HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-2018 Agenda packetSaratoga City Council Agenda – Page 1 of 5
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 2018
5:30 P.M. LIBRARY COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
INTERVIEWS:
Time Name Commission Vacancies Incumbent
5:35 p.m. Roger Burgess Library 1 Term
(10/1/18 - 9/30/2022)
1 Unexpired Term
(10/1/2018 -9/30/2020
No
5:40 p.m. Cristina Meiser Library 1 Term
(10/1/18 - 9/30/2022)
1 Unexpired Term
(10/1/2018 -9/30/2020
No
5:45 p.m. Stacie Williams Library 1 Term
(10/1/18 - 9/30/2022)
1 Unexpired Term
(10/1/2018 -9/30/2020
No
6:00 P.M. JOINT MEETING
Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts Center
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 properly posted on August 31, 2018
REPORT FROM JOINT MEETING
Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 2 of 5
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.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
Commendations for Girl Scout Troop 61553
Recommended Action:
Present commendations to the 11 members of the Girl Scout Troop 61553 for earning their
Girl Scout Silver Awards.
Proclamation to Declare September as Pain Awareness Month
Recommended Action:
Present the Proclamation to a representative of the U.S. Pain Foundation.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of 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 Regular City Council Meeting on August 15,
2018
1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended Action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
08/14/2018 Period 2; 08/22/2018 Period 2; and 08/29/2018 Period 2.
1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2018
Recommended Action:
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June 30, 2018.
1.4. Amendment to Contract with Bellecci and Associates for the Prospect Road
Improvements Project
Recommended Action:
Approve Amendment to Contract with Bellecci and Associates in the amount of $18,840
plus a contingency of $1,800 for additional work and authorize the City Manager to execute
the same.
1.5. Budget Adjustment for the Koi Pond Improvement Project
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution transferring $65,000 from the Big Basin Way Turn-Around Project to the
Koi Pond Improvement Project.
Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 3 of 5
1.6. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Restricting Parking on both sides of Montalvo Road
Recommended Action:
Adopt Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution adopting No Parking restrictions on both sides of
Montalvo Road between Montalvo Lane and Montalvo Heights.
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.
2.1. APCC18-0002 - Appeal of a cell facility approval along Pierce Road near the Vista
Regina intersection
Recommended Action:
Conduct a public hearing and de novo review of the appeal, and adopt the attached
resolution denying appeal APCC18-0002 and approving the cell facility application PDR18-
0011.
3. GENERAL BUSINESS
3.1. Response to 2017-2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
Recommended Action:
Review the Civil Grand Jury Report “Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny”
and authorize the Mayor to execute the letter responding to the Grand Jury Report.
3.2. 2040 General Plan Update Status Report
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the status report on the Saratoga 2040
General Plan Update project and provide additional direction as needed.
3.3. Community Event Grant Program Recommendations
Recommended Action:
Approve the Finance Committee’s recommendations:
1. Add the Hakone Matsuri and Saratoga Area Senior Center Health Fair events to next
Fiscal Year’s list of secured funding recipients and allocate each event a $5,000 grant
2. No longer accept off-cycle grant applications
3. Maintain the program’s current requirements and priorities
3.4. Communications Report
Recommended Action:
Receive report and provide input as needed.
3.5. League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution
Recommended Action:
Provide input to the City’s voting delegate (Council Member Emily Lo) on the resolution to
be considered at the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 4 of 5
3.6. Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement and Compensation
Recommended Action:
Approve amended employment agreement for the City Manager.
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee
Council Finance Committee
Hakone Foundation Board
Public Art Committee
Saratoga Historical Foundation
South Flow Arrivals Ad Hoc Committee
West Valley Clean Water Program Authority
West Valley Mayors and Managers
West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority
Vice Mayor Manny Cappello
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors
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
Council Finance Committee
Saratoga Ministerial Association
Saratoga Sister City Organization
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 Emily Lo
Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Public Art Committee
Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority
Council Member Rishi Kumar
Association of Bay Area Governments
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga
Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board
Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Saratoga City Council Agenda – Page 5 of 5
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I, Debbie Bretschneider, Interim 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 August 31,
2018 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's
website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 31st day of August 2018 at Saratoga, California.
Debbie Bretschneider, Interim 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 35.102-35.104 ADA title II]
09/05 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
09/19 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Youth Commission | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
10/03
6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
10/17 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with State Senator Jim Beall Jr | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
11/07
11/21
6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College Board of Trustees | 7:00
p.m. Regular Session
6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Assembly Member Evan Low | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
11/29 Joint Meeting with Saratoga School Districts in Community Center
12/05 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
12/13 7:00 p.m. Council Reorganization
12/19 6:00 p.m. Study Session – Council Norms | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2018
City of Saratoga
CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING
Meeting Discussion Topics
Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts Center
September 5, 2018 | 6:00 p.m.
Saratoga City Hall | Linda Callon Conference Room
6:00 p.m. Welcome & Introductions
6:15 p.m.Montalvo Arts Center Updates
6:45 p.m.Other Remarks & Wrap Up
Dinner will be provided at the Joint Meeting.
The Regular Session of the City Council begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic
Theater. Joint Meeting attendees are invited to attend the Regular Session
and share an overview of the Joint Meeting.
6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, Interim City Clerk
SUBJECT:Commendations for Girl Scout Troop 61553
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present commendations to 11 members of Girl Scout Troop 61553 for earning their Girl Scout
Silver Awards.
BACKGROUND:
The Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl Scout can achieve. It takes a
minimum of 50 hours to complete, and uses leadership skills to make a difference in the
community. The members of Girl Scout Troop 61553 attended Redwood Middle School while
earning their Silver Award.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Commendations for Girl Scout Troop 61533
7
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
ALAINA SRIVASTAV OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Alaina Srivastav, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout
Silver Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a
Girl Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50
hours of their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference
in the community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Alaina’s project was “Road Safety in Saratoga” and her
community liaison was Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputy Russell Davis; and
WHEREAS, Alaina saw how the Saratoga community drove dangerously
around the schools and library and she wanted to teach the community about avoiding
danger on the road and how to behave safely when driving or crossing the road; and
WHEREAS, with the goal to reach out to the community with information and
tips on road safety, Alaina gave presentations at Foothill School, published flyers on
the Saratoga Union School District website, and made flyers to give to new students
in the School District.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
congratulate Alaina Srivastav on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her
contributions to the Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
5th day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga 8
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
AMARANGANA TYAGI OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Amarangana Tyagi, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Amarangana worked with Cadette’s Linnea Bradley and Paula Nguyen
on their project “Seasons Mandala Mural at Saratoga Community Preschool” and their
community liaisons were Saratoga Community Preschool staff Marianne Swan & Olivia
Griswold, as well as City of Saratoga staff member Rick Torres; and
WHEREAS, Amarangana, Linnea, and Paula wanted a project to help young
children and found that the Saratoga Community Preschool would like a mural painted on
the ground to teach the kids about the seasons; and
WHEREAS, after volunteering at the Preschool during the summer, Amarangana,
Linnea, and Paula discovered that the children learn by playing and interacting with their
environment and that a mural on the ground would be something they could run on, touch,
and explore; and
WHEREAS, Amarangana, Linnea, and Paula designed the mural with Marianne
Swan’s approval and spent several weekends painting it.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Amarangana Tyagi on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
9
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
ANJALI NUGGEHALLI OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Anjali Nuggehalli, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Anjali worked with Cadette Mira Bugata on their project “Pedestrian
Flag Awareness Program” and their community liaisons were City of Saratoga staff, Mainini
Cabute and Lauren Pettipiece; and
WHEREAS, Anjali and Mira saw a problem with a lack of driver awareness toward
pedestrians, especially around crosswalks without signals in Saratoga and the idea of using
crosswalk flags was overwhelmingly supported by 50 respondents of the Facebook survey;
and
WHEREAS, Anjali and Mira constructed buckets, purchased flags, and the Saratoga
Public Works Department installed crosswalk flags at crossing on Saratoga avenue and
Fruitvale Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Anjali and Mira publicized the project with a short video that was
posted at the Saratoga elementary schools and Redwood Middle School.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Anjali Nuggehalli on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Ma yor
City of Saratoga
10
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
ASHLYN O’BRIEN OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Ashlyn O’Brien, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Ashlyn’s project was “Young Scouts Campout Guide” and her
community liaison was Robert Adams, a local community leader advisor on camping tips;
and
WHEREAS, Ashlyn noticed that young children and younger girl scouts were not
trained before they attended campouts with older scouts and parents and she wanted to make
a guidebook to help them; and
WHEREAS, Ashlyn created a guidebook for young scouts, learned how to use
Microsoft Publisher, printed a hard-copy book, and spoke in front of groups of children
about her book; and
WHEREAS, Ashlyn’s guidebook lets young scouts learn about camping and hiking
and gives them confidence for their first campout.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Ashlyn O’Brien on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
11
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
CHRYSTAL WANG OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Chrystal Wang, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a
Girl Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50
hours of their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference
in the community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Chrystal worked with Cadette Tiffany Wang on their project
“Redwood Middle School Garden Signs” and their community liaison was Jim
Fitzgerald, Redwood Middle School Science Teacher and
WHEREAS, the Redwood Middle School garden was unorganized and the
plants were not labeled, so Chrystal and Tiffany worked with their advisor to create a
project for the garden; and
WHEREAS, Chrystal and Tiffany designed and made over 20 hand painted
wooden garden signs to help organize the garden and to attract more visitors to the
garden.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
congratulate Chrystal Wang on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her
contributions to the Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
5th day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga 12
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
LINNEA BRADLEY OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Linnea Bradley, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Linnea worked with Cadette’s Amarangana Tyagi and Paula Nguyen
on their project “Seasons Mandala Mural at Saratoga Community Preschool” and their
community liaisons were Saratoga Community Preschool staff Marianne Swan & Olivia
Griswold, as well as City of Saratoga staff member Rick Torres; and
WHEREAS, Linnea, Amarangana, and Paula wanted a project to help young children
and found that the Saratoga Community Preschool would like a mural painted on the ground
to teach the kids about the seasons; and
WHEREAS, after volunteering at the Preschool during the summer, Linnea,
Amarangana, and Paula discovered that the children learn by playing and interacting with
their environment and that a mural on the ground would be something they could run on,
touch, and explore; and
WHEREAS, Linnea, Amarangana, and Paula designed the mural with Marianne
Swan’s approval and spent several weekends painting it.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Linnea Bradley on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
13
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
MIRA BUGATA OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Mira Bugata, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver Award
as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Mira worked with Cadette Anjali Nuggehalli on their project
“Pedestrian Flag Awareness Program” and their community liaisons were City of Saratoga
staff, Mainini Cabute and Lauren Pettipiece; and
WHEREAS, Mira and Anjali saw a problem with a lack of driver awareness toward
pedestrians, especially around crosswalks without signals in Saratoga and the idea of using
crosswalk flags was overwhelmingly supported by 50 respondents of the Facebook survey;
and
WHEREAS, Mira and Anjali constructed buckets, purchased flags, and the Saratoga
Public Works Department installed crosswalk flags at crossing on Saratoga avenue and
Fruitvale Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Mira and Anjali publicized the project with a short video that was
posted at the Saratoga elementary schools and Redwood Middle School.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Mira Bugata on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
14
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
MORGAN BETTINGER OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Morgan Bettinger, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Morgan’s project was “Saratoga Adult Care Center Veteran’s Mural”
and her community liaisons were Saratoga Adult Care Center staff Renee Hampton, as well
as Mr. Mario & Miss Angela of Lord of the Light Art Studio; and
WHEREAS, Morgan heard that there was an influx of Veteran’s coming into the
Saratoga Adult Care Center and wanted to do something for them; and
WHEREAS, Morgan and the staff at the Adult Care Center came up with the idea of
a mural painted on the walls inside the center and Morgan worked on her art skills with the
Lord of the Light Art studio; and
WHEREAS, over spring break, Morgan painted an American flag on a background
of clouds, stenciled the quote “Land of the free because of the brave” and the Center added
framed pictures of the Veteran’s that come to the center.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Morgan Bettinger on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
15
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
PAULA NGUYEN OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Paula Nguyen, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a Girl
Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50 hours of
their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference in the
community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Paula worked with Cadette’s Linnea Bradley and Amarangana Tyagi on
their project “Seasons Mandala Mural at Saratoga Community Preschool” and their
community liaisons were Saratoga Community Preschool staff Marianne Swan & Olivia
Griswold, as well as City of Saratoga staff member Rick Torres; and
WHEREAS, Paula, Linnea, and Amarangana wanted a project to help young
children and found that the Saratoga Community Preschool would like a mural painted on
the ground to teach the kids about the seasons; and
WHEREAS, after volunteering at the Preschool during the summer, Paula,
Amarangana, and Linnea, discovered that the children learn by playing and interacting with
their environment and that a mural on the ground would be something they could run on,
touch, and explore; and
WHEREAS, Paula, Amarangana, and Linnea, and designed the mural with Marianne
Swan’s approval and spent several weekends painting it.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate
Paula Nguyen on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her contributions to the
Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 5th
day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
16
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
SHRIYA SRINIVASAN OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Shriya Srinivasan, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout
Silver Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a
Girl Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50
hours of their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference
in the community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Shriya’s project was “Holiday Wish Drive for Family Giving
Tree” and her community liaison was Vicki Stairs, Family Giving Tree representative;
and
WHEREAS, Shriya was surprised to learn that more than 800,000 Bay Area
residents are living at or below the poverty line and that Family Giving Tree has
served over a million children in the last 25 years; and
WHEREAS, Shriya lead and hosted a holiday wish drive for the Family Giving
Tree and volunteered by wrapping, organizing, and distributing incoming gifts at the
Family Giving Tree warehouse during the holiday season.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
congratulate Shriya Srinivasan on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her
contributions to the Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
5th day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga 17
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
TIFFANY WANG OF GIRL SCOUT TROOP 61553
WHEREAS, Tiffany Wang, a Girl Scout Cadette, earned her Girl Scout Silver
Award as an eighth grader at Redwood Middle School; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Silver Award is the second highest award a
Girl Scout can achieve and requires a significant commitment; and
WHEREAS, to earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must dedicate 50
hours of their time and demonstrate use of leadership skills to make a difference
in the community, including identification of an issue in the community, project
development, and implementation; and
WHEREAS, Tiffany worked with Cadette Chrystal Wang on their project
“Redwood Middle School Garden Signs” and their community liaison was Jim
Fitzgerald, Redwood Middle School Science Teacher and
WHEREAS, the Redwood Middle School garden was unorganized and the
plants were not labeled, so Tiffany and Chrystal worked with their advisor to create a
project for the garden; and
WHEREAS, Tiffany and Chrystal designed and made over 20 hand painted
wooden garden signs to help organize the garden and to attract more visitors to the
garden.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
congratulate Tiffany Wang on her Girl Scout Silver Award and thank her for her
contributions to the Saratoga community.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
5th day of September 2018.
_________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga 18
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, Interim City Clerk
SUBJECT:Proclamation to Declare September as Pain Awareness Month
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present the Proclamation to a representative of the U.S. Pain Foundation.
BACKGROUND:
September is Pain Awareness Month. The Institute of Medicine has found that 100 million
Americans live with chronic pain as a result of serious illness and injuries. The U.S. Pain
Foundation provides education on pain management skills and constructive ways to cope with pain
and find fulfillment in life
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A :Commendation
19
PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DECLARING SEPTEMBER 2018 AS
PAIN AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, pain is a major public health problem for children and adults and is
the number one reason Americans seek medical care; and
WHEREAS, an estimated one in three people live with chronic pain in the United
States; and
WHEREAS, there are more Americans who are living with pain than those
affective by cancer, heart disease, and diabetes combined; and
WHEREAS, chronic pain negatively impacts almost every aspect of a person’s
life, including the ability to work, sleep, and engage in social activities; and
WHEREAS, pain is subjective and varies from person to person, making it
difficult to assess and treat; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Pain Foundation provides education on pain management
skills and constructive ways to cope with pain and find fulfillment in life; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Pain Foundation also seeks to educate, connect, inform,
empower, and advocate on behalf of Americans who live with chronic pain; and
WHEREAS, increased awareness about the effects of chronic pain will result in
better outcomes, increased access to quality care, and the empowerment for those living
in pain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga does hereby proclaim September 2018 as Pain Awareness Month in the City of
Saratoga and encourages residents to learn more about how to support individuals
suffering from chronic pain and bring greater awareness to this widespread issue.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 5th
day of September 2018.
___________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
City of Saratoga
20
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY: Nora Pimentel, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on August 15, 2018.
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 Regular City Council Meeting on August 15, 2018
21
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 1 of 8
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2018
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
At 5:00 p.m., the City Council held a Closed Session in the Linda Callon Conference Room at
13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. The Closed Session was adjourned until after the
conclusion of the Regular Session.
At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Meeting with the Senior Area Senior Coordinating
Council (SASCC) in the Linda Callon Conference Room at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga.
Mayor Bernald called the Regular Session to order in the Civic Theater, Council Chambers at
13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald, Vice Mayor Manny Cappello
Council Members, Howard Miller, Emily Lo, Rishi Kumar
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager
Nora Pimentel, City Clerk
Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
Michael Taylor, Recreation and Facilities Director
Macedonio Nunez, Associate Engineer
Emma Burkhalter, Assistant Civil Engineer
Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
City Clerk Nora Pimentel reported that the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
August 9, 2018.
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bernald reported that a Closed Session started earlier and there was nothing to report.
REPORT FROM JOINT MEETING
Tylor Taylor, SASCC Executive Director, and Lisa Oakley, SASCC Board President, provided a
brief overview of the Joint Meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Bob Lanz spoke about the City’s dangerous dog regulations.
Brad Davis, President of West Valley College, spoke about Measure W.
22
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 2 of 8
Jack Lucas, West Valley-Mission Community College District Board of Trustee Member, spoke
about Measure W.
Anouk Yeh invited the City Council to the Celebrating Differences event on Saturday,
September 22, 2018 from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. at the Joan Pisani Community Center.
Lakhiknder Walia raised concerns about the transparency of the Neighborhood Watch program
and protection of resident privacy.
Chuck Page spoke about the West Valley Sanitation District connection fees and accountability
of the Neighborhood Watch grant.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Bernald announced the Saratoga Summer Movie Nights, Commission recruitments, the
Pain Relief Workshop on August 24, 2018, and the Hakone Gala on September 16, 2018.
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
Commendations for Silicon Valley Clean Energy’s Bike to the Future Winners
Recommended Action:
Present commendations to members of Saratoga High School’s teams E-FISH and Fantastic
Falcons, who tied for Third place in the Bike to the Future event.
Mayor Bernald and the City Council presented commendations to members of Saratoga
High School’s teams E-FISH and Fantastic Falcons.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Youth in Government Final Report and Presentation
Recommended Action:
Receive presentation and present Certificates of Completion to Youth in Government
participants.
The Youth in Government participants presented their final report to the City Council.
Mayor Bernald and the City Council acknowledged the participants and presented them
with Certificates of Completion.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on August 1, 2018.
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON AUGUST 1, 2018. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN:
NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
23
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 3 of 8
1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended Action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
07/31/2018 Period 13; 07/31/2018 Period 1; 08/07/2018 Period 13; and 08/08/2018 Period
2.
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE
FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 07/31/2018 PERIOD
13; 07/31/2018 PERIOD 1; 08/07/2018 PERIOD 13; AND 08/08/2018 PERIOD 2.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.3. Resolution Amending the City’s Records Retention Schedule
Recommended Action:
Adopt the resolution amending the City’s Records Retention Schedule.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-041
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
CITY’S RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE. MOTION PASSED. AYES:
BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE.
1.4. Approval of a Contract with Almaden Press (Stone Publishing, Inc.) in the Amount of
$32,000 for Printing of Recreation Activity Guide for Fiscal 2018-2019
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Almaden Press (Stone Publishing,
Inc.) in the amount of $32,000 for printing of Recreation Activity Guide for Fiscal 2018-
2019.
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT WITH ALMADEN PRESS (STONE PUBLISHING, INC.) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $32,000 FOR PRINTING OF RECREATION ACTIVITY GUIDE
FOR FISCAL 2018-2019. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO,
MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.5. Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 13001 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (APN
503-82-033) Owners: Anthem Realty Ventures, LLC and Shirish Kumar & Leena Sujan
Recommended Action:
Move to adopt Resolution granting final map approval of tentative map application No.
SUB 17-0002 for two lots located at 13001 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (APN 503-82-033).
Council Member Kumar pulled this item to disclose that he would abstain from the vote due
to a potential conflict of interest.
RESOLUTION NO. 18-042
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL MAP
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION NO. SUB 17-0002 FOR TWO
LOTS LOCATED AT 13001 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD (APN 503-82-033). 24
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 4 of 8
MOTION PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: KUMAR. ABSENT: NONE.
1.6. Authorize Disposal of City Equipment
Recommended Action:
Move to authorize the disposal of the following Equipment: 1998 JCB 214S Site Master
Backhoe / Loader.
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE DISPOSAL OF THE FOLLOWING
EQUIPMENT: 1998 JCB 214S SITE MASTER BACKHOE / LOADER. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2. PUBLIC HEARING
None
3. GENERAL BUSINESS
3.1. Off-Cycle Community Event Grant Program Applications and Montalvo Arts Center
Grant Modification
Recommended Action:
Consider four off-cycle Community Event Grant Program applications for Fiscal Year
2018/19, and approve a modification to Montalvo Arts Center’s Fiscal Year 2018/19 grant.
Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report.
Mayor Bernald invited for public comment on the item.
The following people spoke:
Bob Sheets
Speaker from Russian and International Festival
No one else requested to speak.
25
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 5 of 8
MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO APPROVE ALLOCATING $100 FROM THE
CITY COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUND TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING
EVENTS: RUSSIAN AND INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL, FALL SARATOGA
SYMPHONY CONCERT, WINTER SARATOGA SYMPHONY CONCERT, AND
SPRING SARATOGA SYMPHONY CONCERT; APPROVE THE MODIFICATION
TO THE MONTALVO ARTS CENTER GRANT, AUTHORIZING USE OF THE
GRANT FOR THE WE THE PEOPLE EVENT; AND DIRECTED STAFF TO
RETURN WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR
CHANGES TO OFF CYCLE GRANT REQUESTS AND TO ALIGN PROGRAM
CRITERIA WITH PROGRAM PRIORITIES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BERNALD,
CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE
3.2. Award of Contract to O’Grady Paving Inc. for the 2018 Pavement Management
Program
Recommended Action:
1. Move to declare O’Grady Paving Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project.
2. Move to award a Construction Contract to O’Grady Paving Inc. in the amount of
$1,827,741.50, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $270,000.
Macedonio Nunez, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report.
Emma Burkhalter, Assistant Civil Engineer, responded to additional questions.
Mayor Bernald invited public comment on the item.
No one requested to speak
CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO: 1) DECLARE O’GRADY PAVING INC. TO BE THE
LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE PROJECT; 2) AWARD A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO O’GRADY PAVING INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,827,741.50, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
SAME; AND 3) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE
CONTRACT UP TO $270,000. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO,
MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE
3.3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Subregion Process Discussion
Recommended Action:
Review the information regarding formation of a RHNA subregion in Santa Clara County
and discuss whether the City of Saratoga would be interested in participating in a subregion.
Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.
Mayor Bernald invited public comment on the item.
No one requested to speak.
26
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 6 of 8
CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO EXPRESS INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN
A REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION SUBREGION. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN:
NONE. ABSENT: NONE
3.4. Tobacco Retailer Regulations
Recommended Action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager, presented the staff report.
Mayor Bernald invited for public comment on the item.
No one requested to speak.
MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH AN
ORDINANCE THAT WOULD AMEND TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE TO
CHANGE PENALTIES FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION OF LICENSE
REQUIREMENTS FROM A 30 DAY SUSPENSION PERIOD TO A 60 DAY
SUSPENSION PERIOD STARTING FROM THE DATE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION IS ISSUED; TO BASE THE RAMP UP OF
PENALTIES ON A 24 MONTH PERIOD INSTEAD OF A 12 MONTH PERIOD; TO
CHANGE THE REVOCATION PERIOD FROM 12 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS;
AND PROHIBIT SALES OF FLAVORED TOBACCO (CONSISTENT WITH THE
BROAD DEFINITION OF TOBACCO IN THE CITY CODE), WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF MENTHOL TOBACCO, IN LIEU OF THE DIRECTION
PROVIDED ON JUNE 20, 2018 REGARDING TOBACCO REGULATION.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE
3.5. Adopt Resolutions to Join the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Community Roundtable and to
Appoint a Representative and an Alternate to the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz
Airport/Community Roundtable
Recommended Action:
1. Adopt a resolution supporting the formation of the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Community
Roundtable and directing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding.
2. Adopt a resolution appointing a representative and an alternate to the Santa Clara/Santa
Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable
Nora Pimentel, City Clerk, presented the staff report.
Mayor Bernald responded to additional questions.
Mayor Bernald invited for public comment on the item.
No one requested to speak.
27
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 7 of 8
MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO: 1) SUPPORT THE FORMATION OF THE
SANTA CLARA/SANTA CRUZ AIPORT COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING; 2) APPOINT MAYOR BERNALD AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER AS THE ALTERNATE;
AND, 3) DIRECT STAFF TO REMOVE THE SOUTH FLOW ARRIVALS AD HOC
COMMITTEE FROM THE LIST OF CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: BERNALD, CAPPELLO, MILLER, LO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee met on August 9, 2018
received legislative updates Diesel Free by 2033, SB 237, Proposition 6, and SB 1383.
Council Finance Committee will meet on August 23, 2018.
Hakone Foundation Board will meet on August 16, 2018.
Public Art Committee will meet on August 16, 2018.
West Valley Mayors and Managers will meet on August 22, 2018.
Saratoga Sister City met and Mayor Bernald attended in Council Member Miller’s place and
reported that the recent trip to Japan was reviewed.
Vice Mayor Manny Cappello
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors met on August 2, 2018 and
received a report on the Age Friendly Initiative, a presentation on Alert SCC and the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
West Valley Sanitation District met on August 8, 2018.
Council Member Howard Miller
America in Bloom Committee has not met but Council Member Miller mentioned that while in
Michigan on personal business he visited Holland, Michigan where the American in Bloom was
founded and toured the City.
Saratoga Sister City Organization Mayor Bernald attended on behalf of Council Member Miller.
Council Member Emily Lo
Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee will meet on August 16, 2018.
Public Art Committee will meet on August 16, 2018.
Council Member Rishi Kumar
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga hosted an installation dinner, and there
was discussion on the success of the recent Car Show.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Council Member Lo, with the support of Council Member Miller, requested that staff bring back
a report on Neighborhood Watch to address concerns related to transparency, privacy, and
accountability of the grant program.
Vice Mayor Cappello, with the support of Council Member Miller, requested to receive
information on Bond Measure W through the newsletter. 28
Saratoga City Council Minutes – Page 8 of 8
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Kumar discussed the Sheriff’s Report and propsoed San Jose Water Company
rate increases.
Mayor Bernald reported on Fire Chief Ken Kenhma’s retirement celebration and announced that
Tony Bowden is the new Fire Chief.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bernald announced that the City Council would proceed to the City Hall Linda Callon
Conference Room to reconvene into Closed Session.
Mayor Bernald adjourned the meeting at 11:00 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Nora Pimentel, MMC
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
29
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:
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 #
8/14/18 136731 136771 41 71,619.09 08/14/18 08/08/18 136730
8/22/18 136772 136823 52 86,253.97 08/22/18 08/14/18 136771
Accounts Payable 8/29/18 136824 136874 51 773,216.41 08/29/18 08/22/18 136823
Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater:
Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount
08/14/18 136738 Fin/Admin 39,471.75
08/29/18 136831 Rec/Fac 72,358.00
08/29/18 136840 PW 31,652.67
08/29/18 136859 Rec/Fac 49,676.23
08/29/18 136871 PW 24,513.38
08/29/18 136872 Wattis Construction PW 471,212.60
Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period:
AP Date Check #Amount
07/31/18 136612 350.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format
City of Saratoga Recreation
Reason Issued to
Dollar Amount Adjustment
Status
Prospect Road
Re-issue
CIP Street Repair
Sanchez Electric
Contract Sweeping Service
Various
Prior Check Register
Checks
ReleasedTotal Checks Amount
Various Projects
CIP Facility Project JPCC Electric Project
Vista Landscape & Mtc
Fund Purpose
City Street Sweep
Comp Shared Risk Pool
Rplc Theater Boilers
Worker's Comp Ins.
General
CIM AIR, Inc.
Workers Comp Fund
Bldg FFE Replacement
8/14/2018, Period 2; 08/22/2018 Period 2; and 08/29/2018 Period 2.
PREPARED BY:
Ending
Check #Starting Check #Type of Checks Date
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services
PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2018
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June 30, 2018.
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 June 30, 2018, the City had $625,825 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $25,609,746 on deposit
with LAIF. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective
July 1, 2017: 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 June 30, 2018
is $26,235,571 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 June 30, 2018, the City’s
financial position (Assets $26.9M, Liabilities $4.3M and Fund Equity $22.6M) remains very strong and
there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future.
Unrestricted Cash
Comerica Bank 625,825$
Deposit with LAIF 25,609,746$
Total Unrestricted Cash 26,235,571$
Cash Summary
45
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 26,235,571$
Plus: Assets 724,003
Less: Liabilities (4,373,469)
Ending Fund Balance 22,586,105$
Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance
46
ATTACHMENT A
CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE UNDER GASB 54
Fund Description
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/17
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul-May
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
6/30/2018
General Fund
Restricted Fund Balances:
Environmental Services Reserve 263,182 - - - - 50,000 213,182
Committed Fund Balances:
Hillside Stability Reserve 790,000 - - - 210,000 - 1,000,000
Assigned Fund Balances:
Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 1,564,588 - - - - - 1,564,588
Facility Reserve 1,700,000 - - - 500,000 - 2,200,000
Carryforwards Reserve - - - - - -
Unassigned Fund Balances:
Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 2,500,000 - - - 650,000 - 3,150,000
Development Services Reserve 719,562 - - - - 719,562 -
Compensated Absences Reserve 223,988 - - - - - 223,988
Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution) 2,222,995 3,121,413 2,380,229 1,871,374 32,000 2,463,347 3,421,916
General Fund Total 10,984,315 3,121,413 2,380,229 1,871,374 1,392,000 3,232,909 12,773,674
Special Revenue
Landscape/Lighting Districts 1,152,873 64,155 225,104 56,788 - - 1,385,344
Capital Project
Street Projects 2,168,309 (779,024) 58,550 166,287 1,794,000 600,000 2,475,548
Park and Trail Projects 481,868 (183,246) - 49,467 525,000 32,000 742,155
Facility Projects 252,801 (14,494) 7,180 65,887 - - 179,600
Administrative Projects 687,313 (15,577) 4,936 42,205 133,909 - 768,377
Tree Fund Projects 67,995 8,701 - 4,667 20,000 - 92,029
Park In-Lieu Projects 491,061 (79,620) - 19,368 - - 392,073
CIP Grant Street Projects 49,255 (1,215,845) - 1,051,915 - - (2,218,506)
CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 12,809 - - - - - 12,809
Gas Tax Fund Projects 873,894 564,161 105,403 40,320 482,000 482,000 1,503,137
CIP Fund Total 5,085,305 (1,717,443) 178,567 1,440,115 2,954,909 1,114,000 3,947,223
Debt Service
Library Bond 959,322 (294,800) 333,234 - - - 997,756
Internal Service Fund
Liability/Risk Management 504,481 98,614 - 14,189 - - 588,906
Workers Compensation 294,052 4,602 6,411 7,691 - - 297,374
Office Support Fund 109,806 9,543 1,014 3,400 - - 116,964
Information Technology Services 308,072 101,058 2,342 47,209 - - 364,263
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 176,906 81,555 - 22,131 - - 236,330
Building Maintenance 454,606 147,068 - 106,921 - - 494,754
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 585,986 (48,579) 5,921 25,380 - - 517,948
Technology Replacement 315,299 132,058 - 23,627 - - 423,730
Facility FFE Replacement 498,369 (51,520) - 5,002 - - 441,847
Internal Service Fund Total 3,247,577 474,399 15,688 255,548 - - 3,482,116
Total City 21,429,391 1,647,724 3,132,824 3,623,826 4,346,909 4,346,909 22,586,105
47
ATTACHMENT B
FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
CIP Funds/Projects
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/17
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul-May
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
6/30/2018
Street Projects
Annual Road Improvements 839,731 (183,260) 58,550 80,803 295,000 600,000 329,218
Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 65,514 - - 5,109 50,000 - 110,404
Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase IV 74,309 7,715 - - - - 82,024
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement - (7,380) - 6,802 760,000 - 745,818
Big Basin Way Turn Around - (15,719) - - 50,000 - 34,281
Annual Infrastructure Maintenance& Repair 122,667 (203,857) - 54,531 200,000 - 64,279
Village Pedestrian Improvements - Phase II 875 74,991 - - - - 75,866
EL Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 247,508 (14,239) - - 145,000 - 378,269
Storm Drain Capture Device 30,000 - - - - - 30,000
Wildcat Creek Outfall 40,000 (40,000) - - - - -
Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation - - - 1,350 44,000 - 42,650
Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements - - - - 50,000 - 50,000
Fourth Street Bridge Widening 100,000 (163) - - - - 99,837
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 157,830 - - - - - 157,830
Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 42,259 (1,841) - 1,044 - - 39,374
Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 158,955 (300,170) - 16,648 200,000 - 42,137
Bainter Ave Retaining Wall 189,917 (95,102) - - - - 94,816
Underground Project 98,744 - - - - - 98,744
Total Street Projects 2,168,309 (779,024) 58,550 166,287 1,794,000 600,000 2,475,548
Parks & Trails Projects
Park/Trail Repairs 618 (56,399) - 20,863 100,000 - 23,357
Sustainable Landscaping 39,836 - - - - - 39,836
Magical Bridge Playground 32,000 - - - - 32,000 -
Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 114,513 (24,900) - - - - 89,613
Hakone Gardens Koi Pond Improvements 139,548 (19,250) - 5,050 - - 115,248
Quarry Park ADA Access - - - - - - -
Joe's Trail at Saratoga/De Anza 33,997 - - - - - 33,997
Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 21,356 (29,583) - 17,354 125,000 - 99,418
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design - (10,800) - 6,200 50,000 - 33,000
Saratoga to Sea Trail - Construction 100,000 (42,314) - - 250,000 - 307,686
Total Parks & Trails Projects 481,868 (183,246) - 49,467 525,000 32,000 742,155
Facility Projects
Civic Theater Improvements 76,286 (7,046) 7,180 5,731 - - 70,690
CC/SC Panel Upgrade 120,000 (5,000) - 49,586 - - 65,414
SPCC Furniture & Fixtures 7,644 (7,622) - - - - 22
Library Building Exterior Maintenance Projects 15,570 (5,000) - 10,570 - - -
Library - Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Station 33,301 10,174 - - - - 43,475
Total Facility Projects 252,801 (14,494) 7,180 65,887 - - 179,600
Administrative and Technology Projects
Combined Document Imaging Project 25,230 (3,498) - 9,469 - - 12,263
City Website/Intranet 81,717 (64,768) - - - - 16,949
Development Technology 63,171 18,694 4,936 - - - 86,801
Trak-It Software Upgrade 25,883 (5,000) - - - - 20,883
LLD Initiation Match Program 24,000 - - - 26,000 - 50,000
Horseshoe Beautification 25,000 (350) - - - - 24,650
Citywide Transportation Needs Assessment 10,521 - - - - - 10,521
General Plan Update 222,606 41,479 - 26,005 57,909 - 295,989
Village Façade Program 15,751 - - - - - 15,751
Village Specific Plan Update 89,023 (2,134) - 6,730 - - 80,158
Risk Management Project Funding 104,412 - - - 50,000 - 154,412
Total Administrative and Technology Projects 687,314 (15,577) 4,936 42,205 133,909 - 768,377
48
ATTACHMENT B (Cont.)
FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT
CIP Funds/Projects
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/17
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul-May
Current
Revenue
Current
Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out
Fund Balance
6/30/2018
Tree Fund Projects
Citywide Tree Planting Program 44,370 8,451 - 4,667 20,000 - 68,154
Tree Dedication Program 22,250 250 - - - - 22,500
SMSCF Tree Donation Program 1,375 - - - - - 1,375
Total Tree Fund Projects 67,995 8,701 - 4,667 20,000 - 92,029
CIP Grant Street Projects
Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase IV - (107,939) - - - - (107,939)
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (40) (1,115,024) - 1,018,856 - - (2,133,920)
Citywide Signal Upgrade II (965) - - - - - (965)
Saratoga Ave Sidewalk 50,261 (1,750) - 24,999 - - 23,512
Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction - - - - - - -
Fourth Street Bridge Widening - - - - - - -
Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition - 8,868 - 8,060 - - 808
Total CIP Grant Street Projects 49,255 (1,215,845) - 1,051,915 - - (2,218,506)
CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects
Joe's Trail at Saratoga/De Anza 12,809 - - - - - 12,809
Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 12,809 - - - - - 12,809
CIP Grant Facility Projects
SC - Restroom ADA Upgrade - (2,499) 2,499 - - - -
Total CIP Grant Facility Projects - (2,499) 2,499 - - - -
Park In-Lieu Projects
Magical Bridge Playground 128,000 - - - (128,000) - -
Hakone Koi Pond Improvement - (92,623) - 8,057 110,000 - 9,320
Quarry Park ADA Access 244,696 (7,772) - - - - 236,924
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design - - - 11,311 100,000 - 88,689
Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 118,365 20,775 - - (82,000) - 57,140
Total park In-Lieu Projects 491,061 (79,620) - 19,368 - - 392,073
Gas Tax Fund Projects
Annual Roadway Improvements 488,313 615,530 105,403 36,956 - 482,000 690,289
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 217,748 (11,370) - 3,364 482,000 - 685,014
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 873,894 564,161 105,403 40,320 482,000 482,000 1,503,137
Total CIP Funds 5,085,305 (1,717,443) 178,567 1,440,115 2,954,909 1,114,000 3,947,223
49
ATTACHMENT C
CHANGE IN CASH BALANCE BY MONTH
50
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 0.68
2017 0.78 0.92 1.07 1.20
2018 1.51 1.90
Quarterly Apportionment Rates
Local Ag ency Investment Fund
51
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department
PREPARED BY:Macedonio Nunez, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT:Amendment to Contract with Bellecci and Associates for the Prospect Road
Improvements Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Amendment to Contract with Bellecci and Associates in the amount of $18,840 plus a
contingency of $1,800 for additional work and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
BACKGROUND:
City staff has identified work that needs to be done along the frontage of the Saratoga Prospect
Center that was not included in the Prospect Rd Improvements Project.The work includes repair
of buckling sidewalks, curbs and gutter, and to make the frontage more consistent with the rest of
the Project. This would include bulbing out a new sidewalk away from the Liquid Amber tree
roots.
The existing contract with Bellecci and Associates for design work on the Prospect Road
Improvements Project will be amended to incorporate the additional scope of work.
This will be a second amendment to the Contract. The Original Contract for design services was
approved by City Council in July 2015 in the amount of $234,555 with a contingency of
$30,000. An amendment to the contract in the amount of $36,331 was then approved by City
Council in July 2017 to retain Bellecci and Associates for support during the construction phase.
If this amendment is approved, the total contract amount with Bellecci and Associates for the
Prospect Project Design and Construction support will be $321,526.
Funds for the additional work are available in the Prospect Road Improvements CIP Project
budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Amendment to Contract
Attachment B –Original contract and first amendment 52
Contractor:Project Name:
Rev. 7/2016 City of Saratoga Contract Amendment Page 1 of 2
City of Saratoga
Contract Amendment
This Contract Amendment is made at Saratoga, California by and between the City of Saratoga,
a municipal corporation ("City"), and _______________________________
("Contractor"), who agree that:
1. City and Contractor entered into an agreement dated ___________________
(“Original Agreement”)and wish to amend the Original Agreement as set forth in the provisions
checked below. Terms not defined in this Contract Amendment shall have the meaning used in
the Original Agreement and the provisions of the Original Agreement shall apply to interpretation
and enforcement of this Contract Amendment.
Amended Term.
The term of the Original Agreement commenced on the Effective Date and is hereby
extended through ___________________(insert new termination date)or the
completion of the project, whichever occurs first, unless it is further extended by written
mutual agreement between the parties, provided that the parties retain the right to
terminate this Agreement as provided in Exhibit C to the Original Agreement.
Amended Scope of Work.
The Scope of Work terms included as Exhibit(s)______________________
to the Original Agreement are hereby:
supplemented with additional Scope of Works terms included as Exhibit ______
to this Contract Amendment;
AND/OR extended to include providing the ongoing services referenced in the
Original Agreement for the duration of the amended term.
Amended Payment Terms.
The first sentence of section 3 of the Original Agreement setting forth the maximum
contract payment is hereby replaced with the following:
City shall pay Consultant for work product produced pursuant to this agreement an
amount not to exceed the total sum of
$_______________________________________________
for work to be performed and any authorized reimbursable costs.
AND/OR See Exhibit(s) ______
Bellecci and Associates, Inc.Prospect Road Improvements Project
Bellecci and Associates, Inc.
07/01/2015
✔
06/30/2020
✔
A and A-1
✔A-2
✔
319,726.00
✔A, A-1, A-2
53
Contractor:Project Name:
Rev. 7/2016 City of Saratoga Contract Amendment Page 2 of 2
Other.
The Original Agreement is amended as follows:
AND/OR See Exhibit(s) ______
2. All other provisions of the Original Agreement remain unchanged by this Contract
Amendment.
3. Exhibits. All attachments to this agreement are by this reference incorporated herein and
made a part of this agreement.
Additional Exhibits:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment.
Contractor City of Saratoga
Signature James Lindsay, City Manager
Date:
Signer Name
ATTEST:
Signer Title
Date:
Contract Description:
'HEELH%UHWVFKQHLGHU,,QWHULPCity Clerk
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Date:
Bellecci and Associates, Inc.Prospect Road Improvements Project
✔Exhibit A-2
Original Agreement
First Amendment To Original Agreement
Prospect Road Improvements Project
54
1 Site visit and mark-up for survey crew 2.5 0 0 2 0 0 0 4.5 $740
2 Field Surveying for topography 0 0 0 0 1.5 8 0 9.5 $2,390
3 Office topo survey reduction 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0 3.5 $570
4 Initial layout / Section / Construction Costs 0 4 18 0 0 0 0 22 $3,290
5 Coordination with City on Prelim Design 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 $280
6 Draft Final Plan with Grading 0.5 4 24 16 0 0 0 44.5 $6,350
7 Quantities plugged into previous bid items from
Contractor 0 2 4 8 0 0 0 14 $1,990
8 Final Plan and Quantities 0 2 7 13 0 0 0 22 $3,080
9 Printing Allowance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $150
rates 190 184 142 132 164 268 197
3.5 13 53 39 5 8 0 121.5 $18,840
1
Allowance for improvements behind existing
sidewalk at Community Center drive aisles (to be
adjusted based on actual time required)
2 6 12 18 0 0 0 38 $5,560
2 Prepare plans for separate bidding (TBD)0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 $2,140
3 Retain Landscape Architect (TBD)0 0 0 00000 $0
Proposal to City of Saratoga
by Bellecci & Associates - August 21, 2018
Prospect Road Median Project - Prospect Center Sidewalk Extension - EXTRA WORK
PROJ MNGRPROF ENG2-PERSON CREWTASKS OFF. SURVYR.ASSIST ENG1-PERSON CREWTotal Hours BudgetASSOC ENGTotals=
NOTE: Breakdown of hours shown is for estimating purposes only. Distribution of hours will vary.
SCOPE OF WORK: CONSULTANT will prepare a change order plan for extension of the sidewalk design for Prospect Road
project to expand along the Prospect Center frontage. The design will, in general, be as discussed in field meeting on August
14, 2018 with City Staff and Bellecci. Bellecci will survey the site frontage and provide to City a PDF concept plan with cost
estimate. The cost estimate with be prepared using current bid prices from the PROJECT. There is not a need for
specifications since the work is be performed as a change order. After coordinating the concept design with City staff Bellecci
will prepare a Draft Final Plan. Existing walkway will be demolished. CONSULTANT will coordinate with Jeffery Heid or other
landscape architect, but landscape architecture is not included in the budget.
OPTIONAL SERVICES PROJ MNGR1-PERSON CREWTotal Hours BudgetPROF ENGASSOC ENGASSIST ENGOFF. SURVYR.2-PERSON CREW([KLELW$Contractor: Bellecci & Associates, Inc. Project Name: Prospect Road Improvements
Exhibit A-2 Page 1 of 1
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department
PREPARED BY:John Cherbone, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:Budget Adjustment for the Koi Pond Improvements Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution transferring $65,000 from the Big Basin Way Turn-Around Project to the Koi
Pond Improvements Project.
BACKGROUND:
Material costs for the Koi Pond filtration system and pump house is significantly more than was
anticipated. Lumber and certain components for the filtration system were determined to be
$59,000 more than available in the project budget. Staff recommends transferring $59,000 plus a
contingency of $6,000 from the Big Basin Way Turn-Around Project. The turn-around project was
completed under budget with an available balance of $142,000. This request was reviewed by the
Finance Committee at their August 23rd, meeting.
If the Recommended Actions are approved the project is expected to be completed in October.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Budget Resolution
141
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
TO ADJUST THE FY 2018/19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET
TO TRANSFER UNNEEDED FUNDS FROM THE BIG BASIN WAY TURNAROUND CIP
TO THE HAKONE GARDENS KOI POND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Hakone Gardens Master Plan identified a need for Improvements to the Koi Pond;
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the Improvements as a CIP Project;
WHEREAS, the budgeted funds are insufficient for the completion of the Project;
WHEREAS, unused funding is available in the completed Big Basin Way Turnaround CIP Project;
WHEREAS, staff requests unused Big Basin Way Turnaround CIP Project funding be transferred to the
Hakone Gardens Koi Pond project as follows:
Account Description Account Amount
To decrease expenditure appropriation and transfer unneeded funding from the Big Basin Way Turnaround CIP:
Increase Transfers Out 411.9122-008.99999 $65,000
Decrease Expenditure appropriation 411.9122-008.81161 ($65,000)
To transfer in funding and appropriate an increase in expenditures to the Hakone Gardens Koi Pond CIP:
Increase Transfer In 412.9222-007.49999 $65,000
Increase Expense Appropriation 412.9222-007.81161 $65,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
approves the above adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2018/19 CIP Budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 5th day of September, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:_____________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Mayor, City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Debbie Bretschneider,
Interim City Clerk, City of Saratoga 142
Page 1 of 1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department
PREPARED BY:Mainini Cabute, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT:Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Restricting Parking on both sides of Montalvo Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution adopting No Parking restrictions on both sides of
Montalvo Road between Montalvo Lane and Montalvo Heights.
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2018, the Traffic Safety Commission approved parking restrictions on both sides of
Montalvo Road between Montalvo Lane and Montalvo Heights because the width of the street is too
narrow to allow emergency vehicles access if vehicles are parked on that portion of the road.
The width of Montalvo Road in the section between Montalvo Lane and Montalvo Heights varies
between 20-24 feet. According to the Santa Clara County Fire Code, the minimum clear width of fire
department access roads shall be 20 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street if the street
width is 36 feet or more and on one side of the street if the street width is 28 feet or more.
The Montalvo Arts Center is located adjacent to this section of Montalvo Road and overflow parking
sometimes occurs. Vehicles parking at this location can prevent emergency vehicles from reaching
properties in the area near the Montalvo Arts Center. The City considers parking restrictions when the
street width is less than 28 feet and there are circumstances that could prevent fire vehicle access.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:MV Resolution- No Parking at Montalvo Road
Attachment B: Location map of Montalvo Road
1033651.1
143
RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESTRICTED PARKING ON MONTALVO ROAD
BETWEEN MONTALVO LANE AND MONTALVO HEIGHTS
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
I. In order to facilitate the proper movement of traffic, including emergency vehicles, the
following restriction is adopted on the location listed below.
NAME OF STREETS LOCATION RESTRICTION
Montalvo Road Montalvo Road between
Montalvo Lane and
Montalvo Heights Drive.
No Parking on both sides of
Montalvo Road between
Montalvo Lane and Montalvo
Heights Drive.
II. All prior resolutions and other enactments imposing a parking restriction at the location
specified above are hereby repealed to the extent of their inconsistency with the restriction
specified above.
III. This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are
installed.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy Clerk
1033650.1
144
Montalvo Road
Parking Restriction
145
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department
PREPARED BY:Nicole Johnson, Planner II
SUBJECT:APCC18-0002 -Appeal of a cell facility approval along Pierce Road near the
Vista Regina intersection
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing and de novo review of the appeal, and adopt the attached resolution
denying appeal APCC18-0002 and approving the cell facility application PDR18-0011.
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider thirteen (13)
separate AT&T applications for cell facilities,to be located on existing utility poles within the
public road right-of-way at various locations on Big Basin Way, Congress Springs Road,and
Pierce Road.The applications were submitted by AT&T Mobility (Applicant). At the hearing, the
Planning Commission discussed the applications, received public comments, and unanimously
voted to approve all but one of the cell facility applications. The Planning Commission staff report
and meeting minutes are included as Attachment #4.
On July 23, 2018, Qiong (Joan) Luo and Lin Zhu (Appellants) appealed the Planning
Commission’s approval of the cell facility along Pierce Road near the intersection of Vista Regina
(PDR18-0011). The appeal application is included in Attachment #1. The Appellants live at 21711
Mt. Eden Road,which is an adjacent parcel west of the proposed project site.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions
from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has
established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided
cumulative RF exposure reports for all the proposed microcell sites, which conclude that the RF
energy is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC.
Since the Applicant has documented compliance with federal exposure limits, under the
Telecommunications Act, the City can evaluate and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless
installations. Any concerns regarding health or safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within the
purview of the City Council.146
2 | P a g e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located along Pierce Road near the Vista Regina intersection. Surrounding uses
include single-family residences to the north, east, west, and south.
On July 11, 2018 the Applicant received Planning Commission Design Review approval to install a
cell facility on an existing utility pole within the public right-of-way along Pierce Road. The
Applicant’s stated purpose for the cell facility is to improve the capacity of the Applicant’s existing
4G LTE network to allow the Applicant to provide better wireless voice and data coverage for
residents inthe area. The proposal includesinstalling a new canister antenna at the top of the existing
utility pole which will increase itsheight by approximately 10 feet.Associated mechanical equipment
will be vertically mounted onto the poles and situated among foliage of nearby trees. Placing and
screening pole-mounted equipment avoids adding ground-mounted equipment to the site. The
proposed antenna and all equipment will be painted to match the existing poles.
APPEAL:
The Appellants listed four main issues within their appeal submittal as to why they believe the City
Council should overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and deny application PDR18-0011 for
the cell facility. The Appellants’ appeal is summarized below with each issue followed by staff
explanation:
The proposed microcell antenna will have a negative aesthetic impact on the surrounding
environment and will be a negative visual burden to their property
The proposed cell facility would be located on an existing wood utility pole in the public right-of-
way. The existing utility pole is situated among mature vegetation. In addition to the natural
screening, the Applicant will screen the antenna in a pole-top shroud, in line with and painted to
match the existing pole.
The increase of ten feet in height to the utility pole with the antenna will not be screened
by the existing trees
The cell antenna itself will not be directly screened by the existing trees but the existing utility
pole is situated among mature vegetation and the Applicant will screen the antenna in a pole-top
shroud, in line with and painted to match the existing pole.
Reduction of property value
The Appellants’ concern is duly noted however the City Council is advised to consider the merits
of the cell facility pursuant to the design review findings detailed below.
Fear of their children coming into contact with the pole mounted equipment while climbing
the adjacent trees
The Appellants’ concern is duly noted however the City Council is advised to consider the merits
of the cell facility pursuant to the design review findings detailed below.
147
3 | P a g e
Because this appeal requires de novo consideration by the City Council, staff recommends that the
City Council make each of the required findings pursuant to City Code Section 15-44.025 required
for design review approval for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as set forth below:
a. That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-located with another
Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or an existing utility
pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has demonstrated that such
location is not technically or operationally feasible.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed cell facility would be
located on an existing utility pole within the public right-of-way.
b. That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related structures incorporate
architectural treatments and screening to substantially include:
1. Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions;
2. Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant background;
3. Colors and materials that are non-reflective;
4. Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and
5. Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposedcellfacilityand associated
equipment will be located on an existing utility pole without accessory ground mounted
equipment and fencing to detract from the predominant background. Pole mounted
mechanical equipment would be located on the opposite side of the pole facing away from
the public street to minimize views from the public right-of-way, all equipment will be
painted a non-glossy non-reflective color to match the color of the utility pole, all cabling
will be installed in a tight manner to avoid visual clutter, and the height of the
poles/antennas will be compatible with nearby trees.
c. That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the Wireless Communication
Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures, and that fencing material is
compatible with the image and aesthetics of the surrounding area.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed antenna and associated
equipment will be placed on existing utility poles with at least six feet of vertical clearance
from the ground, with no ground-mounted equipment.
The Applicant has provided a response to the appeal application included in Attachment #2.
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.
Several neighboring property owners have expressed support for this cell facility. Their emails
are included in Attachment #3.
148
4 | P a g e
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Appeal Application
Attachment 2 – Response from AT&T Mobility
Attachment 3 – Public Comments on the Appeal
Attachment 4 – Resolution of the City Council to Deny the Appeal
Attachment 5 – July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Resolution of Approval
Attachment 6 – July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (w/out attachments) and
Meeting Minutes
Attachment 7 -Photo simulations & Site Coverage Maps
Attachment 8 – Development Plans
149
Attachment 1
150
151
152
153
C1. Current view from our main entrance of the house.
154
C2. A simulation of the microcell on the pole. As for the size of the microcell, since I don’t have access to
what they actually look like or the actual size of the microcell and mast, its size was estimated based on
the height of the fence post which I believe is about 5 feet. As you can see, the microcell certainly will
negatively impact the visual appearance from our yard and house.
155
D. A few alternative poles/locations that could be used for this microcell site and not visible from nearby
houses if there are any.
156
From: Caitlin McLester <cmclester@modus-corp.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:38 PM
To: Nicole Johnson <njohnson@saratoga.ca.us>
Subject: Re: PDR18-0011 appeal
Hi Nicole,
AT&T has a significant service coverage gap in this portion of Saratoga and is committed to
closing that gap by installing a low-power, low-profile “small cell” facility on an existing utility
pole in this remote site in the public right-of-way along Pierce Road. In response to the
appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of AT&T’s proposed small cell, AT&T
thoroughly investigated potential alternatives for this small cell. In evaluating alternative
sites, AT&T considered the community values expressed in the Saratoga Municipal Code. In
particular, AT&T’s site selection activities were guided by the design criteria under Section
15-44.025 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. AT&T’s analysis and conclusions are summarized
in the attached Alternative Sites Analysis.
With respect to the appellant’s safety concerns, and as the Planning Commission explained
during its hearing on the site, the city cannot consider the effects of radio frequency
emissions in making its decision on AT&T’s application. Moreover, AT&T’s facility is
equivalent to other utility infrastructure that is attached to utility poles as proposed with this
small cell. With respect to aesthetics, AT&T has taken great care to design the small cell to
blend into the surroundings consistent with Code Section 15-44.025. AT&T’s small cell
antenna will be sheathed within a pole-top radome in line with the existing pole. The
equipment will be pole-mounted and painted to match the pole. In addition, AT&T’s
equipment will be screened from view by the existing mature trees nearby.
After analyzing several alternatives, AT&T concluded that the proposed small cell is the least
intrusive means by which AT&T can address its wireless service needs in the area.
Best,
Caitlin
Caitlin McLester, Project Manager | Modus, Inc.
m: 510-914-1357 | www.modus-corp.com
Zuv
157
Alternative Sites Analysis
AT&T Mobility
Proposed Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Facility
Located in the Public Right-of-Way
Across From 13988 Pierce Road
Saratoga, CA
AT&T Site ID WSAR0_003
158
2
Summary
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility (AT&T) is committed to providing
wireless telecommunications services and faster data rates throughout the City of Saratoga, and
is doing so by installing the least intrusive technology, with the least intrusive design, and at the
least intrusive locations in the area. Rather than construct large macro facilities throughout the
neighborhoods of Saratoga, AT&T is choosing to deploy very small IDFLOLWLHVFDOOHG‡VPDOO
FHOOV·WKDWFDQEHGHSOR\HGRQXWLOLW\LQ frastructure in the public rights of way. A small cell is a
low powered cell site, which, when grouped with other small cells, can relieve capacity
constraints by offloading network traffic carried by the nearby macro antenna sectors, thereby
improving signal quality and mobile data speeds.
Objective
Small Cell Node WSAR0_003 ZLOOKHOSFORVH$77¶VVLJQLILFDQWVHUYLFHFRYHUDJHJDSLQWKLV
portion of the City by the least intrusive means. The node will enable very high data speeds, and
ultimately 5G services, to these nearby users and improve service throughout the sector. Placing
small cells on utility infrastructure in the public rights-of-way helps meet this need with minimal
visual impact.
AT&T conducted a thorough analysis of potential sites in the area for the placement of a small
cell facility. Working with the City Code, we investigated several alternative sites and identified
WKHSURSRVHGVLWHDVWKHEHVWDYDLODEOHDQGOHDVWLQWUXVLYHPHDQVWRDGGUHVV$77¶V service
objectives. The proposed site will help improve service to business, residents, pedestrians, and
WUDYHOHUVLQWKHDUHDWKDWZLOODOORZWKHPWRIXOO\H[SHULHQFHWKHDGYDQWDJHVRI$77¶VKLJK
VSHHG*/7(VHUYLFH$QGZLWK$77¶VVHOHFWLRQE\WKHIHGHUDO)LUVW5HVSRQGHU1HWZRUN
Authority, FirstNet, as the wireless services provider to build and manage the first-ever
nationwide public safety wireless network, each of its new and modified sites will enhance its
capability to improve first responder communications.
The location of a wireless communications facility to fill a significant gap in coverage is
dependent upon topography, building clutter, vegetation, zoning, utilities, access, feasibility and
availability. Wireless communication is line-of-sight technology that requires wireless
communications facilities to be in relatively close proximity to the wireless handsets to be
served.
Methodology and Zoning Criteria
AT&T seeks to close its significant gap in service coverage using the least intrusive means under
the community values expressed in the Saratoga Municipal Code. In particular, Section 15-
44.025(a) expresses a strong preference for attaching wireless telecommunications facilities to
existing utility poles in the public rights-of-way. Section 15-44.025(b) expressed design criteria,
including need to blend facilities with the surrounding environment. And Section 15-44.025(c)
discourages ground-mounted equipment by requiring landscaping near ground-mounted
equipment. Based on these parameters, AT&T investigated site locations that could meet the
VHUYLFHREMHFWLYH$77¶VDQDO\VLVLVVHWIRUWKEHORZ
159
3
Analysis
AT&T investigated potential alternative sites for the proposed small cell facility. The following
map shows the alternative sites in the City that AT&T evaluated, which are discussed below.
160
4
Proposed Small Cell WSAR0_003 – Public right-of-way across from 13988 Pierce Road
Conclusion: The proposed site for AT&T Small Cell Node WSAR0_003 is the best available and
OHDVWLQWUXVLYHPHDQVWRDGGUHVV$77¶VVHUYLFHREMHFWLYHVLQWKLVSRUWLRQRI6DUDWRJD
This existing wood utility pole is located at a bend in Pierce Road near its intersection with Vista
Regina. Consistent with Section 15-44.025(a) of the Saratoga Municipal Code, AT&T proposes
to attach its proposed small cell facility to an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way. The
pole is situated among mature vegetaWLRQZKLFKZLOOKHOS$77¶VIDFLOLW\EOHQGZHOOZLWKWKH
surrounding area pursuant to Code Section 15-44.025(b). In addition to this natural screening,
AT&T will screen its antenna in a pole-top shroud, in liner with and painted to match the
existing pole$77¶VHTXLSPHQWDOVRZLOOEHSDLQWHGWRPDWFKWKHSROHDQGZLOOEHVLWXDWHG
among foliage of nearby trees. By placing and screening pole-mounted equipment, AT&T is able
to avoid adding ground-mounted equipment to the site. Thus, AT&T identified the existing
XWLOLW\ SROH DV WKH EHVW DYDLODEOH OHDVW LQWUXVLYH DQG YLDEOH DOWHUQDWLYH IRU VLWLQJ $77¶V
proposed small cell.
161
5
Candidate No. 2 – Utility pole in the right-of-way in front of 13988 Pierce Rd.
Candidate No. 3 – Utility pole in the right-of-way across from 13962 Pierce Rd.
Conclusion: Not feasible.
This existing wood utility pole is not a feasible
alternative. CPUC GO95 standards require two of
four quadrants of a wood pole to be free for
climbing and equipment space, and this pole
would not meet that requirement.
Conclusion: Not feasible.
This existing wood utility pole is not a feasible
alternative. CPUC GO95 standards require two of
four quadrants of a wood pole to be free for
climbing and equipment space, and this pole
would not meet that requirement.
162
6
Candidate No. 4 – Utility pole in the right-of-way in front of 13962 Pierce Rd.
Candidate No. 5 – Utility pole in the right-of-way at the intersection of Pierce & Mt Eden
Conclusion: More intrusive than proposed Small
Cell WSAR0_003.
This existing wood utility pole is more intrusive
than the proposed small cell because a small cell
facility here would require installation of a new
ground-mounted meter.
Conclusion: Not feasible.
This existing wood utility pole is not a feasible
alternative. This pole has a primary riser and
GO95 prohibits AT&T from attaching wireless
communications facilities to poles with a primary
risers.
163
7
Candidate No. 6 – Utility pole in the right-of-way in front of 14014 Pierce Rd.
Candidate No. 7 – Utility pole in the right-of-way across from of 14014 Pierce Rd.
Alternative Sites Analysis Conclusion:
$77¶VSURSRVHG6PDOO&HOO:6$5BLVWKHEHVWDYDLODEOHDQGOHDVWLQWUXVLYHPHDQVE\
which AT&T can address its service objectives in this portion of Saratoga.
Conclusion: Not feasible.
This existing wood utility pole is not a feasible
alternative. CPUC GO95 standards require two of
four quadrants of a wood pole to be free for
climbing and equipment space, and this pole
would not meet that requirement. In addition, this
pole has cutouts connecting to primary power, and
GO95 prohibits AT&T from attaching wireless
communications facilities to such poles.
Conclusion: More intrusive than proposed
Small Cell WSAR0_003.
This existing wood utility pole is more
intrusive than the proposed small cell because
a small cell here would be more visible to
residents and passers-by as compared to the
proposed site.
164
From:maya purisai
To:Nicole Johnson
Cc:heinrich@hunzikers.org
Subject:Application PDR18-0011
Date:Thursday, August 9, 2018 6:27:39 PM
Dear Ms. Johnson,
I understand from Mr. Heinrich Hunziker you are looking for content supporting installation
of the microcell unit at Pierce and Vista Regina. Below is an experience I shared on NextDoor
a month ago. It would be great if we had better connectivity in this neighborhood for security
reasons. However, my support is on condition that the installation does not cause adverse
effects on neighbors living in close proximity of these units. I couldn’t compromise others
health over my own needs. Thanks for the consideration.
I agree about the need for better connectivity.
A few weeks ago I was driving home from work at 9pm; I was almost home when I
spotted a dog on Pierce road. Being a dog owner myself, I was worried for the dog
and stopped my car. After reading the tag on the dog, I found the dog lived on Via
Regina so I decided to just drive him to his home instead of calling animal services
and creating a hassle for the dog owners. When I got into Via Regina, it was dark and
I couldn’t find the home because my navigation system wasn’t giving accurate info
and I did not have cellular coverage. I kept driving in circles for half an hour but
eventually got some directions from someone in that neighborhood and managed to
get to his home. The house was isolated and in a remote part of the street. I knocked
at their front door but no one answered. Suddenly I was scared that no one at my
home would know I had come to this remote street and my family would be so worried
because my decision had been on the spur of the moment. I was already half hour
later than when I had told my husband I would be home. I never have signal once I
pass Surrey Ln on Pierce Rd so the question of calling my husband in advance
wouldn’t have worked.
I learned a valuable lesson that day. Good samaritans need cell coverage. I reflected
on my decisions once I got home and promised myself to first come home and either
take my husband with me or at least inform people in the future if I am veering from a
plan.
I wouldn’t have had to panic if I had cellular coverage!
Another situation - I often have to take work calls during my drives to and from home.
Because of the no cell coverage issue, I must always time myself to get out of the no
cellular zone on Pierce.
Best,
Mrs. Purisai
Attachment 3
165
From:Carmen Tam Miller
To:Nicole Johnson
Subject:Microcell Application PDR18-0011
Date:Monday, August 13, 2018 7:00:03 PM
To Nicole Johnson
I live on Palomino Way and have wished for better cell coverage since moving here in 2005.
At that time we contacted Verizon and suggested a tower in the wooded hill behind our house.
We were told the city would not approve. I find it totally ridiculous to live in the Silicon
valley and have worse cell reception than some backward rural areas possibly some third
world countries.
We recently were made aware that a Microcell was planned to be added the would improve
our cell reception and can not believe that some local residents are fighting it. Please help
bring us into the modern world and vote to have the Microcell or Microcells installed.
Carmen Tam Miller
cftam1@mac.com
14098 Palomino Way
Saratoga, CA 95070
510-468-4423 cell or 408-647-2140
166
From:Heinrich Hunziker
To:Nicole Johnson
Subject:PDR18-0011, City Council hearing of appeal
Date:Friday, August 17, 2018 2:47:47 PM
Dear Ms. Johnson,
This is in response to your notice of the appeal hearing by the City
Council regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of PDR18-0011. I
strongly support the confirmation of this approval, for the following
reasons: Both my wife, who is handicapped, and I are seniors who use
the AT&T cell phone network. Unfortunately we cannot use it at home
because the signal is very weak or nonexistent at our location, 13925
Pierce Rd. This is becoming a major problem for us, since security and
alert systems, pharmacies, and other services increasingly depend on
cell phone connections. The proposed microcell site will solve our
problem, and I therefore urge the City Council to reject the appeal.
Sincerely, Heinrich E. Hunziker
167
From:Joshua Williams
To:Nicole Johnson
Subject:Microcell at Pierce and Vista Regina
Date:Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:46:23 PM
Hello,
I live at 13929 Vista Regina. As one of the closer residents to the location of the Micro Cell I 200% support it’s
installation. It will make our neighborhood safer which should be the number one priority. I as many these days, do
not have a land line and rely fully on cellular. I have ATT and without internet and WiFi calling at my house I
would have no service. If I am waking on my property and needed help I can not call for it. If I had an accident on
Pierce Road I can not call for help. About 8 months ago my wife witnessed a serious accident on Pierce Rd where a
car veered off the road and into a neighbors property below the road causing damage and injury. My wife could not
call for help due to lack of service and had to go to a nearby house to use their phone to call 911. Please help
approve this much needed safety improvement for our residents.
Josh Williams - 6 year Saratoga resident with a family of 3
13929 Vista Regina
Saratoga ca 95070
Sent from my iPhone
168
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO: XX-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DENYING APPEAL NO. APCC18-0002, AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATION NO. PDR18-0011 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL FACILITY
LOCATED ON AN EXISTING UTILITY POLE WITHIN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY ONPIERCE ROAD NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF VISTA REGINA
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by AT&T Mobility (Applicant) requesting
approval for the installation of a cell facility on an existing utility pole located on the west side of
Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Vista Regina. The installation includes a canister
antenna on top of the pole and associated equipment to be mounted on the utility pole (Project). The
height of the utility pole with the antenna would increase from approximately 33 feet to 42 feet.
The antenna and associated equipment would be painted to match the existing utility pole.
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Project, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the Applicant, and other interested
parties, and approved application PDR18-0011 for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2018, an appeal to the City Council was filed by Qiong (Joan) Luo
and Lin Zhu (Appellants); and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2018, following a duly noticed public hearing where the City
Council conducted a de novo review of the appeal, at which all interested parties were given a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, the City Council considered the application, site
plan, architectural drawings, CEQA documentation of exemption, and other materials, exhibits, and
evidence presented by City Staff, the Appellant, the Applicant, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends that the City Council
determine that this Project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines § 15303, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby denies the appeal of
the Appellants, affirms the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga on July 11,
2018, and approves the Applicant’s cell facility 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.” The Class 3 Categorical Exemption applies to construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and installation of small new equipment and
facilities in small structures.169
Resolution No. XX-XXX
2
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
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be
evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light,
appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be
fully mitigated; 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 design review findings for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities set forth
under City Code Section 15-44.025 can be made in the affirmative and are set forth as follows:
Section 15-44.025(a) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-
located with another Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or
an existing utility pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has
demonstrated that such location is not technically or operationally feasible.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed cell facility would be
located on an existing utility pole within the public right-of-way.
Section 15-44.025(b) That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related
structures incorporate architectural treatments and screening to substantially
include:
1. Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions;
2. Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant
background;
3. Colors and materials that are non-reflective;
4. Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and
5. Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed cell facility and associated
equipment will be located on an existing utility pole without accessory ground mounted
equipment and fencing to detract from the predominant background. Pole mounted
mechanical equipment would be located on the opposite side of the pole facing away from
the public street to minimize views from the public right-of-way, all equipment will be
painted a non-glossy non-reflective color to match the color of the utility pole, all cabling
will be installed in a tight manner to avoid visual clutter, and the height of the
poles/antennas will be compatible with nearby trees.
Section 15-44.025(c) That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the
Wireless Communication Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures,
and that fencing material is compatible with the image and aesthetics of the
surrounding area.
170
Resolution No. XX-XXX
3
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed antenna and associated
equipment will be placed on existing utility poles with at least six feet of vertical clearance
from the ground, with no ground-mounted equipment.
Section 5:The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves PDR18-0011 for a cell
facility on Pierce Road near the intersection of Vista Regina subject to the Findings, and Conditions
of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
171
Resolution No. XX-XXX
4
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AT&T MOBILITY
PDR18-0011
Microcell Site
Pierce Road right-of-way (near the intersection of Vista Regina)
GENERAL
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, grading 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 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. 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.
3. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those
features, as shown on the Approved Plans date stamped May 23, 2018. 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 City Code.
4. PERMEANT CONDITION-the pole mounted equipment shall be located on the pole in a way
to reduce the visual impacts from the road right of way. In addition, the antennas and associated
equipment shall be painted to match the existing utility pole.
5. 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
172
Resolution No. XX-XXX
5
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
6. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
7. 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.
8. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
9. 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:
c. 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
d. 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 from the Community Development Director, 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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those
features, as shown on the Approved Plans and Description of Use, denominated Exhibit "A",
and the Photo Simulations, denominated Exhibit “B”, both received and dated May 23, 2018.
All proposed changes to the Approved Plans and Description of Use must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes.
10. Prior to the installation of the proposed antenna and associated equipment, the antenna and
equipment shall be painted a color similar to the structure it’s being attached to.
173
Resolution No. XX-XXX
6
11. Three (3) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These
plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department
Director or designee 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
b.This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
c.All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division
REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES
12. The applicant for this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required
permits from said Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance
for any proposed equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved
use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department
documentation from the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or
development with the FCC's requirements.
13. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and related equipment
shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation.
14. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities,
including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met.
15. The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be
reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the time the
interference was reported.
16. Design review approval will be required for all additional antennas that are proposed to be
installed on the existing utility pole that would substantially change the physical dimensions of
the existing utility pole.
PUBLIC WORKS
17. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Public Works requirements.
174
Resolution No. XX-XXX
7
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on this 5th day of
September 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk
175
RESOLUTION NO: 18-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR18-0011 FOR A MICROCELL SITE LOCATED ON
AN EXISTING UTILITY POLE WITHIN THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ON
PIERCE ROAD NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF VISTA REGINA
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by AT&T Mobility requesting approval for the
installation of a microcell site on an existing utility pole located on the west side of Pierce Road
right-of-way near the intersection of Vista Regina. The installation includes a canister antenna on
top of the pole and associated equipment to be mounted on the pole. The height of the utility pole
with the antenna would increase from approximately 33 feet to 42 feet. The antenna and associated
equipment would be painted to match the existing utility pole.
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 July 11, 2018, 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 Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3
(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption applies to new construction and
installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
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
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Land Use Element Policy 5.2 which states that Development proposals shall be
evaluated against City standards and guidelines to assure that the related traffic, noise, light,
appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be
fully mitigated; 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 is located within a
public right of way on an existing utility pole and the antenna and associated equipment will be
painted to match the existing pole.
Attachment 5
176
Resolution No. 18-015
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR18-0011 for a
microcell site on Pierce near the intersection of Vista Regina subject to the Findings, and Conditions
of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 11th day of
July 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Joyce Hlava
Chair, Planning Commission
177
Resolution No. 18-015
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AT&T MOBILITY
PDR18-0011
Microcell Site
Pierce Road right-of-way
(Pierce near the intersection of Vista Regina)
GENERAL
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, grading 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 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. 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.
3. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those
features, as shown on the Approved Plans date stamped May 23, 2018. 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 City Code.
4. PERMEANT CONDITION-the pole mounted equipment shall be located on the pole in a way
to reduce the visual impacts from the road right of way. In addition, the antennas and associated
equipment shall be painted to match the existing utility pole.
5. 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 178
Resolution No. 18-015
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).
6. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date
of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in
accordance with the City Code.
7. 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.
8. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design
Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the
Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the
Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements
of this Resolution.
9. 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:
c. 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
d. 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 from the Community Development Director, 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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those
features, as shown on the Approved Plans and Description of Use, denominated Exhibit "A",
and the Photo Simulations, denominated Exhibit “B”, both received and dated May 23, 2018.
All proposed changes to the Approved Plans and Description of Use must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes.
10. Prior to the installation of the proposed antenna and associated equipment, the antenna and
equipment shall be painted a color similar to the structure it’s being attached to. 179
Resolution No. 18-015
11. Three (3) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These
plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department
Director or designee 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
b. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages;
c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building
Division
REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES OR UTILITIES
12. The applicant for this Project shall contact the FCC and verify whether there are any required
permits from said Commission. If required by the FCC, prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance
for any proposed equipment installations (or if none, prior to commencement of the approved
use), the Owner and/or Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department
documentation from the FCC showing proof of compliance of the proposed use and/or
development with the FCC's requirements.
13. If the subject site is decommissioned in the future, all cellular antennas and related equipment
shall be removed within 30 days of cessation of operation.
14. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities,
including the California Public Utilities Commission, must be met.
15. The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be
reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours from the time the
interference was reported.
16. Design review approval will be required for all additional antennas that are proposed to be
installed on the existing utility pole that would substantially change the physical dimensions of
the existing utility pole.
PUBLIC WORKS
17. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Public Works requirements.
180
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: July 11, 2018
Property Owner: Joint Pole Association (applicant-AT&T Mobility)
From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
Report Prepared By: Christopher Riordan/Nicole Johnson
Application/location
1.Application PDR18-0008 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Masson Court
2.Application PDR18-0009 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Congress Hall
3.Application PDR18-0010 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Vintage Lane
4.Application PDR18-0011 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Vista Regina
5.Application PDR18-0012 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Pike Road
6.Application PDR18-0013 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Congress Springs Lane
7.Application PDR18-0014 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road
8.Application PDR18-0015 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Comer Drive
9.Application PDR18-0016 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Surrey Lane
10.Application PDR18-0017 - Congress Springs Road right-of-way near the intersection of Pierce Road
11.Application PDR18-0018 - Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Chalet Clotilde Drive
12.Application PDR18-0019 - Congress Springs Road right-of-way near the intersection of Pierce Road
13.Application PDR18-0020 - Big Basin Way right-of-way near the intersection of Toll Gate Road
AT&T Microcell Sites
Attachment 6
181
Report to the Planning Commission
AT&T Microcell Sites
July 11, 2018
Page | 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests Design Review approval to install microcell sites on existing utility poles
within the public road right-of-way at various locations on Pierce Road, Congress Springs Road,
and Big Basin Way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolutions No. 18-012 thru 18-024 approving the project subject to conditions of approval
included in Attachment #1.
Pursuant to Section 15-44.020 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, no building permit shall be issued
for the construction of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility or the modification of an existing
Wireless Telecommunications Facility, within any zoning district, until such structure has received
design review approval by the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to install thirteen (13) microcell sites on
existing utility poles of varying heights within the public right-of-way of Pierce Road, Congress
Springs Road, and Big Basin Way. The deployment of these microcells will improve the capacity
of the existing 4G LTE network and allows AT&T to provide better wireless voice and data
coverage for residents in the area. The proposal includes installing new canister antennas at the
top of existing utility poles which will increase their height by approximately 9 to 12 feet.
Associated mechanical equipment will be vertically mounted onto the poles providing a
minimum of six feet of vertical clearance from the ground. The mechanical equipment would be
located on the opposite side of the pole facing the public street. Only one location, the site on Big
Basin Way near the intersection of Toll Gate Road (PDR18-0020), would include ground
mounted equipment which would be limited to a single 50” tall and 12” wide electrical meter.
The meter would be located adjacent to an existing power pole located to the east. The proposed
antennas and all equipment will be painted to match the existing poles.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Requirements
Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over RF emissions
from personal wireless antenna facilities. Pursuant to its authority under federal law, the FCC has
established rules to regulate the safety of emissions from these facilities. The applicant has provided
cumulative RF exposure reports for all the proposed microcell sites, which conclude that the RF
energy is well below the Maximum Permissible Exposure limit established by the FCC.
Since the applicant has documented compliance with federal exposure limits, under the
Telecommunication Act, the City can evaluate and regulate only the aesthetic aspects of wireless
installations. Any concerns regarding health or safety aspects of the wireless sites are not within
the purview of the Planning Commission.
FINDINGS
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section
Article 15-44.025 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support
making all of those required findings:
182
Report to the Planning Commission
AT&T Microcell Sites
July 11, 2018
Page | 3
a. That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility is or can be co-located with another
Wireless Telecommunications Facility located on a structure or an existing utility
pole/tower in the public right-of-way unless the applicant has demonstrated that such
location is not technically or operationally feasible.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed microcell sites would be
located on existing utility poles within the public right-of-ways.
b. That the Wireless Telecommunications Facility and related structures incorporate
architectural treatments and screening to substantially include:
1. Appropriate and innovative stealth design solutions;
2. Techniques to blend with the surrounding environment and predominant background;
3. Colors and materials that are non-reflective;
4. Exterior textures to match the existing support structure or building; and
5. Reasonably compatible height with the existing surrounding environment.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that all the proposed antennas and
associated equipment, with the exception of the location at Big Basin Way near the
intersection of Toll Gate Road, will be located on existing utility poles without accessory
ground mounted equipment and fencing to detract from the predominant background. Only
one location, the site on Big Basin Way near the intersection of Toll Gate Road (PDR18-
0020), would include a single 50” tall and 12” wide ground mounted electrical meter.
Landscaping and/or fencing would screen the meter from view. Pole mounted mechanical
equipment would be located on the opposite side of the pole facing away from the public
street to minimize views from the public right-of-way, all equipment will be painted a non-
glossy non-reflective color to match the color of the utility poles, all cabling will be
installed in a tight manner to avoid visual clutter, and the height of the poles/antennas will
be compatible with nearby trees.
c. That landscaping and fencing provide visual screening of the Wireless Communication
Facility's ground-mounted equipment, related structures, and that fencing material is
compatible with the image and aesthetics of the surrounding area.
This finding can be in the affirmative in that the proposed antennas and associated
equipment will be placed on existing utility poles with at least six feet of vertical clearance
from the ground, no ground-mounted equipment, with the exception of the site on Big Basin
Way near the intersection of Toll Gate Road (PDR18-0020), would include a single 50”
tall and 12” wide ground mounted electrical meter. Landscaping and/or fencing would
screen the subject meter from view.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence
Public notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of each utility pole location. In addition,
a public hearing notice and project descriptions were published in the Saratoga News. Staff has
received emails from five neighbors commenting on five sites (Attachment #2).
183
Report to the Planning Commission
AT&T Microcell Sites
July 11, 2018
Page | 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section
15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources
Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of limited small new facilities;
installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolutions of Approval Numbered 18-012 through 18-024
2. Emails from neighbors
3. Photo simulations
4. Site coverage maps
5. Development Plans (received May 23, 2018)
184
Attachment 5
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
JULY 11, 2018
7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Joan Pisani Community Center, Multipurpose Room | 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 27, 2018.
Recommended Action:
Approve Minutes of June 27, 2018 regular meeting.
MINUTES NOT APPROVED.
1. NEW BUSINESS
None.
2. PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3
PRESENT: Chair Joyce Hlava, Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Len Almalech, Tina
Walia, Kookie Fitzsimmons
ABSENT: Commissioners Razi Mohiuddin (excused), Lucas Pastuszka (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
185
2.1. Applicant/owner-AT&T Mobility/Joint Pole Association. The applicant requests
Design Review approval to install microcell sites on existing utility poles within the
public road right-of-way in the following locations:
1. Application PDR18-0008; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Masson
Court (Latitude & Longitude: 37.153067 & -122.0320460)
2. Application PDR18-0009; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of
Congress Hall Lane (Latitude & Longitude: 37.151802 & -122.032247)
3. Application PDR18-0010; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Vintage
Lane (Latitude & Longitude: 37.152448 & -122.032127)
4. Application PDR18-0011; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Via
Regina (Latitude & Longitude: 37.152448 & -122.053639)
5. Application PDR18-0012; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Pike
Road (Latitude & Longitude: 37.268097 & -122.049094)
6. Application PDR18-0013; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of
Congress Springs Lane (Latitude & Longitude: 37.251133 & -122.053883)
7. Application PDR18-0014; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Pierce
Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Latitude & Longitude: 37.1653.61 &
122.0159.56)
8. Application PDR18-0015; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Comer
Drive (Latitude & Longitude: 37.279144 & -122.038408)
9. Application PDR18-0016; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Surrey
Lane (Latitude & Longitude: 37.163032 & -122.022524)
10. Application PDR18-0017; Congress Springs Road right-of-way near the intersection
of Pierce Road (Latitude & Longitude: 37.252297 & -122.057092)
11. Application PDR18-0018; Pierce Road right-of-way near the intersection of Chalet
Clotilde Drive (Latitude & Longitude: 37.272411 & -122.044464)
12. Application PDR18-0019; Congress Springs Road right-of-way near the intersection
of Pierce Road (Latitude & Longitude: 37.150710 & -122.025078)
13. Application PDR18-0020; Big Basin Way right-of-way near the intersection of Toll
Gate Road (Latitude & Longitude: 37.253067 -122.043228)
PDR18-0009/Resolution No. 18-013, PDR18-0010/ Resolution No. 18-014,
PDR18-0012/Resolution No. 18-016, PDR18-0013/Resolution No. 18-017,
PDR18-0015/Resolution No. 18-019, PDR18-0016/Resolution No. 18-020,
PDR18-0017/Resolution No. 18-021, PDR18-0019/Resolution No. 18-023:
AHUJA/ALMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: HLAVA, AHUJA, ALMALECH,
FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN,
PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PDR18-0020, Resolution No. 18-024:
ALMALECH/AHUJA MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: HLAVA, AHUJA, ALMALECH,
FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN,
PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE.
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3
186
PDR18-0008, Resolution No. 18-012:
FITZSIMMONS/ALMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: HLAVA, FITZSIMMONS,
AHUJA, ALMALECH, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN,
PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PDR18-0018, Resolution No. 18-022:
AHUJA/ALMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: HLAVA, AHUJA, ALMALECH,
FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN,
PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PDR18-0011, Resolution No. 18-015:
AHUJA/WALIA MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: HLAVA, AHUJA, ALMALECH,
FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN,
PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PDR18-014, Resolution No. 18-018:
ALMALECH/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO TO CONTINUE TO DATE
UNCERTAIN. MOTION PASSED. AYES: HLAVA, AHUJA, ALMALECH,
FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: MOHIUDDIN,
PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE.
DIRECTOR ITEMS
Director Pedro asked for Commission’s feedback on the sample graphics for the Village Design
Guidelines update project. Commissioner Walia volunteered to provide feedback and suggestions
to staff as the project develops.
COMMISSION ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at 9:45 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Janet Costa, Administrative Assistant
City of Saratoga
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3
187
CRAN_RSFR_WSAR0_003
PDR18-0011 Pierce Road near Vista Regina
02.15.2018
Your Project. Visualized.
www.photosims.com
Photo simulation as seen looking north along Pierce Road
proposed AT&T antenna
proposed AT&T pole
mounted equipment
Attachment 7
188
CRAN_RSFR_WSAR0_003
PDR18-0011 Pierce Road near Vista Regina
02.15.2018
Your Project. Visualized.
www.photosims.com
Photo simulation as seen looking southwest along Pierce Road
proposed AT&T antenna
proposed AT&T pole
mounted equipment
189
SINR Simulation without Proposed Small Cells – SaratogaNApril 05, 2018190
SINR Simulation with Proposed Small Cells – SaratogaNApril 05, 2018191
SINR Simulation without Proposed Small Cells –SaratogaNApril 05, 2018192
SINR Simulation with Proposed Small Cells – SaratogaNApril 05, 2018193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department
PREPARED BY:Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Response to 2017-2018 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the Civil Grand Jury Report “Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny”and
authorize the Mayor to execute the letter responding to the Grand Jury Report.
BACKGROUND:
On Jun 21, 2018, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released the report “Affordable Housing
Crisis: Density is Our Destiny”. The report focuses on the issue of affordable housing in Santa
Clara County and contains 20 findings and 19 recommendations. As one of the agencies cited in
the Grand Jury Report, the City is required to submit a response to the findings and
recommendations. The response has to be approved by the City Council at a public meeting and
submitted to the Civil Grand Jury before September 20, 2018. A copy of the response to the Grand
Jury’s Findings and Recommendations is included as Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -City of Saratoga response letter
Attachment B -Civil Grand Jury Report
207
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
September 7, 2018
Honorable Patricia Lucas
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: Response to 2017-18 Grand Jury Report
“Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny”
Dear Judge Lucas:
Enclosed please find the City of Saratoga’s response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report entitled “Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is Our Destiny.” The City thanks the Grand Jury for its investigation into this complex issue and for bringing this matter to our attention in an informative and thorough manner. The enclosed response was approved by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at the public meeting on September 5, 2018.
Sincerely,
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Mayor
208
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS
Finding 2a
Employers in the County have created a vibrant economy resulting in an inflated housing market
displacing many residents. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding.
Finding 2b
Contributions to BMR housing from employers in the County are not mandated nor evenly
shared. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding.
Finding 3a
RHNA sub-regions formed by several San Francisco Bay Area counties enable their
cities to develop promising means to meet their collective BMR requirements. Such sub-
regions can serve as instructive examples for cities in the County. Agencies to respond
are all 15 cities.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding.
Finding 3b
Developers are less willing to consider BMR developments in cities with the County’s
highest real estate values because these developments cannot meet their target return
on investment. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte
Sereno, Palo Alto and Saratoga.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding.
Finding 3c
More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower housing costs form RHNA sub-
regions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs. Responding agencies are all 15 cities.
Response – The City of Saratoga disagrees with the finding. All 15 cities in Santa Clara
County, except for one, have certified housing elements for the 2015-2023 RHNA cycle.
All jurisdictions have adequately planned for housing growth within their City/County.
Shifting the RHNA numbers between jurisdictions will not likely result in more BMR units
being developed in the sub-region because housing development is primarily market
driven. To date, even in some low cost cities, the market does not deliver adequate BMR
housing.
Finding 3e
High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions could be attractive to high-cost cities because they could
meet their BMR requirements without providing units in their cities. Cities to respond are
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo
Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.
Response – The City of Saratoga disagrees with the finding. Saratoga has a certified
Housing Element and has met the legal requirement to adopt a plan that provides
opportunities and do not unduly constrain BMR housing developments. State law does 209
not require cities to pay for the development or construction of affordable housing. BMR
housing development is supported by federal and state subsidies.
Finding 5a
Uneven BMR achievements among cities is caused in part by varying inclusionary BMR unit
percentage requirements. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding. In addition, Saratoga agrees
with the Civil Grand Jury's report stating that "Due to the small number of potential multi-
unit developments in Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, inclusionary
ordinances would generate few BMR units in these cities and are not a priority" (p.17).
Finding 5b
Inclusionary ordinances in cities having only a small number of potential multi-unit
developments would generate too few BMR units to justify their passage. Cities to respond are
Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding.
Finding 7
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units.
Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding. While NIBMY opposition does
adversely affect the supply of BMR housing units in some communities, it should be
noted that in Saratoga, all housing projects proposed within the last 10 years were
approved by the City.
Finding 8
It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular year
or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units. Agencies to respond
are all 15 cities and the County.
Response – The City of Saratoga disagrees with the finding. Saratoga reports BMR
units on building permits that have been issued for construction. Based on City records,
the City's BMR units are typically completed within 8-16 months. In the City of Saratoga,
we do not experience any difference between the number of permits issued vs. the
number of units completed.
Finding 9
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) offer a prime opportunity for cities with low housing density
and limited developable land to produce more BMR units. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los
Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Response – The City of Saratoga agrees with the finding.
Finding 10
Lack of funding mechanisms to create BMR housing has restricted BMR achievement by cities
with limited commercial development or developable land. Cities to respond are Los Altos Hills,
Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
210
Response – The City of Saratoga disagrees partially with the finding. The City agrees
with the finding that a lack of funding mechanisms has restricted the number of BMR
housing being constructed. However, the City disagrees that BMR achievement
shortfall is the responsibility of cities because cities are not legally obligated to fund BMR
housing development.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 2a
The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for
employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities
and the County.
Response – The recommendation requires further analysis because the City cannot
participate in a task force unless one is formed. Should the County form a task force,
the City of Saratoga would participate. The largest single employer in Saratoga is West
Valley Community College.
Recommendation 2b
Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for employers to create a fund that
subsidizes BMR housing, by June 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15
cities.
Response – The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted in
Saratoga. A multi-agency Housing Nexus Study was completed in December 2016 that
addressed residential and non-residential housing impact fees. The study found that the
revenues generated by such a fee in Saratoga would be negligible. Moreover, Saratoga
has limited commercial development consisting of primarily small businesses and it is
not appropriate to subject small employers to these impact fees.
Recommendation 3a
Every city in the County should identify at least one potential RHNA sub-region they would be
willing to help form and join, and report how the sub-region(s) will increase BMR housing, by the
end of 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Response – The recommendation requires further analysis. In 2015, the Cities
Association of Santa Clara County formed a Regional Housing Task Force to develop
the framework and process needed to form and implement a subregion in Santa Clara
County in the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031). At their meeting on August 15, 2018, the
City Council indicated unanimous interest in participating in a discussion with other cities
on the subregion concept. The City staff will report to the City Council no later than
December 19, 2018 on the status of the Regional Housing Task Force discussions.
Recommendation 3b
Every city in the County should identify at least one potential RHNA sub-region they would be
willing to help form and join, and report how the sub-region(s) will increase BMR housing, by the
end of 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Response – The recommendation requires further analysis. In 2015, the Cities
Association of Santa Clara County formed a Regional Housing Task Force to develop
the framework and process needed to form and implement a subregion in Santa Clara
County in the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031). At their meeting on August 15, 2018, the
211
City Council indicated unanimous interest in participating in a discussion with other cities
on the subregion concept. The City staff will report to the City Council no later than
December 19, 2018 on the status of the Regional Housing Task Force discussions.
Recommendation 3c
High-cost cities and the County should provide compensation to low-cost cities for increased
public services required for taking on more BMR units in any high-rent/low-rent RHNA sub-
region, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale
and the County.
Response – The recommendation requires further analysis. Saratoga acknowledges
that participation in a subregion will involve discussion regarding the benefits and
burdens of housing distribution among various cities. If a RHNA subregion is formed in
Santa Clara County, Saratoga would generally be open to the idea of compensation for
increased public services for those cities taking on additional allocation but more data
analysis will be needed before the City commits to the program. The City staff will report
to the City Council no later than December 19, 2018 on any additional information that
has become available regarding the sub-region proposal.
Recommendation 7
A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its RHNA objectives
for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and all 15 cities, by June 30,
2019.
Response – The recommendation requires further analysis because it depends on
action by numerous agencies. If such a task force was formed, the city would participate
in a public relations campaign to highlight the importance of housing for all income
levels. The City staff will report to the City Council no later than December 19, 2018 on
any additional information that has become available regarding a task force.
Recommendation 8
All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed BMR units,
starting in April 2019.
Response – The recommendation requires further analysis, Saratoga currently submits
annual reports to HCD utilizing the State's reporting format. If cities and the county in
Santa Clara County agree on using a different format, e.g. reporting the number of BMR
units constructed (finaled) instead of permitted (issued), the City will provide that
information. The City staff will report to the City Council no later than December 19, 2018
on any additional information that has become available regarding agreement by Santa
Clara County and the cities in the county to use a different format.
Recommendation 9a
ADU creation should be encouraged by decreasing minimum lot size requirements and
increasing the allowed unit maximum square footage to that prescribed by state law, by the end
of 2019. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and
Saratoga.
Response – The recommendation has been implemented. Saratoga has already
reduced the minimum lot size requirement and allows the maximum square footage for
ADUs per State law. Lots in all residential zoning district are eligible to have an ADU as
long as the lot size is 90% of the minimum standard prescribed for the zoning district.
212
Recommendation 9b
Increasing BMR unit creation by incentivizing long-term affordability through deed restrictions for
ADUs should be adopted, by the end of 2019. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Response – The recommendation has been implemented. As early as 2003 Saratoga
began adopting incentives such as a 10% floor area bonus and parking exemption for
deed restricted ADUs.
Recommendation 10a
Residential development impact fees to fund BMR developments should be enacted by the
cities of Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, by the end of 2019.
Response – The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted in
Saratoga. On April 5, 2017, the City Council reviewed and accepted the Housing Nexus
Study prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. which provided information on
housing mitigation fees that could be charged for residential and non-residential
development. The Council noted that the City has a small commercial base and is
largely built out and the fees collected would be insignificant. There was general
consensus to support a regional approach and staff was directed to monitor and explore
opportunities on how the City can participate in a regional effort.
Recommendation 10b
Parcel taxes to fund BMR developments should be brought as a ballot measure to the voters of
the cities of Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, by the 2020 elections.
Response – The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted in
Saratoga. On November 8, 2016, voters in the City of Saratoga, along with Santa Clara
County voters approved Measure A, a $950 million affordable housing bond. It is
estimated that the bond proceeds would contribute to the creation and/or preservation of
approximately 5,100 affordable housing units. In addition, it will increase supportive
housing for special needs populations, including homeless and chronically homeless
persons. The City of Saratoga will work with other cities in the region to explore
additional strategies to support development of BMR housing.
213
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS
DENSITY IS OUR DESTINY
Civil Grand Jury of Santa
Clara County
June 21, 2018
214
Page 1 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ………………………………………....…..... 2
Background …………………………….....………...…. 3
Methodology ..................................................... 4
Discussion ………………………......……………........ 4
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Suggested Solutions
Communications Campaign ...................... 11
Strengthening RHNA ................................ 11
As Goes San Jose RHNA Performance –
So Goes the County ..................................
14
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances .............. 17
Density Bonus Implementation
and Density Near Transit ..........................
18
California Versus Its Cities ....................... 18
Housing and Employment – Commercial Linkage
Fees .........................
19
Employer Contributions ........................... 21
Accessory Dwelling Units .......................... 23
Residential Impact Fees and Parcel Taxes ...... 23
VTA Serves as Model for Public Entities ..... 24
Findings and Recommendations ......................... 25
Required Responses .......................................... 30
Appendix .......................................................... 31
Glossary and Abbreviations ................................ 42
215
Page 2 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
SUMMARY
The critical need for affordable housing is the issue of the day in Santa Clara County … and
our cities are flailing. Higher densities are a necessary solution, but cities are not fully
embracing this solution in the face of resident resistance, and a lack of funding, land and
urgency. In addition, there is confusion as to the effect of higher densities on traffic
congestion.
California’s report card gives Santa Clara County (County) cities an F. Everyone shares the
blame and the challenge. A city marches to the beat of its populace, and with citizen
resistance, the affordable housing crisis continues.
However, innovation-focused Silicon Valley points to some affordable housing successes. In
December 2017, the Mountain View City Council approved general development plans for
nearly 10,000 housing units. This North Bayshore plan includes 2,000 affordable units, 30%
more than officials envisioned just a few years earlier. The County’s other successes include
the new 262-unit Alexander Station in Gilroy, with every unit priced for below-median-
income households, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) organized
housing efforts.
An increasing number of people are one missed pay check away from relocation or
homelessness. The lack of affordable housing is destined to have an increasingly profound
impact on the County. Ironically, the County’s great economic success is a cause of the
exceedingly high housing costs.
The 2017-18 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) tackled the issue of affordable,
or below market rate (BMR) housing. The Grand Jury’s investigation made one thing clear
— drastic action is long overdue. Greater communication about the need for every city to do
its share will help. Cities can increase densities and enact policies to spark more BMR
housing. Yet, there are only minimal repercussions for cities that do not meet State-set BMR
housing objectives.
Passage of Measure A, a $950 million housing bond, in 2016 demonstrates that County voters
are willing to pay a price to help solve the problem. Housing officials estimate Measure A
will create and preserve 5,000 housing units for the neediest.1 That is a start, but the County
needs more than 67,000 such units.2
Besides cities, other governmental entities and the County’s largest employers must step up.
There is no getting around that higher densities are needed, with a greater focus on putting
housing near jobs and near transit hubs, taking pressure off regional infrastructure.
Increasing fees that developers can pay in lieu of providing BMR units within projects is
1 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Pages/Affordable-Housing-Bond-Measure-A.aspx
2 Ibid 216
Page 3 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
critical. Some cities need to boost their inclusionary ordinances, which require that
developments include BMR units. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) should be encouraged.
Employers must shoulder some of the load, perhaps via a BMR housing impact fee based on
number of employees.
San Jose, which accounts for more than half the County population, has long had more
housing than jobs and has not implemented commercial linkage fees. However, the time has
come for the nation’s 10th-largest city to take that step. Smaller cities with little commercial
sites should consider residential impact fees or parcel taxes.
Cities can create a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sub-region that pools the
resources of more than one city to meet housing needs. Cities should have to report not just
housing permits issued, as is now the case, but also the number of BMR units actually
constructed.
BACKGROUND
The phrase “below market rate” itself reveals a big part of the challenge. Funding for BMR
housing comes from a variety of federal, state, local and private sources.
The need for more housing has challenged the County for more than a decade. The Grand
Jury focused on BMR housing, which consists of households with incomes designated as
Extremely Low Income (ELI), Very Low Income (VLI), Low Income (LI) and moderate. (See
Table A1 in the Appendix.)
The average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in San Jose jumped 21% to $2,8343
this year from $2,3504 five years ago. As for single-family homes, the middle class is being
priced out. In February 2018, the median price of a single-family home in the County rose a
staggering 34% from February 2017, to $1.29 million5. From 2012-16, wages in Santa Clara
County, San Mateo County and San Francisco County areas have risen an average of 2.8
percent a year, while average housing rents have risen roughly 9 percent a year.6
Housing growth continues to fall far behind job growth in the County. The San Francisco Bay
Area Planning and Urban Research Association reports that from 2010 through 2015, San
3 https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/santa-clara-county/san-jose/
4 San Jose Housing Market Update Q2 2013, referenced source is RealFacts,
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19820 , page 4
5 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/22/bay-area-home-prices-keep-going-up-one-county-sets-a-
new-record/
6 https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/bay-area-rent-increases-far-outstrip-wage-gains/
217
Page 4 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Jose created 171,000 jobs, but just 29,000 housing units. From 2010 through 2016,
employment in Silicon Valley jumped 29%, while housing inventory rose just 4%.7
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury interviewed over 65 people for this report, many more than once. Those
interviewed included elected and appointed government officials, leaders of nonprofits and
developers.
The investigation covered BMR housing challenges faced not just by the County and its 15
cities, but also by nonprofits and agencies such as the Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County, as well as the VTA and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
The Grand Jury researched the Housing Elements for each city and for the County, as well as
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the current housing cycle tracked by
RHNA, 2015-2023, and the prior cycle, 2007-2014. More than 100 documents and media
articles were reviewed and a visit to a homeless shelter helped the Grand Jury appreciate the
impact of our BMR housing shortage in a more personal manner.
DISCUSSION
Density is our Destiny
Density is at the heart of the many BMR housing solutions. The Grand Jury’s review focused
on the County’s 15 cities and unincorporated area, and included these topics:
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA - pronounced ree-na),
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) vs. YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) advocacy
inclusionary housing ordinances
transit-oriented development
jobs-housing ratios
linkage and impact fees
employer contributions
accessory dwelling units
governmental entities other than cities
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
California law vests most land-use regulatory authority with cities and counties. Since 1969,
7 http://svlg.org/new-study-shows-students-making-incremental-progress-in-some-key-educational-areas-
and-a-vexing-exodus-of-residents-from-the-bay-area
218
Page 5 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
California has required that these jurisdictions adequately plan to meet their housing needs.
Cities and counties must adopt Housing Elements, updated in every eight-year cycle, as part
of their general plans.8
California’s RHNA is crucial to the Housing Elements. The State requires cities to submit
Annual Progress Reports on their Housing Elements to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.9
Yet, the RHNA process does little to ensure that housing needs are met. Cities and counties
face no consequences other than bad press for failing to meet their RHNA objectives. The
State Legislature is starting to force cities to increase the housing permitting pace, a source
of conflict between the State and cities.
HCD determines the RHNA goals for California’s regional planning bodies, which are known
as Council of Governments (COGs). Each COG uses demographic data to calculate housing
needs and assign RHNA goals for each city and county, in eight-year cycles.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG for the nine Bay Area counties. The
RHNA process requires local governments to be “accountable” for projected housing needs.
RHNA provides a benchmark for evaluating local zoning and regulatory actions.10
The County’s BMR RHNA results for the prior cycle (2007-2014) are shown in Figure 1. This
data is provided in Appendix, Table A2. None of the County’s 15 cities met their BMR goals
last cycle, and 11 failed to even reach half.
Figure 1 shows that the best BMR performers in the last cycle were unincorporated County
(92%), Sunnyvale (85%) and Campbell (83%), while the worst were Saratoga (8%), Los
Gatos (13%) and San Jose (15%).
Figure 2 shows how the cities are doing this cycle through 2017, with Los Gatos (2%),
Campbell (2%) and Santa Clara (2%) barely making a dent in BMR permits and Milpitas
AWOL (0%). This data is provided in Appendix, Table A3.
Los Gatos and San Jose requested that their 2014 permits be counted in the current 2015 -
2023 cycle.11 The request was granted so now these two cities have an extra year of units
credited compared to the other cities in the County. For these two cities, the numbers in
8 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and
Housing Elements”, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml
9 Ibid.
10 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Projected Housing Needs – Regional
Housing Needs Allocation”, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-
needs/projected-housing-needs.shtml
11 San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2015-2023 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA),
https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/2015-2023%20_RHNAProgressReport.pdf 219
Page 6 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 2 include 48 months of performance, vs. 36 months for the other cities. The RHNA
need in the current cycle is calculated from Jan 1, 2014, through Oct 31, 2022. (See “RHNA
current cycle” definition in the Glossary.)
Figure 3 shows performance in BMR and overall permits for the prior cycle and current cycle
through 2017. Three cities struggled to provide BMR units but succeeded in above-moderate
housing: Milpitas (19% of BMR vs. 366% of above-moderate), Los Altos (13% vs 645%) and
Los Altos Hills (41% vs 375%). This data is provided in Appendix, Table A4.
Trailing in BMR units are Los Gatos (7%), Saratoga (7%), San Jose (10%) and Cupertino
(10%).
As the Figures on the following pages show, no city met its BMR objective in the prior cycle
and only Gilroy is close to being on pace in the current 2015-2023 cycle. Proposed SB 828
says RHNA goals should be viewed as the minimum numbers needed. Worse yet, the Grand
Jury found that many BMR permitted units have not been built. Because there is no
requirement that constructed units be reported, the permitted units might never be built.
San Jose is presented in gold in Figures 1 through 4 to highlight its importance to the County,
as discussed below in the section headlined As Goes San Jose’s RHNA Performance, So Goes
the County’s.
220
Page 7 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 1: RHNA results for the 2007-2014 cycle
221
Page 8 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 2: RHNA results for 2015-2023 cycle, through 201712
12 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements, 5 th Annual Progress Report Permit Summary,
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml
f 222
Page 9 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 3: RHNA results for 2007-2017
223
Page 10 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
The Debate and Suggested Solutions
The Grand Jury reviewed scores of topics that cover aspects of the BMR housing challenge.
This report focuses on several potentially impactful solutions. But first, there is a need to
understand the resistance to continued growth.
The Debate
There often are sound reasons to limit development. Too much development stresses
infrastructure, as vocal local residents often are quick to point out. The NIMBY (Not in My
Backyard) mindset can be strong, with arguments that sway politicians and discourage BMR
developers.
NIMBY arguments often center on transportation and schools. Greater housing density
requires acceptance of greater traffic congestion and therefore the need for modes of travel
other than the automobile. Improving transportation is often an elusive piece of the housing
puzzle, especially in cities with a high jobs-to-employed resident imbalance. Commute times
have increased by 17% in Silicon Valley this past decade. Commute times have more than
doubled to 66,000 additional vehicle hours daily.13
Another big piece of the puzzle is the stress that added population puts on overburdened
schools.
A grassroots movement known as YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), led largely by millennials,
has started to exert influence in support of denser developments.14 YIMBYs support more
affordable housing and backed the failed SB 827, which would have forced cities to increase
development densities near transit hubs.15
The no-more-growth/no-more-jobs constituency is vocal. They want to cap jobs and
population near current levels. The ramifications of these views for our economy must be
clearly communicated.
Planners must consider which key variables should be monitored and optimized when
considering growth implementation and limits. The Grand Jury urges leaders in the County
to clearly articulate their views regarding the most critical variables to monitor and manage
in determining the preferred pace and limits for housing and employment growth.
13 2018 Silicon Valley Index, Rachel Massaro, Institute for Regional Studies and Joint Venture Silicon Valley,
page 9 https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/download-the-2018-index/
14 https://cayimby.org/
15 Ibid. 224
Page 11 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Communications Campaign
The Grand Jury found strong support among both public-sector and private-sector leaders
for a unified communications campaign to educate County citizens regarding the critical
need for BMR housing and the necessity of every jurisdiction doing its RHNA share.
Many residents do understand the need. The proof came on Nov. 8, 2016, when more than
450,000 County residents voted to approve affordable housing Measure A, needed to issue
$950 million in bonds to fund BMR housing countywide. Still, the margin of approval was a
thin 1.21 percentage points above the two-thirds required.
SB 316 is on the Nov. 6, 2018, ballot. It authorizes the issuance of $3 billion in bonds for BMR
housing statewide. But officials say Measure A and SB 3 won’t be enough to meet demand for
BMR housing.
Officials say more outreach describing the magnitude of the problem is needed. While the
Cities Association of Santa Clara County is among entities that could lead the way, the Grand
Jury believes the County is the logical choice to facilitate a unified communications campaign
that aims to convert NIMBYs into YIMBYs and ease the road ahead for higher densities and
more BMR housing.
A communications campaign could inform residents about a lesser-known component of
Measure A. It includes support of social services such as counseling and job training for the
ELI, VLI and LI segment. As one County official put it, “Housing is actually a treatment,” a part
of whole-person care. That message, properly articulated, can go a long way toward
overcoming the objections of the NIMBYs.
The communications campaign should analyze the need for higher densities in the context
of the leadership consensus for preferred pace and limits for housing and employment
growth.
Strengthening RHNA
One avenue for possible cooperation among cities is to form one or more RHNA sub-regions.
ABAG encourages forming sub-regions. San Mateo, Napa and Solano counties have done so,
but not Santa Clara County.
Sub-regions offer promise of encouraging more BMR housing. A sub-region gives cities more
control and flexibility to meet their RHNA housing goals by sharing the burden with adjacent
cities. Sub-regions must be a combination of geographically contiguous local governments
and require ABAG’s approval. The Cities Association of Santa Clara County17 is considering
16 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB3
17 http://citiesassociation.org/
225
Page 12 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
the possibilities of sub-regions.
BMR categories are defined by the countywide median income (Table A1 in the Appendix).
The consequence is widely different ratios between cities in the median price of housing
(which is a city statistic) and the median income of buyers (which is a countywide statistic).
As a result, fewer developers are willing to consider BMR developments in the cities with the
highest-priced real estate: Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Monte
Sereno. Their high real estate values make it harder for developers to meet their target
return on investment without greater public subsidies.
As of late 2017, 83% of County residents earning less than $50,000 a year were rent -
burdened, defined as paying more than 30% of pretax income to monthly rent.18 The
workforce the County needs to maintain Silicon Valley’s vibrant economic engine is all too
frequently leaving for more affordable places. Studies show that even tech engineers
struggle to afford homes in the County.19
The total cost of BMR units, as with any housing, largely depends on the underlying real
estate values. The Grand Jury calculated the hypothetical cost to developers, government
entities, buyers and all other stakeholders in creating a BMR unit. This was done in order to
look at the potential to create more BMR units in a sub-region that combines lower-cost with
higher-cost cities.
The County’s median purchase price for a two-bedroom ranges from $609,000 in Gilroy to
$4,090,000 in Los Altos Hills, according to real estate firm Zillow’s website on May 25, 2018
(Figure 4 and Table A620 ). The high end price is 6.7 times greater than the low end. The 6.7
value is referred to as location leverage for obtaining BMR housing.
Housing officials stress, and the Grand Jury agrees, that BMR housing should not be
concentrated in the lowest-cost areas in part because this would result in a burden shift from
wealthier cities to less wealthy ones. Still, there can be win-win situations. Cities with higher
real estate prices and little developable land could form a sub-region with adjacent cities
having lower prices to leverage more BMR units for the County overall for a given amount of
investment.
For example, a Los Gatos-San Jose sub-region would provide a location leverage of about 2
because the Los Gatos median price for a two-bedroom home is $1.43 million and San Jose’s
$773,000. Nearly twice as many BMR units could be created in San Jose as in Los Gatos, for
the same cost of development and therefore purchase price.
18 https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/05/lifestyle-switch-more-bay-area-residents-are-choosing-to-
rent-than-ever-before-and-theyre-paying-through-the-nose/
19 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/14/buying-a-bay-area-home-now-a-struggle-even-for-apple-
google-engineers/
20 Data from 15 Zillow.com city sites including https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/home-values/ and
https://www.zillow.com/gilroy-ca/home-values/ 226
Page 13 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 4: Median Prices of Two-Bedroom Homes in Santa Clara County
The potential cost benefit of creating a single sub-region comprising the entire County is
presented in Appendix, Table A6. The cities in such a sub-region would strike their own
alliances depending on their mutual needs. The data in Table A6 describe two extreme
situations for the expected sales cost of creating the BMR units needed in the County to meet
its RHNA objectives. The highest cost option is where no sub-regions are created. The total
sales price for the 32,791 BMR units required in the current cycle would be $31.9 billion with
an average price of $975 thousand.
The lowest cost sub-region option would be to place all of the BMR units in the least
expensive city (Gilroy). The total sales price for all of the BMR units needed to meet the
County’s RHNA objective using this lowest cost option would be $20.1 billion (at an average
cost of $609 thousand), which would be an $11.9 billion savings. The lowest cost sub-region
option is presented only for comparison purposes. There is no political or social justification
for this lowest cost option. It is presented only to compute the lowest possible cost of BMR
housing that meets the Countywide RHNA objectives.
The higher cost cities are encouraged to evaluate their potential savings with lower cost
cities using an RHNA BMR objective sharing approach, and to determine where savings and
227
Page 14 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
regional considerations support such sharing. Such regional considerations include the
impact of BMR units on critical infrastructure and services, including; public safety,
transportation, schools, retail access, parks, and social and health services.
Cities that take on additional BMR units would need to be incentivized by their sub -region
partners, perhaps with extra funding for transportation infrastructure, parks, schools, safety
and social services.
There are other scenarios where a RHNA sub-region makes sense. The Grand Jury envisions
combining cities that have few vacant buildable parcels and no rail transit hubs with adjacent
cities that could accommodate more dense transit-oriented developments (TOD).
As Goes San Jose’s RHNA Performance, So Goes the County’s
San Jose’s roughly 1.05 million residents comprise more than 55% of the County population.
San Jose has long complained of its lack of jobs vs. housing, a challenge because commercial
development brings in more tax revenue than the cost of services, while residential
development demands are just the opposite. San Jose has the highest housing-jobs imbalance
of any of the largest U.S. cities.21
San Jose has ambitious goals for both commercial and residential development. In September
2017, Mayor Sam Liccardo established an objective of 25,000 new housing units in five years,
starting in 2018, with 10,000 (40%) of those units below market rate.22 That would require
almost a doubling of San Jose’s permitting pace. The 10,000 BMR target would require a
permitting pace five times faster than the average over the past 11 years.
The Liccardo plan directs staff to identify barriers to meeting this objective. Developers
characterize the city’s approval process as overly burdensome, which critics attribute to the
city:
being too conservative regarding litigation risks
maintaining unrealistic open space requirements
requiring full approval of its Urban Village plans before construction can start
maintaining architectural requirements that are too expensive
having high turnover in the city’s planning department
Developers indicate they require a 10% to 14% return on investment (ROI) to deem a project
viable.23 They say high land, materials and labor costs in this County make achieving the
21 US Suburbs Approaching Jobs-Housing Balance, Wendell Cox, Apr. 12, 2013
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003637-us-suburbs-approaching-jobs-housing-balance
22 Sam Liccardo’s 15 point plan for “Responding to the Housing Crisis” – 9/28/2017,
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=667033
23 “Construction costs could limit where homes are built in San Jose” by George Avalos, 5/1/2018 228
Page 15 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
target margins challenging.
San Jose’s General Plan provides valuable elements for BMR housing. In December 2014, San
Jose amended its General Plan, establishing a goal that at least 15% of new housing be priced
for ELI, VLI and LI households.
In December 2016, the city amended its General Plan to:
Establish a 25% goal for affordable housing in each Urban Village
Allow 100% restricted (deed or income) affordable housing to move forward ahead
of market-rate development in Urban Villages
Allow selected commercial sites of at least 1.5 acres to convert to mixed-use
residential-commercial developments if the project includes 100% restricted-
affordable housing
But developers say the city’s slow pace in approving Urban Villages has delayed
development. San Jose officials say 12 of 64 total Urban Villages have been approved, and a
13th was pending at the time of this report.
Figure 5 and Appendix, Table A7 show that San Jose is 36,000 units short of meeting its BMR
objectives for the prior and current RHNA cycles. The current cycle runs until October 2022,
so San Jose has only four years to catch up.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/01/construction-costs-could-limit-where-san-jose-homes-are-
built-google-adobe-diridon/
229
Page 16 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 5: BMR Permits - Unit Deficit
To make up that deficit, San Jose would have to issue 9,000 BMR permits per year through
this cycle, while it has averaged only 400 per year between 2007-2017. This BMR deficit
emphasizes why San Jose must maintain a strong BMR push even as it focuses on adding jobs.
The San Jose BMR deficit dwarfs that of any other city in the County. The city with the next-
highest BMR deficit is Santa Clara, at 4,200 units. This enormous difference in BMR unit
deficit demonstrates San Jose’s shortcomings and that the County cannot make substantial
progress in meeting its RHNA BMR goals if San Jose does not perform. San Jose’s importance
is why it is highlighted in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5.
San Jose is ahead of pace for above-moderate housing, as Figure 3 shows. This housing is
needed, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of BMR housing. In 2013, San Jose expanded
and extended its Downtown High-Rise Development Incentive Program, which in three
downtown areas provides exemptions to the inclusionary housing ordinance and reduces in-
lieu fees to half of the rest of downtown.24 This shows San Jose’s willingness to relax BMR
requirements. Given, the lack of BMR unit production by San Jose, the Grand Jury encourages
San Jose to push as hard as possible to use tools to create BMR units to their fullest advantage.
24 City of San Jose 2014-2023 Housing Element, page IV-33 230
Page 17 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
Inclusionary housing ordinances (IHOs) require that developers allocate a percentage of
units for BMR housing. Eight cities in the County allow developers to pay fees in lieu of
providing the units on-site.
As Appendix, Table A8 shows, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga do not
have inclusionary ordinances. All but Morgan Hill have residential zones with large lot sizes
and few sites for large housing developments. Due to the small number of potential multi-
unit developments in Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, inclusionary ordinances
would generate few BMR units in these cities and are not a priority.
As shown in Table A8, seven Santa Clara cities have BMR inclusionary requirements of 15%
to 20%. But the inclusionary ordinances for Los Altos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto
and Sunnyvale require less than 15%. Raising that percentage could help spark more BMR
housing.
Setting the percentage too high, however, can be a problem. San Francisco’s housing
development applications sank after the city hiked its BMR inclusionary percentage to 25%
from 12% for new rental projects, forcing the city to compromise at 18%.25 Palo Alto, much
coveted by developers, is considering a 25% requirement but only in some situations.
Morgan Hill has a voter-approved Residential Development Control System 26 (RDCS)
instead of an IHO. The RDCS makes developers compete for development permits based on
how well their applications meet the city’s goals.
One issue that weakens inclusionary ordinances is the use of in-lieu fees. Cupertino, Milpitas,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale give developers the option of
paying these fees instead of creating BMR units within their development. Many officials
interviewed by the Grand Jury said these fees are a bargain for developers, who often choose
that option. In-lieu fees usually go into the cities’ BMR housing funds, but it can be many
years before the fees translate into BMR units. Officials say in-lieu fees usually produce fewer
BMR units than the on-site requirement would have realized.
The Grand Jury believes that in-lieu fees should be avoided and that cities should incentivize
developers to build BMR units within their developments. If cities retain in-lieu fees, they
should be raised above comparable inclusionary requirements. The fee should be set at least
one-third higher than the inclusionary requirement to encourage on-site BMR units. For
example, Santa Clara has a 15% BMR inclusionary requirement. So, at one-third higher, the
in-lieu fee would be no lower than the cost equating to a 20% inclusionary requirement.
25 Roland Li, May 18, 2017, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-affordable-
housing-compromise-development.html
26 http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/109/RDCS-Process
231
Page 18 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Density Bonus Implementation and Density Near Transit
All cities must offer density bonuses to allow developers to build more units overall so long
as they allocate more units for BMR. Density bonuses can generate more BMR units,
especially in Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). Transit experts advocate densities of
at least 50 units per acre for TODs.27 Such densities can effectively increase transit system
usage and enable developers to meet their profitability goals.
A 2016 State law28 extends density bonuses to mixed-use developments 29 and offers related
incentives and concessions to make projects financially feasible. Mixed-use development
can be especially attractive near transit hubs because both employees and residents can
readily access mass transit and thereby ease traffic congestion. Mixed-use projects also have
the advantage of generating tax revenue from the commercial component, offsetting the cost
of the residential component.
One alternative to denser in-fill developments is housing in exurbs where land is less costly
and housing is therefore more affordable. However, persons who work in the County and
find lower-cost housing outside the County find that high transportation costs eat into their
housing cost savings.30
Residential, commercial and mixed-use TOD appeals to cities and developers for a variety of
reasons.31 TOD encourages use of mass transit by persons who live or work near a transit
hub. Parking requirements for TOD are often eased to encourage use of mass transit.
Recently defeated SB 827 would have mandated high densities near transit hubs. It failed in
part due to organized multi-city opposition. However, cities can still move forward with
their own TOD efforts. Caltrain, VTA and BART create opportunities for BMR units in cities
with transit hubs. Cities should identify parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub and
work to bring high-density BMR-related developments on those sites.
California Versus Its Cities
Cities have failed to meet their BMR and the overall housing challenge. State lawmakers
increasingly are proposing to take some control from cities in an effort to force more housing
to be built.
27 VTA interview
28 An act to amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, relating to housing
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2501
29 California Government Code §65915(i)
30 Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability with Location Efficiency, TOD 201, by The
Center for Transit-Oriented Development, page 5
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf
31 Id., page 8
232
Page 19 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
SB 828, as of June 1, 2018, proposes to modify current law32 to state that cities and counties
should undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote and facilitate the development
of housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need. The proposed measure also
requires reasonable actions be taken by local and regional governments to ensure that future
housing production meets, at a minimum, the RHNA objectives.
The League of California Cities leads the cities’ fight with the State over control of land use
decisions. Local governments strongly object to any loss of local control, but State lawmakers
are looking to give RHNA allocations more teeth. Cities will increasingly face such threats if
they don’t move faster to create more BMR housing.
Housing and Employment, Commercial Linkage Fees
Figure 6 and Appendix, Table A9 provide jobs to employed resident ratios for the 15 cities in
the County. The values range from 0.33 for Monte Sereno to 3.02 for Palo Alto. A jobs to
employed resident ratio of about 1.0 is viewed as balanced by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara.33
A balanced ratio is associated with lower traffic congestion impact compared to an
unbalanced ratio. However, striving to have each city attain a ratio of 1.0 would likely lead
to unnecessary inefficiencies. Given that many employed residents commute to other cities
in the region, regional balance may be as important as balance within a single city. The Grand
Jury believes a city with a ratio of 0.9 to 1.1 reasonably balances jobs and housing. The cities
that fall within the ratio range of the translucent vertical bar (0.9 to 1.1), meet this
reasonable balance. They are represented by yellow horizontal bars in Figure 6.
Cities with jobs to employed resident ratios above 1.1 have substantially more jobs than
employed residents and typically create more road congestion flow from employees
commuting to and from their jobs. These cities are represented by the upper cluster of red
bars in Figure 6. These cities could alleviate regional traffic congestion by adding more
housing.
Cities with jobs to employed resident ratios below 0.9 have substantially more employed
residents than jobs and typically create more road congestion as well from employees
commuting to and from their homes. These cities are represented by the lower cluster of
red bars in Figure 6 and could alleviate regional traffic congestion by adding more jobs.
Commercial developments tend to raise revenue for cities. That puts more services and
corresponding financial burden on cities with more housing and less employment. For cities
with high employment, higher density can place more employees near their jobs. The larger
pool of potential skilled employees makes these cities more attractive for employers.
32 Government Code (GC) Section 65584(a)(2)
33 LAFCO of Santa Clara County, Cities Service Review, Section 22, “Sprawl Prevention/Infill Development,
pages 314-315, http://santaclaralafco.org/file/ServiceReviews/CitiesSR2015/23CSRR_FA_Sprawl.pdf
233
Page 20 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Milpitas and Palo Alto have many differences, but among their similarities are they have
fallen short on BMR housing and have jobs to employed resident ratios above 1.1. Their
commercial linkage fee revenue could be leveraged in a RHNA sub-region to provide more
BMR housing. Additionally, higher-density residential zoning would bring in more BMR units
and improve their jobs to employed resident ratios.
Figure 6: Jobs Per Employed Resident
Google and the city of Mountain View, in the North Bayshore project, set an example of
providing substantial BMR housing for the community. By comparison, Cupertino-based
Apple’s new headquarters for 12,000 employees,34 including many new employees, was
planned with no additional housing. That might have been OK if the new headquarters was
solely a consolidation of Apple’s existing space. But it appears Apple will vacate little space
and the new headquarters largely will be used to accommodate work force expansion. This
was a missed opportunity for collaboration by Cupertino.
In many cities, developers of commercial projects pay commercial linkage fees. The idea is
that cities will use these funds for new developments that would house about as many people
as are employed in that commercial project. State law requires that cities complete a nexus
study to determine the appropriate linkage fee.35 Linkage fees justified by the nexus studies
34 “Here’s how much every inch of Apple’s new $5 billion campus cost to buil d” by Abagail Hess, CNBC, Oct. 9,
2017 - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/09/how-much-every-inch-of-apples-new-5-billion-campus-cost-to-
build.html
35 Mitigation Fee Act, Gov. Code section 66000 et seq.
234
Page 21 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
are often much higher than the fees adopted. The nexus study evaluates the number of
employees generated by different types of development.
Appendix, Table A10 shows that Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View and
Sunnyvale have commercial linkage fees for BMR housing. Palo Alto has the highest fee, at
up to $35 per square foot. Santa Clara’s top linkage fee increases to $20 per square foot after
Jan. 18, 2019.36
Cities with larger jobs to employed resident ratios could form a RHNA sub-region to share
their commercial linkage fee income with other cities that have more sites for BMR projects.
This could have a bigger impact if the fees were shared with cities that can develop BMR
housing near transit stations.
Table A10 shows that Campbell, Milpitas and Saratoga have completed nexus studies that
provide fee recommendations, but none have enacted a commercial linkage fee. These cities
could quickly benefit from these commercial linkage fees.
San Jose, with its low jobs to employed resident ratio, has encouraged commercial
development. It has not completed a nexus study. But in view of the city’s big BMR shortfall,
the Grand Jury recommends San Jose complete a nexus study and enact a commercial linkage
fee to create more funding for BMR housing.
Employer Contributions
The County and cities should consider enacting housing impact fees on employers. Officials
interviewed by the Grand Jury have been receptive to the idea. Mountain View and Cupertino
are to be commended for exploring the idea.37
Such a fee could be appropriate because employers have benefited from their activities in
the County. They need housing and other local services for the jobs they create directly and
indirectly. Experts say one high-tech job translates into four jobs in other sectors.38 Housing
challenges and congested roads can be improved by subsidizing denser housing near
employment centers and transportation hubs.
Housing impact fees set too high could make the County less desirable for companies. Still,
such a fee would be designed to help fix a region-wide problem shared by all the County’s
employers and make for a more vibrant region.
36 Santa Clara City Resolution 17-8482 – Establishing Affordable Housing Fees and Integrating the Fees into the
Municipal Fee Schedule, Attachment A
37 https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Apple-could-get-hit-with-employer-tax-in-its-
12927462.php
38 http://www.bayareacouncil.org/community_engagement/new-study-for-every-new-high-tech-job-four-
more-created/
235
Page 22 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
The County and cities should form a task force to establish the specifics of a BMR housing
impact fee on employers. A measure recently approved by the Seattle City Council could
provide a template. Referred to as the “Amazon Tax,” because Amazon.com is the largest
company headquartered in Seattle, the measure requires that businesses with annual
revenue above $20 million pay $275 per full-time employee each year over the next five
years. Seattle officials expect the tax will generate nearly $47 million and be used in part to
build more than 590 BMR housing units.39
Many large employers in Santa Clara County have contributed to solutions to the housing
crisis. Google is the major landowner in Mountain View’s landmark North Bayshore
Project.40 Facebook offers monetary incentives for employees who reside near work and has
pledged $30 million for affordable housing. LinkedIn was an early, major investor41 in the
Housing Trust’s TECH Fund, which aims to fund affordable housing. Cisco Systems has
invested in the TECH Fund and in March pledged $50 million 42 for efforts to house the
homeless in the County. Adobe Systems, Intel, HP and Applied Materials are among major
donors to the Housing Trust.
The BMR housing crisis requires steady sources of funding, from all sectors. Given the history
of innovative solutions and philanthropy by employers, we urge the County and cities to
partner with the largest employers and groups such as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
to develop additional solutions for the BMR housing crisis.
39 http://mynorthwest.com/925685/task-force-employee-hours-tax-seattle/
40 https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/northbayshore_.asp
41 http://www.housingtrustsv.org/news/linkedin-commits-to-affordable-housing-in-mountain-view-w-10m-
investment-in-tech-fund/
42 https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?articleId=1918354
236
Page 23 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs are being encouraged by several cities as the most expedient option to satisfy their
RHNA allocations. These also are referred to as “granny” or “NexGen” units. Appendix, Table
A11 provides ADU regulation and production data.
For Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and unincorporated County,
ADUs are a major component of their BMR housing efforts. ADUs are attractive in these cities
because they have mostly large-lot single-family residences.
These cities should require deed restrictions for ADUs, guaranteeing that these units remain
within the BMR income categories. If such deed restrictions for ADUs cannot be required, the
cities should provide incentives so owners are encouraged to voluntarily include long-term
deed restrictions.
ADUs can fit the bill for families, so long as the cities allow ADUs to be a certain size, perhaps
1,200 square feet or more, to accommodate family households.
Residential Impact Fees and Parcel Taxes
Cities with limited commercial development or developable land lack ways to generate
funding to meet BMR objectives. These cities have limited options to raise revenue in view
of Proposition 13 and the elimination of redevelopment agencies. They also have small
populations and small RHNA requirements.
An impact fee imposed on new residential development is one tool these cities could use.
Such fees are already in place in Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose and Sunnyvale, as shown
in Table A8. The fee is based on the connection between the development of market-rate
housing and the need to expand the supply of BMR housing. Such fees are typically 10% of
construction costs and are just one of many substantial fees developers have to pay.
BMR parcel taxes could be an answer but require voter approval. Fulfilling the jurisdiction’s
RHNA BMR allocation would be a proper purpose for a parcel tax.
What level of revenue could be achieved from a parcel tax? In Monte Sereno there are 1,222
assessor’s parcels. A tax of $1,000 per parcel would generate more than $1.2 million a year.
At an estimated price of $500,00043 per BMR unit, that could produce two BMR units per
year. The RHNA allocation to Monte Sereno for ELI, VLI and LI for the current cycle is 35
units.
The same formula for the 3,014 assessor’s parcels in Los Altos Hills brings in $3 million per
year, which could yield six BMR units. The Town’s current RHNA allocation for ELI, VLI and
43 The per unit cost of $500,000 is obtained using an average unit size of 1,000 sq ft, $300 per sq ft construction
cost, a density of 20 units per acre, and land cost of $4 million per acre.
237
Page 24 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
LI is 74.
VTA Serves as Model for Public Entities
The VTA recognizes the importance of developing its real estate assets and has created a
Joint Development Program (JDP).44 The VTA is creating high-density projects on its land
adjacent to transit by partnering with developers.
The VTA transit-oriented developments (TODs) include BMR housing with the aim to
improve VTA ridership. The VTA’s development process includes inter-agency coordination
and collaboration with developers, cities and other stakeholders.45 The VTA development
process can serve as a model for other public entities including the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD) and the County. Potential County sites include Civic Center, Fairgrounds
and Burbank area.
The VTA says its JDP encourages higher-density development.46 Local jurisdiction
willingness to rezone transit-adjacent properties from commercial to residential or mixed
use is a critical step for creating BMR housing. This is especially important in San Jose, where
nine of 18 potential TOD sites presently have non-residential zoning.47
The VTA properties having potential for BMR units are listed in Appendix, Table A12. The
Almaden and Cottle sites can provide more BMR units if San Jose would rezone these parcels
for mixed-use including residential.
With the VTA model in mind, the County and SCVWD should identify parcels they own that
are suitable for BMR.
44 VTA Joint Development Program, http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/VTA%20Joint%20Development%20Policy.pdf
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Grand Jury interview with VTA 238
Page 25 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1a
Lack of housing near employment centers worsens traffic congestion in the County and
increases the urgency to add such housing. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Finding 1b
Mass transit stations (Caltrain, VTA, BART) create opportunities for BMR units. Cities to
respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa
Clara and Sunnyvale.
Finding 1c
Density bonus programs are not being used aggressively enough to produce the needed BMR
units within one-half mile of transit hubs. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas,
Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 1a
To improve jobs-to-housing imbalances, the cities of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas,
Mountain View and Sunnyvale should identify, by June 30, 2019, parcels where housing
densities will be increased. The identification should include when projects are expected to
be permitted and the number of BMR units anticipated for each parcel.
Recommendation 1b
Cities should identify parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub that will help them meet
their LI and moderate-income BMR objectives in the current RHNA cycle, by the end of 2019.
Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San
Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 1c
Cities should revise their density bonus ordinances to provide bonuses for LI and moderate-
income BMR units that exceed the minimum bonuses required by State law for parcels within
one-half mile of a transit hub, by the end of 2020. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy,
Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Finding 2a
Employers in the County have created a vibrant economy resulting in an inflated housing
market displacing many residents. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Finding 2b
Contributions to BMR housing from employers in the County are not mandated nor evenly
shared. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
239
Page 26 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Recommendation 2a
The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for
employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities
and the County.
Recommendation 2b
Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for employers to create a fund that
subsidizes BMR housing, by June 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15
cities.
Finding 3a
RHNA sub-regions formed by several San Francisco Bay Area counties enable their cities to
develop promising means to meet their collective BMR requirements. Such sub-regions can
serve as instructive examples for cities in the County. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Finding 3b
Developers are less willing to consider BMR developments in cities with the County’s highest
real estate values because these developments cannot meet their target return on
investment. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Palo
Alto and Saratoga.
Finding 3c
More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower housing costs form RHNA sub-
regions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs. Responding agencies are all 15 cities.
Finding 3d
High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions would be attractive to low-cost cities if they are
compensated by high-cost cities for improving streets, schools, safety, public transportation
and other services. Cities to respond are Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill and San Jose.
Finding 3e
High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions could be attractive to high-cost cities because they
could meet their BMR requirements without providing units in their cities. Cities to respond
are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 3a
Every city in the County should identify at least one potential RHNA sub-region they would
be willing to help form and join, and report how the sub-region(s) will increase BMR housing,
by the end of 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
240
Page 27 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Recommendation 3b
A RHNA sub-region should be formed including one or more low-cost cities with one or more
high-cost cities, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Recommendation 3c
High-cost cities and the County should provide compensation to low-cost cities for increased
public services required for taking on more BMR units in any high-rent/low-rent RHNA sub-
region, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale
and the County.
Finding 4a
Commercial linkage fees can be an important tool to generate critical revenues to support
BMR housing. Cities to respond are Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos and San Jose.
Finding 4b
Use of commercial linkage fees is overdue and could be expected to substantially increase
BMR units. Cities to respond are Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos and San Jose.
Recommendation 4
Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos and San Jose should enact commercial linkage fees
to promote additional BMR housing, by June 2019.
Finding 5a
Uneven BMR achievements among cities is caused in part by varying inclusionary BMR unit
percentage requirements. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Finding 5b
Inclusionary ordinances in cities having only a small number of potential multi-unit
developments would generate too few BMR units to justify their passage. Cities to respond
are Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Recommendation 5
Inclusionary BMR percentage requirements should be increased to at least 15% in Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, by the end of 2019.
Finding 6
In-lieu fees, when offered as an option, are too low to produce the needed number of BMR
units and delay their creation. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
241
Page 28 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Recommendation 6
Cities with an in-lieu option should raise the fee to at least 30% higher than the
inclusionary BMR equivalent where supported by fee studies, by the end of 2019. Cities to
respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara
and Sunnyvale.
Finding 7
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units.
Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Recommendation 7
A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its RHNA
objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and all 15 cities, by
June 30, 2019.
Finding 8
It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular
year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units. Agencies to
respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Recommendation 8
All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed BMR units,
starting in April 2019.
Finding 9
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) offer a prime opportunity for cities with low housing
density and limited developable land to produce more BMR units. Cities to respond are Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Recommendation 9a
ADU creation should be encouraged by decreasing minimum lot size requirements and
increasing the allowed unit maximum square footage to that prescribed by state law, by the
end of 2019. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and
Saratoga.
Recommendation 9b
Increasing BMR unit creation by incentivizing long-term affordability through deed
restrictions for ADUs should be adopted, by the end of 2019. Cities to respond are Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
242
Page 29 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Finding 10
Lack of funding mechanisms to create BMR housing has restricted BMR achievement by
cities with limited commercial development or developable land. Cities to respond are Los
Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Recommendation 10a
Residential development impact fees to fund BMR developments should be enacted by the
cities of Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, by the end of 2019.
Recommendation 10b
Parcel taxes to fund BMR developments should be brought as a ballot measure to the voters
of the cities of Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, by the 2020 elections.
Finding 11
The VTA is a valuable model for effectively generating BMR housing on publicly owned
property. Agencies to respond are the County and the SCVWD.
Recommendation 11a
The County should identify or create an agency, modeled after the VTA’s Joint Development
Program, to coordinate partnerships between developers and both the SCVWD and the
County, for the development of BMR housing, by June 30, 2019.
Recommendation 11b
Parcels suitable for BMR housing should be offered for development by the SCVWD and the
County, by the end of 2019.
243
Page 30 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Gury requests responses as
follows:
From the following governing bodies:
244
Page 31 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
APPENDIX
Table A1: Income limits for housing assistance eligibility in the County (as of 4/1/2018)48
Extremely Low
(30%)Very Low (50%)Low (80%)
1 $27,950 $46,550 $66,150
2 $31,950 $53,200 $75,600
3 $35,950 $59,850 $85,050
4 $39,950 $66,500 $94,450
5 $43,100 $71,850 $102,050
6 $46,300 $77,150 $109,600
7 $49,500 $82,500 $117,150
8 $52,700 $87,800 $124,700
Number of
Persons in
Household
Incom e Limit Category (based on AMI)
Housing Assistance Income Eligibility Limits for Santa Clara County
BMR is separated into three income categories: Very Low Income (VLI), Low Income (LI)
and moderate-income categories. The County’s income limits for these categories are
provided in Appendix Table A1. Very Low Income (VLI) is housing for households making
up to 50% of area median income (AMI), Low Income (LI, 50%-80% of AMI); moderate
income (80-120%) and above moderate (more than 120%). Extremely Low Income (ELI) is
a sub-category within VLI and is for households making 0-30% of AMI. Note that the values
in Table A1 are for 30% (ELI), 50% (VLI) and 70% (LI).
48 Santa Clara Housing Authority, Section 8 Housing Programs, Income Limits
https://www.scchousingauthority.org/section-8-housing-programs/waiting-lists-applicants/income-limits/ 245
Page 32 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A2: RHNA results for the 2007-2014 cycle
Pink cells and larger font entries in Tables A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 represent lower BMR achievement, and green
cells and bold font represent higher BMR achievement.
RHNA Permits
Issued
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issu ed
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issued
% of
RHNA
Met
Saratog a 235 18 8%57 20 35%292 38 13%
Los Gatos 376 48 13%186 180 97%562 228 41%
San Jos e 19,271 2,956 15%15,450 13,073 85%34,721 16,029 46%
Cupertino 813 127 16%357 657 184%1,170 784 67%
Palo Alto 1,874 293 16%986 787 80%2,860 1,080 38%
Mountain View 1,447 269 19%1,152 2,387 207%2,599 2,656 102%
Gilroy 807 164 20%808 1,262 156%1,615 1,426 88%
Santa Clara 3,209 721 22%2,664 5,952 223%5,873 6,673 114%
Los Altos 243 57 23%74 784 1059%317 841 265%
Morgan Hill 812 241 30%500 1,286 257%1,312 1,527 116%
Milpitas 1,551 709 46%936 6,442 688%2,487 7,151 288%
Los Altos Hills 68 40 59%13 76 585%81 116 143%
Monte Sereno 33 21 64%8 14 175%41 35 85%
Campbell 479 399 83%413 217 53%892 616 69%
Sunnyvale 2,557 2,178 85%1,869 2,403 129%4,426 4,581 104%
Unincorporated 677 620 92%413 422 102%1,090 1,042 96%
County Total 34,452 8,861 26%25,886 35,962 139%60,338 44,823 74%
Total
City/Entity
Ab o ve Moderate (>120%))BMR Subtotal
246
Page 33 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A3: RHNA results for 2015-2023 cycle, through 201749
RHNA Permits
Issu ed
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issu ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Iss u ed
% of
RHNA
Met
Milpit as 2,139 0 0%1,151 1,193 104%3,290 1,193 36%
Los Gatos 445 7 2%174 60 34%619 67 11%
Santa Clara 1,745 37 2%755 611 81%2,500 648 26%
Campbell 542 12 2%391 211 54%933 223 24%
Cupertino 794 27 3%270 172 64%1,064 199 19%
Sunnyvale 3,478 87 3%1,974 1,017 52%5,452 1,104 20%
San J o se 20,849 890 4%14,231 7,671 54%35,080 8,561 24%
Los Altos 380 21 6%97 319 329%477 340 71%
Saratoga 346 20 6%93 12 13%439 32 7%
Palo Alto 1,401 115 8%587 189 32%1,988 304 15%
Morgan Hill 612 75 12%316 534 169%928 609 66%
Unincorporated 249 29 12%28 229 818%277 258 93%
Mountain View 1,833 231 13%1,093 1,205 110%2,926 1,436 49%
Monte Sereno 48 11 23%8 14 175%56 25 45%
Los Altos Hills 106 32 30%15 29 193%121 61 50%
Gilroy 495 287 58%475 727 153%970 1,014 105%
Count y Total 35,462 1,881 5%21,658 14,193 66%57,120 16,074 28%
City/Entity
Total BMR Data Ab ove Mod erate (>120%)Total
49 https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/ 247
Page 34 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A4: RHNA results for 2007-2017, compared to objectives through Oct 31, 2022
RHNA Permits
Is sued
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
I ss ued
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Iss u ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
Saratog a 581 38 7%150 32 21%731 70 10%
Los Gatos 821 55 7%360 240 67%1,181 295 25%
Cupertino 1,607 154 10%627 829 132%2,234 983 44%
San Jo s e 40,120 3,846 10%29,681 20,744 70%69,801 24,590 35%
Los Altos 623 78 13%171 1,103 645%794 1,181 149%
Palo Alto 3,275 408 12%1,573 976 62%4,848 1,384 29%
Santa Clara 4,954 758 15%3,419 6,563 192%8,373 7,321 87%
Mountain View 3,280 500 15%2,245 3,592 160%5,525 4,092 74%
Milpitas 3,690 709 19%2,087 7,635 366%5,777 8,344 144%
Gilroy 1,302 451 35%1,283 1,989 155%2,585 2,440 94%
Morgan Hill 1,424 316 22%816 1,820 223%2,240 2,136 95%
Sunnyvale 6,035 2,265 38%3,843 3,420 89%9,878 5,685 58%
Monte Sereno 81 32 40%16 28 175%97 60 62%
Los Altos Hills 174 72 41%28 105 375%202 177 88%
Campbell 1,021 411 40%804 428 53%1,825 839 46%
Unincorporated 926 649 70%441 651 148%1,367 1,300 95%
County Total 69,914 10,742 15%47,544 50,155 105%117,458 60,897 52%
City/ Entity
Total BMR Data Abo ve Mo d erate (>120%)Total
248
Page 35 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A5: RHNA results for 2007-2017, compared with time-proportionate objectives
(75.5% for San Jose and Los Gatos, 72% for other cities)
RHNA
2017
Permits
Issued
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA
2017
Permits
Issu ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA
2017
Permits
Is su ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
Saratog a 418 38 9%108 32 30%526 70 13%
Los Gat os 620 55 9%272 240 88%892 295 33%
Cupertino 1,157 154 13%451 829 184%1,608 983 61%
San Jo s e 30,291 3,846 13%22,409 20,744 93%52,700 24,590 47%
Los Altos 449 78 17%123 1,103 896%572 1,181 207%
Palo Alto 2,358 408 17%1,133 976 86%3,491 1,384 40%
Santa Clara 3,567 758 21%2,462 6,563 267%6,029 7,321 121%
Mountain View 2,362 500 21%1,616 3,592 222%3,978 4,092 103%
Milpitas 2,657 709 27%1,503 7,635 508%4,159 8,344 201%
Morgan Hill 1,025 316 31%588 1,820 310%1,613 2,136 132%
Gilroy 937 451 48%924 1,989 215%1,861 2,440 131%
Sunnyvale 4,345 2,265 52%2,767 3,420 124%7,112 5,685 80%
Monte Sereno 58 32 55%12 28 243%70 60 86%
Los Altos Hills 125 72 57%20 105 521%145 177 122%
Campbell 735 411 56%579 428 74%1,314 839 64%
Unincorporated 667 649 97%318 651 205%984 1,300 132%
County Tota l 51,771 10,742 21%35,283 50,155 142%87,054 60,897 70%
City/ Entity
Total BMR Data Ab ove Mod erate (>120%)Total
249
Page 36 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A6: Lower-Cost/Higher-Cost City Combination Sub-region Benefit Analysis
- Current RHNA Cycle: 2015-2023
City Median Sale
Price ($ million)
RHNA BMR
Units
Objective
Present
RHNA BMR
Units
Deficit
No Sub-reg ion
($ million)
Lowest Cost
Sub-region
($ million)
Gilroy $0.609 613 326 $198.53 $198.53
Morgan Hill $0.701 612 537 $376.44 $327.03
San Jose $0.773 20,849 19,959 $15,428.31 $12,155.03
Milpitas $0.821 2,139 2,139 $1,756.12 $1,302.65
Campbell $0.940 542 530 $498.20 $322.77
Santa Clara $0.944 1,745 1,708 $1,612.35 $1,040.17
Sunnyvale $1.200 3,478 3,391 $4,069.20 $2,065.12
Mountain View $1.310 1,833 1,602 $2,098.62 $975.62
Cupertino $1.340 794 767 $1,027.78 $467.10
Los Gatos $1.430 445 438 $626.34 $266.74
Saratoga $1.610 346 326 $524.86 $198.53
Palo Alto $2.250 1,401 1,286 $2,893.50 $783.17
Los Altos $2.580 380 359 $926.22 $231.42
Monte Sereno $3.000 48 37 $111.00 $22.53
Los Altos Hills $4.090 106 74 $302.66 $45.07
15 City Total n/a 35,331 33,479 $32,450.13 $20,401.50
15 City Median $1.192 n/a n/a n/a n/a
The median sale price values in Table A6 are for two-bedroom units in all cities other than
Monte Sereno. The value for Monte Sereno is for three-bedroom units, because there was no
data available for two-bedroom units. The Sub-region totals (No and Lowest Cost) are
computed using the Present RHNA BMR Units Deficit.
250
Page 37 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A7: Allocated BMR Permit Share and Permitted Unit Deficit
2007-2017 BMR
Allocation to
Permitted Un it
Deficit Gap
An alys is
San Jo se
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Palo Alto
Mountain View
Cupertino
Morgan Hill
Gilroy
Los Gatos
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Altos
Unincorporat ed
Los Altos Hills
Monte Sereno
County Totals
0.2%102
2.0%
1.5%
59,172
8.6%3,770
4,196
57.4%36,274
2.3%1,453
4.7%2,867
7.1%
0.9%545
1.3%277
610
0.1%49
1.9%851
1.2%766
0.8%543
Allocated S hare
(%)
Permitted Unit
Deficit
4.7%2,780
1,108
5.3%2,981
251
Page 38 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A8 – Inclusionary Ordinances and Residential Impact Fees50
City Ordinance in Place (Y/N)
Minimu m
Number of
Un its
Rental
Property BMR
Requ iremen t
(%)
BMR
Requirement for
Resident Owned
Units (%)
In Lieu Fees (% or $ per sq ft)Residential
Impact Fee
Campbell Y 10 15%15%no requests yet N
Cupertino Y 7 15%15%$15.48-25.80 N
Gilroy N - Neighborhood District Policy 15%15%N N
Los Altos Y 5, 10 15%10%N N
Los Altos Hills N N
Los Gatos Y 5, 100 10-20%10-20%limited option N
Milpitas Y 5 N/A 5%5%N
Monte Sereno N N
Morgan Hill N - RCDS 5 8%8%$12.92 N
Mountain View Y 5 155%10%3%$17/sq ft
Palo Alto Y 3 N/A 15-25%$50-75 $20-35/sq ft
San Jose Y 20 15%15%$125K per BMR unit required $17.41/sq ft
Santa Clara Y 10 15%15%$6.67-20 N
Saratog a N N
Sunnyvale Y 4, 8 (full)N/A 12.5%7%$9-18/sq ft
Red cells in Table A8 indicate that a city is not taking full advantage of a key means to
generate BMR units, while a green cell indicates that a city has stepped up and is using a key
means to a greater advantage than other cities in the County. An empty cell indicates that
that no entry is needed for that cell.
50 Sunnyvale had a Rental Property BMR Requirement of 15% through 2012, when it was replaced with a Rental Impact Fee to
comply with Palmer. Sunnyvale is working on a new BMR Rental Requirement consistent with AB 1505 for City Council
consideration in 2018.
252
Page 39 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A9 – Jobs per Employed Resident Ratios51
Table A10: Commercial Linkage Fees
* Starting Jan. 18, 2019.
Cities with a mustard cell have not completed nexus studies, and those with green have
completed nexus studies.
51 LAFCO of Santa Clara County, Cities Service Review, Section 22, “Sprawl Prevention/Infill Development,
pages 314-315, http://santaclaralafco.org/file/ServiceReviews/CitiesSR2015/23CSRR_FA_Sprawl.pdf
City Jobs per Em ployed
R es ident R ati o
Pa lo Alt o 3.02
Sa nt a Clara 2.08
Los Ga t os 1.82
Milpit as 1.50
Ca mpbell 1.35
Los Alt os 1.28
Mount ain View 1.23
Cupert ino 1.08
Sunnyvale 1.07
Morg a n H ill 1.02
Sa n Jose 0.89
Sa ra t og a 0.85
Gilroy 0.84
Los Alt o H ills 0.72
Mont e Sereno 0.33
City/En tity
Nexus
Stud y
Comp leted
Ordin an ce
in Place
Linkage Fee
($/sq ft)
Campbell Y N N/A
Cupertino Y Y $21.35
Gilroy N N N/A
Los Altos Y N N/A
Los Alto Hills N N N/A
Los Gatos N N N/A
Milpitas Y N N/A
Monte Sereno N N N/A
Morgan Hill N N N/A
Mountain View Y Y $2.68 to $25.58
Palo Alto Y Y $20.37 to $35
San Jose N N N/A
Santa Clara Y Y up to $20*
Saratog a Y N
Sunnyvale Y Y $8 to $16
Unincorporated N N N/A
253
Page 40 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A11: ADU regulations and production
City Min imu m Lot Area (sq ft)2007-2014
Permits
2015-2017
Permits
Potential Units
for 2018-2023
Campbell 10,000 15 13 25
Cupertino 10,000 detached 7.2 per yr 3 32
Gilroy 6,000 20 12 15
Los Altos No limit 11 15 35
Los Altos Hills N/A 40 28 N/A
Los Gatos No limit 14 4 55
Milpitas 2500-10,000 6 N/A N/A
Monte Sereno 8,000 15 21 9
Morgan Hill 3,500 31 41 58
Mountain View 6,000-10,000 3 N/A N/A
Palo Alto 5,000 35 23 N/A
San Jose 6,000-8,000 N/A N/A N/A
Santa Clara 6,000 29 20 30
Saratoga 90% of district minimum 39 38 50
Sunnyvale 5,000-8,000 20 23 N/A
Unincorporated No limit N/A 96 N/A
254
Page 41 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A12: VTA sites with potential for BMR unit construction
The optimistic construction dates are highlighted in the table to focus attention on the
potential near term BMR unit potential for the sites described in this table.
Description/ Address
Optimist ic
Const ruction
Complet ion
Date
Total
Acres
Develop -
able
Acres
City Present Statu s in Development
Process
Estimated
N umber of
BMR Units
Tamien - 1197 Lick Ave 6/1/21 6.9 6.9 San Jose
Current negotiations with
developer. Application for revised
entitlements June 2018.
135
Mountain View - Evelyn 6/1/21 2 2 Mtn. View Pending negotiations with City of
Mtn. View 200
Milpitas BART Station 6/1/22 1.7 1.7 Milpitas Developer RFP June 2018 35+
Santa C lara C altrain 6/1/22 0.3 0.3 Santa
Clara
Current negotiations with
developer. TBD
Ber ryessa BART Station -
southeast corner 6/1/23 3.3 3.3 San Jose Awaiting preparation of Urban
Village Plan by CSJ 70+
Blossom Hill - Blossom Hill
Rd at Canoas Creek 6/1/23 6.8 4+ (a)San Jose Developer RFP June 2018 80+
Curtner - Highway 87 at
Curtner 6/1/23 5.9 3.5+ (a)San Jose Developer RFP June 2018 70+
Ohlone - Chynoweth Ave
at Pearl Avenue 6/1/23 8.3 TBD (a)San Jose
Parking study and policy pending,
needed to identify developable
parcel
TBD
Capitol Station - Southeast
Capitol Expressway @
Narvaeaz
6/1/25 13.3 10+ (a)San Jose
Inactive - City requirement for
commer cial renders project
infeasible
Morg an Hill - 17300
Depot Street 6/1/25 6.5 TBD Morgan
Hill
Inactive - awaiting resolution of
ownership TBD
Cerone - 3990 Zanker Rd 6/1/28 54.13 40 San Jose VTA predevelopment 0
River O aks - 3331 N. First
St.6/1/28 17.5 17.5 San Jose Application to C ity for housing
allotment 280+
Gilroy - Monterey
Highway at 7th St 6/1/29 6.1 6.1 Gilroy Inactive - awaiting Hig h Speed
Rail Plans TBD
VTA (Mitchell) Block 2027 - 2032 3.3 3.3 San Jose Preliminary studies 150+
Santa Ter esa - Santa
Teresa Blvd at Miyuki Dr TBD 35.8 35.8 San Jose Inactive 0
Snell - Snell Ave at
Highway 85 TBD 6.5 TBD (a)San Jose Preliminary study done. Lower
priority than other sites.TBD
Winchester - Winchester
Blvd at Budd Avenue TBD 1.6 1.6 C ampbell Inactive - landbanking for future
development TBD
Almaden TBD 4.8 3+ (a)San Jose Preliminary studies 60+
Cottle TBD 4.7 3+ (a)San Jose Ongoing discussion TBD
255
Page 42 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
GLOSSARY
Area Median Income – A value determined on an annual basis by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development that represents the household income for the median
household in a specified region.
Current RHNA Cycle – ABAG defines this as two distinct periods. The “planning period”
spans the due date for one housing element and the due date for the next housing element.
For the current cycle, this is Jan 31, 2015, through Jan. 31, 2023. More important for this
report, the “projection period” is the span for which the RHNA need is calculated. It is Jan 1,
2014, through Oct 31, 2022. That is 94 months for cities that include 2014 data in their
annual housing element progress updates during the current cycle, and 82 months for the
other cities. Cities that include 2014 data in the current cycle (Los Gatos and San Jose)
completed 51% of the current cycle by the end of 2017, and 75.5% of both the prior and
current cycle. The other 13 cities and County completed 44% of the current cycle as of the
end of 2017, and 72% of both cycles.
In-Lieu Fees – Funds collected from developers that enable developers to forego BMR
inclusionary unit requirements within a project. In-lieu fees are discussed in greater detail
in view of the data presented in Table 2. There are two basic types of in-lieu fees, one
determined as a percentage of the cost of the development and the other as a cost per square
foot of the development.
Jobs per Employed Resident Ratio52 – Employed residents are calculated by subtracting the
unemployed residents from the labor force. Unemployed residents are calculated by
multiplying the labor force by the unemployment rate. This ratio is influenced by levels of
in-commuting and out-commuting as well as the number of employed residents holding
multiple jobs. ABAG assumes that this ratio holds at the 2010 level, implying the rates of net-
incommuting and multiple job-holding remain constant. ABAG’s strategy is based on the
halting of the trend of increasing rates of incommuting into the region seen in recent decades,
due to road capacity constraints and additional housing production supports within the
region. This also keeps the incommute well below 2000 levels.
Urban Village53 – An urban village is a walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed use
setting that provides both housing and jobs. The urban village strategy fosters:
Engagement of village area residents in the urban village planning process
Mixed residential and employment activities that are attractive to an innovative work
force
52 Plan Bay Area Jobs Housing Connection Strategy, Appendix B : Housing and Employment Methodology,
page 114, May 15, 2012
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdf/JHCS/May_2012_Jobs_Housing_Connection_Strategy_A
ppendices_Low_Res.pdf
53 http://sanjoseca.gov/planning/urbanvillages 256
Page 43 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Revitalization of underutilized properties that have access to existing infrastructure
Densities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking
High-quality urban design
257
Page 44 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
ACRONYMS
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
AMI: Area Median Income
BMR: Below Market Rate
CTOD: Center for Transit-Oriented Development
ELI: Extremely Low Income
HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development
IHO: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
JDP: Joint Development Program
NIMBY: Not in My Back Yard
LI: Low Income
RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District
VLI: Very Low Income
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
VTA: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
YIMBY: Yes in My Back Yard
258
259
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department
PREPARED BY:Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:2040 General Plan Update Status Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the status report on the Saratoga 2040 General
Plan Update project and provide additional direction as needed.
BACKGROUND:
In February 2018, the City of Saratoga began an 18 month process to refresh and make minor
policy updates to the Land Use, Circulation,and Open Space & Conservation elements of the
City’s General Plan.
Four publicly noticed Planning Commission study sessions were held between February and May
to review the goals and policies of the three elements. The study sessions included discussions and
input from of the City’s Traffic Safety Committee and Parks & Recreation Committee. The
Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) was also invited to
attend. The study sessions produced updated goals and policies for the aforementioned elements.
Based on input from the study sessions, the consultant team is developing draft updates to the
General Plan elements.The remaining General Plan elements will be formatted for inclusion in a
comprehensive update to provide a cohesive document.
On June 28, 2018, the City held a Public Scoping Meeting to share information about the project
and receive input on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report.Several interested residents were in attendance and comments were received from
outside agencies.Environmental impacts of the General Plan Update are being analyzed for each
environmental category addressed in the Draft EIR. The anticipated release of the Draft EIR for a
public review is targeted for early 2019.The Planning Commission and City Council hearings for
the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan Update are planned for Spring 2019 and additional hearings
for adoption of the final documents are anticipated in Fall 2019.
A dedicated webpage for the General Plan Update project has been established at
www.saratoga.ca.us/162/General-Plan with information including project overview, meetings
information, staff reports and related documents. 260
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst I
SUBJECT:Community Event Grant Program Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the Finance Committee’s recommendations:
1.Add the Hakone Matsuri and Saratoga Area Senior Center Health Fair events to next
Fiscal Year’s list of secured funding recipients and allocate each event a $5,000 grant
2.No longer accept off-cycle grant applications
3.Maintain the program’s current requirements and priorities
BACKGROUND:
At the City Council Meetings on March 21, 2018 and August 15, 2018, the City Council
requested that staff and the Finance Committee conduct a review of the Community Event Grant
Program for next Fiscal Year’s program cycle.
The City Council has considered community event grant funding requests through the formal
Community Event Grant Program application process since Fiscal Year 2013/14.Attachment A
includes a history of Community Event Grants since the program’s creation. The annual
application process is conducted in accordance with Council direction when the program was
established. At the second meeting in December,Council determines the total amount of
program funding for the upcoming Fiscal Year and confirms grant allocations for the secured
funding recipients. These organizations are exempt from the regular application process. The
allocations for current secured funding recipients are below:
Traditional Event/Organization Council Grant Allocation
Blossom Festival $ 5,000
Chamber of Commerce Events $ 8,000
Fourth of July Celebration $ 2,500
Memorial Day Observance $ 1,000
Saratoga Community Band Events $ 1,000
SVDC Events $ 3,500
Total $ 21,000
261
The $20,000 Street Closure Grant is also secured for the Chamber of Commerce Car Show.
The application period opens for regular applicants in January and closes in March. At the
second meeting in March, the Council reviews applications and determines grant allocations.
Although the majority of Community Event Grant Program applications are brought to the
Council during the formal application period, individual applicants have been allowed to come
before the Council for consideration any time throughout the year. The number of off-cycle grant
applications grows each year, with the Council already considering six off-cycle applications this
Fiscal Year.
Recommendations
The Finance Committee reviewed the Community Event Grant Program at their meeting on
August 23, 2018. The Committee recommended adding the Hakone Matsuri and Saratoga Area
Senior Center (SASCC) Health Fair events to next Fiscal Year’s list of secured funding
recipients and allocating each event a $5,000 grant.
Additionally, the Committee recommended no longer accepting off-cycle grant applications,
which will allow the City Council to consider all events together during the formal application
period and allocate funds accordingly
The Committee also recommended maintaining the program’s current requirements and priorities
for applicants. There are two basic criteria events must meet to be considered for grant funding:
A) events must be held in Saratoga; and B) open to the public. Grants are allocated on a
reimbursement basis with the exception of City-related fees, such as permit fees or park rental
costs.
The program also outlines three priorities Council may use to determine allocations:
1. Saratoga-based non-profit organizations holding events in Saratoga will be given first
priority.
2. Non-profit organizations coordinating events in Saratoga will be given second priority.
3. Organizations that have previously coordinated events in Saratoga will be given
preference over organizations that have not.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – History of Community Event Grant Allocations
262
History of Community Event Grant Allocations since Fiscal Year 2013/14
Year Recipients Requests Council Grant Allocation Council Grant Award
2013/14 15 $ 52,975 $ 20,000 $ 22,253
2014/15 11 $ 32,385 $ 20,000 $ 21,600
2015/16 15 $ 34,195 $ 25,000 $ 34,195
2016/17 15 $ 49,970 $ 36,000 $ 42,000
2017/18 15 $ 47,250 $ 35,000 $ 40,000
2018/19 20 $ 65,466 $ 40,000 $ 41,400
Event 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
60th Anniversary Parade $ 7,000
Bay Shore Lyric Opera Company - Hansel and Gretel $ 940
Bay Shore Lyric Opera Company - Opera at Wildwood $ 380 $ 800 $ 1,750 $ 2,778
$2,480 $1,456
Blossom Festival (Mustard Faire)$ 4,600 $ 4,500 $ 4,600 $ 4,600
$5,000 $5,000
Bollywood Street Dance (now included in SVDC funding)$ 1,300 $ 1,200 $ 1,500
California Holocaust Action & Awareness Interactive Museum $1,800
Celebrating Differences - Redwood Middle School Leo Club
$500
Celebrating Service - Assistance League $ 520
Chamber of Commerce Events $8,000 $8,000
Chamber of Commerce Holiday Wine Stroll and Open House $ 2,518 $ 3,100 $ 4,000 $ 4,168
Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival $ 350 $ 350
$390
Classic Car Show $ 4,000
Congregation Beth David Shushan County Fair/Playland $ 1,000 $2,590 $2,000
Foodie on the Run (Gateway Celebration)$ 1,440 $ 3,000
Fourth of July Celebration $ 1,984 $ 1,900 $ 2,670 $ 2,200
$2,500 $2,500
Girl Scout Crafts at Blossom Festival $460 $312
Hakone Matsuri $ 5,000 $ 4,630
$5,000 $5,000
Library - Heart of the Community (Saratoga Library 10th Anniversary)$ 1,380 $ 2,800
Memorial Day Observance $ 750 $ 900 $ 1,000 $ 1,000
$1,000 $1,000
Montalvo Arts Center - Arts Splash $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,500
Montalvo Arts Center - Pop-Up Arts Festival $ 3,704
Montalvo Arts Center - Rock the Garden
$ 2,280 $1,352
Mosaic Saratoga $2,080
Odd Fellows Easter Event $ 200 $ 600 $ 600
$540 $500
263
Relay for Life of Saratoga $ 4,630
$2,580
Saratoga Community Band Concert in the Park $ 325 $ 600 $ 725 $ 750
$1,000 $1,000
Saratoga Grammar School Reunion $ 118 $ 1,000
Saratoga Sister City 30th Anniversary Open House $ 618
Saratoga Symphony Fall Concert $100
Saratoga Symphony Spring Concert $100
Saratoga Symphony Winter Concert $100
Saratoga Village Development Council Events $2,000 $3,500
SVDC Pet Parade (now included in SVDC funding)
SVDC St. Paddy's Day Celebration (now included in SVDC funding)$ 500 $ 820
SASCC Health and Wellness Fair - Saratoga Trails 5K Walk $ 2,380 $ 3,600 $ 5,000 $ 4,770
$4,180 $5,000
St. Nicholas Church Russian and International Festival $100
TOTAL $ 22,253 $ 21,600 $ 39,195 $ 42,000
$ 40,000 $ 41,400
Secured Funding Recipients
264
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:Lauren Pettipiece, Administrative Analyst I
SUBJECT:Communications Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report and provide input as needed.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Saratoga uses a variety of methods to communicate with residents and ensure the
public has access to useful, important, and timely information. Staff works to use each public
information tool to its fullest potential to reach a broad audience and further strengthen
community connections and engagement.
While the City uses a wide range of communications tools, it is critical that residents and the
City’s wider audience choose to engage with the City in some way in order to receive
information. Staff continues to promote the City’s many communication delivery methods that
residents have to choose from.
Staff also monitors the communications frequency to ensure the City maintains an effective and
informative cadence that does not overwhelm the audience, bury the City’s own information in
recipients’ inboxes and newsfeeds, or become “white noise.”
DISCUSSION:
Translations
At the Budget Study Session on April 17, 2018, the City Council directed staff to create two
outreach pieces to be translated to Traditional Chinese, a “Back to School” information sheet
with resources for both students and parents, and a general City fact sheet. These pieces have
been produced and will be made available on the City’s website along with future translated
materials. Staff is currently exploring additional translation vendors to find the most accurate
translation and most efficient process. The annual Saratogan is the next piece to be translated.
265
Upcoming Outreach Topics
Upcoming outreach topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
2020 by 2020 Tree Planting Challenge
Commission Recruitments
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Academy
Community Events
Election (Candidate Forums, Pizza and Politics, Voter Registration)
Emergency Preparedness and Preparedness Month
How to Subscribe to/Engage with City Communications
Leaf Blower Regulations
Recreation Department Programs
The Saratogan
Toy and Food Drive
Translated Materials
Profile Series (Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, Fire Department, and City Staff)
Public Works Projects
Volunteer Opportunities (with the City and RYDE)
Winter Storm Resources
This is not a complete list of communications topics, and additional topics can be suggested as
items are discussed at City Council meetings. While staff can project upcoming topics of interest,
communications are very fluid and ever-changing. Staff constantly adapts the communications
schedule and outreach topics based on emerging needs and issues.
Saratoga Source
The Saratoga Source is released monthly (Attachment A). Staff created two separate, fixed
templates for the Saratoga Source, one for email distribution and one for print. The number of
email subscribers continues to grow. The City now has over 5,500 total email contacts, with over
4,200 specifically subscribed to receive the Saratoga Source.
Each edition of the Saratoga Source includes 2 articles, upcoming events, Nextdoor Digest, Ask
our Staff, and a Quick Tip from the Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division Captain. Recent
newsletters included information on a number of topics, including the 2020 by 2020 Tree
Planting Challenge, an introduction of the new Community Development Department Director,
Commission recruitments, emergency preparedness, the General Plan Update, Neighborhood
Watch grants, the new turnaround on Big Basin Way, a Prospect Road construction update,
Recreation Activity Guides, meeting agenda notification subscriptions, volunteer opportunities
with the City and RYDE, the Youth in Government Program, Weed and Brush Abatement
Programs, the monthly profile series, and many community events.
Staff has started to receive phone calls and emails from a number of residents after the monthly
Saratoga Source is released asking questions and sharing ideas for future newsletters. This
anecdotal data shows that recipients are reading and engaging with the City’s newsletter content.
Social Media
The City continues to utilize social media as an effective and expedient way to share information
with the community. The number of people who follow and engage with the City of Saratoga on 266
social media steadily increases. The City of Saratoga Nextdoor network now has 10,907 total
users, up from 10,075 users in March 2018. The percentage of claimed households is now at
59% within Saratoga’s 35 neighborhoods, compared to 55% in March. Staff continues to receive
positive anecdotal feedback from the community regarding the City’s use of Nextdoor. Residents
have expressed appreciation of the outreach topics, quality of content, and the frequency of
posts.
In recent months, Nextdoor posts with a high number of impressions ranging from 2,500 to 3,900
include information related to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office or Fire Department,
updates on City projects and construction, City employment opportunities, Saratoga’s leash laws,
and upcoming events, such as Great Getaways trips or the Free E-Waste Drop Off. Impressions
are defined as the number of unique email opens, digest clicks, or view in the newsfeed.
There are now 1,609 City of Saratoga Facebook followers, also up from 1,520 followers in
March. Posts about the Fourth of July Celebration and the Free E-Waste Drop Off event reached
over 1,200 people, the “Welcome to Saratoga” video created for the State of the City reached
over 2,100 viewers, and after being boosted, a profile of the Sheriff’s Office K9 Dutch reached
over 2,900 people. Boosting posts is an effective way to reach additional people, and once a
boost has ended, staff invites every Facebook user who engaged with that post to “like” the City
of Saratoga’s Facebook page. This strategy has contributed to an increase in followers.
While boosting helps increase visibility of the City’s posts, it is not a guaranteed way to ensure
reach. Facebook is also constantly updating its algorithm that determines which posts appear in
users’ newsfeeds. At the beginning of this year, Facebook made the “meaningful interactions”
update to the algorithm. Facebook now prioritizes posts that they think will be personal for the
user and create meaningful conversations. This means that if your Facebook friends interact with
a post, that post will be more likely to appear in your newsfeed.
This update has caused users to organically see less content from public pages, like the City’s
and other agencies. City Council Members and Commissioners are Saratoga residents who are
likely Facebook friends with others who live in the area, so they are the best resource to help the
City’s content reach more Saratoga residents. Council Members and Commissioners can increase
the City’s Facebook reach in the community by liking, commenting, or clicking the share button
so the City’s original post appears on their own Facebook pages.
The City’s number of Twitter followers has also increased from 767 in March to 869 currently.
Tweets about public safety continue to receive over 3,500 impressions, such as the Sheriff’s
Office profiles and information about the Safety Fair, with a tweet about National Night Out
resulting in over 4,800 impressions. Impressions are the number of times a tweet is displayed in a
user’s timelines or search results.
Facebook and Twitter are two platforms where it is simple to share information from partner
agencies and cross-promote programs and services. Recently, there have been a number of
opportunities to do so, particularly with the Santa Clara County Fire Department given recent
wildfires in the region. The City has shared Facebook posts and retweeted information about the
“Ready, Set, Go!” wildfire preparedness campaign, AlertSCC, and Spare the Air alerts and burn
bans due to the extreme fire conditions.
267
While metrics are a valuable tool, behavioral observations can also demonstrate high levels of
engagement. Staff has observed that many residents may not follow links or utilize provided
contact information, but they do reach out to get in touch with the City for more information.
The outreach priorities City Council established in September 2017 continue to prove beneficial
when organizing the content calendar. While the City aims to share information and promote
events for community members and organizations on its social media channels and website, it
has become increasingly difficult to accommodate the large number of outreach requests.
The outreach priorities have helped staff resolve scheduling conflicts and build in availability for
redundancy to promote the City’s own events and programs. Repeated posts about the same topic
have proven to help increase awareness and participation.
Website
Since its launch, the City’s new website has been visited more than 85,200 times (not including
internal City Hall web traffic). Most of these visits come from users on desktops, accounting for
65% of visits. Another 27% of visits were made from smart phones, with 7% of visits from
tablets. The average amount of time spent on the website is 2 minutes, 19 seconds, and visitors
take an average 3.1 actions on the site (page views, downloads, outlinks, and internal site
searches) per visit. A total of 36% of visits were direct entries the City’s site, 59% were referred
from search engines, 4% from other websites, and 1% from email campaigns. While analytics
data can be beneficial to gain some insight into user experience, there is only so much that can be
understood from this information and it cannot explain all human behavior.
The most commonly visited pages on the new site are comparable to the old site and the last
report in March. Users are frequently visiting the landing pages with graphic icons, which
suggests they may be using these pages to help navigate the site. Additionally, the search tool on
the new site is not a separate page, and therefore does not appear in the list of most visited pages.
Contact information is also more prevalent on each page of the new site rather than being found
separately. It is evident that in the recent summer months, there was greater interest in recreation
programs, City facilities and parks, and community events on the City’s online calendar.
Most Popular Pages:
August March Previous Website
Homepage Homepage Homepage
Facilities Government Landing Page Recreation & Facilities Department
Recreation & Facilities Department Recreation & Facilities Department Search
Recreation Programs Facilities Human Resources
City Calendar About Saratoga Landing Page Community Events
Government Landing Page Permits Building Division
About Saratoga Landing Page Recreation Programs Planning Division
Permits City Calendar Contact Information
Residents Landing Page Residents Landing Page Sheriff’s Weekly Activity Summary
City Departments City Departments Permits
268
The new internal site search tool has been used over 17,700 times, with roughly 3,650 unique
keywords entered into the search tool.
Top Internal Site Search Keywords:
August March
Jobs Jobs
Municipal Code Municipal Code
Permits Employment
Summer Camp Building Division
Building Division Job
Job Permits
Planning Planning
Employment Minimum Wage
Permit Permit
Zoning Zoning
To maintain the integrity of the website, the City takes a centralized approach to managing the
website, as it does with general communications. The vast majority of website updates are now
managed by the City Manager’s Office. This has enabled greater control over the total number of
pages, minimized redundant content, and reduced conflicting content in different sections of the
website, all of which makes the site easier to use and navigate.
Additionally, this approach has improved the quality of the website’s content. It has greatly
reduced the number of broken links on the site and instances of misspelled words. This strategy
has also helped ensure content is as accessible and readable as possible for nearly all ages,
education levels, and abilities. Simple language is also typically easier to translate and results in
less errors when translation tools are used. Additionally, staff continues to implement best
practices for formatting to ensure the City’s content is accessible to anyone using an assistive
device, like a screen reader.
Centralized Communications
In July 2017, staff implemented a new centralized approach to the City’s communications where
each department coordinates their public outreach efforts in partnership with the City Manager’s
Office. This approach ensures the City takes a holistic, comprehensive look at all
communications to leverage opportunities in a strategic manner with cohesive messaging and
branding. This cross-departmental collaboration has led to more public outreach opportunities,
an increase in the amount of City-generated content, and a more consistent look, feel, and tone of
all City outreach.
Recent cross-departmental projects include partnering with Community Development to conduct
outreach on the General Plan Update and creation of an Accessory Dwelling Unit information
sheet. Communications staff also worked with both Community Development and the
Information Technology Departments to prepare the online permit application webpages and the
public outreach about this new tool for the public.
The Public Works Department has coordinated with communications staff to publish project
updates, share information about traffic impacts due to roadwork both in Saratoga and 269
regionally, and create door hangers to provide information about inspections and simultaneously
promote City communications channels.
Recreation Department staff has joined staff from the City Manager’s Office at a number of this
year’s Back to School Nights. These events provide an opportunity to promote City services and
programs, and to strengthen connections and collaboration with the schools. Communications
staff also worked with Recreation to promote the Great Getaways program, which resulted in
selling out four recent trips rather than cancelling trips due to low enrollment.
The Finance Department supported the development of the Budget at a Glance section in the
upcoming annual Saratogan, and Human Resources staff has collaborated with the
communications team to more widely promote employment opportunities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Saratoga Source
270
Join the City of Saratoga for the 2018 State of the City event on Saturday, April 28
from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
Don’t miss Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald’s State of the City Address, which will
celebrate Saratoga’s recent accomplishments, discuss upcoming City activities, and
provide updates on ongoing and new projects.
During the event, the residents and organizations that make Saratoga a special
community will also be recognized.
The Citizen of the Year, Business Person of the Year, Community Organization of
the Year, Firefighter of the Year, and Officer of the Year will be recognized for their
impact on our City.
After the Mayor’s Address, join us in the City Hall courtyard for an ice cream
social! Enjoy delicious treats, wine, and other refreshments while exploring a
resource fair featuring agencies and organizations that serve the Saratoga
community.
For more information, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/StateoftheCity
April 2018
Connect with the City of Saratoga onCITY o f S ARATO
GA
CALIFO R N IA1956 Coming Up
Living Room Conversations
April 24, 2018
7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Joan Pisani Community Center
408.868.1216
Arbor Day
April 25, 2018
3:30 p.m.
Saratoga Foothill Club
www.saratoga.ca.us/arborday
Star Wars Movie Night
May 4, 2018
6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Joan Pisani Community Center
408.868.1249
Deputy Lauren Romero grew up in the Central Valley of California. She then moved to the Bay Area where she attended
Menlo College. During her time in school, Deputy Romero was a student-athlete who studied liberal arts and psychology
while playing soccer.
After graduating college, Deputy Romero worked as a counselor for foster children. This work experience led
her to exploring a career in law enforcement.
Deputy Romero has now worked for the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for 3 years, and she is currently
assigned to patrol in the City of Saratoga.
She enjoys working in Saratoga because it is a diverse City with residents who are very supportive of the
Sheriff’s Office and its work in the community.
On her days off, Deputy Romero enjoys hiking and spending time with her niece and nephew.
Meet Deputy Lauren Romero
2018 State of the City
SOURCESaratoga
271
Weed and Brush Abatement Programs
In Saratoga, the Weed Abatement Program and the Brush Abatement Program help prevent
wildfire by reducing the amount of flammable vegetation and debris. If you received a Weed
Abatement notice, the deadline to meet program requirements is April 15, and properties on
the list will be inspected after that date. For more, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/weed_brush
Saratoga Safety Fair
Save the date for the Saratoga Safety Fair on May 20 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at West Valley
College. Get safety and crime prevention tips, meet safety professionals from the Sheriff’s
Office and Fire Department, and check out safety-related products and services at the resource
fair. View more information and the sponsorship application at www.saratoga.ca.us/safetyfair
Spring/Summer Activity Guide
The Spring/Summer Activity Guide is available now! Check out the Saratoga Recreation
Department’s upcoming programs, including classes, camps, and trips. There are exciting
opportunities for all ages. View the full Activity Guide and register for trips, camps, and classes
online at www.saratoga.ca.us/activityguide
Q: What can I do to prepare for an emergency?
A: You can prepare to help your family, friends, and neighbors during a disaster
by joining the Saratoga Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). CERT
is a very important part of the City’s disaster response strategy. The Santa
Clara County Fire Department offers CERT academies that teach volunteers how
to provide essential services to the community during and after a disaster.
The next CERT training academy begins in Saratoga on May 8. The academy
consists of six evening sessions and a final skills exercise. If you’re unable to attend
this training, future academies will be held in multiple cities throughout the year. For more
information, visit http://bit.ly/2gxf07l
Another way to prepare is to download Santa Clara County’s emergency preparation
mobile phone application, ReadySCC. It helps you create an emergency plan, put together a
preparedness kit, and learn what to do and where to go during a disaster. Make sure you’re also
registered for AlertSCC, the County’s emergency notification system. You can receive emergency
alerts on your cell phone, landline, or email. To access these tools, visit www.sccgov.org/oes
Are you not a
member of Nextdoor,
or did you miss a post
last month? Read
about the recent
trending topics right
here!
Sign up to receive
updates from the City
of Saratoga, other
agencies, and your
neighbors at
www.nextdoor.com
Quick Tip from Captain Rich
Sharing too much information about your location while on vacation can endanger the security
of your home. Check your privacy settings on social media, be cautious about where you check in,
and wait to share your favorite photos or stories until you return home.
Keep track of crime in your area. Visit www.crimereports.com
Be notified when emergencies happen in your area. Sign up at www.sccgov.org/sites/alertscc
Nextdoor Digest
To learn more about the City’s monthly newsletter, make comments, suggest story ideas, or just ask a
question, contact Lauren Pettipiece at lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or 408.868.1275. You can also find
the Saratoga Source online and sign up for email alerts at www.saratoga.ca.us/SaratogaSourceCITY o f S ARATO
G
A
CALIFO R N IA1956
For information on
Neighborhood Watch
and tips on staying
safe, visit
www.saratoga.ca.us/
stayingsafeAsk Our Staff featuring Michael Taylor
Have a question? Send your question(s) to lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or call 408.868.1275
April 2018
Captain Rich Urena oversees the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division.
Michael Taylor is the
City of Saratoga’s
Recreation & Facilities
Department Director
and Risk Manager. He
oversees the City’s
recreation programs,
facility rentals,
building maintenance,
risk management,
emergency
preparedness and
the CERT program.
Michael is always
eager to talk about
safety and emergency
management.
272
The City of Saratoga and the Public Safety Task Force will host the first Saratoga
Safety Fair on Sunday, May 20 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at West Valley College.
Admission to the event and parking in Lot 5 are free.
Throughout the afternoon, meet first responders from the Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s Office and Santa Clara County Fire Department, as well as other safety-
related service providers. You can also enjoy a number of presentations, from
preventing scams and identity theft, home fire safety, personal safety and defense,
and more.
The Saratoga Safety Fair is one of several efforts initiated at the recommendation
of the Public Safety Task Force, which was formed in 2017 to identify
opportunities to enhance public safety in the City of Saratoga. In addition to the
Safety Fair, keep an eye out to for the quarterly safety tips postcard now mailed
by the City and sign up for the Saratoga Neighborhood Watch newsletter at
www.saratoga.ca.us/stayingsafe
For more information, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/safetyfair
May 2018
Connect with the City of Saratoga onCITY o f S ARATO
GA
CALIFO R N IA1956 Coming Up
Hakone Matsuri
May 20, 2018
11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Hakone Estate & Gardens
www.hakone.com
Living Room Conversations
May 22, 2018
7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Joan Pisani Community Center
408.868.1216
Luau Dance
June 1, 2018
7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Joan Pisani Community Center
408.868.1249
The Saratoga Recreation Department’s Spring/Summer Activity Guide is out now! They offer programs for all ages and
interests, including classes, camps, and trips. It’s time to register your children for their summer activities. Future Innovators,
the City of Saratoga’s Summer Camp, begins in June. This camp features interactive games, enrichment projects, arts, crafts,
science, and fun! Campers will take field trips to the Seymour Discovery Center, NASA Ames, San Jose Museum of Art, Tech
Museum, a San Jose Giants game, and more!
The Great Getaways program offers day trips for all ages. On Wednesday, May 23 Great Getaways will take a trip to see the
musical The Color Purple in San Francisco, then explore Union Square. You can also spend the day on the Monterey Wine
Trolley and visit the Wharf Marketplace on Wednesday, June 6. View the full Activity Guide and register for trips, camps, and
classes online at www.saratoga.ca.us/activityguide
The Recreation Department will also offer a Luau Dance for Individuals with Disabilities (ages 14 and older) on Friday, June 1
from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Joan Pisani Community Center. Friends and support staff are welcome! For more information
about tickets, and to download the necessary registration form, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/disneydance
Spring/Summer Recreation Guide Available Now!
Saratoga Safety Fair on May 20
SOURCESaratoga
273
Volunteer Drivers Needed
The Saratoga Area Senior Center is seeking volunteer drives for Reach Your Destination
Easily (RYDE), a transportation service for adults 55+ living in the West Valley Cities. For more
information about this rewarding volunteer opportunity, or to register for RYDE services,
contact the Saratoga RYDE Coordinator at 408.892.9739
Youth in Government Internship Program
The City is excited to launch a new summer program that will introduce high school students to
local government and provide hands-on City experience. The Youth in Government Internship
Program begins on July 30 and is open to Saratoga residents who will be in high school for the
2018/19 school year. The application deadline is June 8, and the registration cost is $50. Space
is limited. Register online at www.saratoga.ca.us/yig
Let’s Work Day Volunteers
Thank you to the Parks & Recreation Commission Let’s Work Day volunteers who spent many
Saturdays at Quarry Park removing large amounts of French Brooms, an invasive plant species.
This year, their hard work helped to open up a new trail segment!
Q: Who is the City’s new Community Development Director, and what does the department do?
A: Hi! I’m Debbie Pedro and I joined the City of Saratoga as the Community
Development Department Director in January. I oversee the City’s Planning
Division, Building Division, Code Compliance, and Arborist Services.
The Community Development Department provides a full range of services for
residents that plan to remodel, rebuild, or construct a new building, and for those
that need a building permit or inspection. The City Arborist can also help guide you
through the permitting process to remove or drastically trim a tree. Our Code Compliance Officer
can help if you want to hold a neighborhood block party, or share a health and safety concern due
to a potential City code violation.
Before joining the City of Saratoga, I served as the Planning Director for Portola Valley and the
Community Development Director for Los Altos Hills. I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in
Architecture from the University of California, Berkeley, a Master of Urban Planning Degree
from San Jose State University, and a Master of Public Administration from the University of
San Francisco. I also hold a Certified Planner credential from the American Institute of Certified
Planners.
Are you not a
member of Nextdoor,
or did you miss a post
last month? Read
about the recent
trending topics right
here!
Sign up to receive
updates from the City
of Saratoga, other
agencies, and your
neighbors at
www.nextdoor.com
Quick Tip from Captain Rich
May is National Water Safety Month. Keep your family safe near the water this summer. Never
leave young children unattended, enroll them in age-appropriate swim lessons, and ensure they
wear life jackets. You should always swim with a buddy and only in areas supervised by life guards.
Keep track of crime in your area. Visit www.crimereports.com
Be notified when emergencies happen in your area. Sign up at www.sccgov.org/sites/alertscc
Nextdoor Digest
To learn more about the City’s monthly newsletter, make comments, suggest story ideas, or just ask a
question, contact Lauren Pettipiece at lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or 408.868.1275. You can also find
the Saratoga Source online and sign up for email alerts at www.saratoga.ca.us/SaratogaSourceCITY o f S ARATO
G
A
CALIFO R N IA1956
For information on
Neighborhood Watch
and tips on staying
safe, visit
www.saratoga.ca.us/
stayingsafeAsk Our Staff featuring Debbie Pedro
Have a question? Send your question(s) to lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or call 408.868.1275
May 2018
Captain Rich Urena oversees the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division.
Debbie Pedro is
the Director of the
City’s Community
Development
Department. She
oversees the Planning
Division, Building
Division, City Code
Compliance, and
Arborist Services.
274
Construction on the Prospect Road Improvements Project has been underway
since January to make Prospect Rd. easier and safer for all to travel. In June, work
to improve and add sections of sidewalk will be completed. As part of this work,
25 ADA-accessible ramps have been installed or upgraded, and 3 bus stops have
also been improved. Landscaping work will begin in the new planter strips and all
new and existing medians along this 1.9-mile stretch of Prospect Rd.
In coming weeks, damaged sections of street pavement will be repaired. The
installation of 5 new medians will then begin in July. The existing median between
Brookvale Dr. and Covina Ct. will be reconstructed to add refuge lanes turning
left onto Prospect Rd., and the same modification will be made to the existing
median between Provincetown Dr. and Titus Ave. A new lit crosswalk will also be
installed at the intersection of Covina Ct. and Prospect Rd. by the end of summer.
You can expect traffic delays during construction, but one traffic lane in each
direction on Prospect Rd. will always remain open. Future phases of the project
will include the installation of bicycle detector loops, green bike lanes, and micro-
surfacing and striping of the road when the project is completed in December.
June 2018
Connect with the City of Saratoga onCITY o f S ARATO
GA
CALIFO R N IA1956 Coming Up
Movie Night
June 15, 2018
7:30 p.m.
El Quito Park
408.868.1249
Blossom Festival
June 23, 2018
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Saratoga Civic Center
www.saratogahistory.com
Living Room Conversations
June 26, 2018
7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Joan Pisani Community Center
408.868.1216
Deputy Michael Keck was born and raised in El Dorado County. After high school, he enlisted in the United States Army as
a Military Police Officer. He then moved home and earned his A.A. Degree in Administration of Justice from Folsom Lake
College. Deputy Keck’s experience in the military led him to a career in law enforcement. He worked as a Correctional
Officer for the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, then attended the Basic Law Enforcement Academy at the Santa Clara
County Justice Training Center. He graduated the Academy and was sworn in as a Deputy Sheriff in 2014.
Deputy Keck currently works with the Sheriff’s Office K9 unit and has recently devoted his time to becoming the best handler
for his new K9 partner, Dutch. He enjoys working in law enforcement because he gets to assist others, work as a member of
a team, and help the community become a better place. He likes working in Saratoga where the residents are so appreciative
of the Sheriff’s Office. He also values that the Sheriff’s Office, City leadership, and community members work so well together
to make Saratoga the best city possible. Outside of work, Deputy Keck enjoys spending time with his two other dogs, an
English Bulldog puppy and a Staffordshire Terrier. He also likes to play golf in the summer and snowboard in the winter.
Stay tuned for next month’s profile, or should we say paw-file, of Deputy Keck’s K9 partner, Dutch!
Meet Deputy Michael Keck
Prospect Road Construction Update
SOURCESaratoga
275
2018 State of the City Videos
Did you miss the 2018 Saratoga State of the City? You can catch up on what’s
happening in the community by watching the Mayor’s State of the City Address at
www.saratoga.ca.us/2018SOTC and the “Welcome to Saratoga” video created by Jason Louie,
a local high school student and Saratoga resident, at www.facebook.com/CityofSaratoga
General Plan Update – Public Scoping Meeting
In April, the City began a process to refresh and make minor policy updates to three elements of
Saratoga’s General Plan. A Public Scoping Meeting will be held on Thursday, June 28 at 6:00 p.m.
in the Saunders Room at the Saratoga Senior Center to discuss the proposed project and receive
input on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report.
For more information and to view related documents, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/gp
Apply for the Library Commission or Parks & Recreation Commission
Don’t miss this opportunity to serve your community! There is one available position on both
Commissions, and applications for both are due by August 23. For more information on the
Commissions and requirements, or to submit an application, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/comvac
Q: How can I find out what topics the City Council and Commissions are discussing?
A: There are a number of ways you can stay informed about upcoming City Council
or Commission meetings and their agenda topics. The City Council meets on the
first and third Wednesday of every month, and you can view the meeting schedules
for Commissions at www.saratoga.ca.us/commissions.
In accordance with the Brown Act, meetings are noticed through the posting of an
agenda at least 72 hours in advance. Our City Council and Commission agendas
are posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. You can view all City Council and Commission
agendas and minutes from the current calendar year at www.saratoga.ca.us/agendacenter. From
there, you will also find links to view agendas and minutes from previous years, as well as videos
of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
You can also visit www.saratoga.ca.us/subscribe and sign up to receive email notifications when
agendas are posted and for a variety of other topics, including community events, emergency
alerts, City newsletters, and more. A notice is also shared on the City of Saratoga’s Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor pages when the City Council agendas are available online.
Are you not a
member of Nextdoor,
or did you miss a post
last month? Read
about the recent
trending topics right
here!
Sign up to receive
updates from the City
of Saratoga, other
agencies, and your
neighbors at
www.nextdoor.com
Quick Tip from Captain Rich
Make sure your Neighborhood Watch Group stays registered with the City of Saratoga! Groups
must now hold 1 neighborhood gathering per calendar year and confirm they have done so by
December. For more information, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/neighborhoodwatch
Keep track of crime in your area. Visit www.crimereports.com
Be notified when emergencies happen in your area. Sign up at www.sccgov.org/sites/alertscc
Nextdoor Digest
To learn more about the City’s monthly newsletter, make comments, suggest story ideas, or just ask a
question, contact Lauren Pettipiece at lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or 408.868.1275. You can also find
the Saratoga Source online and sign up for email alerts at www.saratoga.ca.us/subscribeCITY o f S ARATO
G
A
CALIFO R N IA1956
For information on
Neighborhood Watch
and tips on staying
safe, visit
www.saratoga.ca.us/
stayingsafeAsk Our Staff featuring Nora Pimentel
Have a question? Send your question(s) to lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or call 408.868.1275
June 2018
Captain Rich Urena oversees the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division.
Nora Pimentel is
the City Clerk who
administers local
democratic processes
such as elections,
access to city records,
and all legislative
actions ensuring
transparency to the
public. The City Clerk
acts as a compliance
officer for federal,
state, and local
statutes including the
Political Reform Act,
the Brown Act, and the
Public Records Act.
276
July marks National Parks and Recreation month! The City of Saratoga has so much
to offer, whether you decide to make it a summer of fun, fitness, or leisure.
Saratoga is home to roughly 189-acres of beautiful parks and diverse hiking,
running, or biking trails. Spend a day at the picturesque Wildwood Park, watch a
movie under the stars at El Quito Park, take a scenic hike at the historic Quarry Park,
or explore Hakone Gardens, an 18-acre Japanese estate and popular destination
for both residents and visitors. Hakone Gardens also offers free admission for
Saratoga residents and their guests on the first Tuesday of every month. View a full
list and find out more about Saratoga’s parks at www.saratoga.ca.us/parks
The Saratoga Recreation Department also offers several programs and activities,
including classes, camps, and trips, for all ages. You still have time to register your
children for summer activities where they can learn about sports, arts, STEM, and
the outdoors! Sign up for recreation programs at www.saratoga.ca.us/recprograms
Additionally, the Great Getaways program organizes day trips for all ages.
Upcoming trips include visits to Safari West wildlife preserve, Graton Casino, and a
San Francisco Giants game! Visit www.saratoga.ca.us/trips to see the full schedule.
July 2018
Connect with the City of Saratoga onCITY o f S ARATO
GA
CALIFO R N IA1956 Coming Up
Movie Night: CoCo
July 20, 2018
7:30 p.m.
El Quito Park
408.868.1249
Classic & Cool Car Show
July 22, 2018
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Downtown on Big Basin Way
www.sccshow.com
National Night Out
August 7, 2018
Organize an event in
your neighborhood!
www.saratoga.ca.us/NNO
Saratogans may see paw-ficer Dutch, an extraordinary two-year-old Dutch Shepherd, out and about with his
new paw-tner in sniffing out crime, Deputy Michael Keck.
Dutch is originally from Europe, and his physical skills, temperament, and drive to work and learn made him
the top dog for his new job with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. Dutch completed 4 weeks of “ruff”
training in San Francisco, where he learned narcotics detection and patrol duties. Those patrol duties include
obedience, indoor and outdoor searches, and apprehension.
Dutch now serves the West Valley Patrol Division and is also deployed for special narcotics and apprehension assignments
throughout the County. On his days off, Dutch enjoys playing with toys, chasing tennis balls, and rolling around with Deputy
Keck’s English Bulldog puppy and Staffordshire Terrier.
When you see this dynamic duo around town, feel free to ask Deputy Keck if it is a good time to pet Dutch! If you missed last
month’s profile of Deputy Keck, you can fetch it from www.facebook.com/CityofSaratoga
Meet Dutch, the New K-9 Around Town!
National Parks and Recreation Month
SOURCESaratoga
277
Register your National Night Out Event by July 27!
Organize an event in your neighborhood to celebrate National Night out on August 7! Santa
Clara County Sheriff’s Office Deputies will make every effort to visit your neighborhood if you
register your event by Friday, July 27. Visit www.saratoga.ca.us/NNO to register and www.
saratoga.ca.us/neighborhoodwatch for Neighborhood Watch information.
Visit Saratoga’s Historically Significant Sites
The Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission installed two Point of Interest markers near
the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Park Place to commemorate historically significant locations
in Saratoga. One marks the original site of the Blossom Festival, which was held to give thanks
for rain after several years of drought. The second commemorates the Theatre of the Glade, a
natural ampitheatre surrounded by redwoods behind the Saratoga Inn.
Apply for the Library Commission or Parks & Recreation Commission
Don’t miss this opportunity to serve your community! There is one available position on both
Commissions, and applications for both are due by August 23. For more information on the
Commissions and requirements, or to submit an application, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/comvac
Q: How can I volunteer for the City of Saratoga?
A: The City of Saratoga staff members enjoy working with youth and adult
volunteers who help support a variety of City programs.
Some volunteers donate time to ongoing administrative projects during business
hours. Others join in one-day opportunities at events or activities that are held on
evenings and weekends.
Some of the recent events volunteers were involved with include the State of the
City, Safety Fair, Color Dash, Movie Nights, and the Paint the City Utility Box art project.
In the fall and winter, volunteers also help to beautify and maintain Quarry Park trails or fill
sandbags in preparation for winter rains.
If the City does not have an opportunity that matches your availability and interests, there are
many other ways to get involved in the community.
You can visit www.saratoga.ca.us/volunteer for information on opportunities with the City or
www.volunteermatch.org to view opportunities with other organizations.
Are you not a
member of Nextdoor,
or did you miss a post
last month? Read
about the recent
trending topics right
here!
Sign up to receive
updates from the City
of Saratoga, other
agencies, and your
neighbors at
www.nextdoor.com
Quick Tip from Captain Rich
Be safe when barbecuing this summer. Make sure the grill is placed away from structures, eaves,
or branches to prevent fires. Also, remove grease or fat buildup to keep it clean. Never leave the
grill unattended, and always keep children and pets a safe distance away to avoid injuries or burns.
Keep track of crime in your area. Visit www.crimereports.com
Be notified when emergencies happen in your area. Sign up at www.sccgov.org/sites/alertscc
Nextdoor Digest
To learn more about the City’s monthly newsletter, make comments, suggest story ideas, or just ask a
question, contact Lauren Pettipiece at lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or 408.868.1275. You can also find
the Saratoga Source online and sign up for email alerts at www.saratoga.ca.us/subscribeCITY o f S ARATO
G
A
CALIFO R N IA1956
For information on
Neighborhood Watch
and tips on staying
safe, visit
www.saratoga.ca.us/
stayingsafeAsk Our Staff featuring Babette McKay
Have a question? Send your question(s) to lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or call 408.868.1275
July 2018
Captain Rich Urena oversees the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division.
Babette McKay is the
Human Resources
(HR) Technician.
She provides daily
HR operations and
support for City staff,
including recruitment,
orientation and
training, personnel
records, benefits
administration, and
employee wellness.
She also coordinates
the City volunteer
program.
278
Upon entering Saratoga, the first thing many people notice is the abundance of
vibrant trees. Saratoga’s stunning tree canopy has made the City a nationally
recognized Tree City USA since 2007. After the loss of many trees in 2016 due to
a prolonged drought, the City of Saratoga launched the 2020 by 2020 Tree
Planting Challenge with the goal of planting 2,020 trees by the year 2020!
Saratoga partnered with Our City Forest to offer a matching program for the
community, meaning the City will match a resident’s contribution up to $105 to
share the cost of planting up to two trees in their front yard. Our City Forest will
hold tree planting days this fall, so now is a great time to apply to receive a tree!
Trees not only add to the beauty of the City, they are also a vital part of
Saratoga’s infrastructure and provide many health benefits to the community.
Saratoga is nearing its goal of planting 2,020 trees, so whether you plant a
tree through the Our City Forest partnership or on your own, make sure your
trees count towards reaching the goal! To learn more about the challenge,
apply to receive a discounted tree, or report trees you have planted, visit
www.saratoga.ca.us/2020by2020
August 2018
Connect with the City of Saratoga onCITY o f S ARATO
GA
CALIFO R N IA1956 Coming Up
Law-ttes with Deputies
August 16, 2018
3:15 p.m.
Starbucks
12960 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Movie Night: Wonder
August 17, 2018
7:30 p.m.
El Quito Park
408.868.1249
Bollywood in the Village
August 26, 2018
4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Saratoga Village
Bank of America Parking Lot
Lieutenant Mark Roggia was born and raised in Gilroy. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Resource
Management from California State University, Chico and started work as a Park Ranger for Santa Clara County
Parks. This is where he met several Deputies who encouraged him to apply for the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s
Office and led to his 14 year career with the Sheriff’s Office. He has served in a number of different roles,
including Detective Sergeant at the West Valley Patrol Division, teacher of several subjects at the Sheriff’s
Academy, and as a negotiator on the Crisis Negotiations Team. Most recently, he was the Assistant Division
Commander for the Headquarters Patrol Division in San Jose before he made his return to the West Valley.
Lieutenant Roggia enjoys working in law enforcement as every day is different and brings a new challenge. He enjoys working
with people, especially with the residents of Saratoga who are willing to report suspicious behavior, eager to listen to and
implement crime prevention tips, and always appreciative of the efforts of the Sheriff’s Office. Outside of work, Lieutenant
Roggia enjoys spending time with his wife and two young boys, and dedicates his time to coaching youth baseball and
basketball. He also enjoys camping, golfing, fishing, hunting, and hiking.
Meet Saratoga’s New Lieutenant, Mark Roggia!
2,020 Trees by the Year 2020!
SOURCESaratoga
279
Register for Fall Recreation Activities Now!
Learn about all of the Saratoga Recreation Department’s upcoming programs, classes, and
trips in the Fall Activity Guide, available now! There’s something for everyone with a variety of
activities for all ages and interests, including tennis, golf, ballet, tai chi, and more! View the full
guide and register online at www.saratoga.ca.us/activityguide or in person at the Joan Pisani
Community Center.
New Turnaround on Big Basin Way
A new turnaround has been constructed on Big Basin Way, just past the intersection with 6th
Street. This will improve traffic circulation through the Saratoga Village and provide a designated
place for drivers to pull off the road and turn around before leaving the Village.
Join a Commission and Help Shape Your Community
The City of Saratoga is accepting applications for openings on multiple Commissions.
Applications for the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Library Commission are due
August 23, and applications for the Traffic Safety Commission and the Heritage Preservation
Commission are due October 25. For more information, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/comvac
Q: What are Neighborhood Watch grants and how can I apply for one?
A: The City of Saratoga offers Neighborhood Watch grants to help neighbors
launch or sustain their Neighborhood Watch groups. Each Neighborhood Watch
group is eligible to receive one annual grant of up to $300. Grants will be awarded
on a first-come, first-served basis until funding runs out.
It’s up to your Neighborhood Watch group to decide how you would like to use
the grant! Examples of how the grant may be used include flyers, informational
materials, or annual block parties. Block parties are one way to meet the new requirement for
Neighborhood Watch groups to hold one neighborhood gathering per year in order to stay
registered with the City of Saratoga. Each gathering must be open to the entire Neighborhood
Watch group, but it does not need to be focused on Neighborhood Watch.
Neighborhood Watch grants help residents organize groups in their neighborhood and stay
engaged for years to come! On the City’s website, you can easily apply for a Neighborhood
Watch grant or confirm that you’ve held your annual gathering. To submit either of those or to
learn more about Neighborhood Watch, visit www.saratoga.ca.us/neighborhoodwatch
Are you not a
member of Nextdoor,
or did you miss a post
last month? Read
about the recent
trending topics right
here!
Sign up to receive
updates from the City
of Saratoga, other
agencies, and your
neighbors at
www.nextdoor.com
Quick Tip from Captain Rich
Make sure your kids ride their bikes, scooters, and skateboards safely to school this year. Please
remind them to always wear a helmet, do not wear earphones in both ears, stop at all stop signs,
and walk their rides across crosswalks.
Keep track of crime in your area. Visit www.crimereports.com
Be notified when emergencies happen in your area. Sign up at www.sccgov.org/sites/alertscc
Nextdoor Digest
To learn more about the City’s monthly newsletter, make comments, suggest story ideas, or just ask a
question, contact Lauren Pettipiece at lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or 408.868.1275. You can also find
the Saratoga Source online and sign up for email alerts at www.saratoga.ca.us/subscribeCITY o f S ARATO
G
A
CALIFO R N IA1956
For information on
Neighborhood Watch
and tips on staying
safe, visit
www.saratoga.ca.us/
stayingsafeAsk Our Staff featuring Crystal Bothelio
Have a question? Send your question(s) to lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us or call 408.868.1275
August 2018
Captain Rich Urena oversees the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division.
Crystal Bothelio is
the City of Saratoga’s
Deputy City Manager.
She oversees the
City Manager’s
Department and the
City’s communication
program, works
directly with the City
Council on strategic
initiatives, and serves
as an adviser to the
City Manager. Crystal
is also the staff
liaison to the Library
Commission and Public
Safety Task Force.
280
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide input to the City’s voting delegate (Council Member Emily Lo) on the resolution to be
considered at the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the League of California Cities holds an annual conference. This year, the conference
will take place September 12 through 14 in Long Beach. During the conference, resolutions that
set policy direction for the League are considered and voted upon. Member cities are expected
send a designated voter to represent their city’s position.The City Council selected Council
Member Lo to serve as the Saratoga voting delegate at the August 1, 2018 Regular City Council
Meeting.
This year, two resolutions will be considered at the Annual Conference:
1.A resolution calling upon the League of California Cities to respond to the increasing
vulnerabilities to local municipal authority, control and revenue and explore the
preparation of a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would further
strengthen local democracy and authority
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Concurring Cities/Officials: Arcadia, Burbank, Cupertino; Duarte;Oceanside; Ontario;
Palo Alto; Redondo Beach; Santa Cruz; Sunnyvale; Torrance; West Hollywood
Summary:This resolution states that the League of California Cities should assess the
vulnerabilities to local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and or constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity
to further strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy.
281
2. A resolution of the league of California cities declaring its commitment to support the
repeal of preemption in California food and agriculture code § 11501.1 that prevents
local governments from regulating pesticides
Source: City of Malibu
Concurring Cities/Officials: Agoura Hills; Calabasas; Davis; Menlo Park; Moorpark; Ojai;
Oxnard; Richmond; West Hollywood
Summary: This resolution seeks to have the state and the League study the negative impacts
of anticoagulant rodenticides and address the inability of cities to regulate the use of
rodenticides and pesticides. Specifically related to anticoagulant rodenticides, the
resolution would encourage the state to fund research into the negative impacts and a
potential restriction or ban; direct the League to consider creating a task force to study and
report on the unintended negative consequences; encourage cities and property owners to
eliminate use; and encourage cities to join advocacy efforts. In addition, the resolution
would direct the League to endorse repeal of a statute that preempts local regulation of
pesticides.
Attachment A includes the resolutions, including information and more about the voting process.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – League of California Cities Resolutions Packet
282
*REVISED
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2018 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California
September 12 – 14, 2018
*This packet has been updated to clarify the distinction between the support
received from cities and support received from individual city officials for the
proposed resolutions.
283
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that
resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and
referred to League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Five policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider
and take action on the resolutions referred to them. The committees are: Environmental Quality,
Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic Development;
Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works. The committees will
meet from 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach. The
sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meeting.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 13, at the Hyatt Long Beach, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding
the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals
appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting
will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 14, at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m.,
Thursday, September 13. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224
1
284
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2
285
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 12, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
The following committees will be meeting:
1. Environmental Quality
2. Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations
3. Housing, Community & Economic Development
4. Revenue & Taxation
5. Transportation, Communication & Public Works
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 13, 1:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, September 14, 12:30 p.m.
Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach
3
286
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
2 Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY & LABOR RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each
committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will
be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4
287
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy
committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No
Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League
Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this
link: Resolution Process.
5
288
1. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING UPON THE
LEAGUE TO RESPOND TO THE INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONTROL AND REVENUE AND EXPLORE THE
PREPARATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY
AND AUTHORITY
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities: Duarte; Oceanside
City Officials: Sho Tay, Mayor, Arcadia; Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor, Burbank; Steven Scharf,
Council Member, Cupertino; Alan Wapner, Mayor pro Tem, Ontario; Lydia Kou, Council
Member, Palo Alto; Bill Brand, Mayor, Redondo Beach; David Terrazas, Mayor, Santa Cruz;
Michael Goldman, Council Member, Sunnyvale; Patrick Furey, Mayor, Torrance; Lauren
Meister, Council Member, West Hollywood
Referred to: Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic
Development; Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Policy Committees
WHEREAS, the State of California is comprised of diverse communities that are home
to persons of differing backgrounds, needs, and aspirations; yet united by the vision that the most
accessible, responsive, effective, and transparent form of democratic government is found at the
local level and in their own communities; and
WHEREAS, subsidiarity is the principle that democratic decisions are best made at the
most local level best suited to address the needs of the People, and suggests that local
governments should be allowed to find solutions at the local level before the California
Legislature imposes uniform and overreaching measures throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution recognizes that local self-government is the
cornerstone of democracy by empowering cities to enact local laws and policies designed to
protect the local public health, safety and welfare of their residents and govern the municipal
affairs of charter cities; and
WHEREAS, over recent years there have been an increasing number of measures
introduced within the Legislature or proposed for the state ballot, often sponsored by powerful
interest groups and corporations, aimed at undermining the authority, control and revenue
options for local governments and their residents; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations are willing to spend millions in
political contributions to legislators to advance legislation, or to hire paid signature gatherers to
qualify deceptive ballot proposals attempting to overrule or silence the voices of local residents
and their democratically-elected local governments affected by their proposed policies; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations propose and advance such
measures because they view local democracy as an obstacle that disrupts the efficiency of
6
289
implementing corporate plans and increasing profits and therefore object when local residents—
either through their elected city councils, boards of supervisors, special district boards, or by
action of local voters—enact local ordinances and policies tailored to fit the needs of their
individual communities; and
WHEREAS, public polling repeatedly demonstrates that local residents and voters have
the highest levels of confidence in levels of government that are closest to the people, and thus
would be likely to strongly support a ballot measure that would further strengthen the ability of
communities to govern themselves without micromanagement from the state or having their
authority undermined by deep-pocketed and powerful interests and corporations.
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities should assess the increasing
vulnerabilities to local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to
further strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy to best preserve their
local quality of life.
7
290
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Background:
The relationship between the state and cities functions best as a partnership where major
policy issues are approached by the state with careful consideration of the varied conditions
among the state’s 482 cities and 58 counties. There should be an appreciation of the
importance of retaining local flexibility to tailor policies to reflect the needs and
circumstances of the local community. Still, cities have had to respond to state legislation
that undermines the principle of “local control” over important issues such as land use,
housing, finance, infrastructure, elections, labor relations and other issues directly affecting
cities.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” examined the operation of the principle
of subsidiarity in the early 19th century. Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that states
matters should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
Tocqueville wrote that "Decentralization has not only an administrative value, but also a
civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public
affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom.” Tocqueville’s works were first
published in 1835 with a second volume published in 1840. The United States had a
population of just 17 million people in 1840, less than 50% of the population of California
today and yet there was value found in decentralization.
Another consideration is to examine how the European Union (“EU”) operates. There are
two prime guiding principles for the EU. The first is principle of conferral, which states
that the EU should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the
treaties. The second, which is relevant to this resolution, is the principle of subsidiarity,
which states that the EU should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the member states acting alone. Sacramento should operate in a similar manner and only
govern when objectives need to be achieved at a much larger level than a local government.
For years, Governor Jerry Brown himself has spoken on the principle of “subsidiarity.”
Governor Brown has asserted for numerous years that local officials should have the
flexibility to act without micromanagement from Sacramento.
Legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the state legislature has continually
threatened local control in flagrant opposition to the principle of subsidiarity. This has
included, but not been limited to, Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities (“SB 649”) in 2017; AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local government: taxation:
prohibition: video streaming services (“AB 252”) in 2017; and Senate Bill 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus (“SB 827”) in 2018.
SB 649 would have applied to all telecommunications providers and the equipment they
use, including “micro-wireless,” “small cell,” and “macro-towers,” as well as a range of
video and cable services. The bill would have allowed the use of “small cell” wireless
8
291
antennas and related equipment without a local discretionary permit in all zoning districts
as a use by-right, subject only to an administrative permit. Additionally, SB 649 provided a
de facto CEQA exemption for the installation of such facilities and precluded consideration
by the public for the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities. SB
649 would have also removed the ability for cities to obtain fair and reasonable
compensation when authorizing the use of public property and rights of way from a “for
profit” company for this type of use.
SB 649 passed out of the State Assembly by a vote of 46-16-17 and out of the State Senate
by a vote of 22-10-8 despite over 300 cities and 47 counties in California providing letters
of opposition. Ultimately, Governor Brown vetoed the bill as he believed “that the interest
which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the
one achieved in this bill.” It is strongly believed that the issue of wireless
telecommunications facilities is not over and it is anticipated that legislation will be
introduced on this topic in January 2019.
Another example of an incursion into local control was AB 252, which would have
prohibited any tax on the sale or use of video streaming services, including sales and use
taxes and utility user taxes. Over the last two decades, voters in 107 cities and 3 counties
have adopted measures to modernize their Utility User Tax (“UUT”) ordinances. Of these
jurisdictions, 87 cities and 1 county approved ordinances to allow a UUT on video
providers. Prior to its first Committee hearing, AB 252 received opposition letters from 37
cities, the League of California Cities, South Bay Council of Governments, California
Contract Cities Association, and nine other organizations. This bill failed in the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee 8-0-2, which the author of the Committee chaired.
More recently, SB 827 would have overridden local control on housing development that
was within ½ mile of a major transit stop or ¼ mile from a high-quality bus corridor as
defined by the legislation with some limitations. On April 17, 2018, SB 827 failed in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 4-6-3 but was granted reconsideration. State
legislators have indicated they will continue to introduce legislation that will override local
zoning ordinances for the development of affordable housing in conjunction with mixed
use and/or luxury condominium/apartment housing.
These are just three examples of the increasing attempts by Sacramento to supersede local
control. Presently, there are discussions occurring in Sacramento to ban cities from creating
their own municipal broadband or to prohibit local ordinances over the regulation of shared
mobility devices such as dockless electric scooters. These decisions should remain with
each individual jurisdiction to decide based on the uniqueness of their community and the
constituents that live in each city.
Often fueled by the actions of special interest groups, Sacramento is continually attempting
to overreach their authority with various incursions on local control. The desire in
Sacramento to strip communities of their ability to make decisions over issues which
should remain at the local level seems to intensify each state legislative cycle. Increasingly,
legislation is being introduced with a “one-size-fits-all” approach which is detrimental in a
9
292
state with over 40 million residents that have extremely diverse communities from the
desert to the sea, from the southern to the northern borders.
Loren King in the book “Cities, Subsidiarity and Federalism” states, “Decisions should be
made at the lowest feasible scale possible”. The proposed resolution directs the League of
California Cities to assess the increasing vulnerabilities to local authority, control and
revenue. It also directs the League of California Cities to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment which would aim to ensure that decisions are
made as close to home as possible.
Local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy precisely because it is
closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would provide the
state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the role of
local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the appropriate
issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic. Any ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment should institutionalize the principle of
subsidiarity, while encouraging inclusive regional cooperation that recognizes the diversity
of California’s many individual communities. The time has come to allow the residents of
California’s voters to decide if they prefer top down governance from Sacramento or
bottom up governing from their own locally elected officials.
10
293
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Dan Carrigg, Johnnie Pina
Committees: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations
Housing, Community & Economic Development
Revenue & Taxation
Transportation, Communication and Public Works
Summary:
This Resolution states that the League of California Cities should assess the vulnerabilities to
local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot measure and or
constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen
local authority and preserve the role of local democracy.
Background:
The City of Beverly Hills is sponsoring this resolution in reaction to their concerns over
measures coming from the Legislature and the initiative process attempting to roll back local
control and hinder cities from providing optimal services to their residents.
As examples, the city cites the 2017-2018 legislative cycle, the Legislature introduced bills such
as Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and AB 252 (Ridley-
Thomas) proposing to prohibit taxes on video streaming services, and more recently Senate Bill
827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing. SB 649 was vetoed by the Governor
and SB 827 died in policy committee, however if these measures had been signed into law they
would have impinged on the ability of a local government to be responsive to the needs of their
constituents.
The city maintains that “local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy
precisely because it is closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would
provide the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the
role of local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the
appropriate issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic.”
Fiscal Impact:
By requesting the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” the preparation of a ballot
measure that would further protect local authority, there are no proposals to be quantified. But it
is presumed that the League would not pursue a measure that did not have positive impacts of
further protecting local authority.
For the League as an organization, however, the fiscal impact of sponsoring a ballot measure can
be very expensive. It can take several million dollars to qualify a measure via signature
gathering, and much more to fund an effective campaign and overcome organized opposition.
Comments:
1) Ballot measure advocacy is a settled aspect of California’s political process. This year’s
November ballot is an example of that, with proposals ranging from dividing California
11
294
into three states, restoring rent control, repealing transportation funding, to funding
housing and water bonds. Three other measures are not on the November ballot after
their sponsors spent millions gathering signatures to qualify measures, then leveraged
last-minute legislative deals in exchange for pulling them from the ballot.
2) Most major stakeholder organizations in Sacramento have realized that they cannot rely
on legislative advocacy alone to protect their interests, but must develop and maintain the
capacity to protect their interests in the ballot process as well.
3) The League has been engaged in ballot advocacy for nearly 20 years. In the early 2000’s,
city officials were angered by repeated state raids of local revenues. These concerns led
to the League –-for the first time in its then 100-year history—developing a ballot
advocacy infrastructure that included forming and fundraising for an issues political
action committee (PAC), establishing a network of regional managers, and building a
coalition with other organizations that ultimately led to the passage of Prop. 1A of 2004.
Over the years, the League’s successful campaigns include the passage of Proposition 1A
and Proposition 99 and the defeat of Propositions 90 and 98.
a. Yes on Proposition 1A (2004)
As a result of the passage of Prop 1A, local government revenues that otherwise
would have been raided by the state legislature were kept in local coffers. This
resulted in increased funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks and other
locally delivered services. Proposition 1A PASSED WITH 83.7% OF THE
VOTE.
b. No on Proposition 90 (2006)
Prop. 90 was a well-financed special interest-backed initiative that sought to
eliminate most of local governments’ land use decision making authority. Led by
the League, the opposition educated voters on how this measure’s far reaching
provisions would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars by driving up the cost of
infrastructure projects, prevented voters and state and local agencies from
enacting environmental protections, jeopardized public safety services and more.
Proposition 90 FAILED WITH 52.4% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
c. No on Proposition 98 Yes on Proposition 99 (2008)
Given the hidden agendas within Prop 98, our message was not always an easy
one to communicate to the electorate. The No on 98/ Yes on 99 campaign was
able to educate voters on the important differences between both measures. As a
result, important eminent domain reforms were enacted and both land use
decision making and rent control were preserved within our communities.
Proposition 98 FAILED WITH 61.6% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
Proposition 99 PASSED BY 61% OF THE VOTE.
d. Yes on Proposition 22 (2010)
As a result of the passage, local governments have been able to pay for
infrastructure investment, create local jobs and avoid devastating cuts in our
communities. Proposition 22 APPROVED BY 60.7% OF VOTERS.
12
295
4) While the League has been able to recently defeat several major legislative proposals
aimed and undermining local authority, and avoid a battle over the Business
Roundtable’s measure in November due to the “soda tax” deal, the threats to local
authority and revenue remain a constant concern. Other interest groups may be
emboldened by some of the recent “deals” cut by ballot proponents and seek to
implement similar strategies for the 2020 ballot. The next Governor may also have
different philosophies then Governor Jerry Brown on “subsidiarity.”
5) The League’s President opted to send this resolution to four policy committees for
several reasons: (a) the recent major threats to local control covered broad policy areas:
telecom, land use, contracting, and revenue; and (b) having this issue vetted broadly
within the League policy process will provide a better assessment of the depth of concern
for the vulnerability to local control within the membership
6) If the membership chooses to approve this measure, it is strongly advisable to retain
continued flexibility for the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” options.
Any ballot initiative consideration must be approached very carefully by the organization.
It is a difficult and very expensive endeavor that can have additional political
ramifications. For 120 years the League’s core mission has been to protect local control -
- and it has gone to the ballot successfully before to do so -- but any such effort must be
approached thoughtfully, prudently and cautiously.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides:
The League of California Cities’ Mission Statement is, “To expand and protect local
control for cities through education and advocacy. To enhance the quality of life for all
Californians”
The League of California Cities’ Summary of Existing Policy and Guidelines states,
“We Believe
o Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy.
o Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest.
o In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving
problems.
o In conducting the business of government with openness, respect, and civility.
o The spirit of public service is what builds communities.
o Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public
trust.
o Cities are the economic engine of California.
o The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
o The active participation of all city officials increases the League’s effectiveness.
o Focused advocacy and lobbying is most effective through partnerships and
collaboration.
o Well-informed city officials mean responsive, visionary leadership, and effective
and efficient
o city operations.”
Click here to view the Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles 2018.
13
296
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: Steven Scharf, Cupertino City Council
Member; Michael S. Goldman, Sunnyvale City Council; Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Council
Member; David Terrazas, Mayor of Santa Cruz; Peter Weiss, Mayor of Oceanside; Alan D.
Wapner, Mayor pro Tem of Ontario; Patrick Furey, Mayor of Torrance; Lauren Meister, West
Hollywood Council Member; Liz Reilly, Duarte Mayor Pro Tem; Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo
Beach; Sho Tay, Mayor of Arcadia; Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor of Burbank.
14
297
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Source: City of Malibu
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities: Agoura Hills; Calabasas; Moorpark
City Officials: Brett Lee, Mayor pro Tem, Davis; Catherine Carlton, Council Member, Menlo
Park; Suza Francina, Council Member, Ojai; Carmen Ramirez, Mayor pro Tem, Oxnard; Tom
Butt, Mayor, Richmond; Lindsay Horvath, Council Member, West Hollywood
Referred to: Environmental Quality
WHEREAS, anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous bait products that are poisoning
80 to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging
in non-target animals, including pets, that accidentally ingest the products. Approximately
10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned by anticoagulant rodenticides each
year nationwide; and
WHEREAS, in response to these harms, the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by
anticoagulant rodenticides; and
WHEREAS, the state of California currently only recognizes the harm posed by second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides, which are prohibited in state wildlife habitat areas but are
still available for agricultural purposes and by certified applicators throughout the state of
California; and
WHEREAS, first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are still available to the public
and used throughout California without limitation; and
WHEREAS, nonpoisonous rodent control methods, such as controlling trash, sealing
buildings, setting traps, erecting raptor poles and owl boxes, and removing rodent nesting areas
are also effective rodent control methods; and
WHEREAS, the state of California preempts cities from regulating pesticides; and
WHEREAS, many cities across California have passed resolutions restricting pesticide
use on city property and have expressed the desire to ban the use of pesticides within their
jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities, assembled in Long Beach, California on September 14, 2018, to do as follows:
15
298
1. Encourage the state of California to fund and sponsor further research into the negative
impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides to determine whether the use of these products
should be further restricted or banned statewide.
2. Direct the League of California Cities staff to consider creating a task force with other
organizations and jointly commission a report on the unintended negative impact of
anticoagulant rodenticides;
3. Encourage cities throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant rodenticides as
part of their maintenance program in city-owned parks, lands, and facilities and to report
on the effectiveness of other rodent control methods used in in their maintenance
program;
4. Encourage property owners throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant
rodenticides on their properties;
5. Encourage cities throughout California to join in these advocacy efforts to mitigate the
unintended negative impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides;
6. Endorse a repeal of California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 to end local
preemption of regulating pesticides; and
7. Call for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities
and other stakeholders to consider and implement this reform.
16
299
Background Information on Resolution
Source: City of Malibu
Background:
A. Anticoagulant rodenticides are unnecessarily destructive and dangerous
Anticoagulant rodenticides contain lethal agents that disrupt the normal blood clotting or
coagulation process causing dosed rodents to die from uncontrolled bleeding or hemorrhaging.
Deaths typically occur between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
Animals commonly targeted by anticoagulant rodenticides include rats, mice, gophers and
squirrels. Non-target predator wildlife victims, which are exposed to an 80-90% risk of
poisoning, include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears, foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. The
endangered species at risk of poisoning include fishers, spotted owls, and San Joaquin foxes. The
use of anticoagulant rodenticides not only harms rodents, but it commonly harms pets, such as
dogs, cats, and bunnies, and other wildlife that mistakenly eat the bait through primary poisoning
or that unknowingly consume animals that have ingested the anticoagulant rodenticide through
secondary poisoning. Children also suffer poisoning by mistakenly ingesting anticoagulant
rodenticides.
California recognizes the grave harm that can be caused by anticoagulant rodenticides and has
partially restricted access to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides by the public:
Because of documented hazards to wildlife, pets and children, the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation has restricted public access to some of these
materials in California. As of July 1, 2014, rodenticide products containing the
active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone and difenacoum are
only to be used by licensed applicators (professional exterminators).1
California has also prohibited the use of these ingredients in any “wildlife habitat area,” which is
defined as “any state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.”2
The United State Environmental Protection Agency3 and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation4 have both documented in detail the damage to wildlife from second-generation
anticoagulant rodenticides in support of the 2014 consumer ban on the purchase and use of the
products. While first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are less toxic, they are far more
abundant due to their continued availability to all members of public.4 The California
Department of Fish & Wildlife was tasked with collecting data on poisoning incidents to
ascertain the effectiveness of the restrictions on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides.
After almost four years of collecting data, there was no evidence supporting a reduction in the
number of poisonings.
1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/living-with-wildlife/rodenticides.
2 Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 12978.7.
3 https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-products
4 https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/reevaluation/chemicals/brodifacoum_final_assess.pdf
17
300
Recent studies by the University of California, Los Angeles and the National Park Service on
bobcats have shown that first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning levels similar to the
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides poisoning levels.5 A comprehensive study of 111
mountain lions in 37 California counties found first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the
liver tissue of 81 mountain lions (73% of those studied) across 33 of the 37 counties, and second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in 102 mountain lions (92% of those studied) across 35 of
the 37 counties.6 First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides were identified as contributing to
the poisoning of Griffith Park mountain lion, P-22, (who was rescued), and the deaths of
Newbury Park mountain lion, P-34, and Verdugo Hills mountain lion, P-41.
This data demonstrates the inadequacy of current legislative measures to ameliorate the
documented problem caused by both second-generation and first-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides.
B. State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides
A general law city may not enact local laws that conflict with general state law.7 Local
legislation that conflicts with state law is void.8 A local law conflicts with state law if it (1)
duplicates, (2) contradicts, or (3) enters a field that has been fully occupied by state law, whether
expressly or by implication. A local law falling into any of these categories is “preempted” and is
unenforceable.
State law expressly bars local governments from regulating or prohibiting pesticide use. This bar
is codified in the California Food and Agricultural Code § 11501.1(a):
This division and Division 7 . . . are of statewide concern and occupy the whole
field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of
pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this code, no ordinance or regulation of local government, including,
but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county
board of supervisors, or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of
an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter
relating to the registration, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these
ordinances, laws or regulations are void and of no force or effect.
State law also authorizes the state to take action against any local entity that promulgates an
ordinance or regulation that violates § 11501.1(a).9 The statute was specifically adopted to
overrule a 30 year old court decision in People v. County of Mendocino,10 which had held that a
5 L. E. K. Serieys, et al, “Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk factors and potential effects
based on a 16-year study,” Ecotoxicology (2015) 24:844–862.
6 J. Rudd, et al, “Prevalence of First-Generation and Second-Generation Rodenticide Exposure in California
Mountain Lions,” Proceeding of the 28th Vertebrate Pest Conference, February 2018.
7 Cal. Const. art. XI § 7.
8 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, 743.
9 Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1, subd. (b).
10 People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 476.
18
301
local regulation prohibiting aerial application of phenoxy herbicides was not then preempted by
state or federal law.11
The use of pesticides is broadly regulated by state law. In the language of preemption law, the
state “occupies the field,” leaving no room for additional local law on the subject. Accordingly, a
city’s ban on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides would be unenforceable.
C. California should repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to decide how to regulate pesticides within their
own jurisdictions based on local concerns
The state of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in
their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
Recognizing that cities’ power to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary,
and other ordinances and regulations” is presently preempted by the general laws of the state,
cities throughout California request that the state provide cities with the authority to decide how
to deal with rodents based on their land use.
Depending on such land use, cities may decide to allow the use of nonpoisonous control
methods, non-anticoagulant rodenticides, or anticoagulant rodenticides, if necessary.
Nonpoisonous methods to control rodent pests, include sealing entrances to buildings, sanitizing
property, removing rodent habitats, such as ivy or wood piles, setting traps, and erecting raptor
poles or owl boxes. For example, a recent landmark study by Ventura County established that
installing raptor poles for hawks and owls was more effective than anticoagulant rodenticides in
reducing the damage to water control levees caused by ground squirrel burrows. Burrows
decreased by 66% with the change.12
The ultimate goal is to allow cities to address their local concerns with the input of community
members at open and public meetings. Presently, cities are unable to adequately address local
concerns; they are limited to encouraging or discouraging behavior.
D. Conclusion
The negative effects from the use of anticoagulant rodenticides across California has garnered
the interest of cities and community members to remedy the problem. By presenting this
resolution to the League of California Cities, the City of Malibu hopes to organize support and
gain interest at the state level to repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to regulate pesticides based on individual, local concerns.
11 IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. Of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 81, fn. 9; Turner v. Chevron USA Inc., 2006 WL
1314013, fn. 14 (unpublished).
12 http://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/RaptorPilotStudy.pdf
19
302
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Erin Evans-Fudem
Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This resolution seeks to have the state and the League study the negative impacts of
anticoagulant rodenticides and address the inability of cities to regulate the use of rodenticides
and pesticides.
Specifically related to anticoagulant rodenticides, the resolution would encourage the state to
fund research into the negative impacts and a potential restriction or ban; direct the League to
consider creating a task force to study and report on the unintended negative consequences;
encourage cities and property owners to eliminate use; and encourage cities to join advocacy
efforts. In addition, the resolution would direct the League to endorse repeal of a statute that
preempts local regulation of pesticides.
Background:
The City of Malibu is sponsoring this resolution out of concern about the effect of a certain type
of rodent control (anticoagulant rodenticides) has on other wildlife. According to the City,
anticoagulant rodenticides disrupt the blood clotting process and therefore cause rodents to die
from bleeding or hemorrhaging. This rodenticide is commonly used on rats, mice, gophers, and
squirrels. Predator animals that eat rodents can be exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides if they
consume animals that have eaten the bait. These animals include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears,
foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. Furthermore, pets can also be exposed to anticoagulant
rodenticides if they eat the bait or consume animals that have eaten the bait.
Some cities have passed “ceremonial resolutions” locally. For example, the City of Malibu has
two ordinances in place to discontinue use of rodenticides and traps in city-owned parks, roads,
and facilities, as well as encourage businesses and property owners not to use anticoagulant
rodenticides on their property.
Fiscal Impact:
Costs to cities would include using alternative methods of rodent control and studying the
efficacy. Since the resolution encourages, but does not mandate action by cities, city costs would
be taken on voluntarily.
Fiscal impact to the League would include costs associated with the task force, scientific
research, and educating League staff and members. For the task force, the League may incur
costs associated with staffing, convening, and educating a task force to study anticoagulant
rodenticides, as well as the cost of writing a report. This could include a need for outside experts
with knowledge of pesticides and their ecological impacts. League resources would also be
utilized to support proposals to repeal the statute preempting local regulation of pesticides;
however, this cost may be absorbed with existing staff resources.
20
303
Comments:
Pesticides are regulated by federal and state governments. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) reserves for the federal government authority over pesticide
labeling. States can adopt stricter labeling requirements and can effectively ban sale and use of
pesticides that do not meet state health or safety standards.1 For 51 years, California has reserved
regulation of pesticides for the state only, preempting local regulation.2 This preemption has
been ratified and confirmed in subsequent court decisions and legislation. However, County
Agricultural Commissioners work to enforce the state laws. Local governments may regulate or
restrict pesticide use in their own operations, including use in municipal buildings or parks.34
Broad direction. This resolution would direct the League to take a position allowing broad local
discretion over pesticide regulation in general. Because the regulation of anticoagulant
rodenticides is largely based in science, additional or outside expertise may be need ed to ensure
full understanding of the science behind rodent control methods. The resolution itself is not
limited to allowing local governments to regulate anticoagulant rodenticides, which this
resolution otherwise targets.
Rodent control methods. There are numerous methods of controlling rodents, including lethal
traps, live traps, and poison baits. There are two generations of rodenticide poisons because after
rodents became resistant to the first generation, the second was developed. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) provides the following information below related
to the science and use of anticoagulant rodenticides:
Most of the rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds that interfere with
blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Deaths typically occur between
four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
First-generation anticoagulants include the anticoagulants that were developed as
rodenticides before 1970. These compounds are much more toxic when feeding occurs on
several successive days rather than on one day only. Chlorpophacinone, diphacinone and
warfarin are first-generation anticoagulants that are registered to control rats and mice in
the United States.
Second-generation anticoagulants were developed beginning in the 1970s to control
rodents that are resistant to first-generation anticoagulants. Second-generation
anticoagulants also are more likely than first-generation anticoagulants to be able to kill
after a single night's feeding. These compounds kill over a similar course of time but tend
to remain in animal tissues longer than do first-generation ones. These properties mean
that second-generation products pose greater risks to nontarget species that might feed on
bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. Due to these
1 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017
Update, pg. 9, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
2 California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 (1967).
3 CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 9,
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
4 County Agricultural Commissioners work with CDPR to enforce state laws. CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide
Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 13, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
21
304
risks, second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides no longer are registered for use in
products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest
control and structural pest control markets. Second-generation anticoagulants registered
in the United States include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
Other rodenticides that currently are registered to control mice include bromethalin,
cholecalciferol and zinc phosphide. These compounds are not anticoagulants. Each is
toxic in other ways.5
Legislative attempts to ban. Several legislative measures have been introduced to ban the use of
certain anticoagulant rodenticides (AB 1687, Bloom, 2017. AB 2596, Bloom, 2016). However,
neither of these measures were heard and failed to pass key legislative deadlines.
Existing League Policy:
The League does not have policy related to pesticides or rodenticides.
Related to federal regulation, League policy states:
The League supports flexibility for state and local government to enact environmental
and other standard or mandates that are stronger than the federal standards. However, the
League reserves the right to question or oppose stronger standards on the merits. The
League also opposes legislation that prohibits state and local governments from enacting
stricter standards.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: William Koehler, Mayor of Agoura Hills;
Fred Gaines, Mayor of Calabasas; Brett Lee, Mayor Pro Tem of Davis; Catherine Carlton, Menlo
Park City Council Member; Janice Parvin, Mayor of Moorpark; Suza Francina, Ojai City
Council Member; Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard City Council Member; Tom Butt, Mayor of
Richmond; Lindsey Horvath, West Hollywood City Council Member
5 U.S. EPA, Restrictions on Rodenticide Products, https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-
products
22
305
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
Local Municipal Authority, Control and Revenue
23
306
24
307
25
308
26
309
From: Steven Scharf <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 8:34 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the preparation
of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that would strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy at the local level as the state
legislature is continually attempting to override the local authority of cities."
Speaking only for myself, and not on behalf of the City of Cupertino or other Cupertino City
Council Members, I hereby give my support for such a measure. You may use my name as a
supporter.
Sincerely,
Steven Scharf
Cupertino City Council Member
27
310
cif Duqrrf,e
1600 Huntington Drive I Duarte, CA 91010 | nr.. 626.357.7ggt I nu" 626.358.0018 | o* u.u...rrduarte.com
July 10,2018 Mayor
John Fasana
General Resolutions Committee
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mayor Pro Tern
Liz Reilly
Councilmernbers
Margaret E. Finlay
Samuel Kang
Tzeitel Paras-Caracci
City Manager
Darrell J. George
2018 CONT'ERENCE RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO TIIE INCREASING
VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTrrORrTy, CONTROL,
AIID REVENUE
Dear Committee:
The City of Duarte supports the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills calling for the League to explore the preparation of a ballot measure
that would provide the State's voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and preserve the
role of local democracy.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the legislature has continually threatened to erode local
control. Whether this was Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) or the more
recently introduced Senate Bill827 (Wiener) (Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus) that was
defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a
local government to institute discretionary legislation that is responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a State ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing
taxes more onerous on local jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group
successfully negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda
tax for twelve years, trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure. However,
as a result of the passage of that Assembly Bill, the State ballot initiative was pulled from the November
2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by the State legislature and powerful interest groups should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted, and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
State of California.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to the League
to pursue a ballot measure andlor constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and
authority. For these reasons, the City of Duarte strongly supports this resolution.
Sincerely,
'-ra'4<{<o
Liz Reilly
Mayor Pro Tem
cc:Vice Mayor John Mirisch, City of Beverly Hills
28
311
29312
30313
31
314
DocuSign Envelope ID : 48D4AEF4-48B3-442A-A3E1 -12DFA5002A14
July 11, 2018
General Resolutions Committee
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ci!yof Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: EXPLORING A RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
Dear Committee Members:
As one Councilmember of the City of Palo Alto, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a
body, or the City, I write to support the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills . This resolution asks the League to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would provide voters an opportunity to further strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy. If the resolution passes, I encourage the League to ensure any
potential measure includes both charter and general law cities.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 has continually threatened to erode local control. Whether this
was SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the more recently introduced SB 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus that was defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually
introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is
responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a state ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing taxes
more onerous on loca l jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group successfully
negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned on constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda tax for twelve
years; trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure . However, as a result the
passage of that Assembly Bill , the state ballot initiative was pulled from the November 2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by state legislature, and powerful interest groups, should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
state of Californ ia.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to t he League to pu rsue
a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and authority. For
these reasons I support this resolution.
Sincerely,
r:--"' L!.:!!::~
Lyd ia Kou
Councilmember, City of Palo Alto
cc :
Palo Alto City Council
M ayor John M i risch, City of Beve r ly Hills
James Keene, Palo Al t o Cit y Manager
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlo rine.
P.O . Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax 32
315
33
316
34
317
From: Michael Goldman <miklg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the
preparation of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that
would strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy at
the local level as the state legislature is continually attempting to override the
local authority of cities."
Speaking solely on my own behalf, I hereby give my whole-hearted support for such a
measure. The essence of democracy is the control by the people of their community. As
public servants, we elected officials serve the democratically expressed will of the
public.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Goldman
Sunnyvale City Council, Seat 7
35
318
36
319
37
320
38
321
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 2
Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
39
322
40
323
41
324
42
325
July 13, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A Resolution of the League of California Cities Declaring Its Commitment to Support the
Repeal of Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 That Prevents
Local Governments from Regulating Pesticides
Dear President Garbarino:
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison unintended targets, including predator wildlife in California
and pets that ingest the products. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-
target animals. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally
poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Brett Lee
Mayor Pro Tem
43
326
July 5, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS COMMITMENT TO
SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE §
11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Empty
Empty
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in our
cities and throughout California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target
animals - including pets - that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned
rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned
each year nationwide.
My own mother lost a dearly loved pet dog, who was poisoned when it ate a poisoned rat!
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four
years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease
in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
State law now preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in
California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of
California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local concerns in their
communities. The State of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use
of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Catherine Carlton
Environmental Committee Vice Chair for the League of California Cities
44
327
CITY OF MOORPARK
JANICE S. PARVIN
Mayor
ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D.
Councilmember
DAVID POLLOCK
Councilmember
KEN SIMONS
Councilmember
MARK VAN DAM
Councilmember
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov
July 12, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino:
The City of Moorpark supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote at the
upcoming League of California Cities Conference on September 14, 2018.
As a community surrounded by the beauty of the Santa Monica Mountains and its wildlife, the
City adopted a resolution in 2013 urging Moorpark residents and businesses to not use
anticoagulant rodenticides in Moorpark. In 2014, the City applauded passage of AB 2657,
which removed many second generation anticoagulant rodenticides from the state.
However, as we are all unfortunately aware, scientific research continues to find
anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target animals, including the natural predators that help
regulate rodent populations and endangered species throughout California. Accordingly, the
City has supported subsequent legislative proposals to ban all anticoagulant rodenticides
statewide, including AB 2422, which is currently stalled in the state legislature.
The City further believes that local governments should have the opportunity to regulate
pesticide usage within their jurisdictions if the communities they represent desire to do so.
Therefore, the City supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote.
Yours truly,
Janice Parvin
Mayor
45
328
Resolution of the League of California Cities re: Anticoagulant Rodenticides
Page 2
cc: City Council
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
League of California Cities, Meg Desmond (mdesmond@cacities.org)
City of Malibu, Mary Linden (MLinden@malibucity.org)
46
329
Councilmember Suza Francina
City of Ojai
401 South Ventura Street, Ojai, CA 93023
Email: Suzaojaicitycouncil@gmail.com
Cell: 805 603 8635
July 9, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including
pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition,
approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned each year
nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Suza Francina
Councilmember, City of Ojai
47
330
July 12, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino,
I write as one council member of the City of Oxnard regarding the state law that
preempts general law cities such as ours from regulating the use of pesticides. Our
city is heavily impacted with environmental burdens associated with pesticide use
as well as other industrial toxins, which affect the health of the people, wildlife and
our environment. Oxnard residents are requesting that the use of pesticides in our
public spaces be curtailed and restricted. This would include anticoagulant
rodenticides, products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non -target
animals including pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming
poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six
are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase
and use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite
collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant
rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of
pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city
councilmember I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause
in California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the
state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local
concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their
own individual local needs.
48
331
Letter to President Garbarino
July 12, 2018
Page two
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
Sincerely,
Carmen Ramirez
49
332
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510-620-6503 | www.RichmondCAMayor.org
Home of Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park
July 6, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino
President, League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: In Support to Repeal the Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 that
Prevents Local Governments from regulating pesticides
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause
painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including pets that ingest the products either
directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age
of six are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Currently, State law preempts general law cities
from regulating the use of pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides, which has minimized the
impact of the State’s ban. Despite collecting data for almost four years, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to
the partial restriction of the supply.
As a member of the League of California Cities’ Environmental Quality Policy Committee, I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code Section
11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based
on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local
needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General Assembly at its
annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Mayor Tom Butt
Richmond, California
50
333
51
334
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:September 5, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Attorney
PREPARED BY:Richard Taylor, City Attorney
SUBJECT:Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement and Compensation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve amended employment agreement for the City Manager.
BACKGROUND:
In compliance with the City Manager’s employment agreement and with AB 1344 (Government
Code sections 3511.1 and 3511.2)which provides for greater transparency of local agency
executive’s contracts, the City Council held the City Manager performance evaluation in a closed
session meeting on August 15, 2018. Per the terms of the contract, the Mayor documented the
City Council’s evaluation outcome as ‘fully satisfactory’, and directed staff to process the
attached contract amendments.
The amendments would (1) set the City Manager’s salary for fiscal year 2018/19 at the $238,169
per year average determined by the salary survey of comparison cities; (2) remove the 2% cap on
salary increases and retain the cap based on the average determined by the salary survey; (3)
allow the use of administrative leave when calculating the amount of leave used in the prior year
to be eligible for a paid time off (PTO) cash out; (4) bring the COLA calculation process into
greater conformity with that used for City staff while remaining compliant with AB1344 (which
requires use of a statewide COLA index); (5) adjust the timing of the annual evaluation to track
current practice; (6) increase the maximum deferred compensation match by $50 per month; and
(7) reflect changes in City operations since the agreement was drafted (i.e., insurance levels and
dissolution of the Saratoga Management Organization).
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The Mayor and City Manager will sign the amended contract if approved by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution Approving Second Amended Agreement for Employment of City
Manager 335
Attachment B: Contract
1033019.1
336
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYMENTOF CITY
MANAGER
WHEREAS, James Lindsay (“Lindsay”) was hired in the position of City
Manager on July 2, 2014 pursuant to an employment agreement of that date and the
agreement was amended effective July 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Lindsay wish to further amend the employment
agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Second Amended Agreement For Employment Of City
Manager (“Agreement”) attached hereto and made a part hereof supersedes all prior
agreementsbetween Lindsay and the City effective July 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, this Council finds that the provisions and agreements contained in
Agreement are fair and proper and in the best interest of the City and in compliance with
California Government Code sections 3511.1 and 3511.2; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga the Agreement attached as Exhibit A to this resolution is hereby adopted.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council
at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mary Lynne Bernald, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debbie Bretschneider
Interim City Clerk
DATE:
1033021.1
337
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 1 of 11
SECOND AMENDED AGREEMENT
FOR EMPLOYMENT OF CITY MANAGER
(EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1, 2018)
This Agreement is made and entered effective the 1st day of July, 2018, by and between the City of
Saratoga (the “City”), a general law city, and James Lindsay (“Employee”). This Agreement for
employment of Employee supersedes all prior discussions and all prior agreements including the
employment agreement effective July 2, 2014 as amended effective July 2015, between Employee
and the City.
Employee is hired in the position of City Manager. Employee assumed the powers and duties of the
City Manager beginning on Wednesday, July 23, 2014.
This Agreement complies with AB 1344 (Government Code sections 3511.1 and 3511.2), which
provides for greater transparency of local agency executives’ contracts.
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
I.EMPLOYMENT
The City Council of the City hereby appoints Employee to the position of City Manager to
perform the functions and duties specified under the laws of the State of California, the
Saratoga City Code, the Ordinances and Resolutions of the City, and this Agreement, and to
perform such other duties and functions as the City Council shall assign. Employee shall
serve at the pleasure of the City Council. (See Section 2-20.010 of the Municipal Code and
Agreement section V.A.).
II.POWERS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
A.Employment Duties.
Employee shall function as the City Manager of the City and shall be vested with the powers,
duties and responsibilities set forth in Article 2-20 of the Municipal Code and California law
as they now exist and may be amended hereafter, the terms of which are incorporated herein
by reference. In addition, Employee shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by
the City Council to ensure effective and productive functioning of City operations, services,
and work and which are consistent with the position of City Manager, without additional
compensation because the City Manager is an overtime-exempt executive position. Such
duties shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1.Assemble and explain pertinent facts and prepare committee and Council reports as
required;
2.Prepare agendas for Council meetings and advise Council on appropriate priorities
and required actions;
3.Direct City Clerk in preparation for City Council meetings, maintenance of official
records, conduct of municipal elections and execution of related functions;
338
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 2 of 11
4.Represent the City Council in relationships with other governmental and private
agencies;
5.Confer with and direct all department heads in the formation and implementation of
administrative policies and practices;
6.Prepare and submit the annual budget;
7.Represent City to press and other information media as required;
8.Meet with individual citizens and groups to discuss complaints and explain City
policy and actions;
9.Administer any bonds approved by the voters of the City; and
10.Supervise City operations and oversee all work and services performed by City staff.
B.Hours of Work.
Employee is expected to devote necessary time outside normal office hours to business of the
City. To that end, Employee shall be allowed flexibility in setting his own office hours,
provided that Employee shall work as necessary during customary business hours to
satisfactorily perform his City Manager duties and responsibilities and be available to other
City staff during customary business hours. As of the effective date of this Agreement, the
City’s customary business hours are based on a 9/80 work schedule where a full-time work
week constitutes 40 hours within seven consecutive 24-hour daysand where the City is closed
every other Friday.
Employee shall schedule any appointments for medical treatment, industrial injury medical
treatment, or other personal appointments so as to minimize the inconvenience to fellow
employees and the impact on his ability to perform his job.
III.COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE.
A.Salary.
1.Employee’s salary effective July 1, 2018 is Two Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand One
Hundred Sixty Nine Dollars ($238,169.00) per year. The salary shall be paid in
regular payroll periods, which are bi-weekly installments. (Future changes to
compensation are addressed in Section IV.)
2.In the event the City, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces the
salary specified in section III.A.1 of this Agreement or reduces the benefits specified
in section III.B of this Agreement to a level below that made available to the highest
paid position in the City, other than Employee, using Step 7 of Position Salary Range
Table. Then Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be “terminated” by the City
Council within the meaning of Section V.A.4 of this Agreement as of the date of such
reduction, unless Employee has agreed to the lower pay or benefits in a written
document signed by Employee.
B.Benefits.
Employee shall be entitled to the following benefits:
339
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 3 of 11
1.Health, Dental, Vision, and Employee Assistance Program (EAP): The City provides
Employee with health benefits, dental benefits, an employee assistance program
(EAP), and voluntary vision benefits (paid by Employee). The voluntary vision
benefits’ premium is paid by Employee. The City pays the full premium for dental
insurance and the EAP. The City pays a monthly health insurance contribution toward
the premium as follows:
The City will provide a monthly health insurance contribution for Employee’s selected
level of coverage as follows in the chart below:
Employee Employee Plus One Employee Plus Two (Family)
$816.00 $1,632.00 $2,122.00
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 Employee prior to the beginning of the open enrollment period and
become effective on January 1 of each year.
If Employee selects a health insurance plan with a monthly premium above the City
contribution, Employee will pay the amount above the City contribution as a pre-tax
payroll deduction.
2.Cash-in-Lieu: If Employee completes and submits required documents (1) to prove
that Employee has other health insurance coverage and (2) to waive City-provided
health insurance coverage, Employee will receive a payment per month of $350.00 as
additional taxable wages. Effective July 2, 2014, if Employee completes and submits
required documents (1) to prove that Employee has other dental insurance coverage
and (2) to waive City-provided dental insurance coverage, Employee will receive a
payment per month of $25.00 as additional taxable wages. Employee must complete
and submit any required documents and provide proof of other health or dental
340
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 4 of 11
insurance coverage at the time that employment begins and during open enrollment
each year (in or around October) to be eligible for the cash-in-lieu payment beginning
the following January.
3.457 Plan: The City provides Employee the opportunity to contribute to an IRS Section
457 deferred compensation plan. Employee may contribute up to the maximum
allowed by law. Contributions may come from Employee’s regular earnings (through
payroll deductions) or from any unused portion of his Benefits Allowance. The City
will match Employee’s contributions to a deferred compensation account up to a
maximum of $250.00 per month.
4.Car Allowance and Organization Dues: Employee shall receive a $375.00 monthly car
allowance to be used to attend to local City business and shall be entitled to
reimbursement of $1,000 per year for dues and meal expenses incurred in the course
of participating in Saratoga-based civic organizations which require membership as an
individual.
5.Life Insurance: The City shall pay 100% of the premium cost for life insurance
coverage for Employee with a death benefit of $150,000.
6.Disability Coverage: The City shall provide disability coverage, consisting of short-
term disability payments and long-term disability insurance as described below, to
provide Employee with income protection if he becomes unable to perform the
functions of his position due to a serious health condition or disability.
a.Short-term Disability Payments
The City will pay 75% of Employee’s monthly salary after Employee has used all
accrued paid time off (PTO) and will maintain existing insurance benefits for six
months from the date of injury/illness. Short-Term Disability payments will
commence only after 12 continuous working days during which Employee is
totally disabled, or when all accrued PTO is exhausted, whichever is later.
Short-term disability payments are reported to PERS as salary earned.
b.Long-term Disability Insurance
The City shall provide Employee long-term disability insurance including a paid
coverage plan design of 66.66% of salary to a maximum of $2,000 per month with
a voluntary buy-up option paid by Employee to a maximum of $8,200 per month.
Because these payments are made through a group policy, the payments are not
reported to PERS as salary earned.
7.Section 125 Plan: The City will make available to Employee the option of enrolling in a
Section 125 flexible benefits plan. Under the plan, Employee may deduct from his
341
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 5 of 11
earnings up to the maximum allowable amounts per calendar year for health care
reimbursement and/or dependent care reimbursement.
8.Long-term Care: Employee may purchase long-term care insurance through a group
benefits program administered by PERS.
9.PERS: City is a contracting agency of the California Public Employees Retirement
System (PERS). The PERS contract requires contributions by the City and each
covered employee. Employee will pay the 7% required contribution by an employee.
The City through its contract with PERS provides a retirement benefit plan for
Employee of 2% at 55.
10.Administrative Leave: City shall grant Employee, on a fiscal year basis, sixty-five (65)
hours of administrative leave. Such leave shall be taken in a manner consistent with
the use of PTO.
11.Leave without Pay: The City does not grant leaves of absence under most
circumstances except as legally required. In cases of hardship or for other good and
sufficient reasons, the City Council may grant leaves of absence upon written request
by Employee for a period up to 90 days (unless a longer time period is required by
applicable law). Employee will not accrue any annual leave while on leave without
pay, and the leave period will be considered as discontinuous service. During the time
Employee is on leave without pay, the City may discontinue paying for insurance
benefits on behalf of Employee(including health, dental, life, and long-term disability)
unless the continued payment is required by applicable law, although Employee shall
have the option to continue benefits at his own cost.
12.Legally Required Benefits: Employeewill receive all benefits that are legally required,
including workers’ compensation coverage, unemployment insurance contributions,
the right to Family and Medical Care Leave, the right to industrial injury leave
(including full pay for the first three days of leave and health benefits for the first 12
months after date of injury/illness if Employee submits the required claim form), the
right to COBRA benefits after a qualifying event has occurred, and the right to other
legally authorized leaves.
13.Holidays: Employee shall receive the following paid holidays:
(1) New Year’s Day January 1
(2) Martin Luther King's Birthday 3rd Monday in January
(3) President's Day 3rd Monday in February
(4) Memorial Day Last Monday in May
(5) Independence Day July 4
(6) Labor Day 1st Monday in September
(7) Columbus Day 2nd Monday in October
(8) Veteran's Day November 11
(9) Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday in November
(10) Day after Thanksgiving Friday after Thanksgiving
(11) Christmas Eve December 24
(12) Christmas Day December 25
342
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 6 of 11
(13) New Year's Eve December 31
If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday will be observed. If a holiday
falls on a Sunday, the following Monday will be observed. In those years in which one
of the Christmas and/or New Year’s holidays falls on a weekend, the Friday preceding
the weekend and the Monday following the weekend shall be observed as holidays. If
a holiday falls on an off-Friday when the City offices are closed, the preceding
Thursday will be observed. If the preceding Thursday is already a holiday, the off-
Friday holiday will be observed on the first weekday after Christmas that is not already
an observed holiday.
If a holiday occurs when Employee is using PTO, the holiday will not be charged
against Employee’s PTO balance. In order to receive holiday pay, Employee must be
on the payroll on the last regularly scheduled workday preceding the holiday and the
first regularly scheduled work day following the holiday except if Employee is on
Family and Medical Care Leave, he shall only be entitled to receive holiday pay within
the six-month period after the date of injury/illness. If Employee is using PTO when
the holiday occurs, payment for the holiday shall be prorated to the amount of PTO
being used in the pay period in which the holiday occurs. If Employee is receiving
Short-Term Disability payments in the pay period when the holiday occurs, payment
for the holiday shall be at 75% of Employee’s regular rate of pay.
14.Jury Duty: If Employee is called for jury duty he will continue to receive full pay and
benefits for that period of absence. Fees received for jury duty will be deducted from
Employee’s gross wages.
15.PTO: Employee accrues annual leave (paid time off or PTO) at the following rates,
depending on length of employment, with the length of employment beginning on the
date Employee was first hired in any position with the City:
first 60 months of employment – 22 days (176 hours) per year
61st through 120th month – 27 days (216 hours) per year
121st month and beyond – 32 days (256 hours) per year
a.PTO Cash-Out: A PTO Cash-Out Option will not be made other than at the time of
termination, except for the optional PTO cash-out described as follows:
Employee must use at least 80 hours of accrued PTO and/or administrative leave
in each fiscal year.
If Employee has used the required minimum of 80 accrued hours of PTO and/or
administrative leave in the prior fiscal year, 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. Employee must maintain a minimum balance of 200
hours of accrued PTO after the cash out.
b.PTO Accruals: The PTO accrual cap in the Personnel Rules will be enforced. Under
no circumstances can Employee accrue more than the accrual PTO cap at any point
343
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 7 of 11
in time. Once Employee reaches the accrual cap, no additional PTO will accrue until
Employeeuses his or her accrued PTO and reduces the balance to less than the accrual
cap. Thereafter,PTO benefits will continue to accrue on a prospective basis only until
Employee reaches the cap. No retroactive credit will be given for the time when
accrued PTO was at the cap.
c.PTO Increments: PTO must be taken by Employee only in increments of one (1)
hour or more in a workday.
d.PTO Upon Separation:
1)Upon retirement from City service, Employee may choose to use all of his
accrued paid time off as sick leave for the purpose of service credit if
allowed to do so by PERS. If Employee uses less than 100% of his paid
time off toward PERS service credit, the City will pay the balance of
Employee’s accrued paid time off at Employee’s regular rate of pay.
2)Upon separation from City service other than retirement, the City will pay
100% of Employee’s accrued paid time off at Employee’s regular rate of
pay.
IV.COMPENSATION CHANGES AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
A.CPI Increase: Cost of Living Adjustment – For each year of this Agreement, Employee shall
receive an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to his salary on each July 1 of the actual
COLA but no greater than two and one-half percent (2.5%). The COLA will be based on the
California CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers based upon the annual average
for the 12 month period of January 1 to December 31 as calculated by the Department of
Industrial Relations as authorized by AB 1344 (Gov. Code 3511.1 and 3511.2). If the COLA
increases above two and one-half percent (2.5%) in any year, Employee shall nevertheless
receive a maximum two and one-half percent (2.5%) cost-of-living adjustment for that year.
B.Evaluation: The City Council shall review and evaluate annually the performance of
Employee in or around June through August. Employee will timely cause to be placed on
the City Council agenda each year a “closed session” for the purpose of the performance
evaluation. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed
by the City Council after consulting with Employee. Those criteria may be added to or
deleted from as the City Council may from time to time determine after consultation with
Employee.
C.Evaluation and Compensation: In or around June through August of each year, contingent
upon Employee receiving a fully satisfactory performance evaluation including
accomplishment of Council goals and objectives, the Mayor will document the fully
satisfactory performance evaluation by a memo to the Finance and Administrative Services
Director, with a copy to Human Resources and Employee. The Employee or the Finance and
Administrative Services Director shall timely cause to be placed on the City Council’s regular
meeting agenda the City Council’s consideration of a salary increase. The total salary
increase in any year shall not exceed the COLA/CPI increase (in IV.A.) and an additional
amount, if any, based on performance and a salary survey (using the comparison cities in the
344
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 8 of 11
Personnel Rules) up to, at most, the average determined by the salary survey. The City
Council meetings for performance evaluations will occur in or around June through August,
and a salary increase, if any is granted, will be effective on the date Council specifies, which
typically will be on or around July 1 of the same calendar year as the vote. If Employee’s
salary is at or above the average determined by the salary survey after the COLA/CPI increase
is calculated, if any, the salary item will not be placed on the agenda and Council will not
consider any increase to Employee’s salary.
V.TERM OF AGREEMENT.
A.Term of Agreement.
1.The Agreement shall continue until terminated by City or Employee as discussed
below.
2.Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the rights of
the City under Section 2-20.080 of the Municipal Code to terminate Employee and this
Agreement without cause at any time (except for 90 days after a council member is
elected as provided in 2-20.080), or the right of Employee to resign at any time from
his position.
3.Employee may terminate this Agreement by giving the City thirty (30) days’ written
notice in advance of resignation, at the end of which period, this Agreement will
terminate, unless the City and Employee otherwise agree.
4.In the event of termination pursuant to section V.A.2, and if Employee has completed
a full year of working for the City, Employee shall be entitled to a severance payment
if Employee 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. Starting on the one-year anniversary of the date of initial hire with the City,
which was as a Director, Employee shall be eligible for a general release agreement
with (A) a severance payment equal to three (3) months’ salary; and (B) health
insurance and dental insurance benefits specified in this Agreement for a three-month
period after termination. The severance payment and continuation of benefits shall be
increased by one (1) month for each year on the Employee's anniversary date of
Employee’s initial hire date, up to a maximum of six (6) months’ severance pay and
benefits, but in no case can this amount exceed the limits in Government Code section
53260 or other applicable law.
At Employee’s discretion, the severance payment shall be paid either in a lump sum, or in bi-
weekly payments, beginning within fourteen (14) days of the effective date of termination or
within fourteen (14) days of the effective date of the signed general release, whichever is
later. If Employee selects bi-weekly payments, 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 four weeks after Employee chooses to change to a
lump sum payment for the balance. The severance payment shall be based on Employee’s
then monthly salary.
345
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 9 of 11
Such severance pay and health and dental benefits shall not be due or payable if Employee is
terminated for conduct that: (1) is determined to be dishonest or fraudulent conduct by the
City Council; or (2) results in a conviction of a felony or a conviction of a misdemeanor
involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or fraud; or (3) is an abuse of his office or position,
including (a) an abuse of public authority, including, but not limited to, waste, fraud, and violation
of the law under color of authority; or (b) is a crime against public justice. (See Government
Code § 53243-53243.4 and Agreement V.A.5. below).
5.AB 1344 and Public Accountability Provisions
The parties agree to fully comply with the following Government Code sections that are
part of AB 1344 (and as subsequently amended), and to fully comply with other applicable
law. AB 1344, as subsequently amended, includes Government Code sections 53243-
53243.4.
VI.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A.Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City Attorney of the City of
Saratoga (“Administrator”). All correspondence from Employee to the City shall be directed
to or through the Administrator or his or her designee.
B.Notices. Any written notice to Employee shall be sent to:
Employee
c/o City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(Or to Employee’s home address on file with the City’s Human Resource
Department. Employee is required to update his home address with the City’s
Human Resource Department within three business days of moving.)
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
Richard S. Taylor
City Attorney of City of Saratoga
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(Or such other address as the City Attorney may have at the time of the notice.)
C.Conflict of Interest. Employee warrants that he presently does not have and will not acquire
any direct or indirect financial interest that would conflict with his performance of this
Agreement.
D.Assignment Prohibited. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation
pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or
obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
346
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 10 of 11
E.Documents. All documents provided to Employee by the City and all reports and supporting
data prepared by Employeefor the City are the sole property of the City and shall be delivered
to the City upon termination of this Agreement or at the City’s written request. All
confidential reports, information, exhibits and data, including but not limited to electronic
data, prepared or assembled by Employee while he serves as City Manager are confidential
until released by the City to the public, and Employee shall not make any of these unreleased
documents or information available to any individual or organization, other than the City
Attorney without prior written consent signed by the City Council.
F.Effect of Waiver. The failure of either party to insist on strict compliance with any of the
terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement by the other party shall not be deemed a
waiver of that term, covenant or condition, and no waiver or relinquishment of any right or
power on any given occasion shall be deemed a waiver of relinquishment of that right or
power on any subsequent occasions.
G.Entire Agreement. The text in this Agreement shall constitute the entire Agreement between
the parties. This Agreement incorporates the entire understanding between Employee and
the City, recites the sole considerations for the promises exchanged herein, and fully
supersedes any and all prior discussions, agreements, or understandings, written or oral or
implied, between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof. In reaching this
Agreement, no party has relied upon any representation or promise except those expressly set
forth herein. This Agreement cannot be modified by the parties except in a writing that is
signed by both parties, ratified by City Council, and that expressly states that it intends to
modify this Agreement. Rules and policies apply to the Employee, but if a provision in other
rules or policies actually contradicts an express provision of the Agreement, the Agreement
will control.
H.Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the heirs at law and executors of the parties.
I.Severability. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this Agreement is held
unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or portion
thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and
effect.
J.Attorneys’ Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement brings a lawsuit to enforce
or interpret any provisions of this Agreement, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees,
expenses and costs.
K.Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
L.Interpretation. The parties agree that any ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed
or interpreted against, or in favor of, either party. The parties agree that ambiguities
concerning matters addressed in this Agreement should be resolved in a manner consistent
with the City’s personnel rules and procedures to the extent those rules and procedures are
not inconsistent with this Agreement.
347
Agreement for Employment of City Manager Page 11 of 11
In witness whereof, the City has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its
Mayor and duly attested by its City Clerk, and Employee has signed and executed this Agreement
effective July 1, 2018.
EMPLOYEE CITY OF SARATOGA
_________________ ______________________________________
James Lindsay Date Mary-Lynne Bernald Date
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Debbie Bretschneider Date
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Richard S. Taylor Date
City Attorney
690830.9
348