500 per household” exist statewide6 contributing to the downgrading of California’s bond rating. San Jose is proposing pension reform and considering higher taxes resulting from ten consecutive years of budget shortfalls. The full effect of these unsustainable costs is yet to come. Methodology The scope of the Grand Jury’s investigation was limited to the Cities. Special districts and other agencies were excluded from this investigation. The following resources were used to gather and evaluate the data contained in this report: City CAFRs; particularly notes to financial statements concerning Benefits (see Appendix A) Results obtained from a survey created by the Grand Jury and distributed to the Cities (see Appendix B for the complete survey) Interviews conducted with one or more of the following persons from the Cities: Financial Manager, Chief Finance Officer, City Manager, Retirements Service Director, and Human Resource Manager. All interviews were conducted following receipt and evaluation of a survey, affording the opportunity to seek clarification and elaboration on survey responses as necessary. Interviews with CalPERS actuaries and CalPERS consultants Other documents listed in Appendix A. Report Conventions The Grand Jury did not extrapolate, derivate or convert the data provided by the Cities in response to the survey. When the Grand Jury had questions, or found inconsistencies in the data provided, every effort was made to resolve the issues through interviews, email and phone conversations. All dollar figures are expressed in actuarial valuation units,7 not market value, unless otherwise stated. The glossary in Appendix C provides definitions of the terminology used throughout this report. Acronyms are also included in the glossary. 5 "Untouchable pensions may be tested in California," Mary Williams Walsh, New York Times, March 16, 2012. 6 http://siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/Nation%20Statewide%20Report%20v081.pdf 7 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 104 4 Discussion This discussion consists of three primary sections: Understanding CalPERS presents and discusses the basic concepts of CalPERS public pension benefits to lay a foundation for a more detailed look at City-provided Benefits. Key Survey Results discusses those survey results found to be most relevant to answering the Grand Jury questions. San Jose’s Plan is discussed separately because San Jose is the only city to not use CalPERS. Understanding CalPERS Because all Cities except San Jose8 participate in CalPERS for pension and many use CalPERS for OPEB as well, it is vital to understand the following key concepts: • Basic Pension Plan Formulas • Annual Required Contribution (ARC) • CalPERS Menu Options • Assumed or expected Return on Investment (ROI) • Unfunded Liability. Basic Pension Plan Formulas Employees belong to one of two different groups: Miscellaneous (MISC) or Public Safety,9 each having defined plans. Table 1 lists all first tier10 CalPERS plans utilized by Cities. Note that the plan names include the pension earned per year and the retirement age at which full benefits are received. 8 Excluding the San Jose Mayor and Council Member plan. 9 Police and Fire personnel. 10 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 105 5 Table 1: First Tier CalPERS Plans Used by the Cities s Plans Public Safety Plans Plan Name Number of Cities Participating Plan Name Number of Cities Participating 2.0%@55 4 3.0%@50 1111 2.5%@55 5 3.0%@55 1 2.7%@55 7 For all plans the pension benefit formula contains the same three primary components multiplied together as shown here: Pension = Earned Benefit Rate x Years of Service x Salary Earned Benefit Rate: This is the percent of salary earned per year of service as indicated by the plan name. Retirement before age 55 for MISC employees and before age 50 for most Public Safety employees results in the Earned Benefit Rate being reduced (per CalPERS’ table). For example, a MISC employee in the 2.0%@55 plan who retires at age 50 gets an earned benefit rate of 1.42612 per year of service rather than 2.0. Similarly, participants of the 2.5%@55 plan as well as the 2.7%@55 plan receive an earned benefit rate of 2.0 at age 50. Interestingly, the earned benefit rate for members of the 2.0%@55 plan continue to rise until the age 63 where it plateaus at 2.41813 percent per year of service. This contrasts with the other two MISC plans that plateau at age 55 at 2.5% and 2.7% respectively. (For a more detailed delineation of earned benefit rates, see www.calpers.ca.gov). Years of Service: This is self explanatory except to point out CalPERS supports reciprocity, which means that employees can transfer from one CalPERS-covered agency (City) or any other public agency that has established reciprocity with CalPERS, to another such agency without forfeiture of earned pension (as is usually the case in the private sector).14 Thus, an employee may work 10 years each for three different cities and earn the same pension benefits as otherwise would have been earned if they had worked for 30 years at a single city. But because each of the three cities pays only its one-third share of the earned pension, statistically, this employee appears as three employees earning a more modest pension from each city. 11 Some Cities contract for police and fire. Gilroy police and fire belong to separate Public Safety plans. 12 From CalPERS Benefit FactorsTable, page 22, Local Miscellaneous Benefits 13 From CalPERS Benefit FactorsTable, page 22, Local Miscellaneous Benefits 14 Reciprocity agreements may also exist between other pension plan providers. 106 6 Salary: CalPERS has guidelines defining what wages and reimbursements qualify for the purposes of determining pension. For a detailed discussion, go to www.calpers.ca.gov. Generally, salary can either be the average highest salary over a three-year period, or a highest single 12-month salary can be used, depending on the plan adopted by the City. Using the highest 12-month salary (rather than highest 36- month average salary in the pension formula shown above) is an example of what is known as a “Class 1” benefit enhancement that is more expensive to provide. It is noted here that Public Safety plan participants have a 90% maximum salary cap that can be earned at onset of retirement. There is no corresponding limit placed on plan participants. In both cases however, the Grand Jury learned that large pensions (expressed as a percent of salary) serve as a deterrent to prolonging employment because one can retire at close to full pay. Subsequent discussions on Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) and Cost-of-Living Allowances (COLA) will show how pensions can actually exceed salary, leading to the paradox of employees losing income if they continue to work as a public employee rather than retire. ARC: What is it and How is it Determined? The ARC is the annual actuarially determined amount that must be paid to ensure there will be enough money to pay for all promised Benefits. As shown below, the pension ARC consists of three principle components added together: ARC = Employee Contribution + Normal Cost + Past Service Cost It should be noted that generally the Normal Cost and Past Service Cost, in accordance with labor contracts, are paid for by the Cities—through tax revenue—and sometimes are supplemented by an employee contribution. Employee Contribution: From the perspective of CalPERS, this is a fixed percent and, as the name would suggest, was intended to be paid by the employees in much the same way as most private workers pay a portion of their own Social Security benefits. For all City employees, the Employee Contribution is either 7%, 8% or 9% of an employee’s salary, depending in which plan the employee participates. It is important to note, however, that in practice, most Cities pay some portion of this cost on behalf of the employees. Normal Cost: Less the employee contribution, if made, this is the amount required to pay for the benefits that were earned in the prior year for the (expected) life of the employee in retirement. This is determined through rigorous actuarial valuations taking many variables into account, including retirement age, life expectancy, and probability of disability. Normal Cost tracks very closely with the degree of Benefits being offered. That is to say, discrete cost increases occur to this component of the ARC with each benefit enhancement proportional to the cost of the benefit. Without benefit enhancements, Normal Cost remains relatively flat over time. 107 7 Past Service Cost: Whenever the plan assets (all previously paid ARCs), including ROI, become insufficient to pay the actuarial accrued cost of benefits, an unfunded liability15 exists. This deficit must be made up in the form of Past Service Cost. This component of the ARC is largely proportional to unfunded liability, increasing as the unfunded liability goes up to begin paying down the debt. For many Cities surveyed, Past Service Cost is approaching and in some cases already exceeds Normal Cost. Later, this report will discuss the three most often cited reasons for unfunded liability: market losses (ROI lower than the assumed rate), retroactive benefit enhancements, and other accumulated actuarial assumption changes (e.g., longer life expectancy, demographic changes). CalPERS Menu Options Each CalPERS plan has numerous benefits that are inherent to the plan itself.16 In addition to these benefits, CalPERS offers a wide range of menu options that can be thought of as upgrades or enhancements to the base plan. They are too numerous to list but include the following: Annual cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase Employer-paid member contribution (EMPC) Credit for unused sick leave Improved industrial and non-industrial disability Special death benefits Survivor benefits Various military and public service credits. Each enhancement selected results in quantifiably larger ARC payments. One cannot conclude from the plan name that it is necessarily more or less generous than another plan of a different name. For this reason, the Grand Jury’s investigation concerned itself not with the issue of what specific Benefits were being provided but rather what was the total cost of providing the Benefits expressed as a percent of payroll. Cities and CalPERS experts agreed this is a sound methodology for comparing cities of different sizes. 15 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 16 For a more detailed discussion of menu options, go to www.calpers.ca.gov. 108 8 Sensitivity to Expected ROI All Cities and all CalPERS representatives interviewed consistently told us that somewhere between 65% and 70% of the money to pay for Benefits comes from the ROI of previously accumulated ARC payments. This cannot be emphasized enough. The Cities spoke to their burden in struggling to meet ARC obligations in light of budget constraints, but these ARC payments cover only about 30% of the amount necessary to cover the cost of providing these Benefits. A critical actuarial assumption is the expected ROI, which is currently assumed to be 7.50% after expenses for pension. The actual average ROI over the last ten years has been 6.1% as depicted in Figure 1. The result of this underperformance is higher unfunded liabilities, lower funded ratios, and larger ARC payments (in particular, the Past Service Cost component of the ARC as discussed above). Discussion of San Jose’s ROI included in this figure is deferred until later. Figure 1: Actual Return on Investment Compared to Assumed and Dow Jones17 CalPERS lowered the assumed ROI from 7.75% to 7.5% at a March 14, 2012 meeting. Last year this same recommendation was rejected. This year, a 0.5% change was recommended and only a 0.25% change was approved. Table 2 below is excerpted from “Pension Math: How California’s Retirement Spending is Squeezing the State Budget” written by Joe Nation from Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. 17 DJIA is calendar year and other data are fiscal year 109 9 Table 2: CalPERS Return on Investment Analysis Investment rate Probability of meeting or exceeding rate CalPERS funded ratio18 9.5% 21.7% 95.1% 7.75% 42.1% 73.5% 7.1% 50.7% 66.7% 6.2% 62.6% 58.3% 4.5% 80.9% 45.1% Two key points in Table 2 are: According to this analysis, there is only a 42.1% chance of meeting or exceeding an assumed investment rate of 7.75% as highlighted in the table. It should be noted that the ROI assumption was recently reduced to 7.5%. Dropping down to a more conservative 6.2% investment rate (still higher than the 6.1% average for the last ten years) is recommended by many leading economists and recognized financial experts. The corresponding funded ratio reduction would result in increases to unfunded liabilities and significantly higher ARC costs. Sunnyvale projects this modest CalPERS-approved reduction of 0.25% in assumed ROI will increase its ARC by 2.3% of payroll for MISC employees and 3.8% of payroll for Public Safety employees, totaling nearly a $3M increase per year in ARC payments. As shown in Table 3, Sunnyvale’s pension cost was just over $25M. So, a $3M increase represents a 12% increase. CalPERS and pension experts we spoke with asserted that the cost of each additional 0.25% reduction in assumed ROI is not linear and warned extrapolating this cost increase would result in underestimating the total cost impact. Unfunded Liability & Funded Ratio Unfunded Liability is the unfunded obligation for prior benefits, measured as the difference between the accrued liability and plan assets. When using the actuarial value of plan assets, it is also referred to as the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). In everyday language, it is the difference between the cost of the benefits already earned and the amount currently paid; it is the amount due. 18 As of June 30, 2011 110 10 Table 3: Unfunded liability for pension and OPEB for all large cities shows the total for these nine cities is nearly $7B FY 2010 Unfunded Liabilities (Not in Risk Pool)19 Debt per Resident City Pension OPEB Total Santa Clara County $1,455,835,322 $1,300,000,000 $2,755,835,322 $1,547 Cupertino $18,581,728 $18,069,366 $36,651,094 $629 Gilroy $35,100,000 $4,900,000 $40,000,000 $819 Milpitas $70,166,975 $31,230,798 $101,397,773 $1,518 Mountain View $104,121,296 $29,396,467 $133,517,763 $1,803 Palo Alto $153,941,000 $105,045,000 $258,986,000 $4,021 San Jose20 $1,434,696,471 $1,706,081,881 $3,140,778,352 $3,320 Santa Clara $223,667,947 $23,855,000 $247,522,947 $2,125 Sunnyvale $149,300,000 $92,800,000 $242,100,000 $1,728 Total $3,645,410,739 $3,311,378,512 $6,956,789,251 The Funded ratio is the market value of assets at a specified date, over the accrued actuarial liability as of the same date. While technically accurate, these definitions provide no insight into the causes of what have become large unfunded liabilities and correspondingly low-funded ratios. The Grand Jury learned from CalPERS that the three primary reasons for unfunded liabilities are the following: 70% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to market performance 15% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to retroactive benefit enhancements 15% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to other actuarial assumption changes. The percentages shown above are “rule of thumb” values according to the CalPERS representatives; individual City percentages will vary. Key Survey Results With the basic concepts of public pension benefits understood, the Grand Jury prepared a survey to gather information from the Cities. Survey responses and all supplemental data provided by the Cities were analyzed to answer the following questions: 19 Numbers reflect data provided in survey responses. 20 Excluding Mayor and Council Member Plan. 111 11 What is the total amount of unfunded liabilities? What is the total cost each year to provide Benefits and at what rate is the cost going up per year? Why are OPEB funded ratios so low? When were Benefit enhancements enacted and how do they impact unfunded liability? What progress is being made to control escalating costs? Why are public Benefits so different from private sector Benefits? Do vacation, holiday and sick leave policies in the public sector differ from those that are commonly found in the private sector? Unfunded Liability (Large Debts) Table 3 tabulates the unfunded liability for both pension and OPEB for all large cities not belonging to a risk pool and shows the total unfunded liability for these nine cities is nearly $7B. Cities having fewer than 100 employees in a given pension plan (Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga) are not included because they belong either entirely or in part to a risk pool. CalPERS currently does not provide this information to the Cities in the risk pool. Los Gatos and Morgan Hill, for instance, do not know their portion of a $3,515,314,403 unfunded liability associated with the Public Safety risk pool to which they belong. While Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills did offer an approximation of their portion of the risk pool liability, CalPERS representatives recommended against using the estimation and as a result are not included in Table 3. The Grand Jury has learned the Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) is considering a policy change to require the Cities in the risk pool21 to report individual unfunded liability. Many Cities surveyed focused primarily on minimizing the ARC payments, the short-term cost due, as opposed to addressing the larger, endemic problem of its unfunded liability. This is problematic because minimizing ARC payments today at the expense of addressing the growing unfunded liability means shifting the costs to the future, hoping market improvements will solve the problem. If the market does not improve, taxpayers may face increased taxes or reduced services in the future. Using 2010 census data obtained from http://www.sccgov.org together with the data in Table 3, it is possible to estimate the amount owed by each resident to pay down current Benefit debts in the Cities. For example, each resident of San Jose owes $3,320 to the city. As residents of the County, they also owe an additional $1,547 to the 21 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 112 12 County.22 But while this would pay down the current debt and significantly reduce ARC payments, it does not guarantee staying out of debt going forward. High Cost of Benefits (ARC) . . . and Getting Higher The accumulated City cost of providing annual Benefits in FY2010 was $667,215,205 as shown in Table 4. While it is useful to know the annual cost of providing Benefits it is not possible to judge whether or not any City is paying a disproportionate cost due to the size variance of the Cites (large Cities are expected to pay more because they have more employees). For this reason, the Grand Jury chose to compare the Cities by expressing the ARC as a percent of payroll. Cities and pension experts agreed the Grand Jury’s method of making this calculation was correct. That said, the same values shown in Table 4 are also shown in Figure 2 expressed as percent of payroll separating pension, OPEB and Social Security as applicable. Table 4: Countywide total cost of providing annual Benefits in FY2010 is $667,215,205 City Pension Cost23 OPEB Cost24 Social Security Cost25 Total Santa Clara County $235,630,042 $90,000,000 $65,136,430 $390,766,472 Campbell $2,728,302 $206,220 $2,934,522 Cupertino $1,841,350 $7,616,760 $9,458,110 Gilroy $4,900,000 $186,334 $5,086,334 Los Altos $1,842,949 $19,505 $1,862,454 Los Altos Hills $190,021 $203,000 $393,021 Los Gatos $2,958,209 $949,845 $3,908,054 Milpitas $7,164,473 $3,356,836 $10,521,309 Monte Sereno $125,713 $0 $37,863 $163,576 Morgan Hill $2,763,818 $15,119 $2,778,937 Mountain View $8,929,685 $4,376,387 $13,306,072 Palo Alto $19,964,080 $9,019,000 $28,983,080 San Jose $106,881,000 $34,147,000 $141,028,000 Santa Clara $20,257,754 $2,115,643 $3,494,639 $25,868,036 Saratoga $917,228 NA $917,228 Sunnyvale $25,300,000 $3,940,000 $29,240,000 Total $442,394,624 $156,151,649 $68,668,932 $667,215,205 22 Note these figures are per resident, not per household, and exclude an additional state pension liability all California residents bear, which is outside the scope of this report. 23 Many Cities, but not all, provided separable “sidefund” expenditures from ARC. 24 May include money spent over and above ARC payment. 25 Only MISC employees in Santa Clara County, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara participate in Social Security. 113 13 As shown in Figure 2, the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga pay less than 20% of payroll towards Benefits while the remaining cities pay more than 20%. Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale pay in excess of 30% of payroll towards Benefits. The survey results further indicated that Mountain View is noteworthy because it offers similar plans as Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale but at lower cost to the city through cost sharing with employees who pay the entire employee contribution (8% for MISC and 9% for Public Safety) plus some negotiated portion of that city’s cost in the range of 1.5% to 6.8% depending on job type. Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale in contrast to Mountain View, pay some portion of the employee contribution with Sunnyvale contributing the most (7% of the required 8% for MISC employees and 8% of the 9% for Public Safety employees). Figure 2: FY 2010 Benefit Ranking by Percent of Payroll 114 14 Comparing the Sunnyvale pension costs expressed in percent of payroll to Mountain View (same plans) demonstrates that employee contributions toward the cost of pensions is just as effective at keeping the cost under control as curtailing the level of pension benefits being offered. Mountain View actually compares favorably to other cities offering lower benefits. Table 5 summarizes the Cities’ plan(s) and the amount contributed by employees. For those Cities that elected to participate in Social Security (MISC employees in the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County and Monte Sereno), the cost to the city has been added to reflect the total amount the city is paying toward employee Benefits. The survey responses conveyed how much pension and OPEB were expected to rise during the next five to ten years. Most Cities responded using projections from the latest actuarial valuations, which estimate contributions as a percentage of payroll rather than in dollars. In the case of pension, these valuations are performed by CalPERS and in the case of OPEB, the valuations are performed by an actuary firm under contract to the City. All Cities’ Benefits costs are trending up, in spite of optimistic assumptions regarding the ROI that has been shown to be of paramount importance. Projected San Jose cost increases are discussed separately in subsequent sections. Unfunded Retroactive Pension Benefit Enhancements When a City amends its contract with labor unions to increase the pension formula (e.g., 2% @ 55 to 2.5% @ 55) the increased benefits apply retroactively to all prior years of service. The retroactive application of the increase results in an increase in the unfunded liability and requires an increase in ARC payments by the City. The reason for the increase in ARC payments can be illustrated by this example: Assume an employee has worked for twenty-five years and has paid into the system all those years. The City leaders now approve a retroactive benefit enhancement without funding the retroactive period. Immediately the employee and employer have effectively underpaid for the enhanced unfunded benefits portion for the previous twenty-five years. The difference between what was actually paid and what should have been paid to provide the enhanced benefit adds to unfunded liability, which increases ARC payments. This is now a new liability to the taxpayer. In question three of the Grand Jury questionnaire (Appendix B), Cities were asked to list any significant pension benefit changes that have been made over the past ten years. Table 5 summarizes the responses received by the Grand Jury. As the table shows, most Cities have increased pension benefits within the last ten years. When asked how much these benefit increases changed Unfunded Liability, most cities provided the CalPERS provided answer of 15%. However, Cupertino stated that benefit changes are responsible for 26% of their Unfunded Liability and the City of Santa Clara cited 24.6%. 115 15 Table 5: Pension Benefit Plan Changes Name of City/County 1st Tier Plan 2nd Tier Plan Year of increa se Original Plan Benefit Increase Employee Paid Contribution FY 2011 (Per Survey Responses) Plan Name Year Adopted Employee Paid Contributio n County of Santa Clara 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 3.931 to 5%None County of Santa Clara 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 0.5 to 9% None Campbell 2002 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 7% MISC 2%@60 2011 7% Campbell 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 8% Public Safety 2%@50 2010 9% Cupertino 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.7%@55 2%None Gilroy 2006 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 8%None Gilroy 2002 Police 2%@50 Police to 3%@50 9% Police 2%@50 2011 9% Gilroy 2007 Fire 2%@50 Fire to 3%@55 9% Fire 2%@55 2011 7% Los Altos 2004 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.7%@55 1%None Los Altos 2003 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 1% None Los Altos Hills* MISC 2%@55 None 0% MISC 2%@60 2011 7% Los Gatos 2008 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 8%2%@60 2012 7% Los Gatos 2001 Public Safety 2.5%@55 Public Safety to 3%@60 9% None Milpitas 2002 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.7%@55 8%2%@60 2011 9% Milpitas 2000 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 9% None Monte Sereno* MISC 2%@55 No pension benefit changes 0% None Morgan Hill 2006 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 1‐8%None Morgan Hill 2002 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 9% None Mountain View 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 8%+ None Mountain View 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 9%+ None Palo Alto 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 2%‐5.7% 2%@60 2010 2% Palo Alto 2002 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 0%‐9% None San Jose Federated 2.5%@55 4.68%None San Jose Public Safety 3%@50 10.50%None Santa Clara 2006 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 8% None Santa Clara 2000 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 9%‐11.25% None Saratoga* 2%@55 No pension benefit changes 7% None Sunnyvale 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 1% None Sunnyvale 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 1%‐3% None * These cities contract out for public safety services, avoiding a direct benefit liability. 116 16 Cities told the Grand Jury that as recently as 2003, and in 2007 for Campbell and Los Altos Hills, their plans were over funded. Assuming this trend would continue, Cities thought they could enhance Benefits without significantly increasing their costs. Analysis was performed to prove the enhancements could be funded. In hindsight, this did not prove to be the case because the analysis assumed the optimistic ROI would be achieved. The County and a few of the cities attempted to recover some of the increased cost by increasing the employee paid contributions and by eliminating previously enhanced menu options. The Grand Jury learned that in some cases adequate funding was not in place to pay for the enhanced pension benefits at the time they were granted. Without solid plans to fund increases in pension benefit plans, Cities pushed the impact of these increases to future generations of taxpayers. Nearly every City demonstrated an historical pattern of granting unfunded benefit enhancements as discussed here. This practice is beginning to change with the adoption by a few cities of second tier26 plans that extend retirement age and reduce Benefit costs. Table 5 shows that eight cities have adopted second tier plans. Other Cities may be in the process of adopting second tier plans but cannot report this fact because of ongoing union negotiations. Note that all new second tier plans continue to be the defined benefit type; none have adopted any form of defined contribution elements. While the creation of second tier plans will reduce the cost of providing pension benefits,27 these savings will not materialize for many years. All risks associated with market losses remain with the Cities, and ultimately the taxpayers. Increasing employee contribution rates, subject to labor agreements, is the most effective method of controlling cost in the shortest amount of time. Low OPEB Funded Ratios As shown in Table 6, OPEB-funded ratios are low. These OPEB low-funded ratios and corresponding high unfunded liabilities are of concern to the Grand Jury. Cities are required to “pay forward”28 for pensions, but not for OPEB. As a result, many cities only pay the minimum required to cover the current annual OPEB cost; no extra is paid to defray the cost of all current employees when they retire. The Cities referred to this as the “pay-as-you-go” strategy and results in very low-funded ratios—even zero percent. This strategy has resulted in San Jose’s OPEB being $1,706,081,881 underfunded (refer back to Figure 2 for a comparison of San Jose’s underfunded status relative to other cities and the County) 26 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 27 At the time of this report, the Grand Jury is not aware that Cities are considering OPEB changes in second tier plans. 28 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 117 17 Table 6: OPEB Funded Ratio City FY 2010 OPEB Funded Ratio29 Santa Clara County 10.10% Campbell 4.00% Cupertino30 0% Gilroy 0% Los Altos 0% Los Altos Hills 23.40% Los Gatos 2.70% Milpitas 24.13% Monte Sereno 0% Morgan Hill 0% Mountain View 55.90% Palo Alto 19.00% San Jose31 12.00%/6.00% Santa Clara 22.80% Saratoga N/A Sunnyvale32 0% Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino are commended for having begun to implement a “pay forward” strategy, which demonstrates fiscal responsibility. One San Jose public official interviewed stated that the reason San Jose was not fully funding OPEB is that it could not be done without significant curtailment of services, effectively shifting the burden of payment to future generations. Public Benefit Comparison to Private Sector Benefits To put pubic employee Benefits into perspective, consider the average pension for Public Safety employees in Palo Alto retiring between the ages of 51 and 54 with 30 years of service is $108,000. In Sunnyvale, the same employee receives almost $102,000 per year. The most common pension plans offered to public employees who spend their entire career in the public sector not only discourage employees from 29 Some 2010 data is derived from 2009 Actuarial Valuations 30 In 2010 and 2011 the city made payments of nearly $6.5M in excess of ARC to bring this up to 35.6% 31 San Jose has separate OPEB funds for its employees 32 In 2011 the city paid $32M in excess of ARC but impact on funded ratio has not yet been determined via actuarial evaluation 118 18 continuing to work beyond the age of 50 or 55, they penalize them for doing so. The CalPERS reported average pension of under $30,000 per year is misleading because it fails to recognize persons who receive multiple pensions. The Grand Jury learned that some employees actually earn more in retirement than they did while employed. Further, the ratio of active employees to retirees was found to be three to two.33 With budget constraints leading to staffing reductions and as the baby boom generation approaches retirement age, this ratio is expected to continue downward, placing additional financial burdens on the Cities. Public benefits are overwhelmingly of the defined benefit type (refer to Appendix C for the differences between defined benefits and defined contributions). While some private sector companies continue to offer defined benefits, the clear trend in the private sector is to transition away from defined benefits in favor of defined contributions, thereby transferring the risks associated with market performance from the employer to the employee. An additional advantage of the defined contribution is that it leads to less volatile City budgets over time because the cost of providing benefits is constant, not varying over time to compensate for market performance. Determining in any meaningful way what might be considered “standard” private sector benefits for the purposes of comparing to public sector was clearly outside the scope of this investigation. That said, Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys show the majority of private pensions include participation in Social Security and a defined contribution plan such as a 401k. The employee and employer each contribute 6.2% of salary (currently up to $110,100 in salary) per year, to pay for Social Security benefits. While the particulars of 401k plans vary widely, the surveys show that the majority of employees receive some form of matched savings plan described as follows. For every dollar the employee contributes to their own 401k, the employer will contribute some amount: 50 cents or less for most employees. Employees may be limited to the amount they can contribute and employers limit the amount they contribute by specifying that employer contributions cannot exceed a set percent of salary: four percent or less for most employees. As described, the majority of private sector employees contribute more than 50% of the total cost toward their own pensions (exactly 50% in the case of Social Security and greater than 50% of the 401k since an employer only contributes a portion of every dollar the employee contributes). Using 65 as a traditional retirement age, the differences between public and private benefits are summarized in Table 7. The Grand Jury reviewed the survey results and observed the following for all first tier plan employees: All Public Safety employees, except Gilroy fire,34 qualify for full retirement benefits no later than age fifty (assuming at least five years of service) 33 Half the Cities surveyed currently have more retirees than employees. 34 Gilroy fire receives the same at age fifty-five rather than age fifty. 119 19 All Public Safety employees, except Gilroy fire,35 with thirty years of service credit receive no less than 90% of their salary in retirement, not considering annual COLA increases All MISC employees qualify for retirement benefits no later than age fifty-five (assuming at least five years of service) Table 7: Sample comparison of MISC Public versus Private Benefits36 Attributes Public37 Private38 Percent of salary contributed by employee toward Benefits 7 - 8% 14 - 16% Age pension may be drawn without an age- related reduction in eligible amount 55 65 Employee contribution for every dollar of employer contribution 50¢39 $1.4040 Retirement Income expressed as a percent of salary (assuming the retiree reaches full plan benefit age and works 35 or 45 years, respectively) 87.5% 66%41 Who bears the risk if market underperforms? Taxpayer Employee Is subsidized retiree healthcare available? Generally Yes Generally No The majority42 of MISC employees who work 35 years receive 87.5% of their salary in retirement before annual COLA increases. 35 Gilroy fire receives the same benefits at thirty-five years service rather than thirty years. 36 The table is intended for comparison; it is not representative of all situations. 37 Represented by participant in 2.5%@55. 38 Represented by participant in Social Security and 401k Savings plan where employee contributes 8% salary and employer matches 50 cents per dollar. 39 Based on CalPERS data for 2011. Actual varies by city; can be as high as 50¢ or as low as 5¢. 40 Based on the Bureau of Labor statistics. 41 This number assumes a $750K in retirement savings. 42 Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga are exceptions receiving 70% of salary. 120 20 In consideration of these statistics, and as shown in Table 7, the Grand Jury concludes: Full pension is attained at an earlier age in the public sector than in the private sector – some by ten years or more Pension earned, expressed as a percentage of salary, is greater in the public sector than in the private sector even after adjustment to account for non- participation in Social Security Employees in the public sector contribute less towards their pension plans than their private-sector counterparts Taxpayers in the public sector bear the risk of ROI and actuarial assumptions associated with the pension plan, whereas employees in the private sector bear the risk of market performance. The Grand Jury acknowledges wages and salaries are a large portion of Cities’ budgets, and when salaries escalate this further exacerbates budget shortfalls. It may be asserted that public sector salaries are lower than their private sector counterparts, thus, justifying more generous public benefits. Readers can explore whether this assertion is true by accessing publically available salary data. Accrued Sick Leave Can Be Reimbursed In general, the survey revealed no significant differences between the Cities in regard to holiday, vacation and sick leave policies. However, it is noted that all Cities surveyed except Gilroy, Monte Sereno, and Sunnyvale either reimburse for accrued unused sick time or permit it to be converted into service time for purposes of determining pension. Often reimbursement is at discounted rates and other times the amount of sick time that can be accrued is capped. Gilroy, Monte Sereno and Sunnyvale responded “No” to the survey question asking if accrued sick time is paid upon retirement, without proffering whether or not it could be converted into service time. However, the Grand Jury learned that sick time conversion to service credit is a common CalPERS benefit for all members of risk pools. The survey revealed that the City of Santa Clara grants fire personnel on 24-hour shifts 288 hours of sick leave per year. Up to 96 hours per year can be accrued and paid (discounted to 75% of their hourly wage equivalent) for employees with 25 or more years of service. San Jose’s Plan San Jose is the only city that does not use CalPERS to provide pension benefits (with the exception of the Mayor and Council members who get benefits in accordance with CalPERS 2%@55 plan). San Jose public employees have two independent plans: Federated and Public Safety. Federated Plan members are equivalent to those in a CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan. Public Safety members (police and fire) in San Jose are 121 21 identical to Public Safety members in other Cities. The San Jose Federated and Public Safety plans share commonality with CalPERS 2.5%@55 and 3.0%@50 respectively with the following key differences: COLA is a guaranteed 3% compared to CalPERS’ not-to-exceed 2% Employee-to-employer contribution ratio of three to eight (3:8) Money is invested and managed by the two governing Boards (the Federated Plan Retirement Board and the Public Safety Retirement Board) rather than by CalPERS, and San Jose performs its actuarial valuations independent of CalPERS San Jose participates in a Supplemental Retiree Benefit Reserve (SRBR) program. Each of the major differences cited above is discussed in more detail below. 3% Guaranteed COLA San Jose provides a guaranteed 3% COLA increase every year compared to a CalPERS base COLA which is “not to exceed an accumulated 2% per year”.43 The Grand Jury is unable to quantify the additional cost of increasing COLA. As mentioned previously, CalPERS does provide menu options for increased COLA (including 3%), but no other Cities have opted for this increase, citing cost as a reason. Three-to-Eight (3:8) Employee Contribution Ratio For every eight dollars San Jose spends on the Normal Cost of providing benefits (excluding the Past Service Cost portion of benefits that the employer pays entirely44) employees contribute $3-dollars. This differs substantially from CalPERS, which sets employee contribution as a percent of salary between 7% and 9% depending on the plan. As noted in Table 5, many Cities pay much of the employee contribution on behalf of the employees, further complicating any comparison. As noted in Methodology, the Grand Jury is reluctant to interpolate the data provided. The San Jose survey response shows that Federated employees pay 4.68% (of payroll) toward pension, which compares to CalPERS’ MISC plan at 8%. San Jose’s Public Safety employees pay approximately 10.5% (of payroll) toward pension, which compares to CalPERS’ Public Safety plan at 9%. 43 As a function of inflation, CalPERS COLA has a clause protecting retirees from losing more than 20% of their buying power in retirement which could result in increases greater than 2%. When CPI is less than the 2% promised, CalPERS COLA also entails “banking” of COLA as unneeded credits that can be applied when CPI is greater than 2%. This results in annual COLA increase in excess of 2% when the CPI exceeds 2%. 44 The ratio of Past Service Cost to Normal Cost (expressed in Percent Payroll) for Federated and Public Safety are: 15.58/12.76 and 22/27 respectively 122 22 From a cost perspective, there is insufficient data to determine if the 3:8 ratio results in net savings or increased cost to San Jose, compared to the CalPERS plan. However, excluding Past Service Cost from any form of employee cost sharing does result in San Jose paying a higher portion of the cost of providing Benefits. Self-Managed Investing The Federated and Public Safety Boards independently manage approximately $2B in assets each (approximately $4B total). Both currently assume a 7.5% ROI, similar to the recently adopted CalPERS ROI. As with CalPERS, these investment returns are expected to pay the majority of the costs for providing benefits. It is critical, therefore, to compare the actual investment performance to what is actuarially assumed, and it is useful to compare San Jose’s investment performance to CalPERS. As was shown in Figure 1, both Federated and Public Safety ROI for the last ten years has been below the actuarial assumptions but slightly better than what CalPERS did in the same time period. San Jose did not provide ROI data for 2011. The DJIA is shown in the figure for comparison purposes and is intended to show that both San Jose and CalPERS outperformed the general market (represented by DJIA) by a wide margin, yet still fell below the optimistic actuarial assumptions so critical to economic viability. The largest advantage of managing one’s own plans would seem to be the added flexibility it affords the city in tailoring retirement formulas to meet the needs and means of the city. Although there is little evidence the city is using this advantage in the current first tier plans (as noted, San Jose plans are both very similar to CalPERS plans offered), this advantage may be utilized if and when second tier plans are developed. Supplemental Retiree Benefit Reserve (SRBR) Recall from Table 3 that the combined pension unfunded liability for both the Federated Plan and the Public Safety Plan is $1,434,696,471. As has already been discussed and demonstrated, the largest single contributor to this is when the achieved ROI falls short of the actuarially assumed ROI. With this in mind, it is difficult to comprehend how responsible financial management would allow withdrawal of any portion of excess ROI whenever the market actually does out-perform the expected rate to be used to pay dividends in the form of an additional “thirteenth check”45 to retirees. But this is exactly what the SRBR does. In the case of the Federated Plan, the market must only exceed the expected rate in a single year to permit withdrawal of a portion of the excess ROI for that year. For the same thing to happen in the Public Safety plan, the running five-year average must exceed the expected return rate to permit withdrawal. 45 Generally, a windfall dividend payment. 123 23 It should be noted that San Jose has temporarily suspended the SRBR payouts. Although San Jose has suspended payouts, the funds remain in the account and San Jose has not used the payout to pay down its underfunded liability. In fact, the suspension merely delays eventual payment to retirees in the form of even larger “thirteenth checks.” A better use for these excess funds might be to retain them to pay down the underfunded Benefits, as long as an underfunded liability exists. Why Such Variance with Estimated Future Benefit Costs? Much has been written regarding the predicted ARC cost for San Jose in FY 2015/2016. Published estimates vary in the range of $400M to as much as $650M. The latter figure represents a more than doubling of the current ARC of $245M per year—a rate of increase not seen in any of the other Cities. The Grand Jury interviewed several key personnel associated closely with these predictions to determine why there is so much variability in the estimates. In particular, the Grand Jury wanted to answer the following questions: Were these predictions based on sound, factual data? Does $650M represent a worst case number or could it be higher? The Grand Jury learned that a large set of assumptions factor into any actuarial valuation and many of these assumptions have complex interdependencies with one another. The actuarial valuation itself is a rigorous, precise mathematical calculation based upon these assumptions. The ARC value can vary, from 400M to $650M or higher, when assumptions are adjusted. Just two of those actuarial assumption changes, by themselves, account for $120M of the $250M difference between the high and low estimate. These two assumption changes are: Longer life expectancy of Public Safety employees46 than previously assumed Lower ROI rate. Key personnel associated with making actuarial predictions gave an example where increasing the life expectancy of police and fire to be closer to the life expectancy of miscellaneous employees would increase the cost by approximately $40M. This is a reasonable assumption change to consider since it reflects demographic changes that CalPERS also has begun to reflect. In another assumption query, if the ROI were 46 CalPERS has been recognizing this trend and several Cities cited this as being a contributor to unfunded liability 124 24 lowered by a whole percentage point to 6.5%, more in line with actual ROI for the last ten years, this would contribute an additional $80M to the cost of ARC. Importantly, the rationale for exploring a lower ROI was not to bring it into agreement with recent earnings history, but to move San Jose’s portfolio from one of high risk and high volatility to a position of low risk and low volatility. The $650M per year cost estimate is not a worst case number. Pension experts the Grand Jury interviewed stated that other actuarial assumption changes, within reason and easily justified, would result in ARC costs even higher than $650M per year. The Grand Jury understands that exploring these actuarial assumptions is justified. They help bring attention to the severity of the Benefits crisis and abate the trend of pushing financial problems to future generations of taxpayers. Conclusions Very optimistic actuarial assumptions result in lower ARC costs, leading to insufficient funding and causing unfunded liabilities. The most critical of these is the ROI, which is generally assumed to be 7.5%47. The actual ROI for the last ten years has been 6.1%. This underperformance is the largest contributor to the Cities’ combined unfunded liability of over $7B. Future taxpayers are responsible for paying benefits that are being earned and collected today. Lowering the expected ROI—as recommended by leading economists and recognized financial experts—significantly increases ARC and further exacerbates attainment of balanced budgets. Public employee Benefits, especially after being enhanced retroactively, have been shown to be more generous than those found in the private sector and at an earlier retirement age. The amount a public employee contributes toward benefits is shown to generally be less than an employee in the private sector. As a result of lower public employee contribution rates toward their retirement, increasingly large ARC costs must be funded by taxpayer dollars. Ignoring this largesse will result in increased taxes combined with reduced services. Average pensions are often cited in the range of $30,000, but these statistics can be misleading. For instance, they include persons whose careers lasted five years or part- time employees with longer service periods. Likewise, it can include employees who work an entire career in the public sector but for different public entities over the course of their careers. Each city that the employee worked for pays only its pro-rated portion of the retirees pension. Thus, the employee’s actual pension is larger than the portion attributable to each public entity. Tier 2 plans that Cities are implementing offer a modest reduction to the future liability, but do not significantly impact the unfunded liability in the short term. To address the short-term cost of the public Benefit crisis, possible solutions may be found in two 47 Some OPEB ROI are at lower values. 125 25 elements of private sector benefits. The first is the need to reduce the level of benefits to be more comparable to those found in the private sector, inclusive of extending retirement age. Second, public employees must contribute a greater share towards their Benefits, particularly those employees who receive enhanced Benefits. Such solutions will reduce the burden the unfunded Benefits have placed upon current and future taxpayers. As to the question of defined benefits versus defined contributions, public Benefits continue to be based on a defined benefit model versus the defined contribution model that private industry has moved toward. The defined contribution model works well in the public sector. It offers a working solution to the public sector as a means of reducing the risk of high-cost defined benefit plans. Benefit plans are heavily subsidized by pubic sector employers compared to the contributions of private sector employers. The Grand Jury concludes that until significant modifications are enacted, there is no doubt that the escalating cost of providing Benefits at the current level is interfering with the delivery of essential City services and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers is an unbearable burden. These costs are already impacting delivery of essential services as demonstrated by San Jose reducing police and fire department staffing levels, closing libraries or not opening those newly built, curtailing hours of community centers, and not repairing pot-holed city streets. Other cities in the County are likely to face similar challenges as long as high cost benefit plans face an underfunding liability. Understanding how Cities created this problem through unfunded retroactive benefit enhancements, compounded by poor ROI, helps taxpayers understand that the problem will not go away on its own. 126 26 Findings and Recommendations When the term Cities is used below, it includes the following: Santa Clara County; the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose , Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale; and the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos. Finding 1 Public sector employees are eligible for retirement at least 10 years earlier than is common for private sector employees. Recommendation 1 The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages. Finding 2 Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto have adopted second tier plans that offer reduced Benefits, which help reduce future costs, but further changes are needed to address today’s unfunded liability. Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale have not adopted second tier plans. Recommendation 2A Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans. Recommendation 2B For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both plans. Recommendation 2C All Cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension plan caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. 127 27 Finding 3 Retroactive Benefit enhancements were enacted by Cities using overly optimistic ROI and actuarial assumptions without adequate funding in place to pay for them. Recommendation 3 The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit Benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability. Finding 4 The Cities are making an overly generous contribution toward the cost of providing Benefits. Recommendation 4A The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan. Recommendation 4B The Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service Cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the Benefits being offered. Finding 5 The Cities are not fully funding OPEB benefits as evidenced by large unfunded liabilities and small funded ratios. Recommendation 5 The Cities, should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible. Finding 6 The City of San Jose permits the transfer of pension trust fund money, when ROI exceeds expectations, to the SRBR, despite the fact that the pension trust funds are underfunded. 128 28 Recommendation 6 The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension-funded ratio is less than 100%. Finding 7 The Cities’ defined benefit pension plan costs are volatile. Defined contribution plan costs are predictable and therefore more manageable by the Cities. Recommendation 7 The Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented. 129 29 Appendix A: Documents Reviewed Report Name Report Date Document Source Santa Clara County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 30‐Jun‐10 www.sccgov.org/ Santa Clara County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 30‐Jun‐11 www.sccgov.org/ City of Campbell CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.campbell.ca.us/ City of Campbell CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.ci.campbell.ca.us/ City of Cupertino CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.cupertino.org/ City of Cupertino CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.cupertino.org/ City of Gilroy CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.cityofgilroy.org/ City of Gilroy CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.cityofgilroy.org/ City of Los Altos CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.los‐altos.ca.us/ City of Los Altos CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.ci.los‐altos.ca.us/ Town of Los Altos Hills CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/ Town of Los Gatos CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.town.los‐gatos.ca.us/ City of Milpitas CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/ City of Monte Sereno CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 Monte Sereno city hall City of Morgan Hill CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.morgan‐hill.ca.gov/ City of Morgan Hill CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.morgan‐hill.ca.gov/ City of Mountain View CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/ City of Mountain View CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/ City of Palo Alto CAFR (Revised December 21, 2010) 30‐Jun‐10 www.cityofpaloalto.org/ City of San Jose CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.sanjoseca.gov/ City of Santa Clara CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.santaclaraca.gov/ City of Saratoga CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.saratoga.ca.us/ City of Sunnyvale CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/ Pension Sustainability: Rising Pension Costs Threaten the City's Ability to Maintain Service Levels ‐ Alternatives For A Sustainable Future 29‐Sep‐10 www.sanjoseca.gov/auditor Cities Must Rein in Unsustainable Employee Costs (Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report) 30‐Jun‐10 http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/grand_jury. shtml Running on Empty (San Mateo County Grand Jury Report) 30‐Jun‐11 www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/ National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the Untited States, 2005 1‐May‐07 www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm A Preliminary Analysis of Governor Brown's Twelve Point Pension Reform Plan (Prepared by CalPERS) 30‐Nov‐11 www.calpers.ca.gov/eip‐docs/preliminary‐analysis.pdf CalPers Pension Benefit Primer 1‐Oct‐09 www.calpersresponds.com/downloads/Pension_Primer.pdf More Pension Math: Funded Status, Benefits, and Spending Trends for California's Largest Independent Public Employee Pension Systems 21‐Feb‐12 www.cacs.org/images/dynamic/articleAttachments/7.pdf Statement No. 45 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board 30‐Jun‐04 Santa Clara County Finance Agency 130 30 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey Instructions: Please complete the questions below. The questionnaire consists of three sections: Section 1 covers questions regarding Pension Benefits, Section 2 covers questions regarding Other Post Employment Benefits and Section 3 covers questions regarding vacation and sick leave payout policy at time of retirement. Insert your responses directly into this file and return it in your email reply. Please respond by Dec 19th to this questionnaire for both the fiscal year ending 6-30-2010 and the fiscal year ending 6-30-2011. If you have questions or require additional time, please reply via email as quickly as possible to allow sufficient time to resolve issues. Thank you. Section 1: PENSION 1. How many defined pension plans do you have? Please identify them by name and answer all subsequent questions for each identified plan name. 2. Does CalPERS administer your pension fund? If not, please identify and describe the manner in which the pension plan is being administered. 3. Please provide a description of each defined pension plan that you provide to your employees. • At what age is an employee eligible for a pension? • How many years must an employee work to be vested for a pension? • Are employees required to make contributions to their own accounts? If so, what percent of their salary is paid toward their pension? Is there any annual or lifetime employee contribution cap? • Does the plan include cost-of-living allowance increases post retirement? 4. For each identified plan, what percent of an employee’s income is earned toward retirement each year of employment? • For each identified plan, is there an identified maximum salary percent cap that can be earned in retirement? 5. Do plan participants contribute to Social Security? 6. For each identified plan, describe the formula for determining final compensation used in factoring a retiree’s pension. Include number of months that income is averaged, whether or not overtime is included or excluded from this calculation, and whether or not any other form of employee payments other than base salary are included in the formula (awards, bonuses, travel compensation, etc.). 7. How much money was contributed in each of the last two fiscal years toward pensions (not including employee contributions)? • What percent was this of total payroll? 8. How much pension money was paid out in each of the last two fiscal years to retirees? • How many retired employees are currently collecting benefits? • How many active employees are there currently? • How many employees are within five years of being eligible for retirement? 9. For each plan, please identify and quantify all significant actuarial assumptions used in evaluation of ARC to include: a) Amortization period b) Investment rate of return c) Projected salary increases d) Overall payroll growth e) Inflation factor f) Smoothing duration g) Other, if applicable 10. What is the unfunded liability of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 11. Please indicate the major reasons for the unfunded liability. For each reason provided, indicate the approximate percentage of contribution to total unfunded liability. 12. What is the funded ratio of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 13. When was the last time the funds have been funded at the level of 100% or higher? 14. Have pension contributions ever been reduced from calculated ARC payments? • What year was the last time this happened? 15. Please summarize any significant changes to pension benefits over the last ten years for each plan. • For each, indicate if this was a pension benefit enhancement or reduction. 16. Please provide any evidence that indicates how projected pension costs are expected to change in the next 5 to 10 years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 131 31 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey - continued 17. Please provide any evidence of the strategies that are in work to reduce the rate of pension escalation. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 18. For each plan, please provide evidence as to how pension fund past performance is doing relative to assumed performance for the last ten years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) Section 2: OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 1. How many defined benefit plans do you have? Please identify them by name and answer all subsequent questions for each identified plan name. 2. Does CalPERS administer your OPEB fund? If not, please identify and describe the nature of the OPEB benefit plan being used. 3. Please provide a description of the OPEB benefits to include: • At what age is an employee eligible for a OPEB benefits? • How many years must an employee work to be vested for a OPEB benefits? • Are employees required to make contributions to their own OPEB benefits? If so, how much? • Are OPEB benefits limited to employees only or do they include additional family members? Identify any additional family members qualifying for OPEB benefits. 4. Is OPEB generally offering health care benefits (defined benefit) or is it making contributions (defined contribution) toward health care? • Are there caps in what is paid? • Who is at risk for escalating health costs; the employee or the employer? 5. How much money was contributed in each of the last two fiscal years to OPEB (not including any employee contribution)? • What percent of total payroll cost was this? 6. How much money was paid out in each of the last two fiscal years in OPEB benefits? • How many retired employees are currently collecting OPEB benefits? • How many current employees are there? (If the number of current employees is different here than provided above, please explain the difference.) 7. Please identify and quantify all significant actuarial assumptions used in evaluation of ARC to include: a) Amortization period b) Investment rate of return c) Projected health care increases d) Inflation factor e) Smoothing duration f) Other, if applicable 8. What is the OPEB unfunded liability of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 9. Please indicate the major reasons for the unfunded liability. For each reason provided, indicate the approximate percentage of contribution to total unfunded liability. 10. What is the funded ratio of each identified OPEB plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 11. When was the last time the funds have been funded at the level of 100% or higher? 12. Have OPEB contributions ever been reduced from calculated ARC payments? • What year was the last time this happened? 13. Please summarize any significant changes to OPEB benefits over the last ten years. For each, indicate if this was a benefit enhancement or reduction. 14. Please provide any evidence that indicates how much OPEB benefit costs are expected to rise in the next 5 to 10 years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 15. Please provide any evidence of plans that are in work to reduce future OPEB costs? (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 16. Please provide any evidence as to how OPEB fund past performance is doing relative to assumed performance? (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 132 32 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey - continued Section 3: VACATION AND SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL POLICIES 1. Please describe vacation policy to include: • How many vacation days are granted at what seniority levels? • Is there any limit to the amount of vacation time that can be accrued? • Is unused vacation paid upon retirement? 2. Please describe sick leave policy to include: • Is there any limit to the number of sick days allowed per year? • Is there any limit to the amount of sick days that can be accrued? • Are unused sick days paid upon retirement? 133 33 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms & Acronyms Actuarial Assumptions: Assumptions representing expectations about future events (e.g. expected investment returns on plan assets, member retirement and mortality rates, future salary increases, or inflation) which are used by actuaries to calculate pension liabilities and contribution rates. Actuarial Valuation: Technical reports conducted by actuaries that measure retirement plans’ assets and liabilities to determine funding progress. They also measure current costs and contribution requirements to determine how much employers and employees should contribute to maintain appropriate benefit funding progress. Actuary: Professionals who analyze the financial consequences of risk by using mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to study uncertain future events, particularly those of concern to insurance and pension programs. Pension actuaries analyze probabilities related to the demographics of the members in a pension plan (e.g., the likelihood of retirement, disability, and death) and economic factors that may affect the value of benefits or the value of assets held in a pension plan’s trust (e.g., investment return rate, inflation rate, rate of salary increases). Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL): The value of benefits promised to employees and retirees for services already provided. This concept applies to both the pension liability and retiree health care liabilities. Annual Required Contribution (ARC): The amount of money that actuaries calculate the employer needs to contribute to the retirement plan during the current year for benefits to be fully funded over time. Generally CalPERS uses a 30 year period. CAFR: Acronym for Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CalPERS: Acronym for California Public Employees’ Retirement System Defined Benefit: Promised fixed sum paid or service rendered. The assets in a defined benefit plan are held by the employer who incurs all investments risks. See also defined contribution. Defined Contribution: Contributions made by an employer to an individual employees investment account such as a 401k. All investment gains or losses are those of the employee, not the employer. See also defined benefit. Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC): A program whereby the city pays employee contribution in a manner in which the amount paid is considered income for the purposes of determining pension. As exemplified by one city, “For example, an employee with a $100K income and a 7% EPMC retires using a salary of $107K per year rather than $100K per year.” Experience Gains/Losses: Gains or losses that arise from the difference between actuarial assumptions about the future and actual outcomes in an organization’s pension plan. First tier (1st tier) plans: Benefits promised to all employees prior to the implementation of a second tier plan. First tier plans have generally been enhanced; contributing to the cost escalation. See also “second tier” in the Glossary. 134 34 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms & Acronyms - continued Funded Ratio: The market value of assets divided by the accrued liability. Funded ratio is a measure of the economic soundness of a fund. Market Gains/Losses: Gains or losses that arise from an increase or decrease in the market value of a plan’s assets, including stock, real property, and investments. Miscellaneous (MISC) employee/plan: Public employees who are not sworn police or fire. The term MISC generally is used to describe a pension plan. The city of San Jose refers to these employees as belonging to a Federated plan rather than a MISC plan. Normal Cost: That portion of the ARC (see above) which is based solely on the value of the benefits being offered. OPEB: Acronym for Other Post Employment Benefits. OPEB benefits are primarily health care benefits but can include other benefits such as life insurance. Opt In Plan: Term used to designate an employee elective benefit plan; employees choose between maintaining current benefits but at an increased employee contribution rate or elect to receive lower benefits and avoid increases to employee contribution rates. Risk Pool: In 2005 CalPERS created risk pools to aggregate small cities (generally defined as having less than 100 employees) into large pools to eliminate statistical anomalies associated with small sample sizes and gain reporting efficiencies. ROI: Acronym for Return on Investment. See also Market Gains/Losses. Public Safety Employees: Most police and fire personnel. Other public employees are generally referred to as miscellaneous employees (see above) and may include some members of police and fire departments. Second tier (2nd tier) plans: Benefits promised to all employees hired after the date of implementing a plan with reduced benefits. Second tier plans generally have reduced benefits and lower costs. See also “first tier” in the Glossary. Sidefund: Generally the unfunded liability that existed prior to entering a risk pool. A city is responsible for their entire sidefund plus their portion of the risk pool. Sidefund repayment can be accelerated. Some cities did not separate sidefund monies from ARC while others did. Smoothing of Gains/Losses: Actuarial method of spreading, or smoothing, market gains and losses over a period of time. The purpose of smoothing is to minimize short-term, year-to-year contribution rate fluctuations which may result from market swings. The smoothed asset value is also known as the actuarial value of assets. Unfunded Liability: This is the unfunded obligation for prior benefit costs, measured as the difference between the accrued liability and plan assets. When using the actuarial value of plan assets, it is also referred to as the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). 135 35 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 17th day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary 136 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:December 21, 2016 DEPARTMENT:Community Development PREPARED BY:Sandy L. Baily, Community Development Department SUBJECT:APPC16-0003 -Appeal of Design Review application for a new two-story residence at Paramount Ct –Lot 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. BACKGROUND: The subject parcel is one of twelve lots in a 9.3 acre subdivision approved by the Planning Commission in October 1996 for the former Kathryn Kennedy vineyard.The 1996 subdivision was split into two phases. A final map was approved for the first phase for five lots on Rodeo Creek Hollow which has been developed with single family houses. A final map was not filed for Phase 2 and the approval lapsed. On June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative map for a seven lot subdivision and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the remaining undeveloped 6.34 acres (Phase 2). A Final Map was approved by the City Council for these seven lots on June 15, 2016 and subdivision improvements are currently in process. On November 15, 2016,the Planning Commission (PC)approved an application submitted by Mark Garcia for Design and Arborist Review (PDR15-0028/ARB16-0052) approval to construct a new 26 foot tall, 6,032 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel located at the terminus of Paramount Court, Lot 7 within the Phase 2 subdivision. The Planning Commission approved the application on a 6-0 vote.The PC meeting materials are included with this report as Attachments 3 through 5, and summary action minutes are also included as Attachment 6. On November 23, 2016, Raghav Sharma submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission approval. The completed appeal form is included as Attachment 1. The Appellant’s stated reasons for submitting the appeal are itemized within that attachment and summarized below: Failure to comply/conform to design review guidelines. Unreasonable impact to privacy. Failure to address landscaping/fencing concerns. Planning Commission process issues. Developer misrepresented project to appellant. At the time of Planning Commission’s visit, the story poles were bent and did not represent the correct height of the structure.137 Planning Commission meeting was continued to such a late time that some members of the public had to leave before representing themselves. Towards the latter half of the meeting many other participants were very tired and anxious to get home. This was not an environment to reach an objective and fair decision. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 41,633 square foot net square foot property (Lot 7) is located and will be accessed at the beginning of the newly extended Paramount Court. The residential neighborhood on Paramount Court and Drive include single story and two story houses with various architectural styles, elements and materials that include ranch, contemporary and Mediterranean. There are approximately ten single story houses and five two story houses existing on Paramount Court. There are approximately 17 single story houses and 11 two story houses existing on Paramount Drive. The houses surrounding the subdivision are one and two story structures that are of also various architectural styles which include ranch, contemporary and modern. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,032 two-story contemporary designed house with a one car garage facing the street and a three car side loading garage. The height of the house will be 26 feet. A balcony is proposed at the front elevation. No trees exist on Lot 7. A Coast Live Oak is located on the adjacent property to the north near the property line of Lot 7. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that this tree will not be impacted by the construction. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The project was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2016. The PC added the following two Conditions of Approval to those recommended by Staff: Building Pad. The building pad height shall be lowered a minimum of 18 inches, 24 inches preferred. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide documentation regarding the viable pad reduction which shall be verified by the City Engineer. Building Setback. The house, with the building footprint as proposed, shall be shifted to abut the south side setback. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: All notice requirements for the appeal have been satisfied. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners and residents and the hearing was advertised in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Appeal Application w/ Comment Letters Received to Date Attachment 2 – Resolution to Deny the Appeal Attachment 3 – Applicant’s Reduced Plan Set Presented to the Planning Commission (Exhibit A) Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 5 – Planning Attachments and Meeting Materials Attachment 6 – Planning Commission Action Minutes, Dated November 15, 2016 138 139 140 141 RESOLUTION NO: XX-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL, AND APPROVING DESIGN AND ARBORIST REVIEW NO. PDR15-0028 AND ARB16-0052 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT THE TERMINUS OF PARAMOUNT COURT, LOT 7 (APN 503-82-006) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Mark Garcia to construct a new 26 foot tall, 6,032 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel located at the terminus of Paramount Court (Lot 7). Design Review approval is required because the proposed residence is a new two-story structure over eighteen feet in height and exceeds 6,000 square feet in floor area. The foregoing work is described in more detail in the application and referred to as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the City Council determine this project categorically exempt under CEQA Guideline §15303, as the Planning Commission did previously. WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties, and approved the Design and Arborist Review applicationsfor the Project (PDR15-0028 and ARB16-0052); and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2016, an appeal to the City Council was filed by Raghav Sharma (“appellant”); and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject appeal, and considered the proposed categorical exemption under CEQA Guideline §15303, and the evidence presented by City Staff, the appellant, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby denies the appeal of the appellant, affirms the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga made on November 15, 2016, approves the categorical exemption under CEQA, approves applicant’s Design Review application, and further finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by the Director of that Department. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. 142 Resolution No. XX-XXX Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook. Section 5: The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves PDR15-0028 and ARB16-0052 located at the terminus of Paramount Ct, Lot 7, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on this 21st day of December 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Emily Lo, Mayor Attest: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk 143 Resolution No. XX-XXX EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR15-0028 AND ARB16-0052 TERMINUS OF PARAMOUNT COURT, LOT 7 (APN 503-82-006) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 144 Resolution No. XX-XXX 5.Expiration of Approval. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date of this approval (November 15, 2019), or the resolution will expire. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6.Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans November 2, 2016 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition 3, above. 7.Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a.Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b.A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c.Incorporate this complete and signed Design Review Approval Resolution into the submitted building plan sets. The resolution is valid only when it includes all the required signatures; d.A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; e.A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan; f.A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and g.All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8.Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9.Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10.Setback Verification Letter –Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 11.Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that 145 Resolution No. XX-XXX provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. e. Sufficient documentation to show how the project complies with applicable Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements including the payment of deposit fees for the review submitted plans and water budget/usage calculations. 12.Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 13.Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 14.Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 15.Fencing. Prior to final occupancy, the developer shall work with the adjacent property owner at 13095 Paramount Court to determine whether or not the owner wants two feet of lattice added to the fence for a maximum fence height of eight feet. 16.Building Pad. The building pad height shall be lowered a minimum of 18 inches, 24 inches preferred. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide documentation regarding the viable pad reductionwhich shall be verified by the City Engineer. 17.Building Setback. The house, with the building footprint as proposed, shall be shifted to abut the south side setback. 146 Resolution No. XX-XXX FIRE 18.Requirements.Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Therefore, additional fire requirements may be required during the Building Permit plan check process. 19.Wildland-Urban Interface.This project is located within the designated Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements 20.Fire Sprinklers Required. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by SMC. 21.Water Supply Requirements.Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 22.Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required.Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval. Where a proposed development does not require any form of permit or approval to be granted under the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance, installation of an early warning fire alarm system in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-20 of the Saratoga Municipal Code shall be required as a condition for the granting of any building or other permit under Chapter 16 of the Saratoga Municipal Code in each of the following cases: All new and when expanded by fifty percent or more, existing residential occupancies, commercial structures and community facilities located within a designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. SMC Art.16-60. 147 Resolution No. XX-XXX 23.Construction Site Fire Safety. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 24.Address Identification.New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1 CITY ARBORIST 25.Arborist Report (ARB16-0052). All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated September 22, 2016 and all other future updated reports, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. PUBLIC WORKS 26.Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay all applicable fees prior to Zone Clearance. 27.Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 28.Subdivision Improvements.Show all subdivision improvements per approved Subdivision Improvement Plans on the building plan set. 29.Utilities.All new utility connections shall be installed underground. 30.Submittal documentation. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submittals shall be provided for materials used for permeable driveways and walkways to justify that the materials will be pervious when installed. Submittals include drainrock, bedding, jointing aggregate gradation, geotextile fabric documentation and permeable interlocking pavers documentation. 31.Storage of permeable materials. All materials delivered to the site for the permeable driveways and walkways shall be stored on a hard surface or on geotextile. 32.Protection of Permeable Areas.The developer/owner is responsible to protect the permeable driveway areas during and after the paver installation. No loose material shall be stored on the finished driveways without protection of driveways. The developer/owner shall protect driveways from stormwater runoff with sediment. A sign shall be posted near each permeable driveway to protect the surface during construction and the new homeowner shall be informed about the long- term driveway protection.148 Resolution No. XX-XXX 33.Subdivision Resolution.Incorporate complete and signed Resolution No. 14-017 approving the Subdivision Application SUB13-0003 into the building plan set. 149 Submittal Package Project Team New Single Family Residence and related landscaping. No trees to be removed. Project Description FLOOR AREA TABLE HEIGHT INFORMATION TABLE Height Foot Elevation Lowest Elevation Point*409.08 ft Highest Elevation Point*409.08 ft Average Elevation Point*409.08 ft Top Most Elevation Point 435.08 ft 1st Floor 3965 sf 2nd Floor 1070 sf Total Living 5035 sf Garage 1025 sf Enclosed Porches 0 sf Total Area (proposed)6032 sf Max Area^(allowed)6040 sf Scale: 3/16” = 1’-0” Not to Scale Setbacks Required**Proposed*** Front (East)*30 ft 30.01 ft Side (South) First Floor*20 ft 63.15 ft Side (South) Second Floor*25 ft 88.15 ft Side (North) First Floor*20 ft 32.82 ft Side (North) Second Floor 25 ft 55.23 ft Rear (West) First Floor*50 ft 109.86 ft Rear (West) Second Floor 60 ft 173.43 ft Paramount Ct. Lot 7 Saratoga, CA 95070 APN*: 503-82-006 Zoning: R-1-40,000 Gross Lot Size*: 1.0861 ac (47,311 sf) Net Lot Size*: 0.9955 ac (41,633 sf) Slope at Bld. Edge: 2% min. Average Slope*: 11% Slope Adjustment*:12% SETBACK TABLE * Information by Bowman & Williams Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors ^ Provided by the City of Saratoga LOT 1 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 1st Floor SF not counted Sacle: 1/32” = 1’-0” 2nd Floor 1070 3937 Pierce R d Sa r a t o g a S u n n y v a l e R d Pa r a m o u n t C t Paramou n t D r LOT 7 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TABLE Impervious Surfaces Total SF % Coverage Footprint of Home/Garage 6,703 Driveway / Drive Aisles 0 Walkways / Decks / Patio 177 Other 0 (a) SUBTOTAL IMPERVIOUS 6,880 sf 16.5% Site Coverage Total (a) +(b)7,707 sf 18.5% Pervious Surfaces Actual SF 50%Total SF Permeable Paver Driveway 1,654 827 827 Permeable Paver Walkways / Patio 0 0 0 Permeable Artificial Turf / Other 0 0 0 (b) SUBTOTAL PERVIOUS 827 sf 2.0% SITE COVERAGE ** Per Final Map (see civil) *** Proposed setbacks are consistent with city code 1025 55 169 169 116 361 Owner: Contact: Mark Garcia Business:(925) 217-4765 Civil Engineer: Contact: Joel Ricca Business: (831) 426-3560 Architect: Contact: Adam Gardner Business:(925) 463-1700 Landscape Architect: Contact: Annika Carpenter Business:(925) 938-7377 BOWMAN AND WILLIAMS 1011 Cedar Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS 5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 RIPLEY DESIGN GROUP 1615 Bonanza Suite 314 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 stairs ARCHITECTURE A1 Cover Page A1.1 Proposed Residences A1.2 Neighorhood Context Map A2 Floor Plans A3 Roof Plan & Cross Sections A4 Elevations A5 Front Elevation Rendering CIVIL C1 Site Plan - Lot 7 C2 Grading & Drainage Plan - Lot 7 C3 Tree Protection Plan - Lot 7 LANDSCAPE L1 Preliminary Street Tree & Fencing Site Plan L2 Preliminary Site Details L3 Preliminary Planting Plan - Lot 7 L4 Preliminary Irrigation Plan - Lot 7 L5 Preliminary Irrigation Details L6 Preliminary Irrigation Details L7 Preliminary Notes and Data MHG BUILDER & CONSULTING, INC. 7033 Village Parkway, Suite 205 Dublin, CA 94568 SARATOGA ESTATES- LOT 7 CITY OF SARATOGA, CA SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A1 150 SARATOGA ESTATES SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA MHG Builder & Consulting, Inc. Proposed Residences LOT 7 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 1 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 Paramount Drive Paramount Court SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A1.1 151 SARATOGA ESTATES SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA MHG Builder & Consulting, Inc. Neighborhood Context Map SCALE = 1:80 LOT 6 P a r a m o u n t D r i v e Paramount Court LOT 7 LOT 1 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 13156 Paramount Dr.*13158 Stewart Ct.*13169 Stewart Ct.* 20651 Rice Ct.*20673 Rice Ct.* 13194 Pierce Rd.* 13190 Pierce Rd.** 13180 Pierce Rd.** 13160 Pierce Rd.*13095 Paramount Ct.*13090 Paramount Ct.*13060 Paramount Ct.* 13075 Brandywine Dr.* 18175 Rodeo Creek Hollow* 18150 Rodeo Creek Hollow* Approximate window location Note:Neighbor footprints and distances are approximated. * Images taken from Google Maps/Street View ** WHA Photos ±9 3 ’ ±9 8 ’ ±55’ ±1 1 0 ’ ±1 7 0 ’ ± 1 5 0 ’ ±5 0 ’ ±6 8 ’ ±75’ SEE SHEET A3 FOR SECTION SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A1.2 152 DN 15 R TREADS AT 11" EA.17 BONUS ROOM 9'-0" CLG. BDRM. 5 9'-0" CLG. BDRM. 4 9'-0" CLG. BATH 5 9'-0" CLG.BATH 4 9'-0" CLG. DECK 9'-0" CLG. OPEN TO BELOW DN 3 R B A3 B A3 A A3 A A3 3050CSMT 22'-6" X 7'-6" 3050CSMT 30 8 0 T . G . FR . D R . 2046CSMT 2046CSMT 2046CSMT 30 5 0 CS M T 20 4 0 CS M T 30 5 0 CS M T 2030CSMT2030CSMT2030CSMT2030FX 20 3 0 FX 20 3 0 CS M T 20 3 0 CS M T 15'-3" X 10'-10" 13'-0" X 11'-0" 21-0" X 22'-0" 22'-6"16'-10" 16 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 0 " 16'-0"26'-0" 36 ' - 0 " 2'-6" 42'-0" 42'-0" 7' - 6 " 36 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 89'-5" 73 ' - 9 " 10 9 ' - 9 " 19'-11" 2'-6" 10 9 ' - 9 " 73 ' - 9 " 89'-5" 25'-0" 23'-0"2'-0" 2'-8" 4' - 6 " 3' - 0 " A A3 A A3 LOGGIA PANTRY 10'-0" CLG. OPEN TO ABOVE PORCH 10'-0" CLG. LIBRARY 10'-0" CLG. 1-CAR GARAGE 10'-0" CLG. 3-CAR GARAGE 10'-0" CLG. LIVING / DINING 14'-11" CLG.COURTYARD WINE 9'-0" CLG. BUTLER 10'-0" CLG. COATS GREAT ROOM 13'-6" CLG. W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. ENTRY 10'-0" CLG. KITCHEN 13'-6" CLG. NOOK 13'-6" CLG. OWNER BATH 10'-0" CLG. OWNER BDRM. 10'-0" CLG. TILE SHELF COURTYARD 2 VANITY BUILT-IN GATE LOGGIABIDET WC W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. BATH 3 10'-0" CLG. BDRM. 3 10'-0" CLG. BDRM. 2 10'-0" CLG. W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. B A3 B A3 LOGGIA BATH 2 10'-0" CLG. SERVICE 10'-0" CLG. PWDR. 10'-0" CLG. 30 5 6 CS M T 60 5 6 FX 30 5 6 CS M T 3056CSMT 6056FX 3056CSMT 30 5 0 CS M T 12080 T.G. FR. SLIDER OXXO 19'-0" X 19'-0" 22'-4" X 17'-11" 15'-8" X 13'-0" 2646CSMT 2656CSMT2656CSMT 16'-6" X 7'-0" 10080 T.G. FR. SLIDER OXXO 3080 T.G.FR. DR 30 5 6 CS M T 30 5 6 CS M T 30 5 6 CS M T 15'-10" X 22'-1" 12'-0" X 21'-6" 26'-6" X 23'-2" 3080 PR.T.G. FR.DR 22'-1" X 26'-3" 15'-8" X 11'-3" 30 8 0 P R . T. G . F R . DR 30 8 0 P R . T. G . F R . DR 28 8 0 SC 3050CSMT 3050CSMT 2880SC 30 8 0 9'-0" x 8'-0"SECT. GAR.DOOR 9' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " S E C T . GA R . D O O R 16 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " S E C T . G A R . DO O R 21'-3" X 32'-0" 22'-0" X 7'-6"2046CSMT2046CSMT 2046FX 3056CSMTARCHTOP 3056CSMTARCHTOP 13'-8" X 13'-0" 36 8 0 SC 2656CSMT2656CSMT2656CSMT 20 4 6 CS M T 20 4 6 CS M T 2046CSMT 2046CSMT 30 8 0 P R . T. G . F R . DR 8'-11" X 6'-2" 15'-0" X 12'-11" 12'-11" X 14'-9"26 5 6 CS M T 26 5 6 CS M T 7' - 0 " 32 ' - 0 " 10 9 ' - 9 " 89'-5" 10 9 ' - 9 " 2' - 0 " 44 ' - 9 " 19'-0" 3' - 0 " 23'-0"22'-6"22'-0"12'-6" 18 ' - 9 " 8' - 0 " 28 ' - 6 " 23 ' - 1 " 12 ' - 1 0 " 21 ' - 1 0 " 20'-6"16'-6" 7'-5" 15 ' - 8 " 21 ' - 8 " 6' - 2 " 7' - 6 " 10'-3" 2' - 0 " 19 ' - 0 " 89'-5" 23'-2" 19 ' - 0 " 2'-0" 7 A2 First Floor PlanSecond Floor Plan Square footage summary First floor: 3965 SF Second floor: 1070 SF Total living: 5035 SF Garage: 1025 SF Enclosed porch:0 SF Total:6060 SF Max allowable:6140 SF SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. Line of first floor (typ.) SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A2MHG Builder & Consulting, Inc. WO O D B U R N I N G GAS BURNING 6040 SF 6032 SF 19’-0”11’-9” DN 15 R 17 BONUS ROOM 9'-0" CLG. BDRM. 5 9'-0" CLG. BDRM. 4 9'-0" CLG. BATH 5 9'-0" CLG. BATH 4 9'-0" CLG. DECK 9'-0" CLG. OPEN TO BELOW DN 3 R B A3 B A3 3050CSMT 22'-6" X 7'-6" 3050CSMT 30 8 0 T . G . FR . D R . 2046CSMT 2046CSMT 2046CSMT 30 5 0 CS M T 20 4 0 CS M T 30 5 0 CS M T 2030CSMT2030CSMT2030CSMT2030FX 20 3 0 FX 20 3 0 CS M T 20 3 0 CS M T 15'-3" X 10'-10" 13'-0" X 11'-0" 21-0" X 22'-0" 22'-6"16'-10" 16 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 0 " 16'-0"26'-0" 36 ' - 0 " 2'-6" 42'-0" 42'-0" 7' - 6 " 36 ' - 0 " 28 ' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 89'-5" 73 ' - 9 " 10 9 ' - 9 " 19'-11" 2'-6" 10 9 ' - 9 " 73 ' - 9 " 89'-5" 25'-0" 23'-0"2'-0" 2'-8" 4' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 11M 11Q 11K 11K 11Q 11M 11S 8A 9D 9C 9B 11S A A3 A A3 LOGGIA PANTRY 10'-0" CLG. BIDET OPEN TO ABOVE PORCH 10'-0" CLG. LIBRARY 10'-0" CLG. 1-CAR GARAGE 10'-0" CLG. 3-CAR GARAGE 10'-0" CLG. LIVING / DINING 14'-11" CLG.COURTYARD WINE 9'-0" CLG. BUTLER 10'-0" CLG. COATS GREAT ROOM 13'-6" CLG. W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. ENTRY 10'-0" CLG. KITCHEN 13'-6" CLG. NOOK 13'-6" CLG. OWNER BATH 10'-0" CLG. OWNER BDRM. 10'-0" CLG. TILE SHELF COURTYARD 2 VANITY BUILT-IN GATE 6056FX 3056CSMT 30 5 0 CS M T 19'-0" X 19'-0" 30 8 0 P R . T. G . F R . DR 16'-6" X 7'-0" LOGGIA WC 3080 PR.T.G. FR.DR 28 8 0 SC 2046CSMT 3050CSMT 2880SC W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. BATH 3 10'-0" CLG. BDRM. 3 10'-0" CLG. BDRM. 2 10'-0" CLG.W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. W.I.C. 10'-0" CLG. B A3 B A3 LOGGIA BATH 2 10'-0" CLG. SERVICE 10'-0" CLG. PWDR. 10'-0" CLG. 30 5 6 CS M T 60 5 6 FX 30 5 6 CS M T 3056CSMT 12080 T.G. FR. SLIDER OXXO 22'-4" X 17'-11" 15'-8" X 13'-0" 2646CSMT 2656CSMT2656CSMT 10080 T.G. FR. SLIDER OXXO 3080 T.G.FR. DR 30 5 6 CS M T 30 5 6 CS M T 30 5 6 CS M T 15'-10" X 22'-1" 12'-0" X 21'-6" 26'-6" X 23'-2"22'-1" X 26'-3" 15'-8" X 11'-3" 30 8 0 P R . T. G . F R . DR 3050CSMT 30 8 0 9'-0" x 8'-0"SECT. GAR.DOOR 9' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " S E C T . GA R . D O O R 16 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " S E C T . G A R . DO O R 21'-3" X 32'-0" 22'-0" X 7'-6"2046CSMT 2046FX 3056CSMTARCHTOP 3056CSMTARCHTOP 13'-8" X 13'-0" 36 8 0 SC 2656CSMT2656CSMT2656CSMT 20 4 6 CS M T 20 4 6 CS M T 2046CSMT 2046CSMT 30 8 0 P R . T. G . F R . DR 8'-11" X 6'-2" 15'-0" X 12'-11" 12'-11" X 14'-9"26 5 6 CS M T 26 5 6 CS M T 7 A2 First Floor PlanSecond Floor Plan Square footage summary First floor: 3965 SF Second floor: 1070 SF Total living: 5035 SF Garage: 1025 SF Enclosed porch:0 SF Total:6060 SF Max allowable:6140 SF SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 153 LIVING ROOM/DINING 14'-11" CLG. COURTYARD 1-CAR GARAGE10 ' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. 10 ' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. AVERAGE GRADE / PAD HEIGHT = 409.08 ft. 2' - 0 " 6' - 0 " ±35'-0"±63'-0" ±98'-0" NEIGHBOR YARD (13095 PARAMOUNT CT.) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HOUSE PROPOSED FENCE WITH 2' LATTICE BONUS ROOMDECK PORCH SERVICELIBRARY COATS KITCHEN LOGGIALIVING ROOM/DINING 14'-11" CLG. NOOK T.O.P.F.F. F.F./ T.O.C. T.O.P. 9' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. 13 ' - 6 " TOP ELEVATION POINT= 435.08 ft. AVERAGE GRADE / PAD HEIGHT = 409.08 ft. 26 ' - 0 " HIP 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3. 5 : 1 2 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3.5:12 3. 5 : 1 2 RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE HIP HIP HI P HIP HIP H I P H I P HIP HIP HIP H I P H I P HIP HI P HIP HI P HIP H I P H I P RI D G E RI D G E RI D G E RI D G E V A L L E Y V A L L E Y VA L L E Y VA L L E Y H I P V A L L E Y HI P H I P RIDGEVA L L E Y RIDGE H I P HIP 3. 5 : 1 2 B A3 B A3 A A3 A A3 A37SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. Roof Plan Section B Section A SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A3MHG Builder & Consulting, Inc. 154 26'-0" 18'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " T.O.P.F.F. F.F./ T.O.C. 9' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F. T.O.P. 26 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. TOP ELEVATION POINT= 435.08 ft. AVERAGE GRADE / PAD HEIGHT = 409.08 ft. 26'-0" 18'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " T.O.P.F.F. F.F./ T.O.C. 13 ' - 6 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. T.O.P. TOP ELEVATION POINT= 435.08 ft. AVERAGE GRADE / PAD HEIGHT = 409.08 ft. 26 ' - 0 " 26'-0" 18'-0" T.O.P.F.F. F.F./ T.O.C. T.O.P. 9' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. 13 ' - 6 " TOP ELEVATION POINT= 435.08 ft. AVERAGE GRADE / PAD HEIGHT = 409.08 ft. 26 ' - 0 " 26'-0" 18'-0" T.O.P.F.F. F.F./ T.O.C. T.O.P. 9' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " T.O.P. F.F./ T.O.C. 13 ' - 6 " TOP ELEVATION POINT= 435.08 ft. AVERAGE GRADE / PAD HEIGHT = 409.08 ft. 26 ' - 0 " A4 7SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. Rear (West) ElevationNorth Elevation South Elevation Front (East) Elevation MHG BUILDER & CONSULTING, INC. SARATOGA ESTATES Saratoga, California Project #2015180 www.wharchitects.com 2850 Redhill Avenue Suite 200 Santa Ana CA 92705-5543 Tel 949 250 0607 Fax 949 250 1529 5000 Executive Parkway Suite 375 San Ramon CA 94583-4210 Tel 925 463 1700 Fax 949 250 1529 EXTERIOR COLOR & MATERIALS MATERIAL COLOR MANUFACTURER ROOFING: Concrete ‘S’ Tile 3813 SAN MATEO BLEND (CRRC Cool Roof Rated Product)EAGLE METAL BIRD STOP @ ‘S’ TILE (Factory Finish)TERRA COTTA EAGLE WINDOWS (Factory Finish)SANDTONE ANDERSEN or comparable MANUFACTURED STONE (Factory Finish)VERONA HILLSTONE ELDORADO BRICK TRIM EMBARCADERO SANDMOLD SERIES McNEAR BRICK MORTAR @ STONE & BRICK CARAMEL ORCO STUCCO COLOR KM 4787-1 PLUME GRASS KELLY MOORE TRIM COLOR (applied to): Barge Boards Braces Corbels Eaves Fascia Garage Door Rafter Tails Secondary Doors Trim KM 4588-5 NEVER CRY WOLF KELLY MOORE ACCENT COLOR (applied to): Shutters KMA 76-5 LOG CABIN KELLY MOORE FRONT DOOR (Factory Finish)OAK GRAIN - SABLE Aurora Series JELDWEN/IWP DECORATIVE METAL KM 4925-5 WILD TRUFFLE KELLY MOORE NOTE: Notify WHA if any variation occurs between these schemes and the construction documents prior to purchase. Contact Karen Moyer.William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. © 2015 SCHEME 6 of 7 Lot 6 Only August 17, 2015 SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A4MHG Builder & Consulting, Inc. 155 Front (East) Elevation SARATOGA ESTATES - LOT SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA Paramont Ventures, LLC 2015180 February 24, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t o g a E s t a t e s - S a r a t o g a , C A 0 8 16 24 C 2015 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 September 23, 2016 20 1 5 1 8 0 - S a r a t g o a E s t a t e s L o t 7 - S a r a t o g a , C A A5MHG Builder & Consulting, Inc.40 8 12 156 “” J: \ B & W \ 2 5 8 0 0 \ 2 5 8 5 9 M C D P a r a m o u n t C o u r t \ d w g \ F i n a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s \ L O T 7 . d w g , 9 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 6 2 : 4 7 : 0 1 P M , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 157 J: \ B & W \ 2 5 8 0 0 \ 2 5 8 5 9 M C D P a r a m o u n t C o u r t \ d w g \ F i n a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s \ L O T 7 . d w g , 9 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 6 2 : 4 7 : 2 1 P M , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 158 J: \ B & W \ 2 5 8 0 0 \ 2 5 8 5 9 M C D P a r a m o u n t C o u r t \ d w g \ F i n a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s \ L O T 7 . d w g , 9 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 6 2 : 4 7 : 4 1 P M , D W G T o P D F . p c 3 159 # 5 4 P r e l i m i n a r y S t r e e t T r e e & F e n c i n g P l a n S i t e P l a n S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 L O T 7 L O T 7 3 0 " C O R R A L F E N C E 6 ' - 0 " W O O D F E N C E EXISTIN G F E N C E 6 ' - 0 " T U B U L A R S T E E L F E N C E P A R A M O U N T C O U R T 6 ' - 0 " W O O D F E N C E #XX 160 P r e l i m i n a r y S i t e D e t a i l s S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 D B A C E 161 # 5 4 P r e l i m i n a r y P l a n t i n g P l a n L o t 7 S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 L O T 7 L O T 7 P E R M E A B L E P A V E R S I N D R I V E W A Y 3 0 " C O R R A L F E N C E 6 ' - 0 " W O O D F E N C E EXISTIN G F E N C E 6 ' - 0 " T U B U L A R S T E E L F E N C E P A R A M O U N T C O U R T 162 # 5 4 P r e l i m i n a r y I r r i g a t i o n P l a n L o t 7 S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 L O T 7 P A R A M O U N T C O U R T 163 P r e l i m i n a r y I r r i g a t i o n D e t a i l s S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 A D B H F G E C 164 P r e l i m i n a r y I r r i g a t i o n D e t a i l s S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 I K J L NM 165 P r e l i m i n a r y L a n d s c a p e N o t e s & D a t a S E P T E M B E R 2 3 , 2 0 1 6 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURELAND PLANNING1615 BONANZA STREETSUITE 314WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596TEL: 925.938.7377FAX: 925.9387436 166 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 7 Meeting Date: November 9, 2016 Application: PDR15-0028 and ARB16-0052 Location / APN: Terminus of Paramount Court – Lot 7 / 503-82-006 Owner/Applicant: Paramount Venture LLC/Mark Garcia Staff Planner: Sandy L. Baily, Special Projects Manager Paramount Ct - Lot 7 167 Page 2 of 7 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new 6,032 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel. The house will be 26 feet in height. No trees are proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-031 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Planning Commission Design Review approval is required because the proposed house is two stories, would exceed 18 feet in height and result in an addition that is more than 6,000 square feet. (Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(a) (1) (3) and (6). PROJECT DATA: Site Area: 41,663 sf net Average Slope: 11% Grading: 368 cubic yards of fill General Plan Designation: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) Zoning: R-1-40,000 (Single-Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Main House & Garage Walkways/ Decks/ Patios Other Pervious Driveway Total Site Coverage Front Yard Impervious 6,703 sf 177 sf 0 827 sf (50% of 1,654 sf) 7,707 sf (18.5%) 527 sf (12%) 16,558.85 sf (35%) 2,198.5 sf (50% of 4,397 sf ) Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Garage Total Floor Area 3,965 sf 1,070 sf 1,025 sf 6,032 sf 6,040 sf 168 Page 3 of 7 Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 409.08’ 409.08’ 409.08’ 435.08’ (26') 26 feet maximum Setbacks (Vacant Site) Front: South Side: North Side: Rear: Front: South Side: North Side: Rear: 1st Story 30’1” 63’1" 32’9” 109’10" 2nd Story 30’1” 88’1” 55’2” 173’5” 1st Story 30’ 20’ 20’ 50' 2nd Story 30’ 25’ 25’ 60’ BACKGROUND The subject parcel is one of twelve lots in a large 9.3 acre subdivision approved by the Planning Commission in October 1996 for the former Kathryn Kennedy vineyard. That subdivision included a total of 12 parcels. Five of the parcels were located on Rodeo Creek Hollow which is accessed from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and seven additional proposed parcels that would be accessed from Paramount Court/Drive. The project was split into two phases after the vesting tentative map was approved. The City Council approved a Final Map for the first five lots totaling 3.08 acres on Rodeo Creek Hollow (Phase 1) and this was developed with single-family homes. However, a final map was not filed for the remaining undeveloped 6.34 acres (Phase 2) and the tentative map approval from the Planning Commission lapsed. On June 11, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative map for a seven lot subdivision and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the remaining undeveloped 6.34 acres. A Final Map in substantial conformance to the Planning Commission tentative map was approved by the City Council for these seven lots on June 15, 2016. The Final Map approvals also included public improvement plans which depict City approved streets, curbs, gutters, storm drain and sanitary sewer lines, bioretention basins and rough grading for installation for these improvements. The Planning Commission has no authority to require changes to the Final Map or approved public improvements. The remaining undeveloped property (Phase 2) is divided by two different General Plan land use designations and two zoning designations. The western portion of the property is 4.9 acres (Lots 1, 5, 6 and 7) and has a General Plan designation of Residential Very Low Density (RVLD) with a zoning designation of R-1-40,000. The eastern portion of the property is 1.44 acres (Lots 2, 3 and 4) and has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (M-12.5) with a zoning designation of R-1-12,500. 169 Page 4 of 7 Lots 5 and 6 have vehicular access from Paramount Drive (with a connection to Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road) and Lots 1 through 4 and 7 have vehicular access from Paramount Court (with a connection to Pierce Road). A 20 foot wide pedestrian/bike pathway connects Paramount Drive to Paramount Court. Rodeo Creek and dense trees are located along the eastern side of the site which buffer the site from the single family homes located on Rodeo Creek Hollow. A 60-foot wide open space/riparian habitat easement on both sides of the creek was required when the subdivision was approved in 1996. This easement affects Lots 2, 3 and 4. No improvements, with the exception of open wire fencing, is allowed to be constructed within this easement. Subdivision improvements are currently in process. This application is a request for a design review approval for Lot 7 which is one of the seven newly created lots. The scope of the Planning Commission authority for each design review application includes: Reviewing final grading plans (e.g. cut/fill volumes, slopes, and spot/benchmark elevations, pad heights) of each lot Reviewing final drainage plans of each lot Reviewing the neighborhood compatibility and architectural design of proposed structures on each lot within the context of the City’s Residential Design Handbook (e.g. neighborhood context, bulk, scale, massing, privacy impacts, exterior materials, building forms, architectural elements, window fenestration, etc.) and the Zoning Code standards (floor area limit, 1st and 2nd story setbacks, building height, etc.) Reviewing proposed height and number of stories of structures on each lot Reviewing location of proposed structures on each lot Reviewing proposed impervious lot coverage of each lot Reviewing proposed retaining walls on each lot that were not part of the subdivision improvements Reviewing location of driveway Reviewing proposed tree removals on each lot Reviewing proposed landscaping/screening plans of each lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW Site and Neighborhood Description: The 41,633 square foot net square foot property (Lot 7) is located and will be accessed at the beginning of the newly extended Paramount Court. The residential neighborhood on Paramount Court and Drive include single story and two story houses with various architectural styles, elements and materials that include ranch, contemporary and Mediterranean. There are approximately ten single story houses and five two story houses existing on Paramount Court. There are approximately 17 single story houses and 11 two story houses existing on Paramount Drive. The houses surrounding the subdivision are one and two story structures that are of also various architectural styles which include ranch, contemporary and modern. Architectural Design: The applicant is proposing a two-story contemporary designed house with a one car garage facing the street and a three car side loading garage (which has been designed 170 Page 5 of 7 with a two car garage door and a one car garage door). The height of the house will be 26 feet in height. The houses proposed within the subdivision are all of a contemporary style with varied architectural elements. The exterior materials include stucco exterior, mortar stone trim, decorative metal railing, and a concrete “s” tile roof. A balcony is proposed at the front elevation. A gas fireplace is proposed. Trees: No trees exist on Lot 7. A Coast Live Oak is located on the adjacent property to the north near the property line of Lot 7. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that this tree will not be impacted by the construction. The applicant is required to place a tree bond of $5,500 and to install tree protection fencing prior to the issuance of building permits. Landscaping: New landscaping includes eight 24 inch box trees which will consist of a Marina Strawberry Tree, Saratoga Laurel, Chinese Pistache, California Sycamore, and Valley Oak. Additional shrubs and varied ground cover are also proposed. A condition of approval requires that the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance when the application is submitted to the Building Department. CalGreen Standards/Sustainable Features: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a new home. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant sent by certified mail Neighbor Notification Forms to the adjacent property owners. The City has received three neighbor notification forms and numerous other correspondence from concerned neighbors (Attachment 3). The neighbors have expressed concerning regarding the height and size of the proposed structure, privacy and loss of views and sunlight. The applicant has offered to install a two foot lattice on a six foot fence along the side property line for added privacy which is shown on the plans. It is questionable if the neighbor would want the lattice as they are opposed to tree screening along the side property line due to their concern regarding the loss of sunlight. A condition has been included that the applicant shall work with the side neighbor to determine if the additional lattice would be acceptable. The applicant describes how they worked with the side neighbor to reduce their privacy concerns (Attachment 4). To help mitigate neighborhood concerns regarding height, it may be possible to lower the building pad which the applicant can further address. A Public Notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Beige (Stucco) Trim Brown/Off White (Stucco and Mortar Stone) Railing Brownish Black Roof Blend of various shades of brown (concrete tile) 171 Page 6 of 7 FINDINGS Design Review Findings: The Planning Commission may grant Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-45, if the Planning Commission makes all of the following findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. Although the site’s topography has been changed by the installation of the public improvements, such as required streets and utilities, the project meets this finding because the residence proposed is located on a relatively flat portion of the new lot. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding in that no trees exist on Lot 7 and that the applicant has designed the project to not impact the tree located north of Lot 7. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that the existing tree on the adjacent property will not be impacted by the construction. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the structure is located on the flat portion of the new lot which is at an elevation below the properties to the rear. Trees are located along the north property line on the adjacent property which helps buffer the side of the site. The rear setback on the second floor has been increased beyond the minimum required. The project does not impact any identified community viewsheds. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. The project meets this finding because the proposed house features a first and second story that is stepped back to help reduce the visual perception of mass and incorporates architectural features. The house has a horizontal design with simple roof forms which is sympathetic to the neighborhood. The architectural elements and details have been broken into varied forms which are proportional with the proposed house and other houses in the neighborhood. The residential neighborhood includes both single story and two story houses. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this finding because impermeable hardscape surfaces constitute less than 50% of the front setback area. A permeable driveway is proposed in the front setback area. 172 Page 7 of 7 (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the proposed location and house design would not impact solar access for adjacent properties. The distance between adjacent structures is sufficient to allow solar access. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because the building design and site plan incorporate several techniques from the Residential Design Handbook, including increasing side yard setbacks of a two story structure; designing appurtenances in proportion to the overall building form and neighborhood; increasing setback of garage to the street to deemphasize the garage presence; minimizing the size of second story windows; and selecting materials, colors, and details that enhance the architecture in a well- composed, understated manner. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. Although the average slope of the lot is 11%, the lot is not located in a hillside zone and the property is not on a ridgeline. The structure would not impact a significant hillside feature or community viewsheds. Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 2. Arborist Report dated September 22, 2016 3. Neighbor correspondence 4. Letter from Marty Miller, received September 26, 2016 5. Story pole Certification Letter, received October 3, 2016 6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A") 173 RESOLUTION NO. 16-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR15-0028 AND ARB16-0052 APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE ON A VACANT LOT AT THE TERMINUS OF PARAMOUNT COURT – LOT 7 (503-82-006) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Mark Garcia to construct a new 26 foot tall, 6,032 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel located at the terminus of Paramount Court (Lot 7). Design Review approval is required because the proposed residence is a new two-story structure over eighteen feet in height and exceeds 6,000 square feet in floor area. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on November 9, 2016 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its Attachment 1 174 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 2 architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-0028 and ARB16-0052, located at the terminus of Paramount Court – Lot 7 (503-82-006), subject to the above Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 9th day of November 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Dede Smullen Chair, Planning Commission 175 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR15-0028 AND ARB16-0052 TERMINUS OF PARAMOUNT COURT – LOT 7 (503-82-006) 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading permit for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 176 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 4 5. Expiration of Approval. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date of this approval (November 9, 2019), or the resolution will expire. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans November 2, 2016 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition 3, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance- protected tree on the site; c. Incorporate this complete and signed Design Review Approval Resolution into the submitted building plan sets. The resolution is valid only when it includes all the required signatures; d. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; e. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan; f. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Setback Verification Letter – Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 11. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: 177 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 5 a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees. e. Sufficient documentation to show how the project complies with applicable Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements including the payment of deposit fees for the review submitted plans and water budget/usage calculations. 12. Noise and Construction Hours. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 14. Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant sh all prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 15. Fencing. Prior to final occupancy, the developer shall work with the adjacent property owner at 13095 Paramount Court to determine whether or not the owner wants two feet of lattice added to the fence for a maximum fence height of eight feet. 178 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 6 FIRE 16. Requirements. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Therefore, additional fire requirements may be required during the Building Permit plan check process. 17. Wildland-Urban Interface. This project is located within the designated Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements 18. Fire Sprinklers Required. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by SMC. 19. Water Supply Requirements. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 20. Early Warning Fire Alarm System Required. Provide an approved Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga Standards. Prior to installation, a licensed C-10 contractor shall submit to the fire department, plans, specifications & listings, a completed permit application, and applicable fee's for review and approval. Where a proposed development does not require any form of permit or approval to be granted under the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance, installation of an early warning fire alarm system in accordance with the provisions of Article 16-20 of the Saratoga Municipal Code shall be required as a condition for the granting of any building or other permit under Chapter 16 of the Saratoga Municipal Code in each of the following cases: All new and when expanded by fifty percent or more, existing residential occupancies, commercial 179 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 7 structures and community facilities located within a designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. SMC Art.16-60. 21. Construction Site Fire Safety. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 22. Address Identification. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1 CITY ARBORIST 23. Arborist Report (ARB16-0052). All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated September 22, 2016 and all other future updated reports, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. PUBLIC WORKS 24. Fees. The owner (applicant) shall pay all applicable fees prior to Zone Clearance. 25. Encroachment Permit. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 26. Subdivision Improvements. Show all subdivision improvements per approved Subdivision Improvement Plans on the building plan set. 27. Utilities. All new utility connections shall be installed underground. 28. Submittal documentation. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submittals shall be provided for materials used for permeable driveways and walkways to justify that the materials will be pervious when installed. Submittals include drainrock, bedding, jointing aggregate gradation, geotextile fabric documentation and permeable interlocking pavers documentation. 29. Storage of permeable materials. All materials delivered to the site for the permeable driveways and walkways shall be stored on a hard surface or on geotextile. 180 Resolution No. 16-031 Page 8 30. Protection of Permeable Areas. The developer/owner is responsible to protect the permeable driveway areas during and after the paver installation. No loose material shall be stored on the finished driveways without protection of driveways. The developer/owner shall protect driveways from stormwater runoff with sediment. A sign shall be posted near each permeable driveway to protect the surface during construction and the new homeowner shall be informed about the long-term driveway protection. 31. Subdivision Resolution. Incorporate complete and signed Resolution No. 14-017 approving the Subdivision Application SUB13-0003 into the building plan set. 181 182 183 184 185 Attachment 4 186 Attachment 3 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 Attachment 5 200 S A R A T O G A E S T A T E S STORY POLES SARATOGA, CA MH G B u i l d e r & C o n s u l t i n g , I n c . *A d d i t i o n a l p o l e a n d n e t t i n g r e q u e s t e d by t h e C i t y o f S a r a t o g a i n GR E E N October 06, 2016 Project #2015180LOT 7 SC A L E : 1 / 4 ” = 1 ’ - 0 ” H I P 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 3 . 5 : 1 2 R I D G E R I D G E R I D G E R I D G E E H I P H I P H I P H I P H I P H I P HIP HIP HIP H I P H I P H I P HIP HIP H I P H I P H I P H I P H I P HIP HIP R I D G E R I D G E R I D G E R I D G E VALLEY VALLEY V A L L E Y V A L L E Y HIP VALLEY H I P HIP R I D G E V A L L E Y R I D G E R HIP H I P 3 . 5 : 1 2 B A 3 B A3 A A 3 A A 3 SC A L E : 3 / 1 6 ” = 1 ’ - 0 ” P1 - 4 3 5 . 0 8 ’ P3 - 4 3 2 . 6 2 ’ P4 - 4 3 2 . 6 2 ’ P5 - 4 3 0 . 8 3 ’ P3 1 - 4 2 0 . 5 0 ’ P3 2 - 4 2 2 . 4 1 ’ P 3 3 - 4 2 2 . 4 1 ’ P3 4 - 4 2 0 . 5 0 ’ P3 5 - 4 2 0 . 5 0 ’ P3 6 - 4 2 0 . 5 0 ’ P8- 430.83’P10- 430.83’P13- 430.83’ P1 5 - 4 2 4 . 8 3 ’ P1 6 - 4 2 0 . 5 8 ’ P1 7 - 4 2 0 . 5 8 ’ P1 8 - 4 2 6 . 7 5 ’ P1 9 - 4 2 6 . 7 5 ’ P2 1 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 7 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 8 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P12- 434.04’ P2 - 4 3 5 . 0 8 ’ P2 9 - 4 2 4 . 9 1 ’ P3 0 - 4 2 4 . 9 1 ’ P1 4 - 4 3 0 . 8 3 ’ P1 1 - 4 3 4 . 0 4 ’ P2 0 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 2 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 3 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 4 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 5 - 4 2 4 . 0 0 ’ P2 6 - 4 2 7 . 2 9 ’ P9- 430.83’ P6 - 4 3 0 . 8 3 ’ P7 - 4 3 0 . 8 3 ’ P3 8 - 4 3 0 . 8 3 ’ P3 7 - 4 3 0 . 8 3 ’ P3 9 - 4 2 2 . 3 3 ’ 201 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Sung H. Kwon, Senior Planner Sandy L. Baily, Special Projects Manager Date: November 9, 2016 Subject: Public Hearing – Item 2.1, Paramount Ct (Lot 1) Item 2.2, Paramount Ct (Lot 2) Item 2.3, Paramount Ct (Lot 3) Item 2.4, Paramount Ct (Lot 4) Item 2.5, Paramount Dr (Lot 5) Item 2.6, Paramount Dr (Lot 6) Item 2.7, Paramount Ct (Lot 7) Attached are the following items: Site Plan identifying subdivision easements Master Grading Plan approved for subdivision Neighborhood compatibility map and table 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING ACTION MINUTES NOVEMBER 15, 2016 7:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Saratoga Senior Center, Saunders Room | 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Dede Smullen, Vice Chair Tina Walia, Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Wendy Chang, Joyce Hlava ABSENT: Len Almalech, excused ALSO PRESENT: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Sung Kwon, Senior Planner Sandy Baily, Special Projects Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 9, 2016. WALIA/AHUJA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2016. MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, CHANG, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 1. NEW BUSINESS None 2. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from 11/9/2016 236 Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1 Application: PDR15-0022 and ARB16-0049 Location / APN: Terminus of Paramount Court – Lot 4 / 503-82-006 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-030 approving the project subject to recommended conditions of approval. HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 24, 2017 PC STUDY SESSION TO ADDRESS COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS WITH ALTERNATE DESIGNS: -number of stories -court yard/ no court yard -staggered bldg. layout abutting rear setback line -perceived bldg bulk & mass -no of garage spaces MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, CHANG, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.2 Application: PDR15-0026 & ARB 16-0050 Location / APN: Paramount Drive (Lot 5) / 503-82-006 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-035 approving the project subject to recommended conditions of approval. HLAVA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -Applicant to work with staff and adjacent rear neighbor to provide additional rear yard landscaping along the property line to mitigate visual impact of graded slope, provide more organic/natural looking topography and provide an additional low wall in planned landscaping to address concerns regarding site drainage to rear neighbor. MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, CHANG, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.3 Application: PDR15-0027 & ARB 16-0051 Location / APN: Paramount Drive Lot 6 / 503-82-006 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-036 approving the project subject to recommended conditions of approval. HLAVA/WALIA MOVED TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 24, 2017 PC STUDY SESSION TO ADDRESS COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS WITH ALTERNATE DESIGNS: 237 Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 -number of stories -height not to exceed 23 feet and average of 18 ft MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, CHANG, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.4 Application: PDR15-0028 and ARB16-0052 Location / APN: Terminus of Paramount Court – Lot 7 / 503-82-006 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-031 approving the project subject to recommended conditions of approval. HLAVA/AHUJA MOVED TO APPROVE WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: -lower pad height by a minimum of 18 inches, preferred 24 inches and City Engineer to verify applicant’s documentation on pad elevation reduction -shift foot print south to abut setback line MOTION PASSED. AYES: SMULLEN, WALIA, HLAVA, CHANG, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: ALMALECH. ABSTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR ITEMS None COMMISSION ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 12:01 am. Minutes respectfully submitted: Janet Costa, Office Specialist III City of Saratoga 238 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT:Notice of Continuation of Appeal Hearings for Paramount Court Lots 1,2, 3,and 5 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Informational only. No action needed. BACKGROUND: On November 23, 2016, the City of Saratoga received applications from Catherine Morocco appealing the decision of the Planning Commission made on November 9, 2016 on applications for Paramount Court Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5. The hearing for the appeals was tentatively scheduled December 21, 2016. As permitted by the appeal hearing procedures outlined in City Code 2-05.030, the appellant requested that the hearing date be extended to the next regular City Council Meeting. Consequently, the hearing date was set for January 18, 2017 and notices were published in the Saratoga News and mailed to property owners within the vicinity of the appealed projects. On January 4, 2017, the appellant requested a continuation of the hearing to February 1, 2017. In accordance with City Code 2-05.030(e), the hearing has been continued to February 1, 2017. Given that the hearing has already been noticed, this staff report services as a notice of continuation for any interested parties. 239 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT:Hazardous Vegetation Program Resolution Declaring Abatement of Public Nuisance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct public hearing and adopt resolution. BACKGROUND: At the December 21, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution declaring hazardous vegetation to be a public nuisance. Adoption of this resolution served as the first step in launching the annual weed abatement process conducted by the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture’s Weed Abatement Program. The purpose of the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture Weed Abatement Program is to prevent fire hazards posed by vegetative growth and the accumulation of combustible materials. The County Department of Agriculture provides weed abatement services to a number of cities in the County, including Saratoga. Through the program, the City is able to reduce fuel loads for fires by maintaining defensible space. Parcels in Saratoga that represent a potential hazard due to weeds or other combustible debris have been identified and listed in the attached 2017 Commencement Report, prepared and maintained by the County of Santa Clara. Following the December 21, 2016 meeting, notices were sent to owners or properties on the Commencement Report indicating that hazardous vegetation or debris has been identified on their property and hazardous materials must be abated. The notice also informed property owners of the public hearing on January 18, 2017. During the public hearing, property owners may voice objections to the listing of their property on the Commencement Report. To continue the weed abatement process, the Council should adopt the attached resolution. If approved, the County will be authorized to perform an inspection of properties on the Commencement Report to determine if properties meet Weed Abatement Program requirements. Property owners will have until April 15, 2017 to abate their property. 240 If the attached resolution is approved, a public hearing will also be set for March 15, 2017. While the City Council is only required to hold one public hearing for owners to raise objections to properties on the Commencement Report, the City Council has traditionally held two public hearings for this purpose. As with the January 18, 2017 public hearing, property owners listed in Attachment A may request that their property be removed from the Commencement Report at the March public hearing. Otherwise, once a property is added to the Weed Abatement Program, it must remain in compliance for a period of 3 consecutive years to be automatically removed from the program. Property owners that do not comply with minimum fire safety standards by April 15, 2017 may be subject to several different fees and the property will be scheduled for abatement by the County contractor. If abatement work is completed by a County contractor, the property owner will be assessed the contractor’s fees to perform the work plus a County fees. County fees associated with the Weed Abatement Program are shown below. Fees Amount Initial Inspection Fee Charged annually to all parcels on the Commencement Report. The fee recovers costs associated with data entry, file preparation, noticing, boundary determination, and overhead. Parcels are removed from the Weed Abatement Program after three consecutive years of compliance with weed abatement and fire standards. $60 Failed Second Inspection Fee Charged for parcels that fail the second inspection or the annual compliance inspection, if the property is already on the Commencement Report. $485 Contract Work Fee Charged to parcels where abatement work is performed by the County contractor. This fee is in addition to the contractor’s costs to abate weeds, which is charged directly to the property owner. $434 Traditionally, there has been no cost to the City of Saratoga associated with the Weed Abatement Program. This program has operated on a 100% cost recovery model, but in recent years has not fully recovered costs through program fees. Consequently, in Fiscal Year 2016/17 the County informed participating cities that they would asked to provide funding to bridge the gap between program costs and fees recovered through the program. The amount charged to participating cities will vary based on number of properties on the Commencement Report and compliance rates. Late Additions to Commencement List After the noticing for the January 18, 2017 public hearing, the City was informed that several parcels that should have been included in the Commencement Report were not listed. Consequently, a second public hearing has been scheduled for February 15, 2017 to add these parcels to the Commencement Report. Resident Resources In addition to the fire prevention efforts through the Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program, the City of Saratoga works with the Saratoga Area FireSafe Council to offer free fire prevention services to Saratoga residents. Residents in high or very high fire hazard zones in the 241 City are eligible for free chipping of materials (such as branches or shrubs) cleared from defensible space. Additionally, the Saratoga Area FireSafe Council provides residents with information about mitigating the risk of wildfires. The Saratoga Area FireSafe Council was established in 2013 through a partnership between the City of Saratoga, Saratoga Fire Protection District, and Santa Clara County FireSafe Council. Additional information is available at http://www.sccfiresafe.org/communities/saratoga-area. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Prior to abatement, property owners on the Commencement Report will receive three notices informing them that the hazardous vegetation on their property must be abated by the owner or by the County. The notices inform the property owner that the County abatement will commence if work is not performed by the property owner. Additionally, the first two notices inform the property owner that objections to properties on the Commencement Report can be made at the public hearing on January 18, 2017. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The County of Santa Clara mailed notices to owners of properties on the Commencement Report. Additionally, a legal advertisement announcing the public hearing was printed in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution Declaring Abatement of a Public Nuisance as to Specified Properties Containing Hazardous Vegetation Attachment B - 2017 Commencement Report Attachment C - Sample Informational Materials Mailed to Property Owners on Commencement Report Attachment D - Resolution 16-070 Declaring Hazardous Vegetation to be a Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing Date 242 RESOLUTION 17-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AS TO SPECIFIED PROPERTIES CONTAINING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION WHEREAS,the Saratoga City Council declared hazardous vegetation to be a public nuisance through adoption of Resolution 16-070 at the December 21, 2016 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS,the Office of the County Agricultural Commissioner subsequently gave notice to all property owners of specific properties identified as containing hazardous vegetation (weeds) described by common name or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area and parcel number on the report prepared by and on file in the Office of the City Clerk and of the County Agricultural Commissioner; and WHEREAS, the notice sent to owners of properties specified in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution, that the City Council would hold a public hearing on January 18, 2017 to consider any protests or objections to the declaration of a nuisance on pre-specified properties so as to require the owners of these properties to remove the hazardous vegetation or be subject to a subsequent order for abatement authorizing the County Agricultural Commissioner to perform the abatement; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on said notice was held on January 18, 2017; and WHEREAS,final action on any protests or objections to the proposed removal of weeds has been made by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the hazardous vegetation (weeds) on specified properties listed on Exhibit A (attached) is declared to be public nuisance and the County Agricultural Commissioner is hereby designated as the person to cause notice to be given in the manner and form provided in Saratoga City Code Section 7-15.060, and as the person to thereafter cause abatement of the seasonal and recurring hazardous vegetation (weed) nuisance as determined by resolution dated December 21, 2016, and as to specified properties as determined by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the notice specified in the preceding paragraph shall require that owners of the properties identified in Exhibit A abate the hazardous vegetative nuisance or demonstrate at a public hearing before the City Council on March 15, 2017 why the City Council should not order the County to abate such hazardous vegetation nuisance thereafter at the property owner’s expense. Attachments: Exhibit A – 2017 Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report 243 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18 th day of January 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Emily Lo, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk 244 20 1 7 WE E D AB A T E M E N T PR O G R A M CO M M E N C E M E N T RE P O R T CI T Y OF SA R A T O G A 19 0 1 0 13 5 0 4 13 6 0 1 13 3 6 6 19 1 1 0 14 1 4 1 14 2 5 1 I 88 4 3 1 88 6 0 36 6 - 0 6 - 0 2 7 36 ô - 1 4 - 0 4 ' 1 36 6 - 3 1 -0 0 7 36 6 - 3 2 - 0 0 2 38 6 - 1 1 - 0 2 ' 1 38 6 - 1 3- 0 5 9 38 6 - 3 0 - 0 3 5 38 9 - 0 6 - 0 1 7 38 9 - 1 3- 0 0 8 38 9 - 1 7- 0 1 0 38 9 - 1 7- 0 1 5 38 9 - 1 7- 0 3 2 38 9 - 2 1 - 0 0 1 38 9 - 2 5 - 0 0 1 38 9 - 3 0 - 0 0 2 38 9 - 3 7 - 0 2 3 38 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 9 38 9 - 3 8 - 0 1 4 38 9 - 3 8 - 0 ' 1 8 39 7 - 0 3 - 0 0 2 39 7 - 0 3 - 0 0 3 39 7 - 0 3 - 0 2 9 39 7 - 0 3 - 0 3 8 21 3 9 8 20 8 5 I 21 9 8 1 21 7 8 t 12 4 4 5 18 5 9 7 t2 2 6 0 13 0 2 5 l 85 9 6 18 8 5 4 18 7 7 4 13 2 3 9 19 1 2 7 LN RD RD RD AV RD AV AV AV AV AV WA DR DR DR DR WA DR RD RD RD RD AR R O W H E A D WA R D E L L PR O S P E C T PR O S P E C T PA S E O CE R R O CO X SA R A T O G A - SA R A T O G A CO X AF T O N AF T O N CA R z u C K BO N N E T AS P E S I PO R T O S HO L I D A Y MY R E N RO N N I E DA G M A R SO B E Y SO B E Y TE N AC R E S TE N AC R E S CH A D H A MA N D H I R AN D GU P T A LE E AR T H U R C AN D HA R A DE B R A L SH I E YA W SH I AN D WA N G JI N G MA Y BA L L NI G E L AN D PA M E L A AL I SY E D MO N D A L SU D H R I T Y K AN D GH O S H SU M M E R H I L L SA R A T O G A FR O N T MV S CO M P A N Y LP DO S S RO G E R E TR U S T E E LI T V I N MI G U E L E AN D AN A M A R I A LI U N A N AN D YU A N YU A N RE D D I N G NA D I N E A TR U S T E E TU C K E R J U S T I N AN D KA R E N T PA C I F I C GA S AN D EL E C T z u C CO HU JI N G C A O AN D KA N LA N Sz u P A D A N N A BH A G A V A N AN D YA L L A SR I N I V A S R AN D PE D A R L A HU I DA N N Y KA N D ES T H E R F MI L L E R ED V / A R D TR U S T E E OR A N G I SO H Y GI A M M O N A JO S E P H M ET AL OR G A N DO N A L D V AN D KA R E N M SP A U N B U R G JO E L RA N D PA U L E T T E 21 3 9 8 AR R O W H E A D LN 10 8 5 6 LI N D A VI S T A DR 2I 9 8 I PR O S P E C T RD 2I 7 8 I PR O S P E C T RD 43 5 SE R R A M O N T E BL V D 18 5 9 7 CO X AV E 77 7 CA L I F O R N I A AV E PO BO X 20 6 7 I8 5 9 6 CO X AV E 18 8 5 4 AF T O N AV E 18 7 7 4 AF T O N AV E 13 2 3 9 CA R z u C K AV E 19 I 2 7 BO N N E T WA Y 11 I AL M A D E N BL V D l9 O I O PO R T O S DR 13 5 0 4 HO L I D A Y DR 60 7 GR A Y S O N WA Y 13 3 6 6 RO N N I E WA Y I9 I IO DA G M A R DR I4 I 4 I SO B E Y RD PO BO X 69 8 18 8 4 3 TE N AC R E S RD 18 8 6 0 TE N AC R E S RD SA R A T O G A CU P E R T I N O SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A CO L M A SA R A T O G A PA L O AL T O SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA N JO S E SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A MI L P I T A S SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A CL E M E N T S SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A 9s070-0000 95014-4749 95070-0000 95070-0000 940t4-3226 950704107 94304-1t02 95070 95070-4 108 95070-4653 95070-4653 95070-4604 95070-5215 95113-2002 9s010-sr21 95070-51t2 95035 9s010-s128 95070-5157 95070-5605 95227 95070-5621 95070-5639CACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA CA 23 re c o r d s of 11 9 Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t y We e d Ab a t e m e n t Pr o g r a m Page I 245 20 1 7 WE E D AB A T E M E N T PR O G R A M CO M M E N C E M E N T RE P O R T CI T Y OF SA R A T O G A Si t u s AP N 39 7 - 0 4 - 4 2 2 39 7 - 0 4 - 0 3 6 39 7 - 0 4 - 1 2 6 39 7 - 0 4 - 1 2 7 39 7 - 0 5 - 0 2 8 39 7 - 0 5 - 0 4 2 39 7 - 0 6 - 0 3 0 39 7 - 0 8 - 1 0B 39 7 - 0 9 - 0 0 4 39 7 - 1 7 - 0 1 4 39 7 - 1 8 - 0 2 7 39 7 - 1 8- 0 3 9 39 7 - 1 8- 0 4 0 39 7 - 4 0 - 0 1 6 39 7 - 4 0 - 0 1 7 39 7 - 4 0 - A 2 A 39 7 - 4 3 - 0 0 8 40 3 - 2 2 - 4 1 6 40 3 - 2 3 - t 2 9 41 û - 4 0 - 0 1 8 50 3 - 0 9 - 0 0 6 50 3 - 0 9 - 0 2 1 50 3 - 0 9 - 0 2 2 CI T Y / S T A T E 14 4 1 8 t4 6 9 0 14 9 2 3 t4 9 2 1 14 5 2 1 14 4 1 6 l 86 8 0 l 54 8 8 15 4 0 1 14 5 8 1 14 8 0 5 14 8 1 5 14 9 1 5 l4 s s 3 14 5 7 7 r4 9 6 1 18 5 4 0 t4 0 7 6 18 3 9 4 l5 12 0 22 0 6 0 22 0 4 0 RD RD RD RD RD RD RD DR AV AV LN LN AV RD WA RD RD RD RD SO B E Y SO B E Y SO B E Y SO B E Y QU I T O OL D WO O D VE S S I N G EL CA M I N O VI A CO L I N A FR U I T V A L E FR U I T V A L E BA R A N G A BA R A N G A VI A DE VI A DE VI A DE AL L E N D A L E QU I T O MO N T P E R E QU I T O MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N SA N DI E G O LO S GA T O S SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA N T A CL A R A MO L I N T A I N VIEW SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A CL A R K S V I L L E SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A CU P E R T I N O SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A LO S GA T O S SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A 92106-3467 95030 9s070-623s 9s070 95052 94040-0000 95070-5672 9s070-62s8 9s070-6276 21029 95070-4448 95070-5501 95015 95070-6t47 95070-6147 95070-0000 9s070-s235 95070-4745 95032-l I 13 9s070-6229 9s070-9729 95070-9729 95070-9729 CH A U RO S S A N A B AN D EU G E N E Y HA L A M A VI L L A S LL C SI N G H DE V E N D R A TR U S T E E & ET AL VA J D I C BR A N I S L A V HI N Z LE S T E R F EX E C CO N C O R D PL A Z A AS S O C I A T E S LP MI N E T T I VI T O AN D MA z u A P AB H A z u AL TR U S T E E & ET AL TR A N HI E U VA N AN D PH A M TH U JA V A D I SA E E D AN D SO R A Y A TA N G JA C K K TR U S T E E & ET AL TA T E RO N A L D M AN D LI N D A KA R K H A N E C H I HA I D E H M TR U S T E E CI F F O N E DO N A L D L JR AN D JO Y A UR R U T I A zu C A R D O J AN D EL L E N RA M A K R I S H N A SU D H A K A R AN D CA B E JA N E T H TR U S T E E BC D ED U C A T I O N IN C MA R H A M A T MA J I D HU Y N H PA U L HO N G NG O C AN D NG O ME V C O R P MU I L E N B U R G MI C H A E L S MC A F E E Ez u C A AN D MA R G U E z u T E J 59 5 SA N AN T O N I O AV E 2O O S SA N T A CR U Z AV E LI N I T 14 9 2 3 SO B E Y RD PO BO X 34 2 3 PO B O X 9 T 21 5 0 CA L I F O R N I A ST I8 6 8 0 VE S S I N G RD I5 4 8 8 EL CA M I N O GR A N D E I5 4 O I VI A CO L I N A DR I3 0 4 6 TW E L V E HI L L S RD I9 9 O 2 V I A ES C U E L A DR 14 8 7 5 BA R A N G A LN PO BO X 11 8 0 14 5 5 3 VI A DE MA R C O S 14 5 7 7 VI A DE MA R C O S 14 9 6 1 VI A DE MA R C O S 18 5 4 0 AL L E N D A L E AV E 14 0 7 6 QU r T O RD 2I 2 PR I N C E ST ls l 2 0 QU I T O RD 22 O 2 O M T ED E N RD 22 O 6 O M T ED E N RD 22 O 4 O M T ED E N RD CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA MD CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 46 re c o r d s of 11 9 Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t y We e d Ab a t e m e n t Pr o g r a m Page 2 246 20 1 7 WE E D AB A T E M E N T PR O G R A M CO M M E N C E M E N T RE P O R T CI T Y OF SA R A T O G A Si t u s 22 1 0 0 22 5 3 0 13 9 0 5 22 5 5 1 21 9 0 1 22 1 2 2 MT ED E N MT ED E N PI E R C E MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N MT ED E N VA Q U E R O PI E R C E SU R R E Y SU R R E Y CO M E R CO M E R FO O T H I L L PI E R C E FO O T H I L L 22 2 1 5 13 6 1 5 La n d 13 6 0 0 13 5 4 0 20 9 4 0 21 0 2 0 12 9 0 1 12 9 7 3 12 9 7 9 AP N RD 50 3 - 1 0 - 0 0 6 RD 50 3 - 1 0 - 0 6 7 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 0 1 8 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 0 3 8 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 0 3 9 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 0 6 7 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 1 7 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 2 7 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 2 8 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 3 3 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 4 3 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 4 4 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 4 5 RD 50 3 - 1 3 - 1 5 0 cr 50 3 - ' 1 4 - 0 3 4 RD 50 3 - 1 5 - 0 1 9 LN 50 3 - 1 6 - 0 1 3 LN 50 3 - 1 6 - 0 1 5 DR 50 3 - 1 6 - 0 7 6 DR 50 3 - 1 7 - 0 6 3 LN 50 3 - 1 8 - 0 2 6 RD 50 3 - 1 8 - 0 6 0 LN 50 3 - 1 8 - 0 6 6 DI B A , SH O L E H TR GA R R O D VI N C E S TR U S T E E & ET AL JO H N S O N PH I L I P N TR U S T E E & ET AL HO R V A T H DA G M A R M HO R V A T H DA G M A R M AL I SY E D AN D SH A I S T A WY A T T DO U G L A S AN D HI N D IR A N Y FR E D Z AN D CH z u S TR U S T E E IR A N Y FR E D Z AN D CH z u S TR U S T E E BA W A AP A R N A AN D RA F I K TR U S T E E AZ CH E M I C A L S IN C ET AL CH A N YI N AN D MO MA R Y CH A N YI N AN D MO MA R Y KE E N A N JO H N E AN D CH E R Y L L CO C H R A N E JA M E S B AN D TE R Z I C JO H N JU A N G RU D Y YU H - r u H A N D SH A U - BA K K E KR I S T I A N V AN D MI N O O A MC S W E E N E Y WI L L I A M TR U S T E E YA G E R RO B E R T A AN D MA z u O N E OV E L A N D CH A R L E S A AN D FA N YU AN D LI U YI N G BU S H JO H N RA N D PA T z u C I A J I 16 5 9 OL I V E SP R I N G CT 22 5 3 O M T ED E N RD 14 4 3 5 C BI G BA S I N WY #1 8 4 15 2 0 9 BL U E GU M CT 15 2 0 9 BL U E GU M CT 22 6 5 3 GA R R O D RD 12 8 LO S TR A N C O S CI R 13 9 3 7 PI E R C E RD 13 9 3 7 PI E R C E RD 2I 9 O I MT ED E N RD 3O O MA K I N T O S H TE R 14 4 5 6 BI G BA S I N WA Y 14 4 5 6 BI G BA S I N WA Y 22 2 1 5 M T ED E N RD 13 6 1 5 VA Q U E R O CT 12 9 4 3 PI E R C E RD 13 6 0 0 SU R R E Y LN 13 5 4 0 SU R R E Y LN 20 9 4 0 CO M E R DR 2I O 2 O CO M E R DR I2 9 O I FO O T H I L L LN 12 9 7 3 PI E R C E RD I2 9 7 9 FO O T H I L L LN (- I T Y / S T A T F ' , CU P E R T I N O SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A PO R T O L A VALLEY SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A FR E M O N T SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA950t4-5141 9s070-0000 9s070 9s070-6268 95070-6268 95070-0000 94028 95070 95070 9s070-0000 94539-3923 95070-6010 95070-60 r0 95070-0000 95070-4804 95070-3713 950704257 95070-4257 95070-3710 95070-3710 95070-3712 95070-3752 95070-3712 69 re c o r d s of 11 9 Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t y We e d Ab a t e m e n t Pr o g r a m Page 3 247 20 1 7 WE E D AB A T E M E N T PR O G R A M CO M M E N C E M E N T RE P O R T CI T Y OF SA R A T O G A Si t u s AP N AV 50 3 - 2 7 - 0 8 1 DR 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 0 4 wA 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 0 5 wA 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 0 6 DR 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 0 8 DR 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 3 2 DR 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 3 3 DR 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 7 5 DR 50 3 - 2 8 - 0 8 9 RD 50 3 - 2 9 - 0 0 6 RD 50 3 - 2 9 - 0 2 7 RD 50 3 - 2 9 - 0 4 2 RD 50 3 - 2 9 - 1 2 4 RD 50 3 - 3 0 - 0 0 3 RD 50 3 - 3 0 - 0 4 2 cT 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 5 4 cr 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 5 7 cr 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 5 8 RD 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 7 7 cr 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 8 7 cr 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 8 8 LN 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 9 7 LN 50 3 - 3 1 - 0 9 8 20 8 9 s 20 9 0 s 20 9 1 7 21 1 0 7 21 t 2 1 20 8 5 I 20 8 6 7 21 2 7 1 21 3 5 2 2l 15 0 21 4 2 1 13 8 4 5 13 8 5 7 14 1 5 0 14 t 4 2 14 1 3 4 21 8 0 0 13 9 5 7 t3 9 4 7 13 9 3 5 13 9 2 1 EL V A CA N Y O N VI E V / SU L L I V A N SU L L I V A N CA N Y O N VI E W CA N Y O N VI E W CA N Y O N VI E W CA N Y O N VI E W CA N Y O N VI E W SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A PI K E PI K E DO R E N E DO R E N E DO R E N E MT ED E N AL B A R AL B A R DA M O N DA M O N IS I D O R O FR A N K W AN D ME R N A L WO R O B E Y AN N M SC H A F E R BR U C E F TR U S T E E BA H L KE N N E T H S AN D SW A R A N B HA S H E M I E H JU L I A ET AL HO S S E I N I A N AB B A S ET AL WE N G JE N P I N TR U S T E E TA N G WA N - I G AN D YA W - S H I N G LA W ED W I N AN D VI C K Y TR U S T E E BO W L E S JO H N A TR U S T E E & ET AL SP E A R LO R I J E A N TR U S T E E WO N G KE N L E Y HA Y AN D NA N C Y TI P ST E I M L E AN T H O N Y E AN D EN G SO O LI U QI N G X I A N G AN D ZH O U LI N G HO R N E R J A M E S F AN D KA T H L E E N W FA N SH E R M A N S AN D LI L Y L SE V I L L A AL B E R T O AN D WE L G E ZH U LI A N G LE E TI N G PI E AN D CH I A N G TO M M I E SE I F E R T MI C H A E L E AN D MO O R E HW A N G LI L Y L AN D JO S E P H J SP I R O AN I T A TR U S T E E LE M P E R T , DA V I D EM M A N U E L & 15 0 4 I PA R K DR 20 8 9 5 CA N Y O N VI E W DR 20 9 0 5 SU L L I V A N WA Y 14 6 4 5 BI G BA S I N WA Y PO BO X 11 3 8 21 I 0 7 CA N Y O N VI E W DR 21 1 2 I CA N Y O N VI E W DR 20 8 5 I CA N Y O N VI E W DR 20 8 6 7 CA N Y O N VI E W DR 2I 2 7 I SA R A T O G A HI L L S RD 21 3 5 2 SA R A T O G A HI L L S RD 21 I 5 0 SA R A T O G A HI L L S RD 21 4 2 I SA R A T O G A HI L L S RD 13 8 4 5 PI K E RD 46 0 0 LI T T L E AP P L E G A T E RD 14 1 5 0 DO R E N E CT 14 1 4 2 DO R E N E CT 14 1 3 4 DO R E N E CT 2I 8 O O MT ED E N RD I3 9 5 7 AL B A R CT 13 9 6 6 AL B A R CT 13 9 3 5 DA M O N LN 13 9 2 1 DA M O N LN CI T Y / S T A T E SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A LO S GA T O S SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A JA C K S O N V I L L E SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA OR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA95070-6421 95070-s763 95070-5738 95070-608 l 9503 l-1 138 95010-57 t9 95070-5719 95070-s888 95070-5888 95070-5375 95070-5306 95070-5306 9s070-s377 95070-5346 97530 95070-9727 95070-9727 95070-9727 95070-9722 95070-9718 95070-9718 95070-9726 9s070-9720 92 re c o r d s of ll 9 Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t y We e d Ab a t e m e n t Pr o g r a m Page 4 248 20 1 7 WE E D AB A T E M E N T PR O G R A M CO M M E N C E M E N T RE P O R T CI T Y OF SA R A T O G A Si t u s AP N 50 3 - 3 1 -1 00 50 3 - 3 1 -1 07 50 3 - 4 6 - 0 0 5 50 3 - 5 5 - 0 3 9 50 3 - 6 2 - 0 2 7 50 3 - 6 8 - 0 0 2 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 0 1 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 0 7 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 1 0 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 3 0 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 3 2 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 3 4 50 3 - 6 9 - 0 3 9 54 3 - 7 2 - 4 1 4 50 3 - 7 2 - 0 2 8 50 3 - 7 2 - 0 3 7 50 3 - 7 5 - 0 0 8 50 3 - 7 5 - 0 1 0 50 3 - 7 5 - 0 1 6 50 3 - 7 5 - 0 1 B 51 0- 0 5 - 0 0 5 51 0 - 0 6 - 0 0 5 51 0 - 2 4 - 0 2 4 CI T Y / S T A T E 21 7 6 1 r3 9 6 6 21 2 4 3 WA CT RD CT RD WA RD CT DR LN LN LN LN CT AV RD PL 14 1 9 0 l3 80 1 21 7 8 6 21 8 0 0 21 8 5 1 2l 8 l I 21 7 8 1 21 9 9 s 14 8 0 5 21 5 3 1 21 7 5 0 21 7 7 0 21 7 5 6 HE B E R AL B A R PI E R C E DE E P W E L L TO L L GA T E PA L A M I N O PI E R C E VI A RE G I N A VI A RE G I N A VI A RE G I N A VI A RE G I N A VI A RE G I N A VI A RE G I N A MA S S O N SA R A T O G A VI N T A G E CO N G R E S S CO N G R E S S CO N G R E S S VI N T N E R BE L L E C O U R T SA R A T O G A - HI D D E N HI L L SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A LO S GA T O S SA R A T O G A AT H E R T O N SA N JO S E SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A RE D W O O D CITY SA N T A CL A R A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA N JO S E LO S GA T O S 9s070-9700 95070-97 18 95032-2056 95070-5709 94027-4043 95 138-0000 95070-4843 95070-4876 95070-484s 95070-4864 95070-4805 95070-4805 94061 95054-0000 95070-5758 95070-9713 9s070 95070-9714 9s070-9735 9s010-91t2 95070-5846 95 135-0000 95030 JO O KY L I N I G - D O N HW A N G LI L Y L AN D JO S E P H J CH A T E A U MA S S O N LL C SC H U L M A N ST E V E N A AN D SA B z u N A GA D D I S ST E P H E N B NG U Y E N BA O MA N H AN D CR Y S T A L NG HI O K HI O N AN D WO O N WE N D Y DO W N S HA R O L D RA N D CA R R O L L SH A O FA N G - F E I P AN D HS I A O FE N G . DE R TO R O S S I A N PA P K E N TR U S T E E OK L I N O TA D A S H I R AN D SA R A H A MO A Z E N I MA H B O U B E H AN D ME H D I FA G G I N MA R Z I A TR U S T E E & ET AL CE R N E A RA U L A AN D OC T A V I A NA G A R A J A N VI N O D AN D RA M A N I BE D A R D CH A R L E S J AN D OT T PE Z Z A N I MI C H E L L E E TR U S T E E WA L K E R MA R G A R E T VI V I E N S LU T H R A AN K U R TR U S T E E ZA R N E G A R SA M S O N JE N G ED V / A R D F TR U S T E E JA I N FA M I L Y IN V E S T M E S T S LL C PO Z O S CA R Y L B TR U S T E E 21 7 6 I HE B E R WA Y I3 9 6 6 AL B A R CT 15 0 5 5 LO S GA T O S BL V D ST E 21 2 4 3 DE E P V / E L L CT 42 0 SE L B Y LN 22 1 0 WI N D I N G HI L L S CT I3 8 0 I PI E R C E RD 21 7 8 6 V T A RE G I N A 2I 8 O O VI A RE G I N A 21 9 7 8 VI A RE G I N A 2I S I l VI A R E G I N A 21 7 8 1 V T A RE G I N A 36 4 0 CO L I N T R Y CL U B DR 88 9 AG N E W RD 21 5 3 I SA R A T O G A HE I G H T S 21 7 5 0 VI N T A G E LN 21 7 7 0 CO N G R E S S HA L L LN 21 7 5 6 CO N G R E S S HA L L LN I4 I 5 I TE E R L I N K WA Y 14 9 3 0 VI N T N E R CT 2O S I 2 4 T H S T L I N I T I1 41 3 I MA C K I N WO O D S LN I5 7 8 0 HI D D E N HI L L PL CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA t4 9 3 0 ls 2 t 4 19 3 7 0 15 7 8 0 I l5 re c o r d s of 11 9 Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t y We e d Ab a t e m e n t Pr o g r a m Page 5 249 20 1 7 WE E D AB A T E M E N T PR O G R A M CO M M E N C E M E N T RE P O R T CI T Y OF SA R A T O G A 15 0 2 7 I 56 0 0 I 54 0 0 BO H L M A N BE L N A P PE A C H HI L L NO SI T U S RD 51 7 - 1 3 - 0 0 9 DR 51 7 - 1 4 - 0 8 5 RD 51 7 - 2 2 - 0 7 2 51 7 - 3 8 - A A 2 15 0 2 7 BO H L M A N RD 15 6 0 0 BE L N A P DR I5 4 O O PE A C H HI L L RD 14 5 7 3 BI G BA S I N WA Y CI T Y / S T A T E SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA R A T O G A SA M P L E ST E P H E N P AN D PH I CH I N H SL I N YU E AN D LI L I Az u M I L L I V TR U S T E E & ET AL PE L I O LI N D S E Y A ET AL CA CA CA CA95070-6354 95070-0000 95070 9s070 I 19 re c o r d s of I l9 Sa n t a Cl a r a Co u n t y We e d Ab a t e m e n t Pr o g r a m Page 6 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:John Cherbone, Public Works Director SUBJECT:2017 America in Bloom Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve funding for the 2017 America in Bloom Program and authorize an allocation of $17,000 from the City Council Discretionary Fund in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget. BACKGROUND: On November 5th, 2014, City Council approved the 2015 registration submittal and fee for the American in Bloom (AIB) contest. The Village Gardeners compiled the application and organized the effort. The AIB contest promotes civic pride and the beautification of cities and towns by encouraging the planting of flowers, plants, and trees. AIB hosts a national awards contest each year with participants divided among eleven population categories. Cities are evaluated on six criteria: floral displays, landscape areas, urban forestry, environmental efforts, heritage preservation, and overall impression. Participants receive an evaluation form that includes comments on what judges liked and suggestions for improvements. On September 26th, 2015, Saratoga was chosen the winner of the America in Bloom contest for our population category. The City won best tree canopy and best overall impression, which is unheard of for a city in its first year of competition. In addition, Saratoga was a finalist in the best overall impression category with 40 cities in our population category. To celebrate the honor and announce the award, the City placed signage and banners in the Village. Subsequently, the City and Village Gardeners registered for the 2016 AIB contest where the City won the award for best Urban Forest. The City was presented with the award at the award program held in Arroyo Grande last October.Representatives from the City included City Council, Village Gardeners, and City staff. To be successful in the AIB program it is important to plan in advance which of the six criteria you want to highlight. For the 2017 AIB program the desire is to concentrate on the City’s floral displays. This would include upgrading all of the City’s colors spots located at City Hall, Saratoga Ave, Fruitvale Ave, and the Gateway. Flowers in the Village will be upgraded at all urns and the hanging baskets at 3rd and 4th Streets will be professionally grown. A concerted effort to beautify Blaney Plaza with flowers and a tree ring project celebrating the history of the City through the century old stone pine will be part of the 2017 program. 267 The current fiscal budget for AIB registration and connected expenses is $6,000. To improve the City’s floral displays will cost an additional $17,000. For the 2018 AIB program and beyond program budgeting will be included in the annual fiscal year budget. FISCAL STATEMENT: The Finance Committee recommended allocating $17,000 from the Council Discretionary Fund in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 budget for the 2017 AIB Program. The Council Discretionary Fund has a current balance of $56,150. If the expenditure is approved the new fund balance would be $39,150. 268 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:January 18, 2017 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Asst. to the City Manager SUBJECT:Adoption of City Council Assignments –Finance Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution amending the City Council assignments. BACKGROUND: At the December 21, 2016 City Council Meeting, the City Council adopted an updated list of City Council assignments for 2017 without assigning members to the City Council Finance Committee. At that time, the City Council agreed to place consideration of the Finance Committee assignment on the agenda for January 18, 2017. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Resolution Amending City Council Assignments Attachment B –City Council Assignments 269 RESOLUTION 17-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2017 WHEREAS, representatives from the City Council serve on various agencies and committees; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for representing the City Council should be shared by all members; and WHEREAS, the City Council annually reviews agency and committee assignments to update and reassign members as needed; and WHEREAS, the City Council established City Council Assignments for 2017 via Resolution 16- 080 and agreed to consider assignments to the Finance Committee at the January 18, 2017 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, this resolution amends the City Council Assignments as follows: Assignment Council Member 2nd Council Member Finance Committee NOW, THEREFORE,be it resolved that the City Council does hereby approve the amended City Council assignments, attached to this resolution; and members of the Council hereby agree to their appointments through December 2017 or until amended. Attachments: Exhibit A – Amended 2017 City Council Assignments The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18 th day of January 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Emily Lo, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk 270 2017 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Adopted via Resolution No. ___ Agency Assignments -Voting Council Member Alternate Association of Bay Area Governments Bernald Kumar Cities Association of Santa Clara County Cappello Bernald Cities Association of Santa Clara County –Legislative Action Committee Bernald Cappello Cities Association of Santa Clara County –Selection Committee Bernald Cappello Hakone Foundation Board Bernald N/A Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee Lo N/A KSAR Community Access TV Board Lo Bernald Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board Kumar N/A Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Cappello Bernald Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Lo Kumar Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Kumar Miller Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC)Cappello Bernald Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Miller Lo Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee Miller Kumar VTA State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Miller Bernald West Valley Mayors and Managers Association Lo Bernald West Valley Sanitation District Cappello Bernald West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Bernald Lo Liaison Assignments -Non-Voting Council Member Alternate America in Bloom Committee Miller Kumar Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga Kumar Lo Saratoga Historical Foundation Bernald Lo Saratoga Ministerial Association Miller Lo Saratoga Sister City Organization Kumar Bernald Council Committee Assignments Council Member 2nd Council Member Council Finance Committee Public Art Committee Lo Bernald 271