The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-17-2021 Agenda Packet, revised 11-18-2021Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 1 of 6 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2021 AGENDA AMENDED • 11-10-2021, ITEM 2.3 STAFF REPORT HYPERLINK REPAIRED, COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS CORRECTED • 11-16-2021, ITEM 2.3 ATTACHMENTS ADDED • 11-17-2021, ITEM 2.1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED • 11-17-2021, ITEM 2.2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED • 11-17-2021, ITEM 2.4 PRESENTATION ADDED • 11-17-2021, ITEM 2.5 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED • 11-17-2021, ITEM 2.6 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED • 11-18-2021, ITEM 2.1 ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED Teleconference/Public Participation Information to Mitigate the Spread of COVID‐19 This meeting will be held entirely by teleconference. All members of the City Council and staff will only participate via the Zoom platform using the process described below. The meeting is being conducted pursuant to recent amendments to the teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act allowing teleconferencing during a proclaimed state of emergency when local official have recommended social distancing. The purpose of the amendments is to provide the safest environment for the public, elected officials, and staff while allowing for continued operation of the government and public participation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of the public can view and participate in the meeting by: • Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89795388754 Webinar ID 897 9538 8754 OR • Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833 and entering the Webinar ID provided above; OR • Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling in following the directions above; OR • Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling in following the directions above. The public will not be able to participate in the meeting in person. As always, members of the public can send written comments to the Council prior to the meeting by commenting online at www.saratoga.ca.us/comment prior to the start of the meeting. These emails will be provided to the members of the Council and will become part of the official record of the meeting. 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 2 of 6 REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 10, 2021. 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 Family Court Awareness Month Recommended Action: Proclaim November as Family Court Awareness Month in the City of Saratoga. Staff Report Family Court Awareness Month Proclamation AINAK Eyeglasses Commendation Recommended Action: Commend AINAK Eyeglass for helping to provide essential eye care services to those who cannot afford them. Staff Report Attachment A – AINAK Eyeglasses Commendation 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 Minutes for the November 3, 2021 City Council Meeting. Staff Report Attachment A – Minutes for the November 3, 2021 City Council Meeting 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 11/3/21/20/21 Period 5; 11/10/21 Period 5 Staff Report Check Register 11-03-21 P5 Check Register 11-10-21 P5 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended September 30, 2021 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September 30, 2021. Staff Report Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 3 of 6 1.4. Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 Recommended Action: Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 of the continued existence of a state of emergency and public health officials’ recommendation of social distancing. Staff Report Attachment A – Resolution 21-073 authorizing teleconferenced public meetings 1.5. Notice of Completion – 2020 Pavement Management Program Project Recommended Action: Move to accept the 2020 Pavement Management Program (2020 PMP) contract as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion. Staff Report Attachment A - Notice of Completion for the 2020 Pavement Management Program Project 1.6. Annual Code Update for 2021 Recommended Action: Adopt the attached ordinance amending City Code sections 1-15.040 (concerning computation of time), 2-05.030 and 15-90.065 (concerning appeals by City Council members); 2-10.080 concerning title of Vice Mayor); 2-12.020, 080 and 2-15.050 (concerning Commissions and Commissioners), 3-10.070 (concerning appeal hearings), 5- 25.070 (concerning reporting of transient occupancy tax information); 6-05.050 (concerning review of emergency declarations); 7-30.051 and .060 (concerning leaf blowers); 13-10.040 (concerning the Heritage Preservation Commission); 14-25.080 (concerning parkland dedication); 15-50.070 and 080 (concerning tree removal permits); 15-85.050 (concerning notice of Planning Commission public hearings); 16-18.025 (concerning automatic sprinklers); and Chapter 14 (correcting cross references to state law). Staff Report Attachment A -2021 Annual Code Update Ordinance 1.7. Budget Resolution for Grant Funds Awarded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program Grant in the amount of $1,800,000 and changing the project title of the Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance & Railroad Crossing Improvements Recommended Action: Approve a budget resolution to appropriate $1,800,000 in MTC Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program grant funds into the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Capital Improvement Program Budget and to change the title of the Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance & Railroad Crossing Improvements project to the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Project. Staff Report Attachment A- Budget Resolution 1.8. Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance in Compliance with Senate Bill 1383 Recommended Action: Adopt the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance required by the State of California. Staff Report Attachment A- SB 1383 Implementation Ordinance with Exhibits 1-3 Attachment B- Summary of Article 17.10 Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 4 of 6 2. GENERAL BUSINESS 2.1. School Resource Officer Funding for Fiscal Year 2022/23 Recommended Action: Review funding of the School Resource Officer for Fiscal Year 2022/23. Staff Report Attachment A – City of Saratoga Agreement with Sheriff’s Office for Law Enforcement Services and Fiscal Year 2021/22 Costs Attachment B – Sheriff’s Office Agreements with School Districts in Saratoga Attachment C – Written Communications Supplemental Memo 11_17_2021, Item 2.1 Written Communications Supplemental Memo 11_18_2021, Item 2.1 Written Communications 2.2. Review of Parking Restrictions on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court, and Minocqua Court Recommended Action: Review Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 326 restricting parking on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court, and Minocqua Court and direct staff accordingly. Staff Report Attachment A- Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 326 and Map of Parking Restrictions Attachment B- Letter to Residents Attachment C - Neighborhood Communication to the City Attachment D - Petition to Remove Parking Restrictions Supplemental Memo 11_17_2021, Item 2.2 Written Communications 2.3. Comment Letter on the Draft EIR for the El Paseo Project Recommended Action: Authorize submittal of a letter to the City of San Jose commenting on the Draft EIR for the El Paseo Mixed Use project at 1312 El Paseo De Saratoga & 1777 Saratoga Avenue Staff Report Attachment A El Paseo NOP letter 10-26-20 Attachment B Summary of DEIR Deficiencies added 11-16-2021 - El Paseo EIR comment letter 11-17-21 Supplemental Memo. added 11-16-2021 - El Paseo DRAFT EIR Comment Letter w Appendix 2.4. Annual Review --Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 Recommended Action: Accept report on the Annual Review of the City’s Climate Action Plan. Staff Report Attachment A- Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 Attachment B- Saratoga 2019 GHG Inventory Report Attachment C- Community GHG Emissions Reductions 2005-2019 Attachment D- City's Leadership Efforts Annual Review 2021- Climate Action Plan 2030 Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 5 of 6 2.5. Ordinance Banning Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff on whether to prepare an ordinance expanding current restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco to include menthol tobacco products. Staff Report Attachment A – City of Cupertino City Code Excerpt Attachment B – City of Palo Alto City Code Excerpt Supplemental Memo 11_17_2021, Item 2.5 Written Communications 2.6. Suicide Prevention Policy Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff on whether to prepare a suicide prevention policy for Council consideration at a future meeting. Staff Report Attachment A – City of Campbell Suicide Prevention Policy Attachment B – City of Cupertino Suicide Prevention Policy Attachment C – Written Communications Supplemental Memo 11_17_2021, Item 2.6 Written Communications COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Yan Zhao Association of Bay Area Governments Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County Council Finance Committee Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board West Valley Mayors & Managers West Valley Sanitation District Vice Mayor Tina Walia Council Finance Committee KSAR Community Access TV Board Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Saratoga Ministerial Association Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission West Valley Clean Water Program Authority West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Council Member Kookie Fitzsimmons Chamber of Commerce Hakone Foundation Board Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Sister City Organization Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 6 of 6 Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable Saratoga Historical Foundation CITY COUNCIL ITEMS COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Britt Avrit, 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 November 10, 2021 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 10th day of November 2021 at Saratoga, California. Britt Avrit, MMC, 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, copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the City Council by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, City Clerk SUBJECT:Family Court Awareness Month RECOMMENDED ACTION: Proclaim November as Family Court Awareness Month in the City of Saratoga. BACKGROUND: Family Court Awareness Month provides an excellent opportunity for our city to demonstrate its support in recognizing the importance of a family court system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children. The proclamation lends official recognition to the important work of educating the public, as well as emphasizes a commitment to help support matters that are of the utmost importance to our community, child safety. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Family Court Awareness Month Proclamation 6 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER AS FAMILY COURT AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS,the National Family Violence Law Center’s (NFVLC) mission is to bring together the domestic violence and child maltreatment fields, in order to more powerfully inform and influence legal policy and judicial decision-making to better protect children subjected to adult or child victimization in their family (“Family violence”); and WHEREAS, the mission at One Mom’s Battle and the Family Court Awareness Month Committee is to increase awareness of the importance of a family court system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of the children; and WHEREAS, the mission at One Mom’s Battle is to increase awareness of high-conflict divorces and child custody battles, and their impact upon shared parenting; and WHEREAS, the mission of the Family Court Awareness Month Committee is to increase awareness of the importance of education and training in domestic violence, childhood trauma and post separation abuse for all professionals working within the family court system ; and WHEREAS, One Mom’s Battle works to educate judges and other family court professionals that it only takes one personality disordered parent to create a high-conflict divorce; and WHEREAS,the NFVLC’s mission is fueled by the desire for awareness and change in the family court system and to honor the 758 children who have been murdered by separating or divorcing parents; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby proclaim November as Family Court Awareness Month. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 17th day of November 2021. Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, City Clerk SUBJECT:AINAK Eyeglasses Commendation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Commend AINAK Eyeglass for helping to provide essential eye care services to those who cannot afford them. BACKGROUND: Poonam Goyal founded AINAK in 2018 after realizing how many old pairs of frames in good condition were thrown away and the large number of people who cannot afford eye care or prescription glasses. AINAK is a nonprofit organization focused on helping those in need to obtain free eye care services, such as vision tests and prescription glasses. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A –AINAK Eyeglasses Commendation 8 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA COMMENDING AINAK EYEGLASSES WHEREAS,AINAK is a nonprofit organization focused on helping those in need to obtain free eye care services, such as vision tests and prescription glasses; and WHEREAS, an estimated 62 million people in the United States cannot afford eye care services or prescription glasses and roughly 11 million Americans over the age of 12 need vision correction; and WHEREAS, Poonam Goyal founded AINAK in 2018 after realizing how many old pairs of frames in good condition were thrown away and the large number of people who cannot afford eye care or prescription glasses; and WHEREAS, the public can register to receive free vision exams and prescription glasses on the AINAK website; and WHEREAS, donors, eye care professionals, and volunteers can also visit the AINAK website to learn how they can support the mission of AINAK; and WHEREAS, lack of good vision can impact student performance and socialization as well as workplace performance for adults and AINAK is helping those in need overcome this barrier. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby commend AINAK Eyeglasses and thanks Poonam Goyal for helping to provide essential eye care services to those who cannot afford them. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 17th day of November 2021. Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga 9 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17,2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Minutes for the November 3, 2021 City Council Meeting. 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 November 3, 2021 City Council Meeting 10 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 1 of 7 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2021 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 5:30 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Meeting with Saratoga Schools via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Zhao invited public comment. No one requested to speak. Mayor Zhao called the Regular Session to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the City Clerk explained the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to State law as recently amended by Assembly Bill 361, which allows the meeting to be conducted entirely by teleconference. The City Council has met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate. All Council Members, staff, and meeting attendees participated by Zoom. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was provided. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Yan Zhao, Vice Mayor Tina Walia, Council Members Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mary-Lynne Bernald (All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT:Council Member Kumar ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Britt Avrit, City Clerk Sandra Dalida, Interim Administrative Services Director Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Emma Burkhalter, Associate Civil Engineer Mainini Cabute, Environmental Program Manager Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst Maggie Huang, Interim Finance Manager (All staff members appearing via teleconference) REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 28, 2021. REPORT ON JOINT MEETING Mayor Zhao discussed the Joint Meeting with Saratoga Schools. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS No one requested to speak. 11 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 2 of 7 CEREMONIAL ITEMS Commendations for Ping Li and Rick Pearce Recommended Action: Commend Ping Li and Rick Pearce for their service on the Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission. The City Council commended Ping Li and Rick Pearce for their service on the Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission. United Against Hate Week Recommended Action: Proclaim November 14-20, 2021 as United Against Hate Week in the City of Saratoga. The City Council proclaimed November 14-20, 2021 as United Against Hate Week in the City of Saratoga. Appointment of Public Art Commissioners Recommended Action: Approve the Resolution appointing five members to the Saratoga Public Art Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oaths of Office. RESOLUTION 21-076 WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPOINTING FIVE MEMBERS TO THE SARATOGA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION AND DIRECTED THE CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATHS OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Zhao shared information about COVID-19, Housing Element Community Meetings, the State of the City event, Saratoga Power Lunch, upcoming Saratoga History Museum Events and Activities, and the Holiday Tree Lighting and Wine Stroll. 1.CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Bernald requested that Item 1.1 be removed to add content. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the Consent Calendar. No one requested to speak. Council Member Bernald requested the Minutes be amended to reflect the motion of “continue deliberation for the Public Art Commission selection until after the regular session.” 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes for the October 20, 2021, City Council Meeting and the October 25, 2021, Study Session. 12 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 3 of 7 BERNALD/ZHAO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED FOR THE OCTOBER 20, 2021, CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND THE OCTOBER 25, 2021, STUDY SESSION.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 10/20/21 Period 4; 10/27/21 Period 4 FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 10/20/21 PERIOD 4; 10/27/21 PERIOD 4.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended August 31, 2021 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended August 31, 2021. FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31, 2021.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 2.PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1. Introduction of a Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction in Compliance with Senate Bill 1383 Recommended Action: Conduct the public hearing, introduce, and waive the first reading of the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance required by the State of California. M. Leah Cabute, Environmental Program Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao opened the public hearing. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. Mayor Zhao closed the public hearing. BERNALD/WALIAMOVED TO CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING, INTRODUCE, AND WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION ORDINANCE REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 13 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 4 of 7 2.2. Annual Code Update for 2021 Recommended Action: Conduct the public hearing, introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code sections 1-15.040 (concerning computation of time), 2-05.030 and 15-90.065 (concerning appeals by City Council members); 2-10.080 concerning title of Vice Mayor); 2-12.020, 080 and 2-15.050 (concerning Commissions and Commissioners), 3-10.070 (concerning appeal hearings), 5-25.070 (concerning reporting of transient occupancy tax information); 6-05.050 (concerning review of emergency declarations); 7-30.051 and .060 (concerning leaf blowers); 13-10.040 (concerning the Heritage Preservation Commission); 14-25.080 (concerning parkland dedication); 15-50.070 and 080 (concerning tree removal permits); 15-85.050 (concerning notice of Planning Commission public hearings); 16- 18.025 (concerning automatic sprinklers); and Chapter 14 (correcting cross references to state law), and direct staff to place the matter on the consent calendar for the next regular meeting of the City Council. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao opened the public hearing. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. Mayor Zhao closed the public hearing. BERNALD/WALIA MOVED TO CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING, INTRODUCE AND WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 1-15.040 (CONCERNING COMPUTATION OF TIME), 2-05.030 AND 15-90.065 (CONCERNING APPEALS BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS); 2- 10.080 CONCERNING TITLE OF VICE MAYOR); 2-12.020, 080 AND 2-15.050 (CONCERNING COMMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONERS), 3-10.070 (CONCERNING APPEAL HEARINGS), 5-25.070 (CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX INFORMATION); 6-05.050 (CONCERNING REVIEW OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS); 7-30.051 AND .060 (CONCERNING LEAF BLOWERS); 13-10.040 (CONCERNING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION); 14-25.080 (CONCERNING PARKLAND DEDICATION); 15-50.070 AND 080 (CONCERNING TREE REMOVAL PERMITS); 15-85.050 (CONCERNING NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS); 16-18.025 (CONCERNING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS); AND CHAPTER 14 (CORRECTING CROSS REFERENCES TO STATE LAW), AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE MATTER ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 14 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 5 of 7 3.GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Youth Commission Fundraising Plan 2021/22 Recommended Action: Approve the Youth Commission Fundraising Plan 2021/22 to collect small monetary donations at events and seek donations to support Youth Commission activities. Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE THE YOUTH COMMISSION FUNDRAISING PLAN 2021/22 TO COLLECT SMALL MONETARY DONATIONS AT EVENTS AND SEEK DONATIONS TO SUPPORT YOUTH COMMISSION ACTIVITIES.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 3.2. Budget Resolution for Emergency Interim Landslide Repair on Mt Eden Road in the Amount of $75,000 and Approval of Contract with Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. for Geotechnical Exploration and Slope Inclinometer Monitoring on Mt Eden Road Near Eden Valley Court for a Total Amount of $40,150 Recommended Actions: 1.Approve a budget resolution to transfer $75,000 from the Hillside Stability Reserve and establish a new Capital Improvement Project for emergency interim landslide repair on Mt Eden Road. 2.Approve a contract with Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) for geotechnical exploration and slope inclinometer monitoring at Mt Eden Road near Eden Valley Court, in the amount of $36,500, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 3.Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $3,650. Emma Burkhalter, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION 21-077 BERNALD/WALIA MOVED TO 1) APPROVE A BUDGET RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER $75,000 FROM THE HILLSIDE STABILITY RESERVE AND ESTABLISH A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY INTERIM LANDSLIDE REPAIR ON MT EDEN ROAD, 2. APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (CSA) FOR GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND SLOPE INCLINOMETER MONITORING AT MT EDEN ROAD NEAR EDEN VALLEY COURT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,500, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME; 3. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $3,650.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. 15 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 6 of 7 3.3. Community Partner Joint Meeting Presentations Recommended Action: Consider recommendation from the Mayor to request that community partners meeting certain criteria provide the City Council with a summary of services provided over the last year, including total number of people served and the number of Saratoga residents served as part of the annual Joint Meeting or as a special presentation during a Regular Meeting starting in 2022. The criteria to provide the annual report are: 1) have a facility lease or use agreement with the City to provide services; or, 2) receive $25,000 or more to provide services, excluding the Sheriff’s Office. Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO REQUEST THAT COMMUNITY PARTNERS MEETING CERTAIN CRITERIA PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A SUMMARY OF SERVICES PROVIDED OVER THE LAST YEAR, INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE SERVED AND THE NUMBER OF SARATOGA RESIDENTS SERVED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL JOINT MEETING OR AS A SPECIAL PRESENTATION DURING A REGULAR MEETING STARTING IN 2022, FOR ONE YEAR. THE CRITERIA TO PROVIDE THE ANNUAL REPORT ARE: 1) HAVE A FACILITY LEASE OR USE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES; OR, 2) RECEIVE $25,000 OR MORE TO PROVIDE SERVICES, EXCLUDING THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Saratoga Historical Foundation –stated the group is making a concerted effort for the 2021/2022 Membership Drive, discussed the ongoing lecture series, the new roof for the museum and the President’s effort to bring in speakers from other historic museums. County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission – stated she has been appointed to this Commission for the past three years and stated this Commission received a SB 1383 presentation and stated Saratoga is well prepared for the challenge associated with SB 1383. Council Member Kookie Fitzsimmons Nothing to report Vice Mayor Tina Walia Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC)– stated the recent meeting was cancelled. Saratoga Ministerial Association – stated the Association is finalizing the virtual Thanksgiving service and stated the Celebration of Light event will take place December 11, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. 16 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ November 3, 2021 ~ Page 7 of 7 Mayor Yan Zhao Association of Bay Area Governments –discussed the recent RHNA Appeal meeting. West Valley Mayors & Managers – stated the recent meeting had two special guests; Senator Cortese who discussed State Initiatives, and Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen who provided accomplishments and initiatives for last year. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No report ADJOURNMENT FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA, ZHAO: NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: KUMAR. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk City of Saratoga 17 Rene Rivera, 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 City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are listed separately as well as any checks that were voided during the time period. Fund information, by check run, is also provided in this report. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending 11/3/2021 144244 144277 34 179,238.45 11/3/2021 10/27/2021 144243 11/10/2021 144278 144314 37 718,854.41 11/10/2021 11/3/2021 144277 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check #Dept.Amount 11/3/2021 144265 O'Grady Paving CIP Street Proj Funds PW Pavement Mgmt Proj 23,073.12 11/3/2021 144266 Oscar Urvizo Tellez General Fund PW Cleanup due to storm (fallen trees)41,635.00 11/10/2021 144299 Office of the Sherriff General Fund ADM Nov Law Enforcement Svcs 571,498.39 11/10/2021 144302 Raj Subramaniyan General Fund CDD REFUND ARB20-0058 25,773.16 11/10/2021 144311 US BANK Credit Card General Fund ADM Oct Statement 23,946.57 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format Fund Purpose StatusReason Issued to Issued to Prior Check RegisterChecks ReleasedTotal Checks Amount Accounts Payable Accounts Payable SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services 11/3/21/20/21 Period 5; 11/10/21 Period 5 PREPARED BY: Ending Check # Starting Check #Type of Checks Date 18 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 11/03/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 17:30:00 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT 111 GENERAL FUND 109,786.69 252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE 3,687.00 276 TOLLGATE L&L 72.01 411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 46,208.07 412 CIP PARKS PROJECT FUND 550.00 413 CIP FACILITY PROJECT FUND 3,029.05 414 CIP ADMIN PROJECTS FUND 2,826.25 612 WORKERS COMP FUND 333.00 622 IT SERVICES 2,125.81 623 VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT MAINT 98.31 624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 10,522.26 TOTAL REPORT 179,238.45 19 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 11/03/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 17:29:29 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 MTHLY RECURRING 166.16 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 PROSPECT CENTER 108.22 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 BLANEY IRRIGATION 22.33 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 PRSPCT CTR EMERG ALRM 280.33 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 CORP YD EMERG POTS LN 45.24 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 ALRM SYS PHN THEATRE 215.44 144244 11111 11/03/21 234 A T & T 63211 SR CTR ALRM COMM CTR 44.41 TOTAL CHECK 882.13 144245 11111 11/03/21 66 ADVANCED LISTING SERVICES 22119 ENV19-0005 175.00 144246 11111 11/03/21 641 BKF ENGINEERS 81143 OCT ENG SVCS VILL PED 4,253.00 144246 11111 11/03/21 641 BKF ENGINEERS 81144 OCT ENG SVCS SURVEY 3,200.00 144246 11111 11/03/21 641 BKF ENGINEERS 64549 ENG SVCS COX/MILLER 3,687.00 144246 11111 11/03/21 641 BKF ENGINEERS 81143 OCT GUAVA RR XING 550.00 TOTAL CHECK 11,690.00 144247 11111 11/03/21 1536 CALIFORNIA SPORT DESIGN 61313 UNIFORMS 508.16 144248 11111 11/03/21 500 CAROL KUMMERER 68353 NGHBRHD WATCH LANARK 300.00 144249 11111 11/03/21 1023 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVICE 64531 CITY WIDE ST SWEEP 19,087.50 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0024 (S0294) 1,037.00 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO19-0015 (S3247) 655.60 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO19-0002 (S5059) 1,337.00 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO20-0026 (S6220) 455.00 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0031 (S6251) 1,829.60 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0033 (S6261) 1,883.60 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0027 (S6271) 1,685.10 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0035 (S6281) 1,750.10 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0036 (S6291) 1,517.00 144250 11111 11/03/21 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO21-0030 (S6301) 1,573.44 TOTAL CHECK 13,723.44 144251 11111 11/03/21 500 DANIEL THOMAS SMITH, TRUS 22111 ARB20-0022 337.84 144251 11111 11/03/21 500 DANIEL THOMAS SMITH, TRUS 22113 ARB20-0022 4,365.00 TOTAL CHECK 4,702.84 144252 11111 11/03/21 1022 DAS MANUFACTURING, INC. 64734 STORM DRAIN MARKERS 3,390.00 144253 11111 11/03/21 342 DATA TICKET INC 62481 SEPT CITATIONS 100.00 144254 11111 11/03/21 573 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 64533 JUL-SEP SGNLS/LIGHTNG 879.79 144255 11111 11/03/21 1723 GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, 21132 RET RELEASE PO 0136 3,319.95 144255 11111 11/03/21 1723 GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, 81161 MENDELSOHN WALKWAY 2,500.00 144255 11111 11/03/21 1723 GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, 21132 RET HOLD PO 0136 -125.00 TOTAL CHECK 5,694.95 144256 11111 11/03/21 1705 INSULATION GURU, INC. 64545 PEST CLEAN UP PROJ 3,120.00 144257 11111 11/03/21 123 KELEX SECURITY 64513 5-YEAR THEATRE INSPEC 1,330.00 144258 11111 11/03/21 683 LIST ENGINEERING COMPANY, 81142 GENERATOR GAS METER 3,029.05 20 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11/03/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 17:29:29 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 144259 11111 11/03/21 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64323 JULY GIS SUPPORT 487.50 144259 11111 11/03/21 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 JULY GIS SUPPORT 487.50 144259 11111 11/03/21 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64323 SEPT GIS SUPPORT 262.50 144259 11111 11/03/21 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 SEPT GIS SUPPORT 262.50 TOTAL CHECK 1,500.00 144260 11111 11/03/21 500 MARILYN SWANSON 43481 TRP#21-0419 125.00 144261 11111 11/03/21 499 CARPENTERS LOCAL 2236 (MI 21262 DED:3000 DUES 260.00 144262 11111 11/03/21 500 NATALIE MAUSKOPF 43481 NATALIE MAUSKOPF 125.00 144263 11111 11/03/21 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,107.00 144264 11111 11/03/21 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 70.61 144264 11111 11/03/21 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 64.91 144264 11111 11/03/21 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.30 144264 11111 11/03/21 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106.92 144264 11111 11/03/21 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 54.45 TOTAL CHECK 304.19 144265 11111 11/03/21 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 81161 PAVEMNT MGMT PROJ 23,200.00 144265 11111 11/03/21 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 21132 RET HOLD PO 0050 -1,160.00 144265 11111 11/03/21 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 81161 PAVEMNT MGMT PROJ 1,087.50 144265 11111 11/03/21 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 21132 RET HOLD PO 0050 -54.38 TOTAL CHECK 23,073.12 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 CLEANUP AZULE PARK 1,975.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64542 BRANCH SARA PRSPCT CT 960.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 BRANCH/TREE KMORAN PK 6,050.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 VARIOUS CLEANUP 3,000.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 BRANCHES CARRICK ST 3,200.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 CLEANUP BROKEN BRNCHS 1,350.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 REMV LG OAK COX AVE 7,700.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64221 4 ST STERS CLEANUP 2,350.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 REMV FALLEN PINE TREE 2,150.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 REMVE LRG OAK EMERG 8,600.00 144266 11111 11/03/21 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 FALLEN TREE CLEANUP 4,300.00 TOTAL CHECK 41,635.00 144267 11111 11/03/21 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 211.29 144267 11111 11/03/21 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 CDD OFFICE SUPPLIES 137.23 144267 11111 11/03/21 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 CMD OFFICE SUPPLIES 85.80 144267 11111 11/03/21 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 PW-CORP OFF SUPPLIES 138.53 144267 11111 11/03/21 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 PW-ENG OFF SUPPLIES 169.98 144267 11111 11/03/21 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 66131 OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.67 TOTAL CHECK 787.50 144268 11111 11/03/21 652 PTM DOCUMENT SYSTEMS 61123 LASER CHECKS 986.22 144268 11111 11/03/21 652 PTM DOCUMENT SYSTEMS 61123 W2/1099 NEC FORMS 98.68 TOTAL CHECK 1,084.90 144269 11111 11/03/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BUILDINGS 843.54 144269 11111 11/03/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 16,909.14 144269 11111 11/03/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 TOLLGATE 72.01 144269 11111 11/03/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 3,273.26 21 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11/03/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 17:29:29 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK 21,097.95 144270 11111 11/03/21 1039 SANCHEZ ELECTRIC, INC. 64523 ELECTRICAL REPAIRS 953.33 144270 11111 11/03/21 1039 SANCHEZ ELECTRIC, INC. 64515 PV CLEANG CORP YD 911.35 144270 11111 11/03/21 1039 SANCHEZ ELECTRIC, INC. 64515 PV SYS LIBRARY CLEANG 1,294.91 144270 11111 11/03/21 1039 SANCHEZ ELECTRIC, INC. 64523 BGR OUTLETS REPAIR 795.97 TOTAL CHECK 3,955.56 144271 11111 11/03/21 136 SCOTTY'S AUTOMOTIVE 64611 VEH# 114 98.31 144272 11111 11/03/21 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 158.00 144272 11111 11/03/21 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 175.00 TOTAL CHECK 333.00 144273 11111 11/03/21 1707 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, 81141 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2,826.25 144274 11111 11/03/21 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 81161 AUSTIN WY BRICK REPR 9,987.00 144275 11111 11/03/21 1678 WILINE NETWORKS INC. 63213 ISP ANNUAL SERVICES 1,147.81 144276 11111 11/03/21 1571 WORKTERRA 64163 OCT FLEX ADM FEE 200.00 144277 11111 11/03/21 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, I 64315 IT SUPPORT SVCS 978.00 TOTAL FUND 179,238.45 TOTAL REPORT 179,238.45 22 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 11/10/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:02:27 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT 111 GENERAL FUND 665,040.20 243 CARNELIAN GLEN LANDSCAPE 120.11 244 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW LND 167.35 247 KERWIN RANCH LANDSCAPE 1,124.08 249 MANOR DRIVE LANDSCAPE 332.12 251 MCCARTYSVILLE LANDSCAPE 325.00 252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE 268.00 253 SARATOGA LEGEND LANDSCAPE 986.16 254 SUNLAND PARK LANDSCAPE 611.61 255 TRICIA WOODS LANDSCAPE 148.58 256 ALLENDALE LANDSCAPE 332.74 257 COVINA LANDSCAPING DIST 105.00 271 BEUACHAMPS L&L 2,986.69 272 BELLGROVE L&L 158.85 273 GATEWAY L&L 101.09 274 HORSESHOE DRIVE L&L 630.43 276 TOLLGATE L&L 100.00 278 WESTBROOK L&L 100.00 279 BROOKVIEW L&L 175.00 292 PARAMOUNT COURT SWD 505.18 411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 1,349.88 412 CIP PARKS PROJECT FUND 6,700.00 413 CIP FACILITY PROJECT FUND 8,350.00 414 CIP ADMIN PROJECTS FUND 21.50 431 CIP GRANT - STREET REPAIR 10,375.00 612 WORKERS COMP FUND 240.43 622 IT SERVICES 2,308.81 623 VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT MAINT 2,396.06 624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5,540.94 631 VEHICLE/EQUIP REPLACEMENT 2,232.15 713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 5,021.45 TOTAL REPORT 718,854.41 23 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 11/10/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:01:46 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 GATEWAY IRRIG CONTROL 22.88 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 ELECTRC PANEL THEATRE 108.31 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 PH0NE LNS&PRK/LIB IRR 23.43 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 EMERGENCY POTS LINES 21.22 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 EMERG POTS LNS CDD LB 22.88 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 EMERG POTS LNS MLBOX 28.04 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 RADIO SARATOGA LN T15 22.88 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 BOOK-GO-ROUND ALARM 44.73 144278 11111 11/10/21 234 A T & T 63211 CSP HVB FOR IRRIGAT 45.19 TOTAL CHECK 339.56 144279 11111 11/10/21 546 ASSOC OF BAY AREA GOV/ABA 63111 GAS SERVICE 639.14 144280 11111 11/10/21 95 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNA 64549 CSP REPAIR OUTAGES 675.77 144280 11111 11/10/21 95 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNA 64549 BELGROVE CIRCLE 158.85 144280 11111 11/10/21 95 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGNA 64549 CSP RESTROOMS 710.77 TOTAL CHECK 1,545.39 144281 11111 11/10/21 130 CDW GOVERNMENT 61173 SALES TAX 255.35 144281 11111 11/10/21 130 CDW GOVERNMENT 61173 SCANSNAP SCANNERS FOR FIN 2,798.39 TOTAL CHECK 3,053.74 144282 11111 11/10/21 1699 CLASSIC ACOUSTICS 81161 TILES FIRESIDE ROOM 8,350.00 144283 11111 11/10/21 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 RESTROOM SUPPLIES 925.74 144283 11111 11/10/21 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 RESTROOM SUPPLIES 1,030.10 144283 11111 11/10/21 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 RESTROOM SUPPLIES 2,267.64 144283 11111 11/10/21 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 RESTROOM SUPPLIES 865.46 144283 11111 11/10/21 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 RESTROOM SUPPLIES 1,795.49 TOTAL CHECK 6,884.43 144284 11111 11/10/21 1569 COMCAST 63213 COMCAST (PRIMARY) 560.04 144285 11111 11/10/21 1624 CONFIDENCE UST SERVICES, 64611 MONITORING SYS CERT 385.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 AZULE PARK 715.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 BROOKGLEN PARK 120.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 FOOTHILL PARK 191.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 GQRDINER PARK 191.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64547 PRIDES CROSSING LLA 268.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64543 PROSPECT MEDIANS 417.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 RAVENWOOD PARK 120.00 144286 11111 11/10/21 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64555 TRAIL DOG STATIONS 652.00 TOTAL CHECK 2,674.00 144287 11111 11/10/21 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 61192 WELLNESS GRANT REIMB 39.99 144288 11111 11/10/21 421 EWING IRRIGATION 61341 KEVIN MORAN PARK 691.50 144289 11111 11/10/21 423 FEHR & PEERS 81143 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 2,685.00 144289 11111 11/10/21 423 FEHR & PEERS 81143 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 7,690.00 TOTAL CHECK 10,375.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 ALLENDALE AVE MEDIANS 150.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 ALLENDALE/HARLEIGH LLA 150.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 AUSTIN WAY 100.00 24 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 11/10/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:01:46 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 BEAUCHAMPS PARK 360.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 BLANEY PLAZA 300.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 BROOKGLEN LLA 175.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 CANYON VIEW/ELVA 45.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK 600.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 COVINA LLA 105.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64221 DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPE 700.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64221 DOWNTOWN TRASH 200.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FREDRICKSBURG LLA 215.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 HORSESHOE LLA 150.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 HWY 9/VICKERY 57.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 KERWIN RANCH LLA 390.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 LEGENDS LLA 200.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64548 LIBRARY 688.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 MCCARTYSVILLE LLA 325.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 PALO OAKS/COX AVE MEDIANS 132.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 PARAMOUNT LLA 495.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 PARK TRASH DETAIL 575.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64542 PROSPECT CENTER 600.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 QUITO/MARTHA 150.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 SARATOGA AVE/KOSICH MEDIA 85.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 SEAGRAVES MEDIAN 100.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 TOLLGATE LLA 100.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 TRICIA WOODS LLA 100.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 TRINITY 40.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 WESTBROOK LLA 100.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 WORDEN WAY MEDIANS 88.00 144290 11111 11/10/21 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 NOV MTN WEED CONTRACT 795.00 TOTAL CHECK 8,270.00 144291 11111 11/10/21 1608 GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC. 64323 NOV MTHLY HOSTING 192.00 144292 11111 11/10/21 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 GATEWAY 88.13 144292 11111 11/10/21 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 MCCARTY 96.92 144292 11111 11/10/21 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 BEAUCHAMPS VALVES 953.45 144292 11111 11/10/21 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 BEAUCHAMPS SPRNKLR 727.66 144292 11111 11/10/21 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 BEAUCHAMPS ZONE#3 759.07 TOTAL CHECK 2,625.23 144293 11111 11/10/21 19 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC 64581 REMOVE FALLEN TREE 5,250.00 144294 11111 11/10/21 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTRO 81121 STREET SUPPLIES 129.88 144295 11111 11/10/21 1563 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 65282 WVCWP LEGAL COUNSEL SERVI 2,925.00 144296 11111 11/10/21 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64323 OCT GIS SUPPORT 450.00 144296 11111 11/10/21 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 OCT GIS SUPPORT 450.00 TOTAL CHECK 900.00 144297 11111 11/10/21 500 MUNISH KHETRAPAL 22111 ARB21-0044 447.30 144298 11111 11/10/21 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64551 NOV JANITORIAL SVCS 3,854.40 144298 11111 11/10/21 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,323.00 TOTAL CHECK 5,177.40 144299 11111 11/10/21 1 OFF OF SHERIFF-FISCAL SVC 64811 NOV LAW ENFORCEMENT 570,165.83 25 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 11/10/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:01:46 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 144299 11111 11/10/21 1 OFF OF SHERIFF-FISCAL SVC 64811 SUPPL SEP/OCT LAW ENF 1,332.56 TOTAL CHECK 571,498.39 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BUILDINGS 56.78 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 GATEWAY SERVICE 12.96 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARAMOUNT CT 10.18 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 141.65 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 9.53 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 MONTE VISTA DRIVE 9.53 144300 11111 11/10/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 EL CAMINO GRANDE PUMP 38.78 TOTAL CHECK 279.41 144301 11111 11/10/21 1423 PERRY THORWALDSON/THOR AU 68624 CELEBRATION OF LIGHTS 1,600.00 144302 11111 11/10/21 500 RAJ SUBRAMANIYAN 22113 BOND ARB20-0058 25,200.00 144302 11111 11/10/21 500 RAJ SUBRAMANIYAN 22111 DEP ARB20-0058 573.16 TOTAL CHECK 25,773.16 144303 11111 11/10/21 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 22119 ENV19-0005 OCT SRC 5,460.00 144303 11111 11/10/21 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 22119 ENV20-0003 OCT QUITO 900.00 144303 11111 11/10/21 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 65411 OCT ADR PROJ REVIEWS 1,560.00 TOTAL CHECK 7,920.00 144304 11111 11/10/21 1338 ROBERT CHAVEZ FENCING 81151 BROOKGLEN PARK SOUTH CHAI 6,700.00 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 ALLENDALE LLA 182.74 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BEAUCHAMPS 546.51 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BUILDINGS 177.21 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 CARNELIAN GLEN 120.11 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW 167.35 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 HORSESHOE DRIVE 480.43 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 KERWIN RANCH 734.08 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MANOR DRIVE 332.12 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 3,000.54 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 SARA LEGENDS 786.16 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 SUNLAND PARK 611.61 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 TRICIA WOODS 48.58 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 24123 FARWELL/THREE OAKS 332.12 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 6,609.69 144305 11111 11/10/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/KERWIN RANCH 489.39 TOTAL CHECK 14,618.64 144306 11111 11/10/21 136 SCOTTY'S AUTOMOTIVE 64611 REPAIR VEH#120 821.17 144307 11111 11/10/21 1490 SOLARWINDS, INC. 64312 ANNUAL MTN RENEWAL 430.00 144308 11111 11/10/21 500 SRIRAMA CHATURVEDULA 41412 21-2030 107.48 144308 11111 11/10/21 500 SRIRAMA CHATURVEDULA 21932 21-2030 1.33 144308 11111 11/10/21 500 SRIRAMA CHATURVEDULA 43112 21-2030 1.50 144308 11111 11/10/21 500 SRIRAMA CHATURVEDULA 43477 21-2030 4.31 144308 11111 11/10/21 500 SRIRAMA CHATURVEDULA 43117 21-2030 20.00 144308 11111 11/10/21 500 SRIRAMA CHATURVEDULA 43471 21-2030 603.40 TOTAL CHECK 738.02 144309 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P VOID: MULTI STUB CHECK 26 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4 DATE: 11/10/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:01:46 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 144310 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P VOID: MULTI STUB CHECK 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 1,882.36 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61132 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 1,100.05 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61132 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 317.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61362 PROPANE FUEL 97.34 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 77113 VEH 151 REPAIR 499.99 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 TRAINING 765.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61313 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 674.91 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 55.82 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64611 VEH 113 TIRE SVC 319.75 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64323 GIS LICENSE 500.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 CONFERENCE 725.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62131 CONSTANT CONTACT 115.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66131 EVENT SUPPLIES 1,600.12 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61212 MTHLY SUBSCRIPTIONS 354.95 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 39.27 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 68618 PR EVENTS 1,699.54 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66112 STAFF MEALS 286.10 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62412 GFOA AWARD APP 445.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61313 UNIFORM EMBROIDERY 443.63 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62412 GFOA CREDIT -135.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 ASD DEPT LUNCH 143.89 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66311 ASD RECRUITMENT 1,320.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61192 WELLNESS LUNCH 200.44 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 EMPL WELLNESS EVENT 496.65 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64611 TIRE REPAIR 150.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 TRAINING 279.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 CAPIO & CPRS TRAINING 520.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61151 SARATOGA ROCKS EVENT 142.34 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61165 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 1,111.52 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 22119 COUNTY FILING FEES 2,532.75 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62251 CAPIO MMBRSHIP 275.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 CAPIO WEBINAR 60.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64136 SNAPPR PHOTOGRAPHY 417.90 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.78 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61112 USPS 51.66 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 167.77 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61211 IT SUPPLIES 340.77 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.18 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64611 SMOG CHECK 45.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61313 UNIFORMS 192.81 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64611 VEH 143 REPAIR 156.81 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 77113 VEH 150 LIGHTS 1,732.16 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61112 POSTAGE 1.56 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 MEETING SUPPLIES 293.88 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 81134 SCUWD ACCESS FEE 425.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61342 FLOWERS FOR DOWNTOWN 392.35 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64611 TIRE VEH#133 420.99 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 201.53 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62112 PLUGNPLAY MTHLY FEE 15.00 144311 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61113 DROP BOX SUBSCRIP 45.00 TOTAL CHECK 23,946.57 144312 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66212 WVCWP ICMA CONF 923.40 144312 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 WVCWP OFFICE SUPPLIES 41.49 27 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5 DATE: 11/10/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:01:46 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK 964.89 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63211 WVCWP OCT COMCAST 289.71 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63213 WVCWP OCT COMCAST 270.14 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64311 WVCWP OCT QUICKBOOKS 25.00 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 WVCWP OCT ZOOM 54.99 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 WVCWP SEPT ALHAMBRA -23.01 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63211 WVCWP SEPT COMCAST 291.15 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63211 WVCWP SEPT VERIZON 89.40 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 WVCWPOCT AMAZON PRIME 14.18 144313 11111 11/10/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64311 WVCWPRENEWAL DOCUSIGN 120.00 TOTAL CHECK 1,131.56 144314 11111 11/10/21 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, I 64315 SEPT IT SVCS 978.00 TOTAL FUND 718,854.41 TOTAL REPORT 718,854.41 28 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended September 30, 2021 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September 30, 2021. 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 September 30, 2021, the City had $293,926 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $29,869,936 on deposit with LAIF. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1, 2016: for cash flow purposes and to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of September 30, 2021, is $30,163,862 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 September 30, 2021, the City’s financial position (Assets $30.5M, Liabilities $3.8M and Fund Equity $26.7M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future. Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank 293,926$ Deposit with LAIF 29,869,936$ Total Unrestricted Cash 30,163,862$ Cash Summary 29 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 30,163,862$ Plus: Assets 306,421 Less: Liabilities (3,783,654) Ending Fund Balance 26,686,629$ Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance 30 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE UNDER GASB 54 *Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues These figures will be updated for future reports once the FY 2017/18 pendent audit is completed. Fund Description Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2021 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Aug Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 9/30/2021 General Fund Restricted Fund Balances: Environmental Services Reserve 63,182 - - - - - 63,182 Committed Fund Balances: Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Assigned Fund Balances: Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 2,796,663 - - - - - 2,796,663 Carryforwards Reserve 20,850 - - - - - 20,850 Facility Reserve 3,700,000 - - - - - 3,700,000 Unassigned Fund Balances: Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 3,150,000 - - - - - 3,150,000 Compensated Absences Reserve 331,481 - - - - - 331,481 Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution)3,159,402 1,408,928 790,955 2,413,382 - 2,735,131 210,771 General Fund Total 15,221,578 1,408,928 790,955 2,413,382 - 2,735,131 12,272,947 Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 872,943 (33,318) 511 65,536 - - 774,600 Debt Service Library Bond 791,385 (708,094) 491 750 - - 83,032 Arrowhead Bond 389,618 (323,669) - - - - 65,949 Debt Service 1,181,003 (1,031,763) 491 750 - - 148,981 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 686,985 (526,451) 188,230 8,181 - - 340,583 W orkers Compensation 228,367 (54,364) 62,500 7,140 - - 229,363 Office Support Fund 144,167 (1,848) 11,634 1,762 - - 152,190 Information Technology Services 591,431 (102,217) 201,027 96,635 - - 593,606 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 302,006 (25,843) 68,750 36,213 - - 308,700 Building Maintenance 684,329 (80,648) 225,000 100,300 - - 728,380 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 579,521 (377) 37,500 - - - 616,644 Technology Replacement 735,698 - 37,500 - - - 773,198 Facility FFE Replacement 673,676 - 50,000 - - - 723,676 Internal Service Fund Total 4,626,180 (791,748) 882,141 250,232 - - 4,466,341 Trust/Agency WVCWP Agency Fund 538,025 (73,876) 298 42,136 - - 422,311 Trust/Agency Fund Total 538,025 (73,876) 298 42,136 - - 422,311 Capital Project Street Projects 2,603,258 (354,474) 35,079 406,960 1,620,000 - 3,496,904 Park and Trail Projects 870,206 (62,942) - 50,209 310,131 - 1,067,185 Facility Projects 1,117,176 (160,663) - 25,840 80,000 - 1,010,672 Administrative Projects 670,066 (30,408) 5,823 12,862 725,000 - 1,357,618 Tree Fund Projects 47,639 125 - - - - 47,764 Park In-Lieu Projects 291,309 - 970,299 - - - 1,261,609 CIP Grant Street Projects 64,685 23,694 2,125 16,125 - - 74,378 CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 399 - (399) - - - - CIP Grant Administrative Projects (14,573) - - - - - (14,573) * Gas Tax Fund Projects 113,624 68,985 119,083 1,802 - - 299,890 CIP Fund Total 5,763,789 (515,683) 1,132,009 513,797 2,735,131 - 8,601,448 Total City 28,203,522 (1,037,461) 2,806,406 3,285,833 2,735,131 2,735,131 26,686,629 31 ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2021 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Aug Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 9/30/2021 Street Projects Annual Road Improvements 776,210 (261,600) 35,079 291,081 - - 258,608 Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 42,190 - - - 150,000 - 192,190 Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Backup 150,000 - - - 40,000 - 190,000 Portable Radar Feedback Sign - - - - 20,000 - 20,000 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 309,379 - - - - - 309,379 Village Clock 9,486 - - - - - 9,486 Big Basin Way/Blaney Trash Can Replacement - - - - 75,000 - 75,000 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs 18,063 (30,730) - 3,034 250,000 - 234,299 Guava Court Curb & Gutter Replacement - - - - 280,000 - 280,000 Mendelsohn Lane Pathway Rehabilitation Project - - - - 110,000 - 110,000 El Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump - - - (104) - - 104 Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 44,000 - - - 45,000 - 89,000 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 43,370 - - - - - 43,370 Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Sidewalk 92,158 - - - - - 92,158 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Pathway Rehab Cox to RRX 110,000 - - 105,486 - - 4,514 Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Gap Closure - (2,100) - - 325,000 - 322,900 Fourth Street Bridge Widening 99,837 - - - - - 99,837 Quito Road Bridge Replacement 136,175 - - 3,756 - - 132,419 Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 6,012 (2,350) - - - - 3,662 Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 151,785 - - 3,706 - - 148,079 Mt. Eden Erosion Repair 99,880 - - - 200,000 - 299,880 Continental Circle Landslide Stabilization 122,912 (57,693) - - 125,000 - 190,219 Pierce Road Retainment 391,800 - - - - - 391,800 Total Street Projects 2,603,258 (354,474) 35,079 406,960 1,620,000 - 3,496,904 Parks & Trails Projects Park/Trail Repairs 41,836 (62,400) - 36,056 250,000 - 193,380 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 5,853 - - 1,503 25,000 - 29,350 Hakone Pond Reconstruction 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement - - - - 35,131 - 35,131 Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 293,527 (542) - 12,650 - - 280,335 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 228,989 - - - - - 228,989 Total Parks & Trails Projects 870,206 (62,942) - 50,209 310,131 - 1,067,185 Facility Projects Open Work Space - - - - 80,000 - 80,000 Civic Theater Improvements 107,925 - - - - - 107,925 PEG Funded Project 432,116 (150,716) - 23,767 - - 257,633 Community Center Improvement 90,779 (7,098) - - - - 83,682 Community Center Generator and EV Charging Stations 471,355 (2,850) - 2,073 - - 466,432 Library Building Exterior Maintenance 15,000 - - - - - 15,000 Total Facility Projects 1,117,176 (160,663) - 25,840 80,000 - 1,010,672 Administrative and Technology Projects City Website/Intranet 16,948 - - - - - 16,948 Development Technology 66,949 (36,747) 34 1,707 - - 28,529 Software Technology Management 43,138 15,546 5,789 - - - 64,473 LLD Initiation Match Program 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Horseshoe Beautification 16,775 - - 580 - - 16,195 Business Renewal Program 15,000 (857) - - - - 14,143 Citywide Accessibility Assessment 34,937 - - - - - 34,937 City Art Program 28,669 - - - 25,000 - 53,669 Safe Routes to School Needs Assessment 13,714 (8,350) - - - 5,364 El Quito Neighborhood Improvements 134,507 - - - 150,000 - 284,507 Parking District ADA Improvements and Rehabilitation - - - - 250,000 - 250,000 Storm Drain Master Plan - - - - 300,000 - 300,000 General Plan Update 216,208 - - 10,575 - - 205,633 Wildfire Mitigation Program 4,067 - - - - - 4,067 Risk Management Project Funding 54,153 - - - - - 54,153 Total Administrative and Technology Projects 670,066 (30,408) 5,823 12,862 725,000 - 1,357,618 32 budgeted be updated for future reports once. ATTACHMENT B (Cont.) FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT *Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2021 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Aug Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 9/30/2021 Tree Fund Projects Citywide Tree Planting Program 22,889 - - - - - 22,889 Tree Dedication Program 24,750 125 - - - - 24,875 Total Tree Fund Projects 47,639 125 - - - - 47,764 CIP Grant Street Projects Local Roadway Safety Plan - - - 2,373 - - (2,373) * Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (41,000) - - - - - (41,000) * Citywide Signal Upgrade II 18 - - - - - 18 Saratoga Ave Sidewalk 25,493 23,694 - - - - 49,187 Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction 39,909 - - - - - 39,909 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs 9,550 - 4,202 13,752 - - - Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 3,368 - (4,202) - - - (834) * 4th Street Bridge 4,626 - 2,125 - - - 6,751 Quito Bridge Replacement 18,596 - - - - - 18,596 Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition 4,124 - - - - - 4,124 Total CIP Grant Street Projects 64,685 23,694 2,125 16,125 - - 74,378 CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects Saratoga to the Sea Trail - Design 399 - (399) - - - - Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 399 - (399) - - - - CIP Grant Administrative Projects CDD Software/ADA (14,573) - - - - - (14,573) * Total CIP Grant Administrative Projects (14,573) - - - - - (14,573) Park In-Lieu Projects Orchard Irrigation & Tree Planting - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure 82,420 - - - - - 82,420 Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement - - - - 10,079 - 10,079 Trail Pet Stations - - - - 25,000 - 25,000 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 73,811 - - - - 73,811 Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 135,079 - 970,299 - (135,079) - 970,299 Total Park In-Lieu Projects 291,310 - 970,299 - - - 1,261,609 Gas Tax Fund Projects Annual Roadway Improvements 58,261 68,985 119,083 - - - 246,328 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 48,278 - - - - - 48,278 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs - - - 1,802 - - (1,802) * Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085 Total Gas Tax Fund Projects 113,624 68,985 119,083 1,802 - - 299,890 Total CIP Funds 5,763,789 (515,683) 1,132,009 513,797 2,735,131 - 8,601,448 33 ATTACHMENT C CHANGE IN CASH BALANCE BY MONTH 34 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 2.16 2.40 2019 2.55 2.57 2.45 2.29 2020 2.03 1.36 0.84 0.63 2021 0.44 0.33 0.24 Quarterly Apportionment Rates Local Agency Investment Fund 35 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17,2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk SUBJECT:Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reconsider and confirm findings pursuant to Assembly Bill 361 of the continued existence of a state of emergency and public health officials’ recommendation of social distancing. BACKGROUND: On October 20, 2021 the City Council adopted a Resolution that enabled the City Council and all legislative bodies of the City to continue to meet remotely in accordance with AB 361. Pursuant to AB 361, staff must bring this item back every 30 days for the City Council’s reconsideration of the findings related to the declared stated of emergency and the recommended social distancing measures. Based on the following, it is recommended that the City Council and all legislative bodies of the City continue to meet remotely: The state of emergency as a result of COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of the members of City Council and the members of the City’s Boards and Commissions to meet safely in person; and The State of California and the County of Santa Clara continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A –Resolution 21-073 authorizing teleconferenced public meetings 36 37 38 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Notice of Completion –2020 Pavement Management Program Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to accept the 2020 Pavement Management Program (2020 PMP) contract as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion. BACKGROUND: All work for the 2020 PMP has been completed by the City’s contractor,O’Grady Paving, Inc. and has been inspected and accepted by Public Works Staff. The scope of work of this project included street paving, rehabilitation of failed roadway sections, micro-surfacing of roadways, repair of dislocated curb and gutter, and restriping. On July 1, 2020, Council awarded a construction contract to O’Grady Paving. In total, Council authorized $2,334,265.76 to complete the work in the original contract as well as additional repair work on Saratoga Avenue, new striping with improved bike lanes,and micro-surfacing on five streets beyond the original scope of work. The contract was completed at a final cost of $2,261,087.93. In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one year maintenance / warranty period, it is recommended that Council accept the project as complete. Furthermore it is recommended that the Council authorizes staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that the requisite 30-day stop notice for filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may commence. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Notice of Completion for the 2020 Pavement Management Program Project 39 RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Saratoga WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER’S USE EXEMPT FROM FEES FOR RECORDATION (Gov. C. §27383) NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 17th day of November, 2021. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: July 1, 2020 Contractor’s Name: O’Grady Paving Inc. Contractor’s Address: 2513 Wyandotte St., Mountain View, CA 94043 Description of Work: 2020 Pavement Management Program Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on November 17 th, 2021 CITY OF SARATOGA BY:__________________________ATTEST:____________________________ James Lindsay Britt Avrit, City Clerk City Manager Gov. Code 40814 40 41 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Attorney PREPARED BY:Richard Taylor, City Attorney SUBJECT:Annual Code Update for 2021 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached ordinance amending City Code sections 1-15.040 (concerning computation of time), 2-05.030 and 15-90.065 (concerning appeals by City Council members);2-10.080 concerning title of Vice Mayor); 2-12.020, 080 and 2-15.050 (concerning Commissions and Commissioners), 3-10.070 (concerning appeal hearings), 5-25.070 (concerning reporting of transient occupancy tax information); 6-05.050 (concerning review of emergency declarations); 7- 30.051 and .060 (concerning leaf blowers); 13-10.040 (concerning the Heritage Preservation Commission); 14-25.080 (concerning parkland dedication); 15-50.070 and 080 (concerning tree removal permits); 15-85.050 (concerning notice of Planning Commission public hearings); 16- 18.025 (concerning automatic sprinklers); and Chapter 14 (correcting cross references to state law). DISCUSSION: Each year the City adopts a number of cleanup amendments to the City Code to clarify ambiguities, comply with state laws, and conform to new best practices that have changed since the Code was adopted. At its November 3, 2021 meeting following a public hearing the City Council introduced the attached ordinance and directed staff to place it on the consent calendar for adoption. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A –2021 Annual Code Update Ordinance 42 ORDINANCE NO. _____ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 1-15.040 (CONCERNING COMPUTATION OF TIME), 2-05.030 AND 15-90.065 (CONCERNING APPEALS BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS); 2-10.080 (CONCERNING TITLE OF VICE MAYOR); 2-12.020, 080 AND 2-15.050 (CONCERNING COMMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONERS), 3-10.070 (CONCERNING APPEAL HEARINGS), 5-25.070 (CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX INFORMATION); 6-05.050 (CONCERNING REVIEW OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS); 7-30.051 AND .060 (CONCERNING LEAF BLOWERS); 13-10.040 (CONCERNING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION); 14-25.080 (CONCERNING PARKLAND DEDICATION); 15-50.070 and 080 (CONCERNING TREE REMOVAL PERMITS); 15-85.050 (CONCERNING NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS); 16-18.025 (CONCERNING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS); AND CHAPTER 14 (CORRECTING CROSS REFERENCES TO STATE LAW). The City Council of the City of Saratoga finds that: 1. The City Code of the City of Saratoga requires periodic updates to reflects changes in law, provide clarification to the community, and provide for improved customer service and administration of City business. 2. The City Council referred the amendments to Saratoga Municipal Code Chapters 15 in this ordinance to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission held a hearing on those amendments on September 8, 2021 and following consideration of all testimony and written materials, recommended that the City Council adopt the amendments to Chapters 15 set forth herein. 3. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 2021, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1.Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 2.Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub- section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. 43 Ordinance No. Page 2 Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance the amendments to the existing City Code and related sections and additions of provisions and reference appendices to the existing Code; the amendments and additions would have a de minimis impact on the environment. Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly noticed public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 3rd day of November, 2021 and was adopted by the following vote on November 17, 2021. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Yan Zhao MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: DATE: Britt Avrit, MMC CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________DATE:________________________ Richard Taylor CITY ATTORNEY 44 Ordinance No. Page 3 Exhibit A - 2021 Saratoga Municipal Code Update The provisionsof the Saratoga Municipal Code set forth below are amended or adopted as follows: Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code except in cases where it directs renumbering of subsections not otherwise amended. Where a section being amended includes subsections that are not shown those subsections are unchanged by this ordinance. 1.Filing Deadlines 1-15.040 – Computation of time. (b)Whenever any act is required by this Code to be performed on a particular day which day falls upon a holiday day on which the city offices are closed, or within a specified period of time which ends on a holiday day on which the city offices are closed, the act may be performed on the next business day on which the city offices are open with the same effect as if it had been performed upon the day appointed. 2.Appeals by City Council Members 2-05.030 - Appeals. (d)Appeal upon initiative of City Councilmembers. Regardless of whether a notice of appeal is filed, any two members of the City Council may initiate proceedings for review by the City Council of any administrative determination or decision, which is appealable pursuant to this Section. A request for such review shall be made by at least two Councilmembers to the City Clerk during any regular or special meeting of the City Council held within fifteen days after the date on which the determination or decision is rendered or, if no regular or adjourned meeting is held during that fifteen-day period, at the next regular or adjourned meeting of the City Council. Upon such review being initiated, the same procedure shall thereafter be followed as set forth in this Section and the City Council may take any action as provided in subsection (g) hereof. (e)Schedule of hearing. Upon the filing of the notice of appeal and payment of the appeal fee, or upon an appeal being initiated by members of the City Council, the City Clerk shall schedule the matter for hearing by the City Council as follows: (1)A proposed hearing date shall be set within two business days. The proposed date shall be within thirty calendar days of the date the appeal was filed, except as provided in subsection (ed)(2), below. The City Clerk shall immediately inform the appellant and the applicant of the proposed date, time, and place of the hearing at an e-mail address or fax number provided to the City at the time the appeal or application was filed. If the appellant or applicant within two business days requests 45 Ordinance No. Page 4 in writing that the proposed hearing date be extended, then the City Clerk shall set the date for the next regular meeting of the City Council occurring after the proposed date. The City Clerk shall inform the appellant and applicant of the new hearing date, time and place via e-mail or fax. (2)If it is not possible to set the proposed date in a manner that allows the City to provide any notice required by law and set the proposed date at a regularly scheduled meeting within thirty calendar days of the date the appeal was filed, the date shall be set at the first regularly scheduled Council meeting following the close of any applicable notice period. The City Clerk shall immediately inform the appellant and the applicant of the date, time, and place of the hearing at an e-mail address or fax number provided to the City at the time the appeal or application was filed. If the hearing date is set pursuant to this subsection, then neither the applicant nor appellant shall be authorized to request a change in the hearing date as described in subsection (ed)(2), above. (3)After a hearing date has been set in accordance with subsection (ed)(1) or (ed)(2), above, the appellant or the applicant may request in writing, and the City Clerk shall grant, a continuance of the date provided that the request for continuance is received by the City Clerk no later than fourteen calendar days prior to the date set for hearing. The continuance shall be until the next regular meeting of the City Council occurring after the date for which the matter had been set. No further continuances may be authorized by the City Clerk. (fe)Public notice. If a public hearing is conducted on the appeal, notice thereof shall also be published once at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the City and mailed or delivered at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing to any other persons who were entitled under the provisions of this Code to receive notice of the proceedings at which the administrative determination or decision was made. (gf)Conduct of hearing by City Council. The City Council shall conduct a de novo review on the appeal, but no public hearing shall be required unless the determination or decision was made in connection with a proceeding which required a public hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the public from exercising its right as described in Section 2-10.130(a)(I) and (a)(II), to address the subject matter of the appeal. (hg)Decision by City Council. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the determination or decision which is the subject of the appeal, and may refer the matter back to the original maker of the determination or decision for such further action as may be directed by the Council. Where an appeal has been filed pertaining to only a portion of a determination or decision, the City Council shall have authority to review the entire matter and may affirm, reverse or modify all or any other portion of the determination or decision notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been taken therefrom. 46 Ordinance No. Page 5 (ih)Time limitation for judicial review. Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a decision by the City Council on an appeal taken pursuant to this Section, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to such decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto, shall be commenced within ninety days after the date such decision is rendered by the City Council. 3.Vice Mayor 2-10.080 - Presiding officers. (a)The presiding officer of the City Council shall be the Mayor, or in his or her absence, the Mayor pro tempore (also referenced as “Vice Mayor”). He or she shall take the chair precisely at the hour appointed for the meeting and shall immediately call the City Council to order. In the absence of the Mayor or Mayor pro tempore, the City Clerk shall call the City Council to order, whereupon, a temporary presiding officer shall be elected by the Council members present. Upon the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor pro tempore, the temporary presiding officer shall immediately relinquish the chair upon the conclusion of the particular business immediately before the Council at that time. Wherein this Article the term mayor is used, it shall apply equally to the presiding officer as defined in this Section. 4.Commissioner Qualifications Article 2-12 – CITY COMMISSIONS 2-12.020 – Qualifications. (a)Except as provided in Section 2-12.20(b), all Commissioners shall: 1.Be a resident of the City of Saratoga; 2.Be a registered voter of the City of Saratoga; 3.Prior to being interviewed for appointment to a Commission, have attended at least one meeting of the Commission to which appointment is being sought; 4.3.Not hold any elected public office in any jurisdiction, any place or position of employment with the City of Saratoga; and 5.4.Satisfy any additional eligibility requirements specified in the ordinance or resolution establishing the Commission. 47 Ordinance No. Page 6 5.Commission Rules and Procedures 2-12.080 - Rules of procedure. (d)In addition to the rules made applicable to Commissions as specified in paragraph (a) of this Section, each Commission shall have authority to adopt such other rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for the orderly and efficient conduct of its business which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code or policies otherwise adopted by the City Council. 2-15.050 - Rules of procedure. (c)Adoption of rules and procedures. In addition to the rules made applicable to the Planning Commission as specified in Paragraph (a) of this Section, the Commission shall have authority to adopt such other rules and procedures as it deems appropriate for the orderly and efficient conduct of its business which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code or policies otherwise adopted by the City Council. 6.Appeal Hearings 3-10.070 – Appeal hearing. (c)After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted at a hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue a final decision at the conclusion of the hearing or within fifteen (15) thirty (30)calendar days to uphold or overturn the provisions contained in the notice and shall state the reasons thereof. If the notice is upheld and the violation has not been fully corrected as of the date of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall order correction thereof in the decision and state deadline(s) to complete such action(s). The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final. All applicable fines shall become immediately due and owing to the City in the full amount and if not paid may be collected as provided in this Code or by any other lawful method available to the City. If the Hearing Officer grants the appeal in full, the City shall return any appeal fee. 7.Transient Occupancy Tax 5-25.070 – Reporting and remitting. Each operator shall, on or before the last day of the month following the close of each calendar quarter, or at the close of any shorter reporting period which may be established by the Tax Administrator, make a return to the Tax Administrator, on forms provided by him, of the total rents charged and received and the amount of tax collected for transient occupancies. All records, returns and payments submitted by each operator shall be treated as confidential by the Tax Administrator and all persons having an administrative duty under this Articleand shall not be released except upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction or to an officer or agent of the United States, the State of California, the County of Santa Clara or the City of 48 Ordinance No. Page 7 Saratoga for official use only.At the time the return is filed, the full amount of tax collected shall be remitted to the Tax Administrator. The Tax Administrator may establish shorter reporting periods for any certificate holder if he deems it necessary in order to insure collection of the tax and he may require further information in the return. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this Article shall be held in trust for the account of the City until payment thereof is made to the Tax Administrator. 8.Review of Emergency Declarations 6-05.050 – Director of Emergency Services. (b)The Director of Emergency Services is hereby empowered to: (1)Proclaim the existence of a "local emergency," or, if time permits, request the City Council to do so at a duly noticed meeting. Whenever a local emergency is proclaimed by the Director, the City Council shall take action to ratify the proclamation within seven days thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect. The City Council shall review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every thirty days or such other period as may be determined by a resolution of the City Council until the City Council terminates the local emergency. The City Council shall proclaim the termination of the local emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. (2)Request the governor to proclaim a "state of emergency" when, in the opinion of the Director, the locally available resources are inadequate to cope with the emergency. (3)Develop the Emergency Operations Plan with the assistance of emergency service chiefs for consideration by the Disaster Council, develop ancillary emergency plans as needed, and manage the emergency programs of the City. (4)Control and direct the effort of the emergency organization of the City for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Article. (5)Direct cooperation between and coordination of services and staff of the emergency organization of the City and resolve questions of authority and responsibility that may arise between them. (6)Manage the emergency programs of the City with the assistance of City staff and emergency service chiefs. (7)Authorize City employees to perform any of the functions listed in subsections (b)(3) through (6). 9.Leaf Blowers 7-30.051 – Leaf blowers. Beginning October 1, 2019, the The use of any leaf blower other than a certified leaf blower, as defined by this article, is prohibited. 49 Ordinance No. Page 8 7-30.060 – Exceptions for specific activities. (b)Beginning October 1, 2019 certified Cerified leaf blowers may be used or operated Monday through Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., on Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., and may not be used on Sundays. 10.Heritage Commission Powers & Duties 13-10.040 – Powers and Duties (e)Review and comment upon all applications for building, demolition, grading or tree removal permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any heritage resource. The Commision's Commission’s comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments. 11.Cross-references to California Civil Code 14-10.320 Subdivision. (a)"Subdivision" means the division, by any subdivider, of any parcel or parcels of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized County assessment roll as a single unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, financing or construction of improvements thereon, whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as contiguous units even if separated by roads, streets, utility easements or railroad rights-of-way. "Subdivision" includes a condominium project, as defined in Section 1350 4125 of the State Civil Code, a community apartment project, as defined in Section 11004 of the State Business and Professions Code, or the conversion of existing dwelling units to a stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the State Business and Professions Code. "Subdivision" also includes any division of land by gift, inheritance, or partition in kind. 14-25.080 Park and recreation dedication and fees. (c)Fees in lieu of land dedication. In the event there is no park or recreational facility designated as described in subsection (b), above, or in the event that the proposed subdivision contains fifty or less parcels, then the subdivider or owner shall pay a fee to the City in lieu of dedicating land, which shall be in an amount equal to the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated pursuant to paragraph (b) of this Section. If a condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project (as defined in California Civil Code § 13514105) exceeds fifty dwelling units, dedication of land may be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than fifty. "Fair market value", as used herein, shall be product of: 50 Ordinance No. Page 9 (1)The estimated cost of parkland in Saratoga as determined by the City Council; and (2)The amount of land that would be required to be dedicated pursuant to subsection (b), above. 14-75.020 Definitions. (b)Community housing means and includes a condominium project as defined in Section 1350 4125 of the Civil Code, containing two or more condominiums; a community apartment project as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code, containing two or more rights of exclusive occupancy; and a stock cooperative, as define defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, containing two or more rights of exclusive occupancy. 14-75.040 Information to accompany tentative map application. (a)Copies of proposed organizational documents, which shall include, or be accompanied by the following: (1)Plan for conveyance of units. (2)Plan for assignment of parking and management of common areas within the project. (3)Proposed annual operating budget containing a sinking fund to accumulate reserves to pay for major maintenance repair or replacement expenses. (4)FHA regulatory agreement, if any. (5)If a condominium, copy of proposed site plan as required by Civil Code Section Sections 13514000, et seq. (6)CC&R's to include proviso for penalties on late payment of annual assessments and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the event of default in payment thereof. 12.Parkland Dedication 14-25.080 Park and recreation dedication and fees. (g)Credit for private open space. Where a private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed common interest development (as defined by California Civil Code § 1351) subdivision or site and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by future residents of the development, a credit not to exceed fifty percent may be given against the requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes or payment of fees in lieu thereof, provided the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to do so, and that the following standards are met: (1)That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regulations shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and (2)That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement, conveyance or restrictions; and 51 Ordinance No. Page 10 (3)That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the subdivision or site and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City Council; and (4)That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of the private open space land; and (5)That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element of the General Plan and are approved by the City Council. (h)Amendment to Map Act. In the event the Map Act should in the future be amended to expand or change the permitted uses of land dedicated or in lieu [of]of fees laid paid under this Section, such purposes shall control and the limitations set forth in this Section to the extent they are inconsistent with the amended Map Act, shall no longer have any force or effect. 13.Tree Removal Permits 15-50.070 - Application for permit. (e) Application fee. Fees shall be charged as set forth in the City's fee schedule. No fee shall be required for a permit to remove a fallen or dead tree or for a tree species and location identified in Section 15-50.080(a) (11) or (12) provided that tree replacement requirements as a condition of the tree removal permit are met . 15-50.080 – Determination on Permit (a)Criteria. Each application for a tree removal,pruning,or encroachment permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: [No changes to items (1)-(11).] 14.Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearings 15-85.050 – Public Hearing by Planning Commission; Notice. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed amendment. Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be given as follows: (a)Where the amendment is to change the boundaries of a district or General Plan land use designation or to reclassify any property from one district or General Plan land use designation to another or to change the permitted or conditional use of a specific site, notice shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing the notice, postage prepaid, to all owners whose property is the 52 Ordinance No. Page 11 subject of such boundary change, reclassification or change of use, and to persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of the amendment, and, for amendments to zoning districts or General Plan designations or property reclassifications, to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within the City of Saratoga. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. 15.Appeals by City Council Members 15-90.065 - Appeal upon initiative of City Councilmembers. Regardless of whether a notice of appeal is filed pursuant to Sections 15-90.040(b) and 15- 90.050(b), any two members of the City Council may initiate proceedings for review by the City Council of any decision made by the Planning Commission, which is appealable under this Article. A request for such review shall be made by at least two Councilmembers to the City Clerk during any regular or special meeting of the City Council held within fifteen days after the date on which the decision is rendered or, if no regular or adjourned meeting is held during that fifteen-day period, at the next regular or adjourned meeting of the City Council. Upon such review being initiated, the same procedure shall thereafter be followed as set forth in this Article and the City Council may take any action as provided in Section 15-90.070(c). 16.Automatic sprinkler requirements for new construction. Article 16-18 – Residential Building Code 16-18.025 – Automatic Sprinklers. Section R313.1 is amended to read: R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new townhouses and in existing townhouses when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: One or more additions made to a building after January 1, 2011, that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. Section R313.2 is amended to read: R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1. In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 53 Ordinance No. Page 12 3,600 square feet whether by increasing the area of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2. In all existing one-and two-family dwellings that meet the definition of a "demolition" of the structure per City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 06.195. 3. In all attached Accessory Dwelling Units, additions or alterations to an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. 4. In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. Exceptions: 1.One or more additions made to a building after January 1, 2011, that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area and meets all access and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California Fire Code. 2.Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, provided that all of the following are met: 2.1 The unit meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as defined in the Government Code Section 65852.2 2.2 The existing primary residence does not have automatic fire sprinklers. 2.3 The accessory detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1, 200 square feet in size. 2.4 The unit is on the same lot as the primary residence. 2.5 The unit meets all access and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California Fire Code. 3.In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. End of Amendments 54 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department PREPARED BY:M. Leah Cabute, Environmental Program Manager SUBJECT:Budget Resolution for Grant Funds Awarded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program Grant in the amount of $1,800,000 and changing the project title of the Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance & Railroad Crossing Improvements RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve a budget resolution to appropriate $1,800,000 in MTC Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program grant funds into the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Capital Improvement Program Budget and change the title of the Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance & Railroad Crossing Improvements project to the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Project. BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Programming and Allocations Committee approved $1.8 million in Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program grant funding for the Guava Court/ Fredericksburg Entrance and Railroad Crossing Improvements Capitol Improvement Project. The project will reopen and construct an at-grade pedestrian crossing connecting Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court which will enhance pedestrian connectivity to Blue Hills Elementary School.The project will also upgrade pedestrian and bicycle facilities by improving access and safety at four railroad crossings citywide as part of the mitigation requirements outlined by the California Public Utilities Commission. This project is referred to as the Guava Court/ Fredericksburg Entrance and Railroad Crossing Improvements in the City’s budget documents. The project is referred to as the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at UPRR in grant applications to accurately describe the larger scope and vicinity of the project. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Budget Resolution because it is necessary to appropriate the grant award and adjust the fiscal year 2021/2022 CIP Budget. 55 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A-Budget Resolution 56 RESOLUTION NO.__________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADJUST THE FY 2021/22 OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET IN ORDER TO APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED FOR THE GUAVA / FREDERICKSBURG ENTRANCE AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECT AND TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE GUAVA / FREDERICKSBURG ENTRANCE AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD (UPRR) PROJECT WHEREAS, City Council desires completion of the design and construction of the railroad crossing improvements at Guava Court / Fredericksburg Drive; WHEREAS, additional funds are needed for the completion of the project; WHEREAS, in May 2021 the City Staff applied for Grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program for the project; WHEREAS, in June 2021 MTC awarded the City grant funds in the amount of $1.8 million for the project; WHEREAS, it is necessary to appropriate this grant award by adjusting the Fiscal Year 2021/22 CIP Budget as follows: Account Description Account Number Increase Decrease To appropriate MTC’s Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program Grant revenues and expenditures to the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) CIP Project for FY2021/22: MTC Grant Revenue 432.9274-002.49999 $1,800,000 Project Expenditure 432.9274-002.xxxxx $1,800,000 WHEREAS, it is necessary to change the CIP project Title from Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance & Railroad Crossing Improvements Project to Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Project in order to match the title used in the Grant documentation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves the above adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Operating and CIP Budgets. 57 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 17th day of November, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________ Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga Attest: _______________________ Britt Avrit, City Clerk, City of Saratoga 58 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department PREPARED BY:M. Leah Cabute, Environmental Programs Manager SUBJECT:Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance in Compliance with Senate Bill 1383 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance required by the State of California. BACKGROUND: At the March 17,2021 City Council meeting, City staff and the Executive Director of the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority presented information regarding organics recycling as required by Senate Bill 1383. The State passed Senate Bill 1383 (SB1383)in 2016 to reduce organic waste disposal by 75% and increase edible food recovery by 20% by 2025. SB 1383 also requires all businesses, residents, and multi-family apartments to have access to recycling programs that capture food scraps and landscaping waste, among other organic waste materials. Under this law,jurisdictions must provide organics recycling service to nearly all residents and businesses.Jurisdictions must also develop or expand existing organic collection systems in all sectors and plan for adequate organic processing. Additionally, jurisdictions must implement other requirements, such as contamination monitoring, record keeping, and reporting. As directed by SB 1383, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecyle)developed prescriptive regulations to achieve the State’s goals.The regulations comprise of 127 pages and place requirements on multiple entities including cities, counties, special districts, residential households, commercial businesses, business owners, multi-family property owners or managers, commercial edible food generators, haulers, self-haulers, food recovery organizations, and food recovery services to support achievement of statewide organic waste disposal reduction targets. The SB 1383 Regulations require cities, counties and special districts that provide Solid Waste collection services to adopt and enforce an ordinance or an enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of the regulations. 59 Staff has prepared the attached ordinance (Attachment A) to comply with this requirement. The language in the new ordinance will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption. The SB 1383 Regulations include separaterequirementsfor procurement of materials, such as a specified amount of compost or other material recovered from organic waste processing and procurement of recycled content paper. These separate requirements can be satisfied without action by the City Council. The ordinance has the following three exhibits: Exhibit 1 makes changes to the existing Saratoga Municipal Code Article 7-05- Garbage Disposal to reflect the fact that solid waste collection in Saratoga is handled by the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority. Exhibit 2adds a new Article to the Sustainability Chapter of the City Code; this new Article 17-10 includes all the provisions that the SB 1383 Regulations require for local ordinances. Exhibit 3 contains conforming amendments for the City Code, repealing provisions that are no longer applicable in light of the new approach required by the State. Staff prepared a summary of Article 17-10, which can be found in Attachment B. Saratoga is a member of the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority (WVSWMA), a joint powers agency providing solid waste management services to Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos and Monte Sereno through a franchise agreement with an exclusive hauler, West Valley Collection & Recycling (WVC&R). Staff expects that WVSWMA will be administering and enforcing this ordinance on behalf of the City, however, the City of Saratoga remains responsible for compliance with the SB 1383 Regulations. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance to comply with state requirements. While SB 1383 does not provide funding reimbursements to the City, its member agencies, the WVSWMA, and WVC&R customers for the increased costs associated with implementing the state-mandated programs, the legislation specifically authorizes local jurisdictions to charge and collect fees to recover costs incurred by complying with the regulations. Solid waste rates increased in each of the member agencies in July 2021 to account for SB 1383 requirements. Another rate increase is anticipated in July 2022. Additional increases may occur over a period of several years and shall be determined by the WVSWMA Board. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A-SB1383 Implementation Ordinance with Exhibits 1-3 Attachment B- Summary of Article 17-10 Staff Report- SB1383 Draft Ordinance 11.03.2021(1432589.1).docx 60 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. _____ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING A MANDATORY ORGANIC WASTE DISPOSAL REDUCTION ORDINANCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 1383 The City Council of the City of Saratoga finds that: 1. Pursuant to Senate Bill 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, the State of California has adopted regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. The regulations place requirements on multiple entities including cities, counties, special districts, residential households, Commercial Businesses and business owners, Multi-Family property owners or managers, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Self-Haulers, Food Recovery Organizations, and Food Recovery Services to support achievement of Statewide Organic Waste disposal reduction targets. 2. The Senate Bill 1383 Regulations require cities, counties, and special districts that provide Solid Waste collection services jurisdictions to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of the regulations. The ordinance adopting this Article satisfies that requirement and will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption. 3. Saratoga is a member of the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority (WVSWMA), a joint powers agency providing solid waste management services to Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno through a franchise agreement with an exclusive hauler. WVSWMA will be administering and enforcing this ordinance on behalf of the City although the City remains ultimately responsible for compliance with the SB 1383 Regulations. 4. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 2021, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1.Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is hereby amended as follows: A.Article 7-05 (“Garbage Disposal”) is amended as set forth in Attachment 1. 61 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 2 B.Article 17.10 (“Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction”) is adopted as set forth in Attachment 2. C.Conforming amendments to various provisions of the Code are made as set forth in Attachment 3. Section 2.Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub- section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance the amendments to the existing City Code and related sections and additions of provisions and reference appendices to the existing Code; the amendments and additions would have a de minimis impact on the environment. - Continued on next page – 62 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 3 Section 4. Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly noticed public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 3rd day of November, 2021 and was adopted by the following vote on November 17, 2021. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Yan Zhao MAYOR, CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: DATE: Britt Avrit CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE: Richard Taylor CITY ATTORNEY 63 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 4 Exhibit 1 Amendments to Saratoga Municipal Code Article 7-05 – Garbage Disposal The provisions of Saratoga Municipal Code Article 7-05 set forth below are amended or adopted as follows: Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code except in cases where it directs renumbering of subsections not otherwise amended. Article 7-05 DISCARDED MATERIAL GARBAGE DISPOSAL 7-05.010 Purpose of Article. This Article is determined and declared to be a health, sanitary and safety measure necessary for the promotion, protection and preservation of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City. 7-05.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Article, the terms used in this Article shall have the meanings set forth in Article 17-10following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise.: (a)Commercial premises means all premises except residential premises. (b)Delinquent means a failure of the recipient of garbage collection service, or of the owner, to pay when due all charges owed to the Garbage Collector for garbage collection service rendered or to be rendered or made available. (c)Director means the Community Services Director and his duly authorized agents and representatives. (d)Dwelling means a residence, flat, duplex, apartment, townhouse, condominium or other facility used for housing one or more persons. (e)Garbage means all kinds and classes of decomposable and nondecomposable solid, semi-solid and liquid waste material, including, but not restricted to, animal or vegetable matter, paper, cardboard, grass cuttings, tree or shrub trimmings, wood, glass, mineral or metallic substances, rock, demolished or discarded building materials and commercial or industrial waste products, but not including domestic sewage or hazardous wastes. 64 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 5 (f)Garbage Collector means any person who is authorized by the franchise agreement existing between him and the City, in accordance with Section 7-05.110, to collect, receive, carry, transport, and dispose of any garbage produced, kept or accumulated within the City. (g)Garbage collection service means the collection, transportation and disposal of garbage by an authorized Garbage Collector. (h)Hazardous wastes means any and all toxic, radioactive, biologically infectious, explosive or flammable waste materials, including any material defined in Chapter 8 of this Code for which a hazardous materials storage permit is required. (i)Multiple-unit dwelling means any premises, excluding a hotel, motel, or lodging house, used for residential purposes containing more than one dwelling unit, irrespective of whether the residency is transient, temporary or permanent. (j)Occupancy, occupied.A premises is "occupied" when a person or persons take or hold possession of the premises for permanent or temporary use. For the purposes of determining whether a premises is occupied during periods when garbage collection service is made available to such premises, occupancy shall be presumed unless evidence is presented that gas, electric, telephone and water utility services were not being provided to the premises during such periods. (k)Owner means the holder or holders of legal title to the real property constituting the premises to which garbage collection service is provided or made available. (l)Premises means any land, building or structure, or portion thereof, within the City where any garbage is produced, kept, deposited, placed or accumulated. (m)Residential premises means any single-unit dwelling or multiple-unit dwelling. (n)Single-unit dwelling means one or more rooms and a single kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family for residential purposes. Each dwelling unit within a condominium project, duplex, townhouse project or apartment, and each accessory dwelling unit, as defined in Section 15-06.240, shall constitute a separate single-unit dwelling to which garbage collection service is provided or made available, unless the owner or occupants thereof arrange for garbage collection service to be provided to all dwelling units upon the premises at commercial rates. (o)Tenant means any person or persons, other than the owner, occupying or in possession of a premises. 7-05.030 Mandatory Discarded Material garbage collection service; owner responsibility. All residents, property owners, and businesses shall comply with the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction ordinance set forth in Article 17-10. (a) The owner of each occupied residential or commercial premises shall subscribe to and pay for at least the minimum level of garbage collection service made available to that premises by the Garbage Collector, as specified in the franchise agreement between the City and the Garbage Collector executed pursuant to Section 7-05.110. The charges for garbage collection service rendered or made available shall be paid for all periods of time during 65 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 6 which the premises are occupied, regardless of whether or not the owner or tenant has any garbage to be collected on any particular collection date during such occupancy. Nothing in this Section is intended to prevent an arrangement, or the continuance of an arrangement, under which payments for garbage collection service are made by a tenant or tenants, or any agent or other person, on behalf of the owner. However, any such arrangement will not affect the owner's obligation to pay for garbage collection service as provided herein. (b) The mandatory requirement for garbage collection service set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section shall apply only with respect to garbage collection services rendered or made available by the Garbage Collector prior to September 1, 1986. From and after said date, subscription to garbage collection services rendered or made available by the Garbage Collector shall be at the option of the owner or occupant of the premises, except that such owner or occupant shall still remain subject to the provisions of this Article concerning the accumulation and disposal of garbage. 7-05.050 040 Frequency of disposal. No more than one week's accumulation of garbage Discarded Materials shall be kept or permitted to remain upon any premises in the City. At least once a week, all Discarded Materials garbage produced, kept, deposited, placed or accumulated upon any premises in the City shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Article 17-10. 7-05.060 Method of garbage disposal. All garbage shall be disposed of by delivery to the Garbage Collector, or in the case of recyclable materials, by delivery to any recycle center operated by or under the auspices of the City, or disposed of in such other manner acceptable to the City. Each container of garbage to be delivered to the Garbage Collector shall be located in such place as to be readily accessible for the removal and emptying of the contents of same by the Garbage Collector. 7-05.070050 Garbage Discarded Material containers. (a) All garbage Discarded Material containers shall be kept in a sanitary condition, continuously closed with a tight fitting cover. (b) Garbage containers for residential premises being serviced by the Garbage Collector shall not exceed thirty-two gallons capacity and shall not have a filled weight in excess of seventy pounds, except for those containers furnished by the Garbage Collector. Garbage containers for commercial premises being serviced by the Garbage Collector shall be provided by or approved by the Garbage Collector. (c) No garbage containers shall be placed at curbside or other location visible to the public prior to 12:00 noon on the day preceding the day on which garbage is the contents of the container are is scheduled to be picked up by the Garbage Collector, and all garbage containers shall be removed from the curbside or other location visible to the public not later than 12:00 noon on the day following the day on which the contents of the container has been picked up by the Garbage Collector Exclusive Hauler. 66 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 7 (dc) Except during the period of time specified in Paragraph (cb) of this Section, no garbage containers may be placed, kept or stored within any front yard or exterior side yard and all garbage containers shall be fully screened from public view by a structure, fence, wall or landscaping. 7-05.080 Inadequate containers. If the Director shall find and determine that additional or larger garbage containers are required due to the amount of garbage produced, kept, deposited, placed or accumulated upon any premises, the Director shall give written notice of such finding to the owner of the premises and such owner shall thereupon provide the additional or larger containers as specified in the notice. 7-05.090060 Burning solid waste. No solid waste material Discarded Materials may be burned upon any premises within the City, except as specifically authorized by a permit issued by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District and as permitted by the chief of the fire district within which the premises is located. 7-05.100070 Public property. No person shall deposit, accumulate, store or burn any type of garbage Discarded Materials upon public streets, public parks or other public property, except for garbage as produced incident to the authorized use of such public property which shall be deposited in garbage designated containers for collection pick up by the Garbage Collector. 7-05.110 Franchise agreement for garbage collection service. The City Council may by resolution award a franchise to any person the Council believes is qualified and equipped to perform garbage collection service. Such franchise agreement shall require the Garbage Collector to render service to all residential and commercial premises within the City in accordance with the provisions of this Article and in conformity with such regulations as may be adopted by the Director with the approval of the City Council. The Garbage Collector shall be required to furnish a surety bond in the penal sum of one hundred thousand dollars, conditioned upon his faithful performance of the franchise agreement, and to maintain in full force and effect, during the entire term of the franchise, liability and other insurance coverage as required under the applicable insurance standards of the City, as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Additional terms of such franchise agreement shall not conflict with any of the provisions of this Article. 7-05.120 Charges for garbage collection service. The City Council reserves the right to establish by resolution a schedule of rates and charges for all levels of garbage collection service to be rendered by the Garbage Collector, who shall then have authority to collect such rates and charges. The schedule may be changed from time to time in the manner prescribed by the franchise agreement between the City and the Garbage Collector. 67 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 8 7-05.130 Failure to pay for garbage collection service. The Garbage Collector shall be entitled to payment from either the owner or the recipient of garbage collection service for any services rendered or to be rendered or made available. Upon failure to make such payment for services rendered or made available prior to June 1, 1986, the means of collecting delinquent charges shall be in accordance with the procedure set forth in Sections 7-05.140 through 7-05.270 of this Article. Upon failure to make such payment for services rendered from and after June 1, 1986, the Garbage Collector may terminate service in accordance with Section 7-05.272 of this Article. If a bill for garbage collection service remains delinquent for thirty days, the Garbage Collector shall be entitled to collect a late charge in such amount as approved by the City Council. 7-05.140 Notification of delinquency. If a bill for garbage collection service rendered or made available prior to June 1, 1986 remains delinquent for thirty days, the Garbage Collector may, at any time after such thirty day period, send or deliver notice of delinquency to the owner indicating the amount owed for garbage collection service, the amount of late charge thereon, and advising the owner that failure to pay the same will result in the placement of a lien upon the premises. The form of delinquency notice shall be approved by the Director. 7-05.150 Assignment of delinquent account. In the event the bill for garbage collection service rendered or made available prior to June 1, 1986, together with any late charge thereon, is not paid within thirty days after the date of mailing the notice of delinquency to the owner as described in Section 7-05.140, the Garbage Collector may assign such bill to the City for collection through the initiation of lien and special assessment proceedings in accordance with this Article. The assignment shall include the name and address of the owner, the period of garbage collection service covered by the bill, the amount owed for such service, the amount of any late charge and such other information as reasonably requested by the Director, together with a copy of the notice of delinquency mailed or delivered to the owner. 7-05.160 Lien initiation. Upon the City's receipt of the assignment from the Garbage Collector pursuant to Section 7- 05.150, the Director shall prepare a report of delinquency and initiate proceedings to create a lien on the premises to which the garbage collection service was rendered or made available. The Director shall fix a time, date and place for an administrative hearing by the Director to consider any objections or protests to his report. Such administrative hearings may be conducted four times per year. 7-05.170 Notice of hearings on liens. The Director shall send written notice of the administrative hearing to the owner of the premises against which the lien will be imposed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. The notice shall be mailed to each person to whom such premises is assessed in the latest equalized 68 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 9 assessment roll available to the City on the date the notice is mailed, at the address shown on said assessment roll or as known to the Director. A copy of the notice shall also be mailed to the Garbage Collector. Said notice shall set forth the amount of delinquent garbage collection service charges, the amount of any late charge thereon, and the possible lien and administrative charges as provided in Section 7-05.200 of this Article. Said notice shall also inform the owner of the time, date and place of the administrative hearing and the subsequent public hearing to be conducted by the City Council, and advise the owner of his right to appear at both the administrative hearing and the public hearing to state his objections to the report or the proposed lien. 7-05.180 Administrative hearing on liens. At the time and place fixed for the administrative hearing, the Director shall hear and consider any objections or protests to his report. The Director may correct or modify the report as he deems appropriate, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and shall notify the affected persons of his decision. The Director shall thereupon submit a final report to the City Council for confirmation and shall furnish a copy of such report to the Garbage Collector. -05.190 Public hearing on liens. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing to consider the Director's final report at the time and place set forth in Notice described in Section 7-05.170. At such hearing, any interested person shall be afforded the opportunity to appear and present evidence as to why the report, or any portion thereof, should not be confirmed. The City Council may adopt, revise, reduce or cancel any charge shown on the report or overrule any or all objections as it deems appropriate, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. If the City Council is satisfied with the final reports rendered or modified, the Council shall confirm such report by resolution. The decision by the City Council on the report and any objections or protests thereto shall be final and conclusive. 7-05.200 Recording of lien. Upon confirmation by the City Council of the final report, the Director shall cause to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, a lien against each premises described in the report for the amount of delinquent garbage collection service charges and late charges as confirmed by the City Council. The lien shall also include such additional administrative charges as established by resolution of the City Council. All persons to whom notice was sent pursuant to Section 7-05.170 shall be notified by the Director that the service charges, late charges and administrative charges are due and payable to the City and that said lien has been recorded. 7-05.210 Collection of delinquent charges as special assessment. The Director shall initiate annual proceedings to levy as a special assessment against the premises described in the lien recorded pursuant to Section 7-05.200, the sum of delinquent garbage collection service charges, late charges and administrative charges, plus an assessment charge as established by resolution of the City Council. 69 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 10 7-05.220 Report of delinquent charges for special assessment. A report of delinquent charges shall be prepared by the Director and submitted to the City Council for confirmation. The report shall indicate all charges for which a lien has been recorded pursuant to Section 7-05.200, which remain unpaid as of the date of the report. The Director shall fix a time, date and place for the conduct of a public hearing by the City Council to consider the report and any objections or protests thereto. 7-05.230 Notice of public hearing on special assessments. The Director shall send written notice of the public hearing to the owner of the premises against which the special assessment will be levied at least ten days prior to the hearing date. The notice shall be mailed to each person to whom such premises is assessed in the latest equalized assessment roll available to the City on the date the notice is mailed, at the address shown on said assessment roll or as known to the Director. A copy of the notice shall also be mailed to the Garbage Collector. The notice shall set forth the time, date and place of the public hearing and inform the owner of the City's intention to levy a special assessment against his property and his right to appear and state any objections or protests to such special assessment. 7-05.240 Public hearing on special assessments. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing to consider the Director's report at the time and place set forth in the notice described in Section 7-05.230. At such hearing, any interested person shall be afforded the opportunity to appear and present evidence as to why the report, or any portion thereof, should not be confirmed. The City Council may adopt, revise, reduce or cancel any charge shown on the report or overrule any or all objections as it deems appropriate, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. If the City Council is satisfied with the report as rendered or modified, the Council shall confirm such report by resolution. The decision by the City Council on the report and any objections or protests thereto shall be final and conclusive. 7-05.250 Levy of special assessments. Upon confirmation by the City Council of the Director's report as rendered or modified, the delinquent charges contained therein shall constitute a special assessment levied upon the premises against which such charges have been imposed. The Director shall file a copy of the report, together with a certified copy of the resolution by the City Council confirming the same, with the Tax Collector for the County with instructions to enter the delinquent charges as special assessments against the respective premises described in the Director's report. The Tax Collector shall include such special assessment on the next regular bill for secured property taxes sent to the owner. 7-05.260 Collection of special assessment. The special assessment shall be collected at the same time together with and in the same manner and frequency and by the same persons as ordinary municipal taxes, and shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and the same procedure of sale as provided for delinquent ordinary municipal taxes. The special assessment shall be subordinate to all existing special 70 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 11 assessment liens previously imposed upon the premises and paramount to all other liens except those for State, County and municipal taxes, with which it shall be upon parity. Each special assessment shall continue until all delinquent charges due and payable thereon are paid in full. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of municipal taxes shall be applicable to such special assessment. 7-05.270 Continuing appropriation account. There is hereby created in the general fund a continuing appropriation account entitled "Payment of Delinquent Charges For Garbage Collection Service." This account shall be credited with such sums as may be appropriated by the City Council, all delinquent service charges, late charges and administrative charges collected by the Director, and all amounts remitted by the County Tax Collector representing special assessments collected pursuant to Section 7-05.260. The delinquent garbage collection service charges and late charges shall be disbursed from said account to the Garbage Collector promptly upon receipt of such payments. The administrative charges and assessment charges shall be retained by the City. 7-05.271 Security deposit. (a) From and after September 1, 1986, the Garbage Collector shall not be obligated to commence garbage collection service for a new customer or account, or reinstate garbage collection service upon payment of a delinquent account, until the Garbage Collector has received from the customer a security deposit in an amount equal to the charges that will accrue during a single quarterly billing cycle for the type and level of service requested by the customer, based upon the rates and charges established by the Garbage Collector and approved by the City as of the time the security deposit is collected. (b) Upon any nonpayment of garbage collection charges by a customer from whom a security deposit has been collected, the Garbage Collector may apply such deposit toward payment of the delinquent charges. The Garbage Collector shall thereupon give written notice of such action to the customer which shall include a demand for the security deposit, or such portion thereof as may have been utilized for payment of the delinquent charges, to be restored to its original amount within fifteen days from delivery of the notice. If the customer fails to restore the security deposit within the time prescribed in the notice, the Garbage Collector may terminate the garbage collection service for such customer pursuant to Section 7-05.272 of this Article. (c) The security deposit collected pursuant to this Section shall be refunded, without interest, to the customer or the person legally entitled thereto under either of the following circumstances: (1) Cancellation of garbage collection service by the customer, with all charges owed to the Garbage Collector for services rendered to the date of cancellation having been paid in full; or (2) The expiration of one year from the date the security deposit was collected if, during such year, no delinquency has occurred in payment of the charges owed to the Garbage Collector. 71 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 12 7-05.272 Termination and reinstatement of garbage collection service. (a) The Garbage Collector may terminate garbage collection service in the event any charges owed to the Garbage Collector for services rendered or to be rendered from and after June 1, 1986 are not paid within thirty days after the same become due. At least fifteen days prior written notice of termination shall be given by the Garbage Collector to the customer shown on its books and records. (b) The customer whose garbage collection service has been terminated pursuant to Paragraph (a) of this Section may reinstate such service by payment to the Garbage Collector of all delinquent charges and late charges thereon owed by such customer, plus a reinstatement fee in an amount specified in the franchise agreement between the Garbage Collector and the City. Such payment shall be accompanied by a security deposit to be held by the Garbage Collector, as provided in Section 7-05.271 of this Article. (c) The Garbage Collector shall not terminate or refuse to provide garbage collection service rendered or to be rendered for any premises unless the customer utilizing or requesting the service is the same customer who has failed to pay the delinquent charges constituting the basis for the termination or refusal to provide service. 7-05.280 Recycle centers. The City may operate one or more centers for the collection of recyclable materials or may enter into a contract with a private party to operate such centers. The City may contract with the same Garbage Collector awarded the franchise for garbage collection service or with any other party for the processing and transportation of the recyclable material collected at a recycle center. The City Council may, from time to time by resolution or order, designate what material shall be deemed recyclable and which may therefore be disposed of by delivery to a recycle center. 7-05.290080 Unauthorized garbage collection of Discarded Material . No person shall collect any garbage Discarded Material produced, kept or accumulated within the City, unless such person is an agent or employee of the City acting within the course and scope of his employment, or is the Exclusive Hauler has been awarded a franchise by the City to act as Garbage Collector. 7-05.300 090 Interfering with garbage collection service of Discarded Material . No person shall, in any manner, interfere with the performance of garbage Discarded Material collection services being rendered by an agent or employee of the City acting within the course and scope of his employment, or being rendered by the authorized Garbage Collector Exclusive Hauler. The performance of Performing or retaining a third party to perform any such garbage collection service by a person who is not the authorized Garbage Collector shall constitute a violation of this Section. 72 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 13 7-05.310 100Unauthorized deposit of garbage Discarded Material . (a) It shall be unlawful to deposit, place or accumulate, or allow the deposit, placement or accumulation upon a premises for pick up by the Exclusive Hauler Garbage Collector, any garbage Discarded Material produced from another premises where such action results in the avoidance or reduction of any garbage collection service charges that would otherwise be payable for collection of such garbage Discarded Material from the premises at which it was produced. (b) It shall be unlawful to deposit or place any garbage Discarded Material into a garbage can, bin, container or dumpster for pick up by the Garbage Collector Exclusive Hauler, without permission to do so from the person owning, renting or otherwise entitled to use such garbage receptacle. (c) It shall be unlawful to deposit or place any garbage Discarded Material upon any public or private premises without permission to do so from the owner or legal occupant of such premises. 7-05.320110 Violations of Article; infraction offense. The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 and Article 17-10 of this Code. - End of Attachment 1 - 73 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 14 Exhibit 2 Adoption of Article 17.10 to the Saratoga Municipal Code Article 17-10 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction 7-10.05 Purpose of Article (a)State recycling law, Assembly Bill 939 of 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq., as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires cities and counties to reduce, reuse, and recycle (including composting) Solid Waste generated in their city to the maximum extent feasible before any incineration or landfill disposal of waste, to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources, and to protect the environment. (b)State recycling law, Assembly Bill 341 of 2011 (amending Sections 41730, 41731, 41734, 41735, 41736, 41800, 42926, 44004, and 50001 of, and adopting Sections 40004, 41734.5, and 41780.01 and Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 42649) to Part 3 of Division 30 of, and added and repealed Section 41780.02 of, the Public Resources Code, as amended, supplemented, superseded and replaced from time to time), places requirements on Commercial and Multi-Family property owners to arrange for recycling services and on local governments to implement a Commercial and Multi-Family Solid Waste recycling program. (c)State organics recycling law, Assembly Bill 1826 of 2014 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 28, 2014, which added Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 42649.8) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, relating to Solid Waste, as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time), requires Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family property owners or managers that generate a specified threshold amount of Organic Waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that Organic Waste; requires cities to implement a recycling program to divert Organic Waste from Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family premises subject to the law; and requires cities to report to CalRecycle on their progress in implementing an Organic Waste recycling program. (d)SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires CalRecycle to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane. The regulations place requirements on multiple entities including cities, counties, special districts, residential households, Commercial Businesses and business owners, Multi-Family property owners or managers, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Self-Haulers, Food Recovery Organizations, and Food Recovery Services to support achievement of Statewide Organic Waste disposal reduction targets. (e)SB 1383, the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires cities, counties, and special districts that provide Solid Waste collection services jurisdictions to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of SB 1383 Regulations. The ordinance adopting this Article satisfies that requirement and will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food, that would otherwise be disposed, be recovered for human consumption. 74 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 15 (f)This Article shall take effect January 1, 2022. 7-10.010 Definitions. (a)“California Code of Regulations” or “CCR” means the State of California Code of Regulations. CCR references in this Article are preceded with a number that refers to the relevant Title of the CCR (e.g., “14 CCR” refers to Title 14 of CCR). (b)“CalRecycle” means California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which is the Department designated with responsibility for developing, implementing, and enforcing SB 1383 Regulations on cities, counties, special districts, and other regulated entities. (c)“City” means the City of Saratoga, California, a political subdivision of the State of California, and its duly authorized representatives. (d)“Commercial Business” or “Commercial” means a firm, partnership, proprietorship, joint- stock company, corporation, or association, whether for-profit or nonprofit, strip mall, industrial facility, or a multifamily residential dwelling with five or more units, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(6); with the exception that Multi-Family is excluded from this definition. A Multi-Family Residential Dwelling that consists of fewer than five (5) units is not a Commercial Business for purposes of implementing this Article. (e)“Commercial Edible Food Generator” includes a Tier One or a Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator as defined in this Article or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) and (a)(74). For the purposes of this definition, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services are not Commercial Edible Food Generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7). (f)“Community Composting” means any activity that composts green material, agricultural material, food material, and vegetative food material, alone or in combination, and the total amount of feedstock and Compost on-site at any one time does not exceed 100 cubic yards and 750 square feet, as specified in 14 CCR Section 17855(a)(4); or, as otherwise defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(8). (g)“Compliance Review” means a review of records by the City to determine compliance with this Article. (h)“Compost” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 17896.2(a)(4), which stated, as of the effective date of this Article, that “Compost” means the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic Solid Wastes that are Source Separated from the municipal Solid Waste stream, or which are separated at a centralized facility. (i)“Compostable Plastics” or “Compostable Plastic” means plastic materials that meet the ASTM D6400 standard for compostability, or as otherwise described in 14 CCR Section 18984.1(a)(1)(A) or 18984.2(a)(1)(C). 75 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 16 (j)“Container Contamination” or “Contaminated Container” means a container, regardless of color, that contains Prohibited Container Contaminants, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(55). (k)“County” means the County of Santa Clara, California. (l)“County Agency Enforcement Official” means an authorized designee of the County of Santa Clara in the Public Health Department or other departments who is/are partially or whole responsible for enforcing this Article. (m)“Customer” means the person who receives the collection contractor’s services and to whom the contractor/City submits its billing invoice to and collects payment from for collection services provided to a premises. The Customer may be either the occupant, owner, or property manager of the premises, as allowed under the City Code. (n)“C&D” means construction and demolition debris. (o)“Designee” means an entity that the City contracts with or otherwise arranges to carry out any of the City’s responsibilities of this Article as authorized in 14 CCR Section 18981.2. A Designee may be a government entity, a hauler, a private entity, or a combination of those entities. (p)“Discarded Materials” means Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste discarded by a generator for the purposes of collection and/or Self-Hauling, excluding Excluded Waste. (q)“Edible Food” means food intended for human consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(18). For the purposes of this Article or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(18), “Edible Food” is not Solid Waste if it is recovered and not discarded. Nothing in this Article or in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 requires or authorizes the Recovery of Edible Food that does not meet the food safety requirements of the California Retail Food Code. (r)“Enforcement Action" means an action of the City or Regional Agency to address non- compliance with this Article including, but not limited to, issuing administrative citations, fines, penalties, or using other remedies. (s)“Excluded Waste” means hazardous substance, hazardous waste, infectious waste, designated waste, volatile, corrosive, medical waste, infectious, regulated radioactive waste, and toxic substances or material that facility operator(s), which receive materials from the City and its Generators, reasonably believe(s) would, as a result of or upon acceptance, transfer, processing, or disposal, be a violation of local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or ordinance, including: land use restrictions or conditions, waste that cannot be disposed of in Class III landfills or accepted at the facility by permit conditions, waste that in City’s, its Designee’s, or Regional Agency’s reasonable opinion would present a significant risk to human health or the environment, cause a nuisance or otherwise create or expose the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency’s to potential liability; but not including de minimis volumes or concentrations of waste of a type and amount normally 76 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 17 found in Single-Family or Multi-Family Solid Waste after implementation of programs for the safe collection, processing, recycling, treatment, and disposal of batteries and paint in compliance with Sections 41500 and 41802 of the California Public Resources Code. Excluded Waste does not include used motor oil and filters, and household batteries when such materials are defined as allowable materials for collection through the City’s collection programs and the Generator or Customer has properly placed the materials for collection pursuant to instructions provided by City, Regional Agency, or Exclusive Hauler for collection services. (t)“Exclusive Hauler” means” means the collection contractor that has been granted the exclusive rights to collect Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, Solid Waste, and C&D in the City through the agreement entered into by the collection contractor and the Regional Agency”). (u)“Food Distributor” means a company that distributes food to entities including, but not limited to, Supermarkets and Grocery Stores, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(22). (v)“Food Facility” has the same meaning as in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code. (w)“Food Recovery” means actions to collect and distribute food for human consumption that otherwise would be disposed, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(24). (x)“Food Recovery Organization” means an entity that engages in the collection or receipt of Edible Food from Commercial Edible Food Generators and distributes that Edible Food to the public for Food Recovery either directly or through other entities or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25), including, but not limited to: (1)A food bank as defined in Section 113783 of the Health and Safety Code; (2)A nonprofit charitable organization as defined in Section 113841 of the Health and Safety code; and, (3)A nonprofit charitable temporary food facility as defined in Section 113842 of the Health and Safety Code. A Food Recovery Organization is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of this Article and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7). If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25) for Food Recovery Organization differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(25) shall apply to this Article. (y)“Food Recovery Service” means a person or entity that collects and transports Edible Food from a Commercial Edible Food Generator to a Food Recovery Organization or other entities for Food Recovery,or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(26). A Food Recovery Service is not a Commercial Edible Food Generator for the purposes of 77 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 18 this Article and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(7). (z)“Food Scraps” means those discarded materials that will decompose and/or putrefy including: (i) all kitchen and table food waste; (ii) animal or vegetable waste that is generated during or results from the storage, preparation, cooking or handling of food stuffs; (iii) discarded paper (including paper containers and cartons) that is contaminated with Food Scraps and compostables; (iv) fruit waste, grain waste, dairy waste, meat, and fish waste; and, (v) vegetable trimmings, houseplant trimmings and other compostable organic waste common to the occupancy of Residential dwellings. Food Scraps are a subset of Organic Waste. Food Scraps excludes fats, oils, and grease when such materials are Source Separated from other Food Scraps. (aa)“Food Service Provider” means an entity primarily engaged in providing food services to institutional, governmental, Commercial, or industrial locations of others based on contractual arrangements with these types of organizations, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(27). (bb)“Food-Soiled Paper” is compostable paper material that has come in contact with food or liquid, such as, but not limited to, compostable paper plates, paper coffee cups, napkins, pizza boxes, and milk cartons. (cc)“Food Waste” includes Food Scraps and Food-Soiled Paper, and includes Compostable Plastics, unless City, its Designee, Regional Agency, or Exclusive Hauler excludes Compostable Plastics in the Organic Materials Containers. (dd)“Generator” means any person whose act first causes discarded materials to become subject to regulation under this Article of the City Code or under federal, State, or local laws or regulations. (ee)"Green Waste" means tree trimmings, grass cuttings, dead plants, leaves, branches and dead trees (not more than three (3) inches in diameter), garden and tree fruits and vegetables, and similar materials generated and Source Separated from other materials at the Premises. (ff)“Grocery Store” means a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods; fresh fruits and vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned within the store where the food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(30). (gg)“Hauler Route” means the designated itinerary or sequence of stops for each segment of the City’s collection service area, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(31.5). (hh)“High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility” means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of 14 CCR Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average Mixed Waste organic content Recovery rate of 50 percent between January 78 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 19 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025, as calculated pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18815.5(e) for Organic Waste received from the “Mixed waste organic collection stream” as defined in 14 CCR Section 17402(a)(11.5); or, as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(33). (ii)“Inspection” means a site visit where a City, its Designee, or Regional Agency reviews records, containers, and an entity’s collection, handling, recycling, or landfill disposal of Organic Waste or Edible Food handling to determine if the entity is complying with requirements set forth in this Article, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(35). (jj)“City Enforcement Official” means the city manager, or other executive in charge or their authorized Designee(s) who is/are partially or whole responsible for enforcing the Article. See also “Regional or County Agency Enforcement Official”. (kk)“Large Event” means an event, including, but not limited to, a sporting event or a flea market, that charges an admission price, or is operated by a local agency, and serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals per day of operation of the event, at a location that includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned park, parking lot, golf course, street system, or other open space when being used for an event. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(38) shall apply to this Article. (ll)“Large Venue” means a permanent venue facility that annually seats or serves an average of more than 2,000 individuals within the grounds of the facility per day of operation of the venue facility. For purposes of this Article and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a venue facility includes, but is not limited to, a public, nonprofit, or privately owned or operated stadium, amphitheater, arena, hall, amusement park, conference or civic center, zoo, aquarium, airport, racetrack, horse track, performing arts center, fairground, museum, theater, or other public attraction facility. For purposes of this Article and implementation of 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, a site under common ownership or control that includes more than one Large Venue that is contiguous with other Large Venues in the site, is a single Large Venue. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(39) differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(39) shall apply to this Article. (mm) “Local Education Agency” means a school district, charter school, or county office of education that is not subject to the control of city or county regulations related to Solid Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(40). (nn)“Multi-Family Residential Dwelling” or “Multi-Family” means of, from, or pertaining to residential premises with five (5) or more dwelling units. Multi-Family premises do not include hotels, motels, or other transient occupancy facilities, which are considered Commercial Businesses. Residential premises with fewer than five (5) dwelling units shall be considered Single-Family. 79 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 20 (oo)“MWELO” refers to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), 23 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. (pp)“Non-Compostable Paper” includes, but is not limited to, paper that is coated in a plastic material that will not breakdown in the composting process, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(41). (qq)“Non-Local Entity” means the following entities that are not subject to the Jurisdiction’s enforcement authority, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(42): (1)Special district(s) located within the boundaries of the City, including the Saratoga Fire Protection District, West Valley Sanitary District, and Cupertino Sanitary District. (2)Federal facilities and State agencies located within the boundaries of the City. (5)Public universities (including community colleges) located within the boundaries of the City, including the West Valley Community College District. (rr)“Notice of Violation (NOV)” means a notice that a violation has occurred that includes a compliance date to avoid an action to seek penalties, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(45) or further explained in 14 CCR Section 18995.4. (ss) “Organic Materials” means Green Waste, Food Waste, lumber, and wood waste. (tt)“Organic Materials Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(29) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Organic Materials. (uu)“Organic Waste” means Solid Wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products, including but not limited to food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, Paper Products, Printing and Writing Paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(46). Biosolids and digestate are as defined by 14 CCR Section 18982(a). (vv) “Organic Waste Generator” means a person or entity that is responsible for the initial creation of Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(48). (ww) “Paper Products” include, but are not limited to, paper janitorial supplies, cartons, wrapping, packaging, file folders, hanging files, corrugated boxes, tissue, and toweling, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(51). (xx) “Printing and Writing Papers” include, but are not limited to, copy, xerographic, watermark, cotton fiber, offset, forms, computer printout paper, white wove envelopes, manila envelopes, book paper, note pads, writing tablets, newsprint, and other uncoated writing papers, posters, index cards, calendars, brochures, reports, magazines, and publications, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(54). 80 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 21 (yy)“Prohibited Container Contaminants” means the following: (i) discarded materials placed in the Recyclable Materials Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials for the City’s Recyclable Materials Container; (ii) discarded materials placed in the Organic Materials Container that are not identified as acceptable Source Separated Organic Materials for the City’s Organic Materials Container; (iii) discarded materials placed in the Solid Waste Container that are acceptable Source Separated Recyclable Materials and/or Source Separated Organic Materials to be placed in City’s Organic Materials Container and/or Recyclable Materials Container; and, (iv) Excluded Waste placed in any container. (zz)“Recovered Organic Waste Products” means products made from California, landfill- diverted recovered Organic Waste processed in a permitted or otherwise authorized facility, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(60). (aaa) “Recovery” means any activity or process described in 14 CCR Section 18983.1(b), or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(49). (bbb) “Recyclable Materials” means the following materials: (1)Metals: aerosol cans, aluminum foil, aluminum pans, beverage cans, can lids, car parts, doors and screens, electrical motors, food/soup cans, furniture, hangers, keys, lids/caps, nuts and bolts, paint cans, pet food cans, pipes, plumbing fixtures, pots and pans, propane tanks, scrap metal, screws and nuts, sporting goods, tools, toys, umbrellas, and utensils; (2)E-Waste: appliances, calculators, cameras, cell phones, computer mice, computer tower, cords, DVD players, DVRs, fax machines, inkjet toner cartridges, keyboards, microwaves, pagers, PDAs, printers, radios, scanners, stereos, telephones, and VCRs, but not including items imbedded with batteries; (3)Paper: Paper products, Printing and Writing Paper, aseptic packaging, books, carbonless paper, cardboard, catalogs, cereal boxes, coffee cups, colored paper, computer paper, construction paper, coupons, egg cartons, envelopes, frozen food boxes, gift wrap, juice boxes, junk mail, magazines, mailers, milk cartons, newspapers (including inserts), office paper, paper bags, paper cups / plates, photographs, pizza boxes, shoe boxes, shredded paper, telephone books, and tissue paper; (4)Plastic: auto parts, baby wipe containers, baskets, beverage bottles, bleach/ detergent bottles, buckets, coffee cup lids, coolers, crates, disposable razors, flower pots, food containers, furniture, hangers, household cleaner bottles, mouthwash bottles, pet carriers, HDPE pipes, plastics (numbers 1 - 7), prescription bottles, shampoo bottles, shelving, squeeze bottles, swimming pools, take-out containers, toys; 81 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 22 (5)Film Plastics: bread bags, bubble wrap, cellophane bags, dry cleaning bags, frozen food bags, newspaper bags, pallet wrap, plastic liners, plastic wrap, produce bags, and shrink wrap; (6)Glass: beverage bottles, broken glass, dishware, food jars, windows, and wine bottles; and (7)Miscellaneous: textiles, and used oil and used oil filters. (ccc) “Recyclable Materials Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(5) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Source Separated Recyclable Materials. (ddd) “Recycled-Content Paper” means Paper Products and Printing and Writing Paper that consists of at least 30 percent, by fiber weight, postconsumer fiber, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(61). (eee)“Regional Agency” means the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority. . (fff) “Regional Agency Enforcement Official” means a designated enforcement official from the Regional Agency or other regional or county agency, designated by the City with responsibility for enforcing this Article in conjunction or consultation with Jurisdiction Enforcement Official. (ggg) “Remote Monitoring” means the use of the internet of things (IoT) and/or wireless electronic devices to visualize the contents of Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste Materials Containers for purposes of identifying the quantity of materials in containers (level of fill) and/or presence of Prohibited Container Contaminants. (hhh) “Renewable Gas” means gas derived from Organic Waste that has been diverted from a California landfill and processed at an in-vessel digestion facility that is permitted or otherwise authorized by 14 CCR to recycle Organic Waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(62). (iii) “Restaurant” means an establishment primarily engaged in the retail sale of food and drinks for on-premises or immediate consumption, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(64). (jjj)“Route Review” means a visual Inspection of containers along a Hauler Route for the purpose of determining Container Contamination, and may include mechanical Inspection methods such as the use of cameras, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(65). (kkk) “SB 1383” means Senate Bill 1383 of 2016 approved by the Governor on September 19, 2016, which added Sections 39730.5, 39730.6, 39730.7, and 39730.8 to the Health and Safety Code, and added Chapter 13.1 (commencing with Section 42652) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, establishing methane emissions reduction 82 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 23 targets in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants as amended, supplemented, superseded, and replaced from time to time. (lll)“SB 1383 Regulations” or “SB 1383 Regulatory” means or refers to, for the purposes of this Article, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reduction regulations developed by CalRecycle that created 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12 and amended portions of regulations of 14 CCR and 27 CCR. (mmm)“Self-Hauler” means a person, who hauls Solid Waste, Organic Waste or recyclable material they have generated to another person. Self-hauler also includes a person who back-hauls waste, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(66). Back-haul means generating and transporting Organic Waste to a destination owned and operated by the Generator using the Generator’s own employees and equipment, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(66)(A). Self-hauler also includes a landscaper. (nnn) “Single-Family” means of, from, or pertaining to any residential premises with fewer than five (5) units. (ooo) “Solid Waste” has the same meaning as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40191, which defines Solid Waste as all putrescible and nonputrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, dewatered, treated, or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes, with the exception that Solid Waste does not include any of the following wastes: (1)Hazardous waste, as defined in the State Public Resources Code Section 40141. (2)Radioactive waste regulated pursuant to the State Radiation Control Law (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 114960) of Part 9 of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code). (3)Medical waste regulated pursuant to the State Medical Waste Management Act (Part 14 (commencing with Section 117600) of Division 104 of the State Health and Safety Code). Untreated medical waste shall not be disposed of in a Solid Waste landfill, as defined in State Public Resources Code Section 40195.1. Medical waste that has been treated and deemed to be Solid Waste shall be regulated pursuant to Division 30 of the State Public Resources Code. (ppp) “Solid Waste Materials Container” has the same meaning as in 14 CCR Section 18982.2(a)(28) and shall be used for the purpose of storage and collection of Solid Waste. (qqq) “Source Separated” means materials, including commingled recyclable materials, that have been separated or kept separate from the Solid Waste stream, at the point of generation, for the purpose of additional sorting or processing those materials for recycling or reuse in order to return them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products, which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in 83 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 24 the marketplace, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 17402.5(b)(4). For the purposes of this Article, Source Separated shall include separation of materials by the Generator, property owner, property owner’s employee, property manager, or property manager’s employee into different containers for the purpose of collection such that Source Separated materials are separated from Solid Waste for the purposes of collection and processing. (rrr)“Source Separated Organic Materials means Source Separated Organic Materials that can be placed in an Organic Materials Container that is specifically intended for the separate collection of Organic Waste. (sss)“Source Separated Recyclable Materials” means Source Separated Recyclables Materials that can be placed in a Recyclable Materials Containers that is specifically intended for the separate collection of Recyclable Materials. Source Separated Recyclable Materials. (ttt)“State” means the State of California. (uuu) “Supermarket” means a full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, and which sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(71). (vvv) “Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator” means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following: (1)Supermarket. (2)Grocery Store with a total facility size equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet. (3)Food Service Provider. (4)Food Distributor. (5)Wholesale Food Vendor. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) of Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(73) shall apply to this Article. (www)“Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator” means a Commercial Edible Food Generator that is one of the following: (1)Restaurant with 250 or more seats, or a total facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet. (2)Hotel with an on-site Food Facility and 200 or more rooms. (3)Health facility with an on-site Food Facility and 100 or more beds. 84 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 25 (4)Large Venue. (5)Large Event. (6)A State agency with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet. (7)A Local Education Agency facility with an on-site Food Facility. If the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) of Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator differs from this definition, the definition in 14 CCR Section 18982(a)(74) shall apply to this Article. (xxx) “West Valley Clean Water Authority” means the stormwater pollution prevention authority for the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the town of Los Gatos. (yyy) “Wholesale Food Vendor” means a business or establishment engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of food, where food (including fruits and vegetables) is received, shipped, stored, prepared for distribution to a retailer, warehouse, distributor, or other destination, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section 189852(a)(76). 7-10.015 Single-Family Requirements (a)Owners, occupants, or property managers of Single-Family premises, except those that that meet the Self-Hauler requirements in Section 7-10.045 of this Article shall subscribe to the Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste collection services for all Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste generated as described below in subsection (b). City, its Designee, or Regional Agency shall have the right to review the number and size of Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste Containers to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, the owner, occupant, or property manager of the Single-Family premises shall adjust its service level for its collection services as requested by the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency. (b)Generators at Single-Family premises shall participate in the Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste collection service(s) by placing designated materials in designated containers as described below, and shall not place Prohibited Container Contaminants in collection containers. (c)Generators at Single-Family premises shall place Source Separated Organic Materials, including Food Waste, in the Organic Materials Container; Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Recyclable Materials Container; and Solid Waste in the Solid Waste Container and shall not place materials designated for the Solid Waste Container into the Recyclable Materials Container or Organic Materials Container. 85 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 26 7-10.020 Commercial and Multi-Family Requirements (a)Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Residential Dwellings shall comply with the following requirements: (1)Subscribe to Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste collection services and comply with requirements of those services as described below in subsection (b), except Commercial Businesses and Multi- Family Residential Dwellings that meet the Self-Hauler requirements in Section 7- 10.045 of this Article. City, its Designee, or Regional Agency shall have the right to review the number and size of a Commercial Business’s or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings’ Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials; and, owner, occupant, or property manager of Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Residential Dwellings shall adjust their service level for their collection services as requested by the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency. (2)Except Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Residential Dwellings that meet the Self-Hauler requirements in Section 7-10.045 of this Article,participate in the Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste collection service(s) by placing designated materials in designated containers. Commercial and Multi-Family Generators shall place Source Separated Organic Materials, including Food Waste, in the Organic Materials Container; Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Recyclable Materials Container; and Solid Waste in the Solid Waste Containers and shall not place materials designated for the Solid Waste Container into the Organic Materials Container or Recyclable Materials Container. (3)Supply and allow access to an adequate number, size, and location of collection containers with sufficient labels or colors (conforming with subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) below) for employees, contractors, tenants, and customers, consistent with Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste collection service or, if self-hauling, in a manner to support its compliance with its self-haul program, in accordance with Section 7-10.045 of this Article. (4)Annually provide information to employees, contractors, tenants, and customers about Organic Waste Recovery requirements and about proper sorting of Source Separated Organic Materials and Source Separated Recyclable Materials. (5)Provide education information before or within fourteen (14) days of occupation of the premises to new tenants that describes requirements to keep Source Separated Organic Materials and Source Separated Recyclable Materials separate from Solid Waste and the location of containers and the rules governing their use at each property. 86 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 27 (6)Provide or arrange access for City, its Designee, or Regional Agency to their properties during all Inspections conducted in accordance with this Article to confirm compliance with the requirements of this Article. (7)Accommodate and cooperate with any Remote Monitoring program for Inspection of the contents of containers for Prohibited Container Contaminants, if implemented by City its Designee, or Regional Agency to evaluate Generator’s compliance with Section 7-10.025(b). The Remote Monitoring program may involve installation of Remote Monitoring equipment on or in the Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste Materials Containers. (8)At Commercial Business’s or Multi-Family Residential Dwelling’s option and subject to any approval required from the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency, implement a Remote Monitoring program for Inspection of the contents of its Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste Materials Containers for the purpose of monitoring the contents of containers to determine appropriate levels of service and to identify Prohibited Container Contaminants. Generators may install Remote Monitoring devices on or in the Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste Materials Containers subject to written notification to or approval by the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency. (9)If a Commercial Business or Multi-Family Residential Dwelling wants to self-haul, meet the Self-Hauler requirements in Section 7-10.045 of this Article. (b)Commercial Businesses shall also comply with the following requirements: (1)Provide containers for the collection of Source Separated Organic Materials and Source Separated Recyclable Materials in all indoor and outdoor areas where containers for Solid Waste are provided for customers, for materials generated by that Commercial Business. Such containers do not need to be provided in restrooms. If a Commercial Business does not generate any of the materials that would be collected in one type of container, then the Commercial Business does not have to provide that particular container in all areas where solid waste containers are provided for customers. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b), the containers provided by the Commercial Business shall have either: (i)A body or lid that conforms with the container colors provided through the collection service provided by Regional Agency, with either lids conforming to the color requirements or bodies conforming to the color requirements or both lids and bodies conforming to color requirements. A Commercial Business is not required to replace functional containers, including containers purchased prior to January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the requirements of the subsection prior to the end of the useful life of those containers, or prior to January 1, 2036, whichever comes first. 87 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 28 (ii)Existing containers shall be clearly marked with educational signage indicating the appropriate material types to be placed in each container in accordance with requirements of the Regional Agency’s collection program. Commencing January 1, 2022, new containers shall have container labels that include language or graphic images, or both, indicating the primary material accepted and the primary materials prohibited in that container, or containers with imprinted text or graphic images that indicate the primary materials accepted and primary materials prohibited in the container pursuant 14 CCR Sections 18984.8 and 18984.9. (2)To the extent practical through education, training, Inspection, and/or other measures, shall prohibit employees from placing materials in a container not designated for those materials per the Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials, Organic Materials, and Solid Waste collection service or, if self-hauling, in a manner to support its compliance with its self-haul program, in accordance with Section 7-10.045. (3)Periodically inspect Recyclable Materials Containers, Organic Materials Containers, and Solid Waste Materials Containers for contamination and inform employees if containers are contaminated and of the requirements to keep contaminants out of those containers pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b)(3). (4)For Commercial Businesses that are Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators, comply with Food Recovery requirements, pursuant to Section 7- 10.030. (c)Nothing in this Section prohibits a Generator from preventing or reducing waste generation, managing Organic Waste on site, or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c). 7-10.025 Waivers for Residential and Commercial Generators (a)De Minimis Waivers. The Regional Agency may waive a Commercial Business’ or Multi- Family Residential Dwellings’ obligation to comply with some or all of the Recyclable Materials or Organic Materials requirements of this Article if the Commercial Business or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings provides documentation that it generates below a certain amount of Recyclable Materials and Organic Materials as described in subsection (a)(2) below. Commercial Businesses or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings requesting a de minimis waiver shall: (1)Submit an application specifying the services that they are requesting a waiver from and provide documentation as noted in subsection (a)(2) below. (2)Provide documentation that either: (A)The Commercial Business’ or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings’ total Solid Waste collection service is two cubic yards or more per week and 88 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 29 Organic Waste subject to collection in a Recyclable Materials Container and/or Organic Materials Container comprises less than 20 gallons per week per applicable container of the Commercial Business’s or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings’ total waste; or, (B)The Commercial Business’ or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings’ total Solid Waste collection service is less than two cubic yards per week and Organic Waste subject to collection in a Recyclable Materials Container and/or Organic Materials comprises less than 10 gallons per week per applicable container of the Commercial Business’s or Multi-Family Residential Dwellings’ total waste. (3)Notify Regional Agency if circumstances change such that Commercial Business’s or Multi-Family Residential Dwelling’s Organic Waste exceeds threshold required for waiver, in which case waiver will be rescinded. (4)Provide written verification of eligibility for de minimis waiver every 5 years, if Regional Agency has approved de minimis waiver. (b)Physical Space Waivers. Regional Agency may waive a Commercial Business’s or Multi- Family Residential Dwelling’s or property owner’s obligations to comply with some or all of the Recyclable Materials and/or Organic Waste collection service requirements if the Regional Agency has evidence from its own staff, the Exclusive Hauler, a licensed architect, or a licensed engineer demonstrating that the premises lacks adequate space for the collection containers required for compliance with the Organic Waste collection requirements of Section 7-10.020. A Commercial Business or Multi-Family Residential Dwelling owner or property owner may request a physical space waiver through the following process: (1)Submit an application form to Regional Agency specifying the type(s) of collection services for which they are requesting a compliance waiver. (2)Provide documentation that the premises lacks adequate space for Recyclable Materials Containers and/or Organic Materials Containers including documentation from its hauler, licensed architect, or licensed engineer. (3)Provide written verification to Regional Agency that it is still eligible for physical space waiver every five years, if Regional Agency has approved application for a physical space waiver. 7-10.030 Commercial Edible Food Generator Requirements (a)Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply with the requirements of this Section commencing January 1, 2022, and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators must comply commencing January 1, 2024 pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3. 89 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 30 (b)Large Venue or Large Event operators providing food service shall comply with requirements of this Section, commencing January 1, 2024. Large Venue or Large Event operators not providing food services, but allowing for food to be provided by others, shall require Food Facilities operating at the Large Venue or Large Event to comply with the requirements of this Section, commencing January 1, 2024. (c)Commercial Edible Food Generators shall comply with the following requirements: (1)Arrange to recover the maximum amount of Edible Food that would otherwise be disposed. (2)Contract with, or enter into a written agreement with Food Recovery Organizations orFood Recovery Services for: (i) the collection of Edible Food for Food Recovery; or, (ii) acceptance of the Edible Food that the Commercial Edible Food Generator self-hauls to the Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery. (3)Shall not intentionally spoil Edible Food that is capable of being recovered by a Food Recovery Organization or a Food Recovery Service. (4)Allow City’s or Regional Agency’s designated enforcement entity or designated third party enforcement entity to access the premises and review records pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.4. (5)Keep records that include the following information, or as otherwise specified in 14 CCR Section 18991.4: (A)A list of each Food Recovery Service or organization that collects or receives its Edible Food pursuant to a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b). (B)A copy of all contracts or written agreements established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b). (C)A record of the following information for each of those Food Recovery Services or Food Recovery Organizations: (i)The name, address and contact information of the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization. (ii)The types of food that will be collected by or self-hauled to the Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization. (iii)The established frequency that food will be collected or self-hauled. (iv)The quantity of food, measured in pounds recovered per month, collected or self-hauled to a Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization for Food Recovery. 90 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 31 (d)Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators shall submit Food Recovery Reports, as defined below, to the to the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency, upon request, according to the following schedule: (1)On or before August 1, 2022, Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators shall submit a Food Recovery Report for the period of January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. (2)On or before May 1, 2023, and on or before May 1st each year thereafter, Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generators shall submit a Food Recovery Report for the period covering the entire previous calendar year. (e)Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall submit Food Recovery Reports, as defined below, to the to the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency, upon request, according to the following schedule: (1)On or before May 1, 2025, and on or before May 1st each year thereafter, Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall submit a Food Recovery Report for the period covering the entire previous calendar year. (f)Food Recovery Reports submitted by Tier One and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators shall include the following information: (1)The name and address of the Commercial Edible Food Generator; (2)The name of the person responsible for the Commercial Edible Food Generator’s edible food recovery program; (3)A list of all contracted Food Recovery Services or Food Recovery Organizations that collect Edible Food from the Commercial Edible Food Generator; (4)The total number of pounds of Edible Food, per year, donated through a contracted Food Recovery Organization or Food Recovery Service. (g)Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit or conflict with the protections provided by the California Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 2017, the Federal Good Samaritan Act, or share table and school food donation guidance pursuant to Senate Bill 557 of 2017 (approved by the Governor of the State of California on September 25, 2017, which added Article 13 [commencing with Section 49580] to Chapter 9 of Part 27 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Education Code, and to amend Section 114079 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to food safety, as amended, supplemented, superseded and replaced from time to time). 7-10.035 Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Services (a)Food Recovery Services collecting or receiving Edible Food directly from Commercial Edible Food Generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR 91 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 32 Section 18991.3(b), shall maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(1): (1)The name, address, and contact information for each Commercial Edible Food Generator from which the service collects Edible Food. (2)The quantity in pounds of Edible Food collected from each Commercial Edible Food Generator per month. (3)The quantity in pounds of Edible Food transported to each Food Recovery Organization per month. (4)The name, address, and contact information for each Food Recovery Organization that the Food Recovery Service transports Edible Food to for Food Recovery. (b)Food Recovery Organizations collecting or receiving Edible Food directly from Commercial Edible Food Generators, via a contract or written agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b), shall maintain the following records, or as otherwise specified by 14 CCR Section 18991.5(a)(2): (1)The name, address, and contact information for each Commercial Edible Food Generator from which the organization receives Edible Food. (2)The quantity in pounds of Edible Food received from each Commercial Edible Food Generator per month. (3)The name, address, and contact information for each Food Recovery Service that the organization receives Edible Food from for Food Recovery. (c)Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services shall inform Generators about California and Federal Good Samaritan Food Donation Act protection in written communications, such as in their contract or agreement established under 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b). (d)Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services that have their primary address physically located in the City and contract with or have written agreements with one or more Commercial Edible Food Generators pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b) shall submit Food Recovery Reports, as defined below, to the to the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency, upon request, according to the following schedule: (1)On or before August 1, 2022, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services shall submit a Food Recovery Report for the period of January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. (2)On or before May 1, 2023, and on or before May 1st each year thereafter, Food Recovery Organizations and Food Recovery Services shall submit a Food Recovery Report for the period covering the entire previous calendar year. 92 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 33 (e)Food Recovery Reports submitted by Food Recovery Services or Organizations shall include the following information: (1)Total pounds of Edible Food recovered in the previous calendar year from Tier One and Tier Two Edible Food Generators they have established a contract or written agreement with pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18991.3(b). (2)Total pounds of Edible Food recovered in the previous calendar year from the Tier One and Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generators they have established a contract or written agreement with within Santa Clara County. (f)In order to support Edible Food Recovery capacity planning assessments or other studies conducted by the County, City, its Designee, or Regional Agency, Food Recovery Services and Food Recovery Organizations operating in the City shall provide information and consultation to the City or Regional Agency, upon request, regarding existing, or proposed new or expanded, Food Recovery capacity that could be accessed by the City and its Commercial Edible Food Generators. A Food Recovery Service or Food Recovery Organization contacted by the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency shall respond to such request for information within 60 days, unless another timeframe is otherwise specified by the City or Regional Agency. 7-10.040 Hauler and Facility Operator Requirements (a)Requirements for Haulers (1)The Exclusive Hauler providing Single-family, Multi-family Residential Dwellings, and Commercial Recyclable Materials, Organic Waste, C&D, and Solid Waste collection services to Generators within the City’s boundaries shall meet the following requirements and standards as a condition of approval of a contract, agreement, or other authorization with the Regional Agency to collect Source Separated Recyclable Materials, Source Separate Organic Materials, C&D, and Solid Waste: (A)Transport:(i) Source Separated Recyclable Materials to a facility that recovers Recyclable Materials; (ii) Source Separated Organic Materials to a facility, operation, activity, or property that recovers Organic Waste as defined in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 2; and (iii) Solid Waste to a Disposal facility; (B)All facilities referenced above shall be approved by the Regional Agency through the Exclusive Hauler’s collection agreement with the Regional Agency. (2)The Exclusive Hauler authorized to collect Source Separated Recyclable Materials, Source Separated Organic Materials, and Solid Organic Waste shall comply with education, equipment, signage, container labeling, container color, contamination 93 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 34 monitoring, reporting, and other requirements contained within its franchise agreement entered into by the Exclusive Hauler and the Regional Agency. (b)Requirements for Facility Operators and Community Composting Operations. (1)Owners of facilities, operations, and activities that recover Organic Waste, including, but not limited to, Compost facilities, in-vessel digestion facilities, and publicly-owned treatment works shall, upon City or Regional Agency request, provide information regarding available and potential new or expanded capacity at their facilities, operations, and activities, including information about throughput and permitted capacity necessary for planning purposes. Entities contacted by the City or Regional Agency shall respond within 60 days. 7-10.045 Self-Hauler Requirements (a)Self-Haulers shall Source Separate all Recyclable Materials and Organic Waste (materials that City, Regional Agency, or Exclusive Hauler otherwise requires Generators to separate for collection in the Regional Agency’s Recyclable Materials and Organic Materials collection program) generated on-site from Solid Waste in a manner consistent with 14 CCR Sections 18984.1 and 18984.2, or shall haul Organic Waste that is mixed with Solid Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility as specified in 14 CCR Section 18984.3. (b)Self-Haulers shall haul their Source Separated Recyclable Materials to a facility that recovers those materials; and haul their Source Separated Organic Materials to a Solid Waste facility, operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers Source Separated Organic Waste. Alternatively, Self-Haulers may haul Organic Waste that is mixed with Solid Waste to a High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facility. (c)Self-Haulers that are owners or property managers of Commercial Businesses and Multi- Family Residential Dwellings shall keep a record of the amount of Recyclable Materials and Organic Waste delivered to each Solid Waste facility, operation, activity, or property that processes or recovers Recyclable Materials Organic Waste; this record shall be subject to Inspection by the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency. The records shall include the following information which shall be provided to City, its Designee, or Regional Agency upon request: (1)Delivery receipts and weight tickets from the entity accepting the Recyclable Materials, Organic Waste, or Solid Waste. (2)The amount of material in cubic yards or tons transported by the Generator to each entity. (3)If the material is transported to an entity that does not have scales on-site, or employs scales incapable of weighing the Self-Hauler’s vehicle in a manner that allows it to determine the weight of materials received, the Self-Hauler is not 94 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 35 required to record the weight of material but shall keep a record of the entities that received the Recyclable Materials, Organic Waste, or Solid Waste. (d)A Single-Family Generator that self-hauls Recyclable Materials, Organic Waste, or Solid Waste is not required to record or report information in subsection (c), above. 7-10.050 Non-Local Entities and Local Education Agency Requirements (a)Non-Local Entities and Local Education Agencies shall comply with requirements 14CCR Chapter 12, Article 5 to prevent and reduce and disposal the generation of Organic Waste. (b)Local Education Agencies with on-site Food Facility shall comply with Food Recovery requirements of Section 7-10.030 of this Article. 7-10.060 Inspections and Investigations by City (a)Representatives of City, its Designee, and the Regional Agency are authorized to conduct Inspections and investigations, at random or otherwise, of any collection container, collection vehicle loads, or transfer, processing, or disposal facility for materials collected from Generators, or Source Separated materials to confirm compliance with this Article by Single-Family Generators, Commercial Businesses, Multi-Family Residential Dwellings, property owners, Commercial Edible Food Generators, haulers, Self-Haulers, Food Recovery Services, and Food Recovery Organizations, and other entities regulated hereunder subject to applicable laws. This Section does not allow City to enter the interior of a private residential property for Inspection. For the purposes of inspecting Commercial Business and Multi-Family Residential Dwellings containers for compliance with Section 7-10.020(b) of this Article, City may conduct container Inspections for Prohibited Container Contaminants using Remote Monitoring, and Commercial Businesses and Multi-Family Residential Dwellings shall accommodate and cooperate with the Remote Monitoring pursuant to Section 7-10.020 of this Article. (b)Any person subject to this Article shall provide or arrange for access during all Inspections (with the exception of residential property interiors) and shall cooperate with the City’s, its Designee’s, or Regional Agency’s representative during such Inspections and investigations. Such Inspections and investigations may include confirmation of proper placement of materials in containers, Edible Food Recovery activities, records, or any other requirement of this Article described herein. Failure to provide or arrange for: (i) access to an entity’s premises; (ii) installation and operation of Remote Monitoring equipment (optional); or (ii) access to records for any Inspection or investigation is a violation of this Article and may result in penalties described. (c)Any records obtained by the City, its Designee, or Regional Agency during its Inspections, Remote Monitoring, and other reviews shall be subject to the requirements and applicable disclosure exemptions of the Public Records Act as set forth in Government Code Section 6250 et seq. 95 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 36 (d)City representatives, its Designee representative, and/or Regional Agency representatives are authorized to conduct any Inspections, Remote Monitoring, or other investigations as reasonably necessary to further the goals of this Article, subject to applicable laws. (e)City and Regional Agency shall receive written complaints from persons regarding an entity that may be potentially non-compliant with SB 1383 Regulations, including receipt of anonymous complaints. 7-10.070 Enforcement (a)Violation of any provision of this Article shall constitute grounds for issuance of a Notice of Violation and assessment of a fine by a Jurisdiction Enforcement Official or representative or Regional Agency Enforcement Official or representative. Enforcement Actions under this Article are issuance of an administrative citation and assessment of a fine. The City’s or Regional Agency’s procedures on imposition of administrative fines are hereby incorporated in their entirety, as modified from time to time, and shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and review of administrative citations issued to enforce this Article and any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this Article, except as otherwise indicated in this Article. (b)Other remedies allowed by law may be used, including civil action or prosecution as misdemeanor or infraction. City or Regional Agency may pursue civil actions in the California courts to seek recovery of unpaid administrative citations. City or Regional Agency may choose to delay court action until such time as a sufficiently large number of violations, or cumulative size of violations exist such that court action is a reasonable use of City or Regional Agency staff and resources. (c)Responsible Entity for Enforcement (1)Enforcement pursuant to this Article may be undertaken by the Jurisdiction Enforcement Official, which may be the City manager or their designated entity, legal counsel, or combination thereof. (2)Enforcement may also be undertaken by a Regional Agency Enforcement Official or County Agency Enforcement Official, designated by the City, in consultation with Jurisdiction Enforcement Official. (A)Jurisdiction Enforcement Official(s) (and Regional Agency Enforcement Official or County Agency Enforcement Official, if designated by the City) will interpret this Article; determine the applicability of waivers, if violation(s) have occurred; implement Enforcement Actions; and, determine if compliance standards are met. (B)Jurisdiction Enforcement Official(s) (and Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Agency Enforcement Official, if designated by the City) may issue Notices of Violation(s). 96 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 37 (d)Process for Enforcement (1)Jurisdiction Enforcement Officials or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials and/or their Designee will monitor compliance with this Article randomly and through Compliance Reviews, Route Reviews, investigation of complaints, and an Inspection program (that may include Remote Monitoring). Section 7-10.060 establishes City’s right to conduct Inspections and investigations. (2)City or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials may issue an official notification to notify regulated entities of its obligations under this Article. (3)For incidences of Prohibited Container Contaminants found in containers, City or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials will issue a Notice of Violation to any Generator found to have Prohibited Container Contaminants in a container. Such notice will be provided via a cart tag or other communication immediately upon identification of the Prohibited Container Contaminants. If the City, Regional Agency, or Exclusive Hauler observes Prohibited Container Contaminants in a Generator’s containers on more than three (3) consecutive occasion(s), the City, Regional Agency, or Exclusive Hauler may assess contamination processing fees or contamination penalties on the Generator. (4)With the exception of violations of Generator contamination of container contents addressed under Section 7-10.070(d)(3), City or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials shall issue a Notice of Violation requiring compliance within 60 days of issuance of the notice. (5)Absent compliance by the respondent within the deadline set forth in the Notice of Violation, City or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials shall commence an action to impose penalties, via an administrative citation and fine in accordance with the Saratoga Municipal Code. (6)Notices shall be sent to “owner” at the official address of the owner maintained by the tax collector for the City or if no such address is available, to the owner at the address of the dwelling or Commercial property or to the party responsible for paying for the collection services, depending upon available information. (e)Penalty Amounts for Types of Violations The penalty levels are as follows: (1)For a first violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $50 to $100 per violation. (2)For a second violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $100 to $200 per violation. 97 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 38 (3)For a third or subsequent violation, the amount of the base penalty shall be $250 to $500 per violation. (f)Factors Considered in Determining Penalty Amount The following factors shall be used to determine the amount of the penalty for each violation within the appropriate penalty amount range: (1)The nature, circumstances, and severity of the violation(s). (2)The violator’s ability to pay. (3)The willfulness of the violator's misconduct. (4)Whether the violator took measures to avoid or mitigate violations of this chapter. (5)Evidence of any economic benefit resulting from the violation(s). (6)The deterrent effect of the penalty on the violator. (7)Whether the violation(s) were due to conditions outside the control of the violator. (g)Compliance Deadline Extension Considerations The City or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials may extend the compliance deadlines set forth in a Notice of Violation issued in accordance with this Section if it finds that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the respondent that make compliance within the deadlines impracticable, including the following: (1)Major regional unforeseen circumstances such as earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, and other emergencies or natural disasters; (2)Delays in obtaining discretionary permits or other government agency approvals; or, (3)Deficiencies in Organic Waste recycling infrastructure or Edible Food Recovery capacity and the City is under a corrective action plan with CalRecycle pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18996.2 due to those deficiencies. (h)Appeals Process Persons receiving an administrative citation containing a penalty for an uncorrected violation may request a hearing to appeal the citation. A hearing will be held only if it is requested within the time prescribed and consistent with City’s procedures in the City’s codes for appeals of administrative citations. Evidence may be presented at the hearing. The City will appoint a hearing officer who shall conduct the hearing and issue a final written order. (i)Education Period for Non-Compliance 98 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 39 Beginning January 1, 2022 and through December 31, 2023, City, its Designee, or Regional Agency will conduct Inspections, Remote Monitoring, Route Reviews or waste evaluations, and Compliance Reviews, depending upon the type of regulated entity, to determine compliance, and if City, its Designee, or Regional Agency determines that Organic Waste Generator, Self-Hauler, hauler, Tier One Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance, it shall provide educational materials to the entity describing its obligations under this Article and a notice that compliance is required by January 1, 2022 and that violations may be subject to administrative civil penalties starting on January 1, 2024. (j)Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance Beginning January 1, 2024, if the City or Regional Agency Enforcement Office or County Enforcement Officials determines that an Organic Waste Generator, Self-Hauler, hauler, Tier One or Tier Two Commercial Edible Food Generator, Food Recovery Organization, Food Recovery Service, or other entity is not in compliance with this Article, it shall document the noncompliance or violation, issue a Notice of Violation, and take Enforcement Action pursuant to this Section, as needed. 99 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 40 Exhibit 3 Saratoga Municipal Code Conforming Amendments for Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance The provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code set forth below are amended or adopted as follows: Text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code. 1.Article 4-05 - Definition of Recycler 4-05.020 (l) Recycler means any person who is engaged in the City in the collecting, receiving, transporting, segregating, recycling and/or disposing of recyclable materials. 2.Article 4-65 – Permits for Recyclers Article 4-65 RECYCLERS 4-65.010 Definitions. As used in this Article, the term "business" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 4-05.020(a); the term "engaged in business" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 4-05.020(c); and the term "recycler" shall have the same meaning as set forth in subsection 4-05.020(l). 4-65.020 Permit required. No recycler shall engage in business in the City without first having obtained a permit to do so pursuant to this Article. Such recycler shall also apply for and obtain a business license pursuant to Article 4-05 of this Chapter, and pay the license fee specified in Section 4-05.100, unless such recycler is exempted from the payment of such fee under Sections 4-05.160 and 4- 05.170. The failure to obtain the required permit and the required business license shall be a violation of this Article as set forth in Section 4-65.120. 4-65.030 Application for permit; fee; investigation by City Manager. (a) Application for a permit hereunder shall be made to the City Manager on such forms as the City Manager may prescribe, which shall include the following information: (1) Name and address of the applicant, together with the name and address of each person who will be engaged in recycling in the City for or on behalf of the applicant. 100 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 41 (2) The location of the principal place of business, and, if such principal place of business is in the City, a statement of the zoning classification for such location. (3) A complete description of the business, activity program, or other purpose for which the recycling will be made, including a copy of all brochures, forms, contracts, subscriptions, handouts, and other documents to be used in connection with such recycling. (4) If the recycling will be conducted for an organization or an activity which is exempted from the payment of business license fees under the provisions of Sections 4-05.160 and 4-05.170 of this Chapter, the applicant shall provide documents establishing, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, the qualification for such exemption. (5) Such other information and documents as the City Manager may require. (b) The application shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as may be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council; provided, however, no such fee shall be charged if the applicant is found to be exempted from the payment of a business license fee under the provisions of Sections 4-05.160 and 4-05.170 of this Chapter. (c) Upon receipt of the application and other documents and the fee (if payable) as required in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section, the City Manager shall conduct such investigation as the City Manager deems appropriate to determine whether a permit should be issued. In connection, therewith, the City Manager shall forward a copy of the application to the Community Development Director, for determination as to whether the conduct of the business or activity will be in compliance with zoning requirements and other rules, regulations and ordinances of the City. The Community Development Director shall indicate on the application that the proposed permit is either approved or disapproved or approved subject to specified conditions, and shall return the application to the City Manager. 4-65.040 Grounds for denial of permit. The City Manager shall deny issuance of a permit based upon any of the following grounds: (a) A finding by the City Manager that the applicant has engaged in conduct within the City or elsewhere for which a business license or permit could be revoked under the provisions of this Chapter. (b) A determination by the Community Development Director that the conduct of the business or activity would not be in compliance with all zoning requirements and other rules, regulations and ordinances of the City. 4-65.050 Issuance of permit; conditions; term. If a permit is issued, it shall be subject to any conditions as may be imposed by the City Manager, or the Community Development Director. Recycler's permits may be issued on an annual basis. 101 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 42 4-65.060 Renewal of permit. A permit issued under this Article may be renewed for a period not exceeding one year upon application to the City Manager on such forms as the City Manager may prescribe, accompanied by payment of a renewal fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council, unless the applicant is exempted from the payment of such fee. The City Manager shall renew the permit if upon finding that all of the requirements of this Article have been satisfied by the permittee and no conditions of the permit have been violated. 4-65.070 Transferability of permit. No permit issued under this Article shall be transferable and any attempted transfer shall invalidate the permit. 4-65.080 Collection of recyclable materials at night. No collection of recyclable materials shall be conducted in the City before the hour of 8:00 A.M. of any day, or after the hour of 7:00 P.M. of any day; provided, however, this restriction shall not apply to any meeting between the recycler and his customer arranged by appointment with the customer. 4-65.090 Quarterly reports. In order for the City to meet the waste reduction goals and reporting requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code § 40000 et seq.), the recycler shall submit to the City on a quarterly basis, a report in a form satisfactory to the City Manager setting forth the amount of recyclable materials collected within the City during that time period. 4-65.100 Suspension or revocation of permit. (a) Any permit issued under this Article may be suspended or revoked by the City Manager for any reason that would justify a refusal to issue the permit originally, or by reason of any failure by the permittee to comply with all of the provisions of this Article, or any other provisions of this Code, or any condition of such permit. (b) The holder of the permit shall be given prompt notice of the intention to suspend or revoke his permit. Such notice shall fix a time and place, not less than five nor more than thirty days after service thereof, at which the holder of the permit may appear before the City Manager and be granted a hearing upon the merits of the suspension or revocation. If after such hearing the permit is ordered suspended or revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to the City Council. 4-65.110 Appeals to City Council. Any decisions rendered pursuant to this Article with respect to the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of a permit, or the conditions thereof, may be appealed to the City 102 Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction- Page 43 Council by the applicant or permittee or other interested person in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2-05.030 of this Code. 4-65.120 Violations of Article. The violation of any provision contained in this Article, or the violation of any condition of a permit issued hereunder, is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. The enforcement of this Article pursuant to Chapter 3 shall be in addition to any proceedings conducted under Section 4-50.100 for revocation or suspension of a permit, or any proceedings conducted under Article 4-05 of this Chapter to revoke a business license by reason of the same violation. 103 Attachment B: Summary of Article 17.10 Saratoga Municipal Code The text of Article 17-10 is based largely on a model ordinance developed by CalRecycle to assist local governments in complying with its SB 1383 Regulations. The regulations and ordinance are very detailed. This summary provides a general description of the key requirements. 7-10.05 Purpose of Article This section explains that the Article is intended to comply with State law. 7-10.010 Definitions This section adopts definitions of the various terms used in the SB 1383 Regulations that the City is required to follow in administering the ordinance. 7-10.015 Single Family Requirements As required by the SB 1383 Regulations this section provides that residents must 1) Have access to an organics recycling program--cart with appropriate lid color that accepts landscaping and food waste, 2) Place all organic waste in their curbside organics recycling container, 3) Place all recyclables in recycling cart, and 4) not contaminate carts with materials that do not belong in the cart. 7-10.020 Commercial and Multi-Family Requirements Commercial and Multi-family properties must 1) Have access to an organics recycling program (cart or dumpster with appropriate lid color that accepts landscaping and food waste), 2) Place all organic waste in organics recycling container, 3) Place all dry recyclables in recycling, 4) not contaminate carts with materials that do not belong in the cart, 5) Businesses must train staff on which materials are acceptable in the recycling and organics recycling programs, 6) Businesses must include signage and color-coded lids on recycling and organics recycling bins in customer-facing locations such as lobbies or dining areas at fast- casual locations, and 7) Periodically monitor for contamination of recycling and organics recycling streams. 7-10.025 Waivers for Residential and Commercial Generators Businesses that do not generate high volumes of organics waste as defined in this section or do not have adequate space in their trash enclosure may apply for a compliance waiver from the City. 7-10.030 Commercial Edible Food Generator Requirements Certain food service businesses must make arrangements with edible food recovery operations to recover edible food. Tier 1 businesses (in Saratoga, likely only Safeway), will be required to make arrangements to recover edible food by 2022. Tier 2 businesses (large hotels, hospitals and large restaurants; there do not appear to be any in Saratoga) will be required to have edible food recovery programs by 2024. 104 Attachment B: Summary of Article 17.10 Saratoga Municipal Code 7-10.035 Requirements for Food Recovery Organizations and Services These entities will be required to report to the City regarding edible food recovery activities upon request within 60 days. 7-10.040 Hauler and Facility Operator Requirements The WVSWMA’s exclusive franchise hauler must provide organics recycling service and transport organics to an organics waste processing facility. Haulers and organics facility operators must provide reports to the City upon request within 60 days. 7-10.045 Self-Hauler Requirements Businesses are allowed to self-haul their organic waste, such as spoiled produce from a grocery store or landscaping waste handled by a landscaping contractor, provided the materials are taken to a recycling facility and that the business provides the City with reports upon request. 7-10.050 Non-Local Entities and Local Education Agency Requirements Non-local entities (such as special districts) and local education agencies shall comply with requirements 14 CCR Chapter 12, Article 5 and shall comply with Food Recovery requirements of Section 7-10.030 of this Article. 7-10.060 Inspections and Investigations by City City officials or their designee are authorized to enter into non-residential properties to assess compliance of provisions outlined in this Article. The ordinance has been structured to allow enforcement by the WVSWMA and, with respect to commercial food generators, Santa Clara County if the City wishes to make that delegation. 7-10.070 Enforcement. Beginning in City officials or their designees can issue notice of violations or non- compliance. Businesses have 60 days after initial notice of violation to implement an SB1383 compliant recycling program and beginning in 2024 will face monetary penalties of $100-$500 per violation. 105 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: School Resource Officer Funding for Fiscal Year 2022/23 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review funding of the School Resource Officer for Fiscal Year 2022/23. BACKGROUND: On September 23, 2021, the Council Finance Committee requested the City Council review funding of the School Resource Officer in the fall prior to preparation of the Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget. The School Resource Officer is one of the supplemental services available through the Sheriff’s Office that the City has opted into. The School Resource Officer serves as a liaison between law enforcement for schools located in Saratoga. The School Resource Officer works closely with school staff to respond to law enforcement matters on campus and create a safe school environment as well as create positive relationships with students to identify and prevent problems. In addition to the services provided to school, the School Resource Officer will sometimes attends Neighborhood Watch and community events and is regularly deployed to respond to calls in the City, major incidents, such as significant vehicle collisions or an active search for a suspect, or to provide assistance on special enforcement efforts like tobacco decoy operations. The City, the Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District (LGSUHSD), and the Saratoga Union School District (SUSD) have been sharing the full cost of the School Resource Officer with the City paying 70% of the costs and each district contributing 15% of the cost. The total cost of the School Resource Officer in FY 2021/22 is $359,207, with the City paying $251,445 and the two districts paying $53,881 each. The cost of the School Resource Officer is subject to annual rate increases described in the City’s agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which calls for yearly increases based on personnel compensation and pension costs or the Consumer Price Index plus 2% and pension costs, whichever is less. Additionally, the City is financially responsible for calls for service to a school that exceed the hours allotted to the School Resource Officer. If the School Resource Officer position were eliminated, the City would be financially responsible for all calls for service to the schools without any contribution from the districts. 106 To assist the Council in its discussion of School Resource Officer funding, the Finance Committee requested that staff provide the information listed below in the report to the City Council. The following sections of the staff report provide the information requested to the extent available. • Change in Saratoga School Resource Officer costs over time • Information about when the City started funding the School Resource Officer position, the historical information on cost sharing between the City and school districts, and the original School Resource Officer agreement (if available) • Information about why the City is not part of the School Resource Officer agreement between the Sheriff’s Office and School Districts • Cost of the Saratoga School Resource Officer in comparison to the City of Cupertino and Town of Los Gatos, including total cost and cost sharing breakdown by dollar value and percentages • Information about parties included in the School Resource Officer agreements for Cupertino and Los Gatos About the Agreement with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office The City of Saratoga has contracted with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services since the City’s incorporation in 1956. The current agreement between the City and Sheriff’s Office includes: 1) general law enforcement services, such as patrol, response to emergency calls, and investigative services; 2) supplemental services above and beyond general law enforcement services as requested by the City, such as increased traffic enforcement or the School Resource Officer; 3) supplemental reserve services provided by reserve deputies; 4) booking and processing services for those arrested in City limits and brought to County jail for booking and detention; and 5) emergency communication services that support Sheriff’s Office and City operations, including around the clock 9-1-1 call management and radio dispatch. Under the agreement, the City pays a base rate for services that is adjusted annually based on either the yearly increases to personnel compensation and pension costs or the Consumer Price Index plus 2% and pension costs, whichever is less. The rate for services is calculated based on the number of general law enforcement service hours that the City has subscribed to. In addition to the base rate, the City may opt into supplemental services, like the School Resource Officer. The City is expected to inform the Sheriff’s Office of any desired changes to service levels no less than 90 days prior to the start of the fiscal year, or April 2. Under the current School Resource Officer arrangements, the school districts contribute to law enforcement services on campus. Without a School Resource Officer, all calls for law enforcement services on campus would be handled by patrol deputies and response efforts would be drawn down from the patrol hours that the City subscribes to without any financial contribution from the schools. School Resource Officer Funding History The City of Saratoga has had a School Resource Officer for many years. Records show that the City funded the School Resource Officer since as early as Fiscal Year 1995/96, paying the full cost of the School Resource Officer, which was $96,073 at that time. In 2005, the School Resource Officer position was eliminated as part of several significant budget cuts adopted at that time, which included elimination of the Public Art Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission as well as staffing reductions. 107 In Fiscal Year 2006/07, the City Council funded a Neighborhood Resource Officer. In 2008, members of the school community expressed growing concern about campus safety and requested a School Resource Officer to assist with training, enforcement, and emergency preparedness. Consequently, on July 16, 2008, the City Council directed staff to convert the Neighborhood Resource Officer position to a School Resource Officer with the expectation that the School Resource Officer would build relationships with students and school staff, provide training on various safety programs, be visible and present on campuses throughout the school day, provide juvenile traffic safety enforcement, and conduct traffic enforcement around the schools. SUSD entered into an agreement with the Sheriff’s Office to contribute to the School Resource Officer starting in 2008. LGSUHSD did the same in 2009. Since the City’s current agreement allows the City to adjust services on an annual basis, including School Resource Officer services, there is no standalone agreement between the City and the Sheriff’s Office for the School Resource Officer. Both SUSD and LGSUHSD have their own separate agreements with the Sheriff’s Office for their contribution to the School Resource Officer services. From Fiscal Year 2011/12 through 2020/21, the City paid $100,000 per year for the School Resource Officer. Prior to Fiscal Year 2021/22, the school district agreements with the Sheriff’s Office describe a cost sharing model with the City funding 70% of the cost for the School Resource Officer position at $100,000 with each school district contributing $29,500 or 15% towards the cost with the expectation that the cost of the School Resource Officer would be fully covered by the City and districts. The annual cost of the School Resource Officer should have included the yearly increases to personnel compensation and pension costs or the Consumer Price Index plus 2% and pension costs, whichever is less, as described in the City’s agreement with the Sheriff’s Office. However, the annual contribution amounts for the City and school districts remained the same from Fiscal Year 2011/12 through 2020/21. Prior to the start of Fiscal Year 2021/22, a Sheriff’s Office audit of School Resource Officer costs revealed that City and school districts were not fully covering the cost of the School Resource Officer position. Consequently, the Sheriff’s Office requested that the City and school districts cover the full cost of the SRO, $359,207 annually, starting in Fiscal Year 2021/22. Using the original cost sharing percentages, this increased the City’s annual contribution to $251,445, 70% of the total cost of SRO position, and each district’s annual contribution to $53,881 or 15% of the cost of the SRO. This represents an almost 40% increase in the City’s contribution and an increase of roughly 55% for each district. Organization Fiscal Year 2011/12 - 2020/21 Fiscal Year 2021/22 City $100,000 $251,445 (70%) LGSUHSD $29,500 $53,881 (15%) SUSD $29,500 $53,881 (15%) Cupertino School Resource Officer The City of Cupertino has two full time School Resource Officers. The City of Cupertino shares the cost of the School Resource Officers with Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District. The City of Cupertino, the school districts, and Sheriff’s Office share an agreement that states that the City will pay 85% of the cost of one School Resource Officer and 75% of the cost of the second School Resource Officer. Additionally, the cost of the School 108 Resource Officer is adjusted annually to account for yearly increases to personnel compensation and pension costs or the Consumer Price Index plus 2% and pension costs as described in the Cupertino agreement with the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services. The total cost per School Resource Officer for Fiscal Year 2021/22 is $359,207, the same as in the City of Saratoga, with the total for both School Resource Officers at $718,414. Organization Fiscal Year 2021/22 City $574,731 • Officer 1: $305,326 (85%) • Officer 2: $269,405 (75%) Districts $143,683 • Officer 1: $53,881 (15%) • Officer 2: $89,802 (25%) Los Gatos School Resource Officer The Town of Los Gatos has one full time School Resource Officer. The cost of the School Resource Officer is shared between the Town of Los Gatos, LGSUHSD, and Los Gatos Union School District (LGUSD). Prior to Fiscal Year 2021/22, the Town contributed 50% of the cost of the School Resource Officer, LGSUHSD contributed 36% of the cost, and the LGUSD contributed 18% of the cost. Starting in calendar year 2022, the school districts will begin contributing less towards the cost of a School Resource Officer. Under this new model, the Town will contribute 75% of the costs with the high school district contributing 18% and the other district contributing 7% of the costs. This reduction in contribution levels comes with a reduction in service hours, with the School Resource Officer working on campus 20 hours per week and spending the remaining hours working on Police Department investigations. The cost of the School Resource Officer in Fiscal Year 2021/22 is $291,864. The primary difference in total cost for the School Resource Officer between the two agencies is the cost allocation methodology used by the Sheriff’s Office to apply indirect costs, such as equipment, training, and administrative overhead. Organization Fiscal Year 2021/22 Town $218,898 (75%) LGSUHSD $52,535 (18%) LGUSD $20,430 (7%) ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – City of Saratoga Agreement with Sheriff’s Office for Law Enforcement Services and Fiscal Year 2021/22 Costs Attachment B – Sheriff’s Office Agreements with School Districts in Saratoga Attachment C – Written Communications 109 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the City of Saratoga, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, County has the legal authority to render law enforcement services and criminal justice administrative services to incorporated cities in the County of Santa Clara and is equipped and willing to do so to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided; and WHEREAS, City is primarily responsible for providing law enforcement services within city limits and is desirous of contracting with the County for the rendition of such services; and WHEREAS,County and City desire to enter into an agreement providing for said services, specifying the nature and extent thereof and establishing compensation to be paid therefore; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follow: I.LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES A. Law Enforcement Services 1.Within the corporate limits of City, County shall provide police protection through its Sheriff's Office as may be required by City and as within the capability of the Sheriff to provide. Services to be performed under this section (A)(1) include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls, investigative services, and other law enforcement services. The cost of such services shall be set forth in Exhibit A attached. 2. The rendition'of such services,the standards of performance,the discipline of officers, and other matters incident to the performance of such services shall remain in the discretion of the Sheriff. 3.In the event of a disagreement as to the performance or amount of the services to be provided pursuant to this section(A)(1),the Sheriff or his/her designee shall meet with the representative(s)of City to review the manner of performance of such services. B. Supplemental Services 1.Within the corporate limits of City, County shall, through its Sheriff's Office,provide supplemental services as requested by the City. The cost of such services shall be at the rate set forth in Exhibit A. Services to be performed under this section(B)(1)shall be provided exclusively within the City limits of City except in an emergency. These services may include, if 1 7Z JUN 2 4 2014 DCIFLICATH ORIGI L 110 requested by City, traffic law enforcement beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide. 2.The plan of patrol, the hours of coverage and other similar details shall be determined, insofar as it is possible to do so, by the mutual consent of the Sheriff and the City Manager of City. 3.The level of requested supplemental services shall be determined by mutual written agreement between the County and the City prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The agreed upon level of supplemental service shall remain constant in the fiscal year,except upon sixty(60)days written notice by either party. City may, at any time during the term of this contract, request supplemental services from the Sheriff for a specific period within any fiscal year. Said Agreement for Supplemental Services shall be an addendum to this agreement and shall provide for the type, cost, level and time of such services. 4.Regional assets shall provide services to City on the same basis as these regional asset services are provided to other law enforcement agencies as provided in mutual aid protocol. C. Supplemental Reserve Services These services are provided by reserve sheriff's deputies. Their primary responsibility is the transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility, and additional services as requested by City and approved by the Sheriff's Office. D. Plan for Service 1.Prior to March 1St of each contract year, City shall provide to the Sheriff a written statement of the level of law enforcement service to be provided during the coming contract year. If City fails to request a specific level of service of the coming fiscal year not less than thirty (30) days prior to the start of the fiscal year, County may provide the same level of service as was provided during the previous fiscal year, but for a period of time not to exceed thirty (30) days. 2.Prior to March 15`h of each contract year, City and Sheriff shall develop a plan which specifies the level and amount of services to be provided in the ensuing fiscal year. E. Assignment and Transfer Policy 2 111 Sheriff's deputies assigned to provide Law Enforcement Services and Supplemental Services as herein described shall be assigned to City for a period of not less than three years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, because a transfer is requested by the individual, or by the City and concurred with by the Sheriff. Special Assignment personnel (e.g. SRO)shall be assigned to City for a period of not less than five years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, because a transfer is requested by the individual, or by the City and concurred with by the Sheriff. F. Designation of Chief of Police If City shall so desire, and County and the Sheriff shall so agree, nothing in the agreement prevents or limits City from designating the Sheriff or his designee as its Chief of Police in order to satisfy the provisions of Part I,Division 3, Title 4 of the California Government Code(sections 36501,et seq.). However, this shall not affect the authority of the Sheriff to control and direct employees of this Office in carrying out duties and obligations pursuant to this contract and shall not increase any liability to the County arising from this agreement. G. Disaster Contingency Plan 1.In the event of a major disaster that necessitates the activation of an Emergency Operations Center in City, a Sheriffs representative shall immediately be dispatched and report to the Director of Emergency Services(City Manager). 2.Initial response by a Deputy Sheriff may be the nearest patrol unit or able bodied officer available. 3. A pre-designated Sheriffs Emergency Operations Center liaison officer shall be notified as soon as possible to respond to the Emergency Operations Center and coordinate law enforcement responsibilities. 4.The pre-designated Emergency Operations Center liaison officers maintained on the active call list shall be available to the Director of Emergency Services. 5. Responsibility for personnel instruction and any specialized training in the Emergency Operations Center shall be provided by City. 3 112 6.In the event a major disaster occurs, the Sheriff's Office shall provide support as required to comply with the City's emergency operations cost recovery efforts. H. Booking and Processing Services County shall provide booking and processing services to those arrested persons within the Corporate limits of City, and who are brought to the County jail for booking or detention. Communication Services The County shall,through its Communication Department,provide for emergency communication services in support of the Sheriffs Office and City's operations. Services will include 24 hour per day 9-1-1 telephone answering and radio dispatching of Sheriffs personnel. Services will be provided in accordance with the existing departmental operational procedures. II. COMPENSATION A. Compensation for Law Enforcement Services Provided by Sheriff 1. The City shall compensate the County utilizing the Fiscal Year 2014/2015 base rate established for general law enforcement and county communications(hereinafter "law enforcement"). The parties agree that the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the base rate times the percentage increase in total compensation(exclusive of PERS)provided to all patrol deputies of the Sheriff's Office as set forth in a calculation formula agreed and attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference,or the annual average for the 12 month period of December to December of the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Consumer Price Index(CPI/W) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region hereinafter "CPI/W")plus 2%, whichever is less. For years in which compensation is increased in a multi-year contract,the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPI/W plus 2%for each individual year. The increase over the life of the agreement will not exceed the actual cumulative average of CPI/W plus 2%for the life of the agreement. In addition, the City agrees to compensate the County for any PERS cost increases charged to the County. These contractual costs may be adjusted only one(1)time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1. 4 113 2.If,during the course of a fiscal year, it appears that the Sheriff will exceed the planned level of service, City or Sheriff shall as soon as possible notify the other party and propose amendments or modifications to the plan of services for the balance of the fiscal year. City or Sheriff shall review any such proposed modifications but is not obligated to approve them. If City does not approve them,the Sheriff is not obligated to provide such services over and above the level of services provided in the plan. City is not obligated to pay for services in an amount greater than the total that has been approved in the plan. The County agrees that it will not unilaterally reduce the level of law enforcement services without prior consultation with the City. 3. In those years during which a contract is to be negotiated between the County of Santa Clara and the Deputy Sheriffs Association,and has not been settled for the purpose of computing increases in this agreement,the County shall utilize The average CPUW plus 2%for computation of said increases plus any additional PERS contribution increases. County will subsequently notify city of any increases in rates resulting from the new contract terms,within thirty(30)days of the date of such contract resolution. For years in which compensation is increased in a multi-year contract,the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPUW plus 2%for each individual year. The increase over the life of the agreement will not exceed the actual cumulative average of CPUW plus 2% for the ten year agreement. 4.County shall specify to City,not less than ninety(90)days prior to the start of City's fiscal year, the new projected budget annual contract amount. a.City shall compensate County at the primary rate, for the Activity" and "Patrol" time expended in the City. Additionally, County shall charge City for meal periods, "beat preparation" time and "securing from beat" time at the rate of ten percent(10%)of the above referenced hours. b.Activity" and "Patrol" times are identified through the County Patrol Activity Network Analysis (COPANA)and Patrol Activity Report(PAR). A listing of items and their designations as Activity" or "Patrol" are to be set forth in the attachment to the yearly plan for service. The COPANA and PAR software 5 114 applications may be updated or exchanged for newer software applications during the life of the agreement. B. Supplemental/Reserve Service 1.Compensation for all services within Sections A., B. and C. to be rendered pursuant to this agreement shall be based upon one of the following five 5) rates per hour of service: a.Primary Rate. This rate is calculated to reflect the average full cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle. b.Supplemental Day Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is not payable to the deputy who operates the vehicle. c.Supplemental Night Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is payable to the deputy who operates the vehicle. d.Supplemental Reserve Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of two Reserve Deputy Sheriffs with patrol vehicle. e.Investigative Service Rate. This rate is calculated to reflect the average full cost per hour of an investigator's time. 2.City shall compensate County monthly for each hour of Supplemental Service at the rates described above and specified in Exhibit A. C. Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation 1.City and County shall share the costs of renting and operating the West Valley Division Substation as follows: a.The City's share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the County and Dollinger Properties, LLC. The monthly base rent will increase 2.5%each year commencing November 8, 2015 and City shall be responsible for its share of this base rent increase. City shall be responsible for any increase in operating expenses and real estate taxes allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the FY2014/2015 Base Year. Yearly increases in controllable operating costs (other than insurance, taxes and 6 115 utilities) shall be capped at 5%. These operating costs may be adjusted only one (1) time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1. The City's share of the operating cost and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COPANA reports. For budgeting purposes estimates are provided in the plan of execution of law enforcement services contract provided each year. b.City shall pay to County monthly that portion of the substation operating costs attributable to City. Any change to the location of the substation, or the cost of the facility over and above the contract language as set forth in II.C.I.a., shall be mutually agreed to by the parties to this agreement. c.For the purposes of this provision of the Agreement(1) "Operating Costs" are defined as the cost of rent,janitorial services, minor repairs, and utilities and all other costs the County is required to pay under the lease agreement for the substation. d.Prorata share to City for substation costs will not be changed during the term of this agreement due to the loss of any contracting city unless mutually agreed to by the remaining parties to the agreement. D. Compensation for Criminal Justice Administrative Services The criminal justice administrative fee is based upon an approved Ordinance No. NS - 300.470. E. Method of payment for all Services Compensation for all services shall be paid by City to County in the following manner: 1.The City shall pay to County an amount equal to one-twelfth of the annual projected budget amount as calculated in Exhibit B. First payment is due on the tenth day following the last day of each month of the contract year. 2.Adjustment to the law enforcement annual projected budget-amount shall be performed every year of the contract as follows: a.The difference between the actual cost of police services for the previous year, as shown by the COPANA report and the amount 7 116 actually paid by City to County for those services shall be added to, or subtracted from, the amount paid for the prior year. b.Other police services not included in COPANA Reports shall be reconciled every year for those specific services. 3.Payments, or any portion thereof, not made by City to County within thirty 30) days of the due date shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent 10%)per annum until paid. Interest so accrued shall be payable to County on the last day of the month in which it accrued. 4.By September 30 following the end of each of the contract years, County shall provide to City the COPANA report for the entire contract year. If the amount actually paid by City to County exceeds the cost of law enforcement services and operating costs of the West Valley Station as set forth in the COPANA report, County shall pay to City the amount of such excess by October 1 following the end of the contract year. Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of such final COPANA report, City shall pay to County the full amount, if any, by which the costs of police services, as set forth in the final COPANA report for the contract year, exceeds the amount actually paid by City for such services. For purposes of calculating the final amount due to County from City, City's credit for the amount actually paid by City shall not include any interest paid by City due to late monthly payments. III. REPORTS A. Monthly Reports County shall provide to City on a monthly basis report(s) on the incidence of crime within City. Said report(s) shall differentiate between "law enforcement services" and supplemental services," and shall be in a format as agreed upon between County and City. 1. County shall provide such month end reports to City within thirty (30) days of the last day of that month. 2. By September 30 following the end of the contract year, County shall provide to City the COPANA report for the entire contract year. 3. Special additional reports requested by City may be provided at cost. IV. HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE A. The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out 8 117 of, or in connection with, performance of the duties and obligations of the County and its employees set forth in this agreement. B. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of the duties and obligations of the City and its employees set forth in this agreement. C. This mutual indemnification agreement is adopted pursuant to Government code section 895.4 and in lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the parties pursuant to Government code section 895.6. V. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY County and City shall each maintain its own liability insurance coverage, through self-insurance or otherwise, against any claim of civil liability arising out of the performance of this agreement. VI. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall become effective on 7/1/14, and may be terminated without cause by County or City upon the giving of one-hundred and eighty (180) days written 11 notice of such termination to the other party. In the absence of such notice of termination, this agreement shall be effective for a term of one hundred and twenty (120) months until 7/1/24, subject to any modifications which are made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. If City elects to terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the ten-year term, the City shall nonetheless pay the full amount of its pro- rata share remaining on County tenant improvements, moving costs and remaining lease commitments for the West Valley Division substation. At the expiration of this ten (10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an additional five (5) year period upon written notice of renewal by City and the County to the other parties at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of this contract. 9 118 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Date: JUN 2 4 2014 By: Mike Wasserman, President Board of Supervisors Signed and certified that a copy of this Document has been delivered by electronic Or other means to the President, Board of Supervisors. Atte,' Dated: JUN 2 4 2014 Lynn Regadanz, Clerk Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Che Stevens, Deputy County Counsel (Date) CITY OF SARATOGA Date: l l - z G / Z`j oBy: Dave Anderson, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: l Richard Taylor, City Attorney Date) 10 119 Page | 0 County of Santa Clara SHERIFF’S OFFICE | 55 WEST YOUNGER AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 Law Enforcement Contract - Saratoga FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 PROPOSED COSTS 120 Page | 1 This page intentionally left blank 121 Page | 2 Table of Contents The Sheriff’s Office ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Organizational Chart ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Law Enforcement Contract – Background .................................................................................................... 9 Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services ............................................................................................. 11 Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics .................................................................................................... 13 Contract Costing Model .............................................................................................................................. 15 Cost Calculation Methodology .................................................................................................................... 16 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours ...................................................................................................... 17 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs ................................................................................... 18 Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison ........................................................................ 19 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates ........................................................................................... 20 Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison .................................................................................................... 21 Contract Cities’ Statistical Data ................................................................................................................... 22 Statistical Data - City of Saratoga ................................................................................................................ 27 122 Page | 3 The Sheriff’s Office The Sheriff's Office is divided into 4 major bureaus: Administrative Services, Enforcement, Custody, and Support Services. I. Administrative Services The Administrative Services Director manages Information Systems, Legislative, Contracts and Analysis Unit, Fiscal Division and Sheriff’s Identification Unit. The Administrative Services Director also oversees all administrative and support staff for all the bureaus. Together they work with a team approach to effectively manage this large organization. II. Enforcement - comprised of the following divisions Headquarters Patrol Headquarters Patrol provides 24-hour uniformed law enforcement patrol services for most county buildings and all Central, East and South unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The unincorporated areas of the Mount Hamilton Range, including Mount Hamilton, San Antonio Valley, Isabel Valley, San Felipe Valley, and Hall's Valley are patrolled from this station. The unincorporated south county communities of San Martin, Rucker, and Uvas Canyon as well as the unincorporated areas surrounding Morgan Hill and Gilroy are patrolled by units from the South County Station. The Sheriff’s Office is also responsible for the Parks Patrol Unit that provides law enforcement services for the 27 parks and lakes managed by the Santa Clara County Parks Department. The Rural Crimes Unit was formed in 1992 and specializes in crimes associated with rural farming businesses. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office also enjoys great collaboration with Gavilan College to provide an additional layer of safety and security for students on campus and the Gilroy Early College Academy (GECA) which is located on the property. West Valley Patrol The West Valley (WV) Patrol Division of the Sheriff’s Office proudly serves the Cities of Saratoga, Cupertino, Town of Los Altos Hills, as well as the Western Unincorporated areas of the county from Summit Road to Moffett Field. The WV Patrol Division is committed to providing progressive law enforcement services and maintaining healthy community partnerships. Deputies are routinely involved in community events across all cities. There are 83 sworn positions and 7 professional support staff assigned to the West Valley Patrol Division. Deputies provide a full range of law enforcement responsibilities to include Patrol, Traffic Enforcement, Investigative Services, School Resource Officers, Neighborhood Resource Officers, K-9 Services and Special Enforcement assignments. The Division employs modern strategies such as community oriented policing and predictive policing, as well as innovative and progressive initiatives geared toward enhancing quality of life measures. A full time analyst works directly with patrol deputies and detectives to identify crime trends. Deputies perform daily enforcement duties with the goal of making neighborhoods safe by bringing criminals to justice. The Division is managed by Captain Rich Urena, who serves as Commander and works closely with each city and the various communities. 123 Page | 4 Transit Patrol The Sheriff Transit Patrol Division provides contracted supplemental general law enforcement services for the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with the primary goal of safety for VTA patrons, employees, and the security of VTA vehicles and properties. VTA’s mass transit system of bus and light rail operations includes a 346 square mile service area which transcends through 15 municipalities and unincorporated Santa Clara County. Law Enforcement responsibilities in the Sheriff Transit Patrol Division include 24-hour uniformed patrol, explosives detection K-9s, motorcycle patrol, bicycle patrol, detectives, and 2 special teams focused on transit related crime suppression. The Sheriff’s Office Transit Patrol Division also provides supplemental law enforcement services for Valley Transportation Authority property and assets located at the Milpitas BART Station. Investigative Services The Investigative Services Division operates out of three primary locations: Headquarters, West Valley Station, and South County Station. To accomplish the mission of the Investigative Services Division, investigators are trained for general investigation and receive additional training for specific areas of expertise. In order to ensure that each crime is properly investigated by a detective with skill and experience, the following units are each dedicated to a particular type of crime. • Homicide / Major Crimes • Sexual Assault • Property Crimes • Missing Persons / Juvenile Crimes / Child Abuse • Domestic Violence • Hate Crime • Court Liaison • West Valley Detectives • South County Investigations • Jail and Gang Investigations • Notario Fraud Investigation • Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Task Force • Law Enforcement to Investigate Human Trafficking (LEIHT) Task Force • Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force • Santa Clara County Regional Auto Theft Task Force ( R.A.T.T.F) • Crime Scene Investigation Special Operations The Special Operations Division encompasses the Air Support Unit, California Multi-Jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement Team (Cal-MMET), Intelligence Unit, and Marijuana Eradication Team (MET). We strive to establish a wide, collaborative, consistent and coordinated approach to abating criminal activity and narcotics trafficking with an emphasis on enforcement, intelligence gathering, investigation, prosecution, intervention and prevention. 124 Page | 5 Special Operation also oversees all specialized teams in the Office of the Sheriff. Deputies assigned to this teams are trained in the following areas: • Bomb Squad • Sheriff's Emergency Response Team - S.E.R.T. • Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) • Canine Unit K9 • Underwater Search Unit (USU) • Sheriff's Off-Road Enforcement (SORE) • Search and Rescue (SAR) • Crowd Control Unit (CCU) Civil/Warrants The Civil Warrants Division serves Civil process in the manner prescribed by law. Civil process includes restraining orders, bench warrants, arrest warrants, evictions and any other notice or order from the courts. We also levy on wages, bank accounts, vehicles or any asset of the judgment debtor. III. Custody The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Custody Division is the fifth largest jail system in California, and among the 20 largest systems in the United States. Our jail is among the 100 systems nationwide with an inmate population of more than 1,000. Currently, the average daily population for the Santa Clara County Correctional facilities was approximately 2,160 inmates a day. Approximately 48,000 arrestees are booked annually with an average length of stay of about 206 days. The Custody Bureau consists of several divisions: Main Jail Facility, Elmwood Correctional Facility, Custody Administrative Services, Jail Reforms, Support Services, and Compliance. IV. Support Services Support Services are comprised of the following services: Personnel/Recruiting/Backgrounds/Reserves The Sheriff’s Office Personnel Division is a full functioning Service Center that provides all aspects of Human Resource support to every employee and retiree of our office. It is responsible for the Backgrounds and Recruiting unit, Health and Injury Prevention Unit, and the Reserve and Youth Cadet Programs. Training & Compliance Division The Training and Compliance Division oversees all aspects of professional growth and development for Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office personnel. The mission of the Training and Compliance Division is to provide creative and collaborative training resources and opportunities to employees of the Sheriff’s Office; to ensure state and agency specific mandated training is tracked efficiently to ensure compliance, update agency policies and procedures as needed, and facilitate the Regional Justice Training Academies of the Sheriff’s Office. The division is composed of five distinct training programs encompassing a wide variety of training: • The Santa Clara County Justice Training Center 125 Page | 6 • Field and Jail Training Program • In-Service Training • Regional Driver Training Center • The Regional Firearms Training Facility All Sheriff's Office personnel must complete either the California Peace Officer Standards or Training Basic Academy Course or the California Standards and Training for Corrections Core Course. These basic academy training courses are administered by certified instructors and Sheriff's Office Recruit Training Officers (RTO). Once the new peace officer graduates from the Basic Academy, they will go through an extensive Field Training Program or Jail Training Program. Well qualified peace officers instruct new deputies on the day-to-day responsibilities of a peace officer. The Training & Compliance Division also puts on several annual in-service trainings. These courses include De-Escalation, Tactical Communication, Crisis Intervention, Use of Force, Defensive Tactics, Driving, First Aid/CPR, Implicit Bias, Blue Courage, Mindfulness, etc. All of these courses are regulated by the California POST and STC for the Enforcement and Custody Bureaus, respectively. Court Security Court Security division provides security to the seven State of California Superior Courts located within Santa Clara County on a contract basis. There are more than 220 sworn and professional staff assigned to the Court Security Contract. There are many specialized assignments within the Court Security Division to include Judicial/Dignitary Protection, Felony and Misdemeanor Court Trial Bailiffs, Risk Assessment Unit, CIT trained Dual Diagnosis Court Bailiffs, Juvenile Dependency Bailiffs, Juvenile Court Bailiffs Holding Cell Operations and Court Movement Deputies. More than 1,250,000 people pass through our security screening stations each year. Deputies and Sheriff’s Technicians operate security screening stations at the entrance of each court facility. Their primary job is to ensure no illegal or dangerous items enter a court facility. Valley Medical Center Security Valley Medical Center Security division provides oversight of all security and law enforcement services for Santa Clara County’s Health and Hospital System, 24-hours a day/7-days per week. Valley Medical Hospital system includes 13 Medical/Urgent Care Clinics, O’Connor, St. Louise Hospitals and De Paul Health Center. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center is the county’s main trauma center and located in San Jose. Santa Clara County Health and Hospital System employs approximately 10,000 employees, two thirds of which are assigned to the Valley Medical Campus. Stanford University Stanford University division provides oversight and operational authority to Stanford Department of Public Safety through direct supervision of the assigned Captain. The Sheriff’s Captain acts at the direction of the Sheriff in policy matters. The Sheriff’s Captain will coordinate cases involving death and serious felonies to ensure coordination and control with the Sheriff’s Office. The 126 Page | 7 assigned Captain further reviews policy and procedures to safeguard adherence to the standards set by the Sheriff. Currently, the Sheriff’s Office has 1,797 employees. Of those employees, 1,402 of them are sworn law enforcement officers and 395 of them are non-sworn, civilian staff who provide support to the entire operation. In addition to the full-time badge staff, the Sheriff’s Office has numerous Reserve Deputy Sheriffs. 127 Page | 8 Organizational Chart ·-Office Of the Sh, Clf1ilnll«10nlll( . .,.., .., _ _,_ ---~-••MJA-DWelt Aepcwt to OSIU: MSD/PRWLO Off1ce of the Shenff Sheriff Laurie Smith I -; Corrc>lianoo I II lh-Undenherllf Public ln~b 0111oer Lt. David Roberts Ken ~nder S&t .... lOw I Deputy~ Gabaldon ~ " Adminis.trati\le ~Mces Director Enforcement :.tant Sheriff Custody ,.;r.,.., Sheflff su_..5eN~-.antSilenn luk~ung Mtchael Ooty Timot~ Davis Dalla ~nguez /.>. ~ J ,.........J J lnveatjfltlve Se~Jall Crimea Ma~Joll v v capt Den Rodr1(uez Capt. James Kirkland "fcrmation S)'Sklma U. Jtm., ~-• AOC u.~r.t'\IIIICiei·AOC f-Stanbd Onl~ WesleyChonC U. Brenctan omotl • MCU U ._bltCIMC)UIOT ... C$pt. Nuno Ribeiro ISOI,_ u. Jatnet c:.nan. RAnF U.IICIItU.Siac!M·CT-.... LLIIIIIIRIDIII.:·~f .. m ..... v ~ -Volley,. ... v Capt. Ricardo Urena Capt. Malil Padget v _ ..... eon..-end Anelylla U. T~hlton · AOC Court S.W:.arlty Unit U. Nel Yatentue&l • A.OC LLWN~·Cbli Michelle Oov11TUbl11 .... U~Oullll·.vlfMm r-Clpl James Helm• u~.,., .. ,.ct•m Lt. Steven Hernandez Proe"&m Manater 111 U.NIIIUI till~· 0 lte~~t ..... .... v U,TfC1$1'111111...;.!,r.~ BucWet Mln.,.rr:.t end ~tin ~-t'lf-tlnrul v CApt. Elbert Rivera .., Thuyet ztyalan .... Pnllcy VMC ,IMfltltl~tllwtiM ,.....,. Capt Frank Zacharlsen r-Capt. Erldt 8ourasu IItvin ZltiCfWOOC) .., .... S&t DeMit O...na OtpiM-IAI.:--1 Mllnl .... OMVW•,..,ntJ. Content"-..... Lt. Kelvin Mah ... .... u .. McCabe ~fW/AN\~tl'll'l~,_ ldentlbtlon Unit ProCJ11m .... Manacer Clpt Quit Grumbol Tlmfayto .., r-Lt. Mlctletle Albin Stu Dtteotor Tn~~ntilt P.tn'll ~ JanTransltlnn ctwlttlnt Goodaon -HR Manaftr .... Copt. llevld l.t<l Jell Refofml .... U. -Cotdoze • ADC CHSUoloon .... ~ O.MCI ...... ...cl• v u.~H'r·Or~ Tn.tNnc Clpt. Adam Obttdorfer HQ""~"'""trol """"""~-L-Lt. fHchttd Allnit Capt Roberl Curt ~lluiWr HI~ • ADO Capt Thom11 Our1n ~I.IIJI~t~t~ W.cneoo-U.N~•m-...~ u, lt-,~ C..OciiiMl lLOifpt.-CI•·"'oar~!U u,.._, ·WMtiiCDIMI In"*:;~.,.~~~ ··u•,.,. •-~u lloci--T-T Cluolocl!"" fleet and eomn.tnlcatlont . ..;;.... Q/COml)lltnot C&p\, AOO.rt Ourr ~htllt Ccwerl'\lbltt ,....,,m~n...,lll 128 Page | 9 Law Enforcement Contract – Background I. SERVICES City of Cupertino, City of Saratoga, and Town of Los Altos Hills entered into an agreement with the County of Santa Clara, Sheriff’s Office for the following law enforcement services: A. Law Enforcement Services - include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls, investigative services and other law enforcement services. B. Supplemental Services – as requested by the City which may include traffic law enforcement beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide. C. Supplemental Reserve Services – services provided by reserve sheriff deputies such as transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility and additional services as requested by City and approved by the Sheriff’s Office. D. Booking and Processing Services – include booking and processing services to those arrested persons within the corporate limits of City and who are brought to County jail for booking or detention. E. Communication Services – emergency communication services in support of the Sheriff’s Office and City’s operations. Services include 24 hour per day 9-1-1 telephone answering and radio dispatching of Sheriff’s personnel. II. COMPENSATION Law Enforcement Services FY 2014-2015 base rate. Annual increase limited to the lesser of (a) percentage increase in total compensation and annual PERS cost increase or (b) annual CPI/W plus 2% and annual PERS cost increase. Supplemental/Reserve Services a. Primary Rate – average full cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle b. Supplemental Day Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is not payable c. Supplemental Night Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is payable d. Supplemental Reserve Rate – cost of two Reserve Deputy Sheriff with patrol vehicle e. Investigative Service Rate – average full cost per hour of an investigator’s time. Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation The cities’ share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the County and Dollinger Properties, LLC. The monthly base rent will increase 2.5% each year. The cities shall be responsible for the base rent increase and any increase in operating expenses and real estate taxes allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the FY2014-2015 base year. Yearly controllable operating costs shall be capped at 5%. The cities’ share of the operating cost and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COPANA reports. 129 Page | 10 III. TERM OF AGREEMENT – July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2024. The agreement may be terminated without cause upon giving 180 days written notice of such termination to the other party. At the expiration of this ten (10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an additional five (5) year period upon written notice of renewal by City and the County to other parties upon 180 days advance notice. IV. ANNUAL CONTRACT USAGE HISTORY Saratoga FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 Services General Law Enforcement Hours 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 Traffic Enforcement – Days - Hours 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 Investigative Hours 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 Reserve Activity Hours 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 Special Services – Traffic Sergeant - - - - - - School Resources Officer $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Projected Costs $4,973,080 $5,176,173 $5,420,767 $5,680,745 $6,057,371 $6,417,203 Actual Costs $4,981,030 $5,170,962 $5,200,757 $5,678,842 $5,958,047 130 Page | 11 Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services Contracting for police services may help a community enhance its level and quality of service delivered, providing an array of services that can be revised as needs change and at a cost less than that for supporting an independent law-enforcement organization. Cost Savings Communities may contract for police services for many reasons, most of which are related to resources. Contracting for police services most often resulted in significant cost savings. Savings may result from reducing administrative and command staff positions with consolidation, pooling of resources, and lower capital costs. Contracting may also provide economies of scale, as larger organizations may be more efficient and provide services at lower cost than smaller ones. Enhanced Quality and Level of Service Since the policing system is highly fragmented and leads to a significant duplication of local services that consolidation through contracting can mitigate, a city contracting for services may find it can provide equivalent services with fewer staff than in a stand-alone entity. A city may, for example, provide capacity for rare events that far exceeds its true needs. By contracting with a larger agency with specialized capabilities as needed, a city can better focus its resources on base law-enforcement services. Contracting for police services may provide an opportunity to enhance both the level and quality of service delivered. By contracting, a community can receive not only the benefits of the contract deputies assigned to it, but also has access to more specialized areas such as investigations, forensics, crime-analysis services of the Sheriff’s Office and much more. The breadth and experience in the Sheriff’s Office far exceed those in smaller cities’ police departments. Cost savings Staffing flexibility Efficient use of resources Appropriate staffing level Enhanced level of service Enhanced quality of service Breadth & depth of experience 131 Page | 12 Efficient Use of Staffing Resources Contracting can make more efficient use of staffing resources, especially in communities with local law- enforcement agencies governed by minimum staffing levels. Such levels may be defined by collective bargaining but more often are driven by policy and practice. Such levels assume departments are autonomous and cannot rely on nearby agencies for resources. This may lead to communities setting staffing levels at an unnecessarily high level. The Sheriff’s Office has resources in the other areas, which allows basic staffing level for the city to be at a lower level but backup and supervision from others can provide additional resources when needed. 132 Page | 13 Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics County of Santa Clara, Office of the Sheriff Average Cost Per Resident for Police Services and Percent of City Budget Allocated to Law Enforcement Services 2020-2021 Police Operating Budgets # City Land Area in Square Miles (1) Population/ Square Mile Population (1) Police Budget Budget per Capita Total City Budget Percent of City Budget 1 Los Altos Hills (2) 8.8 957.2 8,423 $2,065,245 $204.77 $13,181,131 15.7% 2 Cupertino (2) 11.3 5,245.7 59,276 $14,792,330 $233.97 $82,287,295 18.0% 3 Palo Alto 23.9 2,734.9 65,364 $47,110,074 $670.00 $238,801,000 19.7% 4 Saratoga (2) 12.4 2,431.7 30,153 $6,408,958 $205.36 $26,641,745 24.1% 5 Santa Clara 18.4 7,085.1 130,365 $77,593,819 $570.64 $269,399,009 28.8% 6 San Jose 176.5 5,789.2 1,021,795 $455,188,814 $531.95 $1,547,689,229 29.4% 7 Los Altos 6.5 4,629.1 30,089 $12,836,225 $382.92 $43,318,880 29.6% 8 Monte Sereno (3) 1.7 2,046.5 3,479 $1,020,157 $273.80 $3,221,326 31.7% 9 Mountain View 12.0 6,894.9 82,739 $46,152,014 $528.79 $144,021,218 32.0% 10 Sunnyvale (4) 22.0 6,941.0 152,703 $114,306,055 $222.36 $354,913,330 32.2% 11 Milpitas 13.6 6,190.9 84,196 $38,367,020 $453.01 $116,831,532 32.8% 12 Los Gatos 11.1 2,722.7 30,222 $17,587,825 $552.18 $53,180,454 33.1% 13 Campbell 5.8 7,205.7 41,793 $20,229,929 $675.90 $54,559,148 37.1% 14 Morgan Hill 12.9 3,562.2 45,952 $17,697,892 $377.34 $43,763,247 40.4% 15 Gilroy 16.2 3,644.0 59,032 $25,380,854 $407.38 $57,711,594 44.0% Incorporated Cities 353.1 5,226.8 1,845,581 Unincorporated Areas 937.0 87.8 82,271 County Total 1,290.1 1,494.3 1,927,852 1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts" 2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. 3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours. 4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget. 133 Page | 14 Annual Crime Rate Number of Annual Crimes1 Crime Rate1 (per 1,000 residents) Name FY 2021 Public Safety Budget* Budget per Capita Crime Index1 (100 is Safest) Violent Property Total Violent Property Total Los Altos Hills2 $2,065,245 $205 67 3 68 71 0.36 8.07 8.43 Cupertino2 $14,792,330 $234 32 58 1,027 1,085 0.98 17.33 18.31 Palo Alto $47,110,074 $670 13 89 1,993 2,082 1.36 30.49 31.85 Saratoga2 $6,408,958 $205 66 18 244 262 0.60 8.09 8.69 Santa Clara $77,593,819 $571 9 221 4,766 4,987 1.70 36.56 38.26 San Jose $455,188,814 $532 15 4,633 25,592 30,225 4.53 25.05 29.58 Los Altos $12,836,225 $383 55 23 314 337 0.76 10.44 11.20 Monte Sereno3 $1,020,157 $274 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mountain View $46,152,014 $529 13 169 2,474 2,643 2.04 29.90 31.94 Sunnyvale4 $114,306,055 $222 22 266 3,401 3,667 1.74 22.27 24.01 Milpitas $38,367,020 $453 17 106 2,204 2,310 1.26 26.18 27.44 Los Gatos $17,587,825 $552 43 16 423 439 0.53 14.00 14.53 Campbell $20,229,929 $676 11 91 1,362 1,453 2.18 32.59 34.77 Morgan Hill $17,697,892 $377 36 54 709 763 1.18 15.43 16.61 Gilroy $25,380,854 $407 15 254 1,488 1,742 4.30 25.21 29.51 California 174,331 921,114 1,095,445 4.41 23.31 27.72 United States 1,245,410 6,925,677 8,171,087 3.80 21.11 24.91 1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts" 2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. 3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours. 4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget. 134 Page | 15 Contract Costing Model The Sheriff’s Office (SO), Fiscal Division annually develops a cost estimate for the contracting cities based upon the Contract Costing Model. The model has been developed in-house and takes into account a variety of cost factors, which are updated annually. It is important to note that not all cost factors in use within the costing model are developed by the SO. Some of the cost factors are dictated by other County departments to the SO, and the cost is just passed along to the contracting agencies. The following points outline the overall approach utilized to calculate the baseline estimates for the contracted cities. 1. Salaries and Benefits – based on Countywide salary table, applicable benefit rates developed by County Office of Budget and Analysis, and annual salary increases and allowances specified by labor agreements. The salaries and benefits section of the contract is where the costs are captured for not only the direct staff that are assigned to each city, but also the regional and shared staff among the contracted cities. 2. Services and Supplies – the direct services and supplies include the projected expenditures for any supplies, materials, or services associated with the direct or shared staff. 3. Indirect Costs For all services provided, there are direct costs associated (salaries, benefits, services, and supplies) and indirect costs such as training, countywide support, divisional overhead, and departmental overhead. To truly capture the full cost of any service, both direct and indirect cost components must be captured. SO captures all indirect costs associated with the provision of its law enforcement services. • Overhead is calculated on a per position and is developed by taking the costs associated with those services that primarily provide support to the entire SO. The overhead calculation consists of the Personnel and Training Division, Information Systems Division, Records and Fiscal Division. For each of these areas, the cost per employee is generated by estimating the total administrative costs related to these activities and divided it by the total number of employees that are supported by those activities. The costs are then allocated to the division providing contract services based on number of staff assigned to the contract services or annual percentage of time spent on the activities (Records) . The total costs for these divisions included the applicable division’s share of the Countywide overhead. 135 Page | 16 Cost Calculation Methodology 136 Page | 17 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga Unincorporated Areas General Law Enforcement Services Proposed Hours 41,881 7,256 * 20,060 14,696 Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day Enforcement Vehicle 3,639 ** - - - Motorcycle 7,212 1,860 4,195 - Proposed Hours 10,851 1,860 4,195 - Investigative Services Proposed Hours 7,200 600 2,400 - Supplemental Reserve Services Proposed Hours 1,650 22 340 - Total Proposed Hours 61,582 9,738 26,995 14,696 School Resources Officer (SRO) Number of SRO 2 - 1 - * Includes additional hours equivalent to productive hours of one full-time deputy ** Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant 137 Page | 18 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga Unincorporated Areas General Law Enforcement Services Proposed Costs $10,168,707 $1,761,757 $4,870,568 $3,568,189 Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day Enforcement Vehicle* $918,336 $0 $0 $0 Motorcycle $1,718,475 $443,082 $999,668 $0 Proposed Costs $2,636,811 $443,082 $999,668 $0 Investigative Services Proposed Costs $1,742,544 $145,212 $580,848 $0 Supplemental Reserve Services Proposed Costs $107,778 $1,437 $22,209 $0 School Resources Officer (SRO) Proposed Costs $574,732 $0 $251,445 $0 Operating Costs Of West Valley Substation Proposed Costs $254,915 $44,068 $117,252 $71,043 Total Proposed Costs $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990 $3,639,232 Total Capped Costs** $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990 Amount Over/(Below) Capped Costs $0 $0 $0 * Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant ** Increase in costs capped at CPI + 2% (3.53%) and PERS Increase 138 Page | 19 Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison Cupe rtino Los Altos Hill s Gene ra l law Enforce ment Services Budget e d Costs FY 2020-2021 $9,734,401 $1,26Q003 Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $10,168,707 $1,761,757 Ch a nge ($) $4 34,306 $501,754 Ch a nge (%) 4 .5% 39.8%. Suppleme ntal Services-Traffic Enforce ment-Day Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $2,307,678 $421,190 Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $2,636,8 11 $443,082 Ch a n ee (S) $329,133 $2 1.892 Ch a nge (%) 14.3% .. 5.2% lnve.stigativ e Services Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $1,653,4 80 $137,790 Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $1,7 42,5 44 $145,2 12 Ch a nge ($) $83,064 $7,422 Ch a nge (%) 5 .4% 5.4% Suppleme ntal Reserve Services Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $108,4 88 $1,380 Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $107,778 $1,437 Ch a nge ($) $4,2 90 $57 Ch a nge (%) 4 .1% 4.1% Sl:l nHJI 1\oouu.:t:.::.. O((i t.:t:t (SRO) Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $5 42,2 90 $0 Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $574,732 $0 Ch a nge ($) $32,442 $0 Ch a nge (%) 6 .0% 0% Operating Costs Of W e.st Va lley Substation• u • Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $2 49,4 93 $35,692 Pro posed Costs FY 2021-2022 $254,9 15 $44,068 Ch a nge ($) $5,4 22 $8,376 Ch a nge (%) 2 .2% 23.5% To ta l Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $14,59Q830 $1,856,0 55 TotJ I Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $15,485,487 $2,395,556 Ch a nge ($) $894,657 •• $539,5 01 Ch a nge (%) 6 .1% 29.1% • ln <ludes aclcl i tion al hours equival ent to productive hou ~of one fu ll -t im e deputy •• I nc ludes cost adj ustment for T r aff ic Sergeant ••• l n cl udescost adjustment fo r School Resou r ces Officer • Uni ncorporate d Saratoga Are a-s $4,662,546 $3,415,791 $4,870,568 $3,568,189 $208,022 $15 2,398 4 .5% 4 .5% $955,02 9 $0 $999,668 $0 $44,639 so 4 .7% 0% $551,16 0 $0 $580,848 $0 $29,688 $0 5 .4% 0% $21,325 $0 $22,209 $0 $884 $0 4 .1% 0% $100,000 $0 $251,445 $0 $15 1,445 $0 15 1.4% ... 0% $118,898 $72,040 $117 ,252 $71,043 ($1,646) ($997) -1.4% -1.4% $6,408,958 $3,4 87,831 $6,841,990 $3,639,232 $4 33,082 ••• $15 1,401 6 .8% 4 .3% •••• Costs f or operati rc: th e W est V all ey Substation v ar ie s each month dependent upon Gener al la\v En forcem:nt H ours and Sup5=l emental Hou r s u sed b y each city. 139 Page | 20 Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy Sheriff Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit FY 2021-2022 $242.80 FY 2021-2022 $238.28 FY 2020-2021 $232.43 FY 2020-2021 $226.48 Increase $10.37 4.4616% Increase $11.80 5.2102% Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car FY 2021-2022 $239.49 FY 2021-2022 $246.38 FY 2020-2021 $227.64 FY 2020-2021 $233.76 Increase $11.85 5.2056% Increase $12.62 5.3987% Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car FY 2021-2022 $243.19 FY 2021-2022 $242.02 FY 2020-2021 $234.92 FY 2020-2021 $229.65 Increase $8.27 3.5203% Increase $12.37 5.3865% Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car FY 2021-2022 $246.38 FY 2021-2022 $65.32 FY 2020-2021 $234.92 FY 2020-2021 $62.72 Increase $11.46 4.8783% Increase $2.60 4.1454% Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant FY 2021-2022 $265.07 FY 2021-2022 $195.70 FY 2020-2021 $251.63 FY 2020-2021 $185.35 Increase $13.44 5.3412% Increase $10.35 5.5840% 140 Page | 21 Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison For FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022 a b c = a - b d e f = e + d g Rate Category FY22 Rates FY21 Rates Increase/ (Decrease) PERS Increase FY21 Rate w/Increase of 3.53% FY22 CAP at FY21 + 3.53% (= CPI + 2%) + PERS FY22 Proposed Rates General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy Sheriff $242.80 $232.43 $10.37 $3.89 $240.63 $244.52 $242.80 Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car $239.99 $227.64 $12.35 $3.81 $235.68 $239.49 $239.49 Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car $243.19 $234.92 $8.27 $3.90 $243.21 $247.11 $243.19 Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car $246.38 $234.92 $11.46 $3.98 $243.21 $247.19 $246.38 Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant $268.09 $251.63 $16.46 $4.56 $260.51 $265.07 $265.07 Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit $245.41 $226.48 $18.93 $3.81 $234.47 $238.28 $238.28 Supplemental Services - Swing - Motorcycle Unit $248.61 $233.76 $14.85 $3.90 $242.01 $245.91 $245.91 Supplemental Services - Night - Motorcycle Unit $251.80 $233.76 $18.04 $3.98 $242.01 $245.99 $245.99 Law Enforcement Services - Detective $259.98 $229.65 $30.33 $4.26 $237.76 $242.02 $242.02 Supplemental Reserve Services $80.34 $62.72 $17.62 $0.39 $64.93 $65.32 $65.32 School Resources Officer $196.11 $185.35 $10.76 $3.81 $191.89 $195.70 $195.70 141 Page | 22 Contract Cities’ Statistical Data 2020 Arrests Totals and Averages 66 Total Number Average Per Deputy 262 3.97 312 4.73 63 0.95 248 3.76 885 13.41 Misdemeanor On View Arrests Felony Warrant Arrests Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests (Includes Cite & Release) Total Arrests Number of Field Enforcement Deputies Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division Felony On View Arrests 142 Page | 23 2020 Citations Totals and Averages 66 780 11.82 1296 19.64 3706 56.15 5782 87.61 Speeding Citations Moving Violation Citations Number of Field Enforcement Deputies Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division All Other Traffic Citations Total Citations 143 Page | 24 2020 Reports Totals and Averages 66 3203 48.53 450 6.82 3653 55.35 Number of Field Enforcement Deputies Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division Reports (Felony / Misdemeanor / Other) Accident Reports Total Reports 144 Page | 25 2020 Calls Totals and Averages 66 29288 443.76 94807 1436.47 124095 1880.23 Number of Field Enforcement Deputies Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division Self-Initiated Calls Total Incidents / Contacts Radio Generated Calls 145 Page | 26 2020 Priority Calls by District Totals Priority Level C H L S W 1 37 1 1 15 4 2 3244 229 634 1996 364 3 4431 406 647 2065 461 C = Cupertino S = Saratoga H = Unincorporated Santa Cruz Mountains W = Unincorporated West Valley L = Los Altos Hills 146 Page | 27 Statistical Data - City of Saratoga City o f Saratoga Selected Crimes Code Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Robbery 2110 2115 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 2019 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2020 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Burglary, 2018 5 10 8 3 4 0 3 5 10 4 8 12 7 2 Residential 4590 10 5 7 2 13 7 2 5 7 2 8 10 78 2019 2020 8 11 4 0 2 2 1 3 5 6 1 6 49 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Burglary, 4591 4592 2018 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 3 3 2 0 17 Commercial 2019 3 3 2 2 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 2 21 2020 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 17 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Burglary, 4593 2018 2 0 2 2 2 3 1 7 5 6 1 3 3 4 Vehicle 2019 3 0 2 1 0 5 3 1 8 2 4 5 34 2020 3 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 2 1 0 2 22 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J lil J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Grand Theft 4870 2018 1 0 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 23 2019 0 9 3 2 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 1 3 1 2020 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 1 2 8 4 10 44 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Auto The ft 4703 2018 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 14 2019 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 20 2020 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 6 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Vandalism 5940 5941 2018 4 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 4 6 0 0 20 2019 1 2 3 1 3 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 27 2020 2 0 3 1 1 5 6 3 2 0 3 4 30 Identity Theft Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2018 4 6 6 6 3 8 12 3 7 5 8 8 76 Forgery 4700 4702 2019 15 11 12 2 6 4 4 2 4 1 1 5 6 7 Fraud 2020 5 8 7 5 12 6 3 5 7 10 3 5 76 Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Domestic 2018 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 0 2 3 21 Violence 2430 2730 1 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 2019 2020 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 21 Simple& Year J an Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2400 2401 2018 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 Aggravated 2402 2403 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 Assaults 2404 2405 2019 2020 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 3 14 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May J oo J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2610 2615 2018 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 Sex Crimes 2880 2885 2890 2895 2019 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 14 2020 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 147 Page | 28 Saratoga Crime Totals 2018-2020 5 Robbery Iii 2 liiil 3 r ~ t 72 Residential Burglary 78 49 I I 17 Commercial Burglary 21 17 I I t--j 34 Vehicle Burglary 34 22 I I -J 23 Grand Theft 31 44 I I -I 14 Auto Theft 20 26 I I I j 20 Vandalism 27 30 I I ! J 76 ID Theft, Forgery Fra ud 67 76 I I I J 21 Domestic Violence 25 21 b 7 Assault 10 14 r J 10 Sex Crimes 14 iiiiiil s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 "2018 11 2019 11 2020 148 Page | 29 Saratoga Crime Index 2019-2020 VARIANCES 2019 2020 % Difference Commercial Burglary 21 17 -19% Jl Residential Burglary 78 49 -37% l Vehicle Burglary 34 22 -35% Jl Auto Theft 20 26 30% t Grand Theft 31 44 42% t Identity Theft 67 76 13% t Robbery 2 3 SO % t Assaults 10 14 40% t Domestic Violence 25 21 -16% i Sex Crimes 14 5 -64% l 149 Page | 30 In 15 of the reported cases, known time frame of burglary occurred over course of multiple days, day of week unknown. SARATOGA RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES 150 Page | 31 SARATOGA AUTO THEFT 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 2011 2012 2013 2014 59 2015 2016 2017 ~ 50% -Key was left l inside/with the vehicle ) 42%-Vehicle was left unlocked 27%-Vehicle stolen from contractor, landscaper or other service provider during scope of employment 2018 2019 2020 151 Page | 32 SARATOGA GRAND THEFT r-- ED -- ----- - --- : 1- -r--r-- -E1 E1 E\ -I I I I 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 • Cat a lytic Converter • Other 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 152 Page | 33 City of Saratoga Traffic Related Activity-Patrol and Traffic Units Combined Code Year Ja n Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Moving 2018 124 102 80 120 90 103 84 103 88 105 109 8 1 1189 8 300 Violations 2019 102 81 67 62 68 80 93 131 123 113 73 52 104 5 2020 66 69 38 8 14 9 29 10 23 27 23 21 337 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Speeding 2018 25 55 40 42 44 52 56 36 45 42 19 6 462 Citations 8305 2019 14 27 13 23 14 13 25 22 12 34 24 14 2 3 5 2020 4 9 8 3 11 9 11 8 10 25 14 16 128 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Other 83 10 831 5 83 20 2018 89 134 127 144 85 204 140 117 110 157 153 128 1588 Citations 8325 8330 8335 2019 199 157 139 162 123 134 185 197 135 242 166 133 1972 2020 219 234 184 so 115 42 51 42 43 74 68 80 1202 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 2018 0 3 6 1 5 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 29 DUis 8500 8505 85 10 2019 2 4 3 0 4 4 1 2 1 3 0 1 25 2020 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Accidents, 8000 8 00 5 80 30 2018 6 4 2 4 3 4 5 2 4 9 3 2 48 Injury 8 035 2019 3 3 6 2 3 1 3 5 4 5 7 3 45 2020 2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42 Accidents, Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Property 8010 8015 8020 2018 9 14 17 12 16 9 12 11 10 13 9 7 1 3 9 8025 8 04 0 8045 2019 16 7 10 11 7 4 14 8 10 10 8 7 112 Damage 2020 12 8 8 5 8 7 3 7 7 12 5 5 87 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Accidents, DUI 8050 8055 8060 2018 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 019 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2020 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Citations 2500 2 000 1500 1000 500 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 • M oving Vi o latio n • Speed i ng Citat ions • Ot her Citations 153 Page | 34 Saratoga Accidents 2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL Injury (8000, 8005)2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42 Property Damage (8010)10 5 6 4 6 5 2 5 6 8 3 3 63 Accident, No Details (8015)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bike / Pedestrian (8020, 8025)0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 8 Hit & Run - Injury (8030, 8035)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hit & Run - Property Damage (8040)2 4 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 17 Hit & Run - No Details (8045)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUI - Injury (8050, 8055)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUI - Property Damage (8060)0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 TOTAL ACCIDENTS 14 16 8 7 17 10 5 13 9 18 7 10 134 11.2 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 1 Crystal Bothelio From:Yan Zhao Sent:Wednesday, November 03, 2021 1:55 PM To:James Lindsay; Crystal Bothelio; Britt Avrit Subject:Fw: Saratoga Union School District and School Resource Officer Hi Britt, Can you please include Cynthia's comment as part of the agenda packet for Nov 17 meeting? thank you, yan From: Cynthia Miller Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 1:49 PM To: Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us> Cc:; Ken Geisick Subject: Re: Saratoga Union School District and School Resource Officer CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Yan, thank you for your prompt reply. Yes, please go ahead and designate my letter as written communication on the agenda item and include it as part of the agenda packet on November 17. If you believe that there are any further questions that councilmembers may have about how SUSD uses / values the SRO program then please just let us know and we will be happy to respond. Sincerely, Cynthia On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 1:28 PM Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Dear Cynthia, Thank you for your email. I truly appreciate your perspective on the School Resource Officer. As you guessed, our agenda for the Joint Meeting does not really allow for discussion of the School Resource Officer. However, the City Council will be discussing funding for the School Resource Officer in our next fiscal year budget at our meeting on November 17 at 7:00 p.m. You are welcome to attend that meeting to share your thoughts. The agenda, including meeting access information, will be posted on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us/agenda by the evening of November 10. You can also share your thoughts in writing with the City Council in advance of the meeting by using the Council Comment Form on the City website, but please let me know if you prefer to have your message to me used as written communications on this agenda item to be shared with the entire Council and included as part of our agenda packet for November 17. Sincerely, Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga 165 2 From: Cynthia Miller Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 7:13 PM To: Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: SUSD Board Ken Geisick Subject: Saratoga Union School District and School Resource Officer CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Councilmember Zhao, I am writing to you on behalf of the Saratoga Union School District Board in advance of the joint meeting between the Saratoga City Council and our local school districts as I am not sure if the meeting format will allow sufficient conversation around an important topic for us: the school resource officer program. Let me begin by thanking you for the support that Saratoga has provided to SUSD in recent years through the school resource officer program. That support is much appreciated! Our SRO is a valued partner in helping our schools stay safe for our students, families, staff, and neighbors and for helping with a variety of important non‐urgent matters. For example, our SRO is part of a team that intervenes in situations where a student is frequently absent, impressing upon the parent that California law takes the child's right to an education seriously. Over the years our SRO has assisted in custody issues that have spilled over to a school campus. Traffic safety is an on‐going issue and our SRO has been helpful both in advising us about safer practices and traffic flow patterns and in responding promptly when we call to report concerns about unsafe driving. Our SRO issues a number of warnings and tickets each year, but always with an emphasis on explaining to the driver the tragic possibilities posed by speed, unsafe turns, distracted driving, students exiting the car in the street, etc. Our SRO also visits our school campuses each year to present to students on important topics including anti‐bullying and digital citizenship and to participate in campus events. You may be tempted to think that all of this could be handled by the sheriff's department simply dispatching the nearest on‐duty deputy, but we feel very strongly that this would be a step backwards for our school communities. A dedicated, regular SRO develops valuable experience in working with young children and families that results in a kinder, gentler, and more effective response when problems arise than we believe would happen with the deputy whose shifts regularly include more violent and high‐stakes incidents. Having the same officer involved with situations that persist over time ‐‐ as attendance and custody issues usually do ‐‐ results in a better informed and more consistent approach. Our principals and our SRO get to know each other and learn how to best work together. And over time our students come to recognize our SRO and enjoy a positive relationship that builds long‐term trust and respect for law enforcement. We believe strongly that the SRO program is a positive for our students and their families, our staff, and our community. We hope that you will continue to support the program for some time to come. Sincerely, Cynthia Miller SUSD Board President 166 Item #: Item Title Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Zhao & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 Subject: Written Communications, Item 2.1 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting, written communications were submitted for Item 2.1 The communications are attached to this memo. 167 From:James Lindsay To:Crystal Bothelio; Britt Avrit; Urena, Ricardo Subject:FW: School Resource Officer Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 7:43:57 AM From: Jeffrey Schwartz Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 10:19 PM To: Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: School Resource Officer CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council members- There are three over-riding reasons the city should not fund an SRO for the Saratoga School Districts. Any one of these three should be adequate justification for the city to discontinue this funding. There are additional compelling reasons but these three are pre-eminent. I. The two school districts are in better financial condition than the city. The city’s streets are not in good condition and getting worse. It will take an infusion of five million dollars of one-time money to restore the city’s streets to good condition and stop the deterioration, but the city does not have the money. I have not heard the two school districts offering to subsidize those costs for the city. If the districts believe the SRO is essential (a mistake, in my opinion, see II., below, but a decision for the two school boards) then they should fund it as they do other essential educational services). The community has supported school bonds for both districts that subvent some expenses that would otherwise come from operational budgets. Also, the city has nothing comparable to the extraordinary Education Foundation, which has been a millions of dollars supplement to the regular budget. 168 II. Many school districts, all over the country, have stopped their SRO programs and that change is continuing. The reason is that SRO programs don’t work and produce substantial and disturbing negative results. I have previously sent the Council articles summarizing the research that reached that conclusion and I won’t go into detail here. An overview is that there is a body of research, not one or two studies, and conducted in a variety of school districts, urban and suburban, that found that SRO’s lead to substantially more negative outcomes for students than occur in schools without SRO’s. The research also found that SRO programs contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline” and, importantly, that each of these negative outcomes was disproportionately higher for students of color. The research results have been surprising because, since the SRO concept emerged in the 1990’s, it made intuitive sense to almost everyone, including me. Assign an officer to a school, let students interact with the officer in non-conflict situations, and the students learn that the police are human, the officers can be a school resource and their presence should serve as a deterrent to serious crime at the school. Made sense to me but that is not what happened. SRO’s do become involved in serious incidents at the school and students who would have faced educationally defined outcomes (counseling, suspension, expulsion) then face criminal justice outcomes as well (arrest, juvenile court citations). Many school districts have tried to explain away the research findings by arguing that their own district is different and not a high crime area. The problems are not limited to high crime areas, however, and apply to high achieving suburban schools as well. Other districts have used anecdotes of individual students who were helped in some fundamental way by a particular SRO as a defense for the program. As most of us know, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. That justification is no more persuasive than using the recent fatal and tragic shooting of a female high school student by a Long Beach Unified police officer as proof of the danger of SRO’s. III. A decision to continue the funding would be unethical. The City Council must represent all Saratogans. This requested funding would use tax dollars from all Saratogans but benefit only those families in two school districts, when in reality 169 there are seven public school districts in Saratoga. It is high time to stop the fiction that there are only two school districts in Saratoga. How would parents of students in the Saratoga Union District and the Los Gatos- Saratoga High School District feel if the city took their tax money and used it to fund programs in the Moreland School District but provided nothing to their own students’ districts? This practice has gone on for years and it has always been improper and worse. IV. Additional compelling reasons A. The “contract” between the Sheriff’s Office and the districts is so loose as to be meaningless, and the city has had no say. SRO performance standards are the sole province of the Sheriff, as is everything else about the SRO duties. B. Even at $360,000 for a single position for a year, the SRO will not be full time at the middle school and high school. That was clear when this was discussed with a Sheriff’s representative at a Council meeting. There is nothing in the “contract” that specifies the percentage of time the SRO will spend at the middle school or the high school. It seems obvious that if the SRO is at either school and there is a high priority call for service in the community, and if other Sheriff’s units are scarce or already in service, the SRO will respond to handle the call or as back-up. How often will that happen? There is no information. C. This program has been in place for years, substantially subsidized by the city. Yet the city has no annual logs showing how much time the SRO has spent at each school or what kind of incidents have been handled, with what kind of outcomes, or what kinds of problems have arisen. It is just, “Trust us, it is an important program”. D. The SRO price has almost doubled and is unrealistic. On a Sheriff’s budget in the 75-million dollar area and almost 600 sworn officers/deputies, that would be perhaps $125,000 per deputy, but that is high because of civilian employees and specialized equipment and units that are included in the budget. Adding one sworn deputy does not require an extra supervisor or manager and does not cost anywhere close to $360,000. Sincerely- Jeff S. 170 Jeffrey A Schwartz 171 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:09:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name AMANDA WROBLEWSKI Phone Number Email Address Subject SRO program Comments Hello Council Members, I am writing to you as an SUSD parent, as a resident, and former teacher at a private teacher in Saratoga about the school resource officer program. We have all heard Fred Rogers's famous advice to look for the helpers, “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news,” Rogers said to his television neighbors, “my mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ ” For the last several years, the School Resource Officer has been that helper to me, my students, and my own children. Uniformed officers are signs of help but also can be intimidating. The regular presence of the SRO gave them a familiar face, another part of the safety team, and a trusting adult. The relationships built around the SRO program connected administrations with the community and each other. It provided consistency in expectations during a crisis no matter which site you were on. As a private school teacher or as a parent on my kids’ school campus, I would see the same SRO officer on different campuses, part of the traffic surveillance at various school corners, and at training for teachers and staff for the most intense safety training required of teachers. The relationship with our schools’ SRO brings consistency and confidence to the safety processes and relationships we depend on to be a safe community. At a time where school campuses are constant safety concerns, drop-off and pick-up traffic is intense, and relationships between 172 schools and campuses have been strained, I can’t imagine why a program like SRO would no longer be funded. Our students, families, and staff need to recognize more “helpers” like School Campus Officers as we navigate these challenges. We need to work to continue building relationships, not end them. I believe strongly that the SRO program is positive for our students and their families, our schools, and our community. I hope that you will continue to support the program for some time to come. Amanda Wroblewski Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 173 Item #: Item Title Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Zhao & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 Subject: Written Communications, Item 2.1 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting, written communications were submitted for Item 2.1 The communications received after 3pm on November 17, 2021, are attached to this memo. 174 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 7:03:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name David Guidry Phone Number Email Address Subject SRO funding Comments Council Members, I just wanted to voice my concerns with the discussion around ending the funding for the SRO for our city schools. As a board member of the Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District, as well as having 2 graduates of Saratoga High School, I have seen first hand the value that our SRO provides to our schools. Having the support of the city provided more than just the monetary value, which has been big given that until recently we had to make cuts to our budget. One value was having a single officer who managed all of our schools which meant that they had a better understanding of our community and its needs. It also send a clear message of the importance of our award winning and highly successful schools to our community. Now more than ever, our students need the support and safety provided by an SRO. They also need a community that cares about our kids and is willing to take action to show that care. There have been recent troubling events in our neighboring town of Los Gatos and while I don't expect to see these behaviors in our city this is not the time to be cutting back on the resources that can address these issues at our schools. To be honest, I am really surprised and disappointed that you are even considering this action. Our schools are one of the strengths of our city and I regularly hear from parents who moved here, even from Cupertino, just so that their kids could attend our schools. Its critical that our city council recognizes this and continues to show its faith and support in our schools and does what is best for our children. 175 Regards, David Guidry Board President, Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 176 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:27:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Katherine Tseng Phone Number Email Address Subject SRO Comments Hi, I have served the Saratoga community for over 20 years, starting from Library bond campaign back in 1999. I'm currently served on the Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District. Our entire community has been so fortunate to have SRO in educating and supporting our youths in terms of promoting safety in various issues. I urge the council members invest in our youths in the action of supporting funding of SRO. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 177 178 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:02:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Cynthia Chang Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject RE: SRO Funding Comments Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members, Thank you for your service to the City of Saratoga. Your commitment and dedication ensure that Saratoga is an inclusive, safe and thriving community. As a board member of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, I am writing to urge you to approve the funding of School Resource Officer (SRO) for the children of our city. This is my 37th year living in the City of Saratoga. I love our city, raised my two sons here, and have been serving as a school board member since 1994; serving four years on the Saratoga Union School District board and currently serving my 23rd year on the high school district board. I have also been involved in various community organizations and activities as a leader and volunteer. I was shocked to hear that there is a possibility of the City not funding SRO in the future as it is such a great program benefiting our students with the focuses on education, proactive crime prevention, and relationship-building, not as law enforcement. SRO provides educational programs such as the talks about e- cigarette to our students and parents as well as community members. SRO also provides expertise for traffic safety, safety training and drills for students and staff, and a visible presence on campus promotes school safety. It is my understanding that SRO serves all the schools in the city of Saratoga and provides tremendous benefit to the children in 179 Saratoga. By approving the funding of SRO, you are sending a clear message that you value the wellbeing of our children and your willingness to work with all the schools to provide a safe environment for our students. . Respectfully, Cynthia Chang Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 180 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17,2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department PREPARED BY:M. Leah Cabute, Environmental Program Manager SUBJECT:Review of Parking Restrictions on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court, and Minocqua Court RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 326 restricting parking on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court, and Minocqua Court and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: In July of 2020, staff received communications from residents living on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court and Minocqua Court requesting help to reduce parking congestion on their streets because of West Valley College athletic facilities users. Staff advised the neighborhood leaders to work with their neighbors to identify parking restrictions that would be acceptable to all residents in that area. The residents submitted a request for the following parking restrictions: No Parking Monday thru Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. No Parking on Weekends 7:00 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Parking allowed on holidays Subsequently, Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 326 (Attachment A) was adopted by City Council restricting parking as stated above. Council also directed staff to return in a year to review any issues connected to the restrictions. On October 19, 2021, staff mailed a letter to the neighborhood asking for their input on the parking restrictions (Attachment B). The responses from the neighborhood were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the restrictions as adopted (Attachment C). A common theme in the responses was the positive effect the restrictions had on the quality of life in their neighborhood. When the parking restrictions were being considered, users of the College facilities voiced their opposition to the loss of parking.On November 3rd, the City received a petition from 45 community members asking that parking be allowed once again on weekdays, weekends, and holidays between the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. (Attachment D).If this request is not approved,a desire to allow parking on Douglass between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. is mentioned in the petition. 181 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Motor Vehicle Resolution No. 326 and Map of Parking Restrictions Attachment B – Letter to Residents Attachment C - Neighborhood Communication to the City Attachment D - Petition to Remove Parking Restrictions 182 RESOLUTION NO. MV- 326 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESTRICTED PARKING ON DOUGLASS LANE, BLACK WALNUT COURT, KENOSHA COURT, AND MINOCQUA COURT The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby determines that parking on the street locations during the times noted below would be detrimental to the best use of those streets and accordingly adopts the stated parking restrictions. This determination is based on facts and circumstances set forth in a petition from nearby residents and a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission based on its consideration of that petition. NAME OF STREETS LOCATION RESTRICTION 1. Douglass Lane 1. Douglass Lane- For all streets named: 2. Black Walnut Court From Fruitvale Ave 3. Kenosha Court to Nutwood Lane No Parking 4. Minocqua Court 2. Black Walnut Ct- 7:00 AM-7:00 PM Mon thru Fri From Douglass 7:00 AM TO 11:00 AM and Lane to the end. 3:30 P.M.-7:00 P.M. Weekends 3. Kenosha Court from Except on Holidays Douglass Lane to the end. 4. Minocqua Ct- From Kenosha Court to the end 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 21 st day of October 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Howard A. Miller, Vice Mayor Mary -Lynne Bernald, Council Members Yan Zhao, Rishi Kumar li:[6=11 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: J Howard A. Miller, Mayor A T: DATE: ebbie Bretschneider, CMC, City Clerk 1295330.2 183 Current Parking Restrictions- Douglass Ln., Black Walnut Ct., Kenosha Ct., Minocqua Ct. No Parking Restrictions 184 Incorporated October 22, 1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mary-Lynne Bernald Kookie Fitzsimmons Rishi Kumar Tina Walia Yan Zhao October 19, 2021 Subject: Review of Parking Restriction Dear Saratoga Residents, In October 2020, the City Council adopted a motor vehicle resolution to restrict parking hours on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court, and Minocqua Court. This resolution was adopted with a condition to reevaluate the impacts of the parking restrictions one year after implementation. This motor vehicle resolution will be reviewed by City Council at its November 17, 2021 Regular Meeting. Please send me your comments by Monday, November 1st at mcabute@saratoga.ca.us and/or attend the City Council Meeting via Zoom by visiting www.saratoga.ca.us/AgendaCenter/City- Council-13 and selecting the November 17, 2021 agenda link. You may share your comments remotely during the discussion of the item. All email comments received before November 1st will be summarized and included in the staff report to City Council. Sincerely, Mainini Cabute Public Works Department 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 From: Samir Mitra <samirmitra@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:37 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Samir Mitra <samirmitra@gmail.com> Subject: Motor Vehicle Resolution - Douglass Lane, Saratoga CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Mainini, I received your Oct 19th 2021 letter about a review of parking restrictions on Douglass lane Saratoga one year after implementation. Here are my comments : • My family stays at , Saratoga. • We have found the parking restrictions on Douglass Lane to be ineffective as we believe enforcement is not being performed, so the offenders know this fact and therefore ignore the restrictions. o Our request to have some enforcement action associated with the parking restrictions (like tickets, or fines etc) , else no one will take the parking restrictions seriously • We have found near our home, close to intersection of Douglass Lane and Donna Ln, the road significantly narrows on Douglass Lane and dips down to a small briddge at the same time to cross a small creek o Often for several days or weeks at a time, a car or vehicle would be parked on Douglas Lane near the intersection of Donna Ln and Douglass lane. This is very dangerous as the lane is too narrow for another car or truck (like FedEx truck) to pass by especially at night hours. There have been serval close calls, and pretty soon someone’s luck is going to run out. o Again here parking restrictions are not taken seriously. Samir Mitra 19863 Douglass Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 213 To: Manini Cabute & members of the City Council of Saratoga Please find herein links to the voices of citizens and familes in the Douglass Lane neighborhood in support of the parking regulations (Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Ct, Kenosha Ct, Minocqua Ct) to be discussed on Nov 17th. We appreciate your attention to our concerns and look forward to meeting you to share the tremendous positive impact these parking regulations have had on our seniors, choldren and families in our community. 1) Folder will Support Letters from the Douglass Lane Neighborhood Families https://www.dropbox.com 2) Video of the Unsafe parking situation prior to the instituting the parking regulation https://www.dropbox.com/s/jd8fk4n3uuuisvt/Drone%20Video%20Showing%20Unsafe%20 Parking%20Problem%202020_07.mp4?dl=0 Thank you ! Tim Walsh Ralph Mullins Barry & Mary Cohen Praveen Akkiraju On behalf of the Douglass Lane Neighborhood 214 From: Kiran Akkiraju <kakkiraj@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 10:30 AM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Douglass Lane - Parking Restrictions CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, This letter is regarding Parking regulations instituted on Douglass Lane. We live at the and we have seen a significant improvement in the safety and quality of life. Before Oct 2020, we hardly saw our neighbors walk in the neighborhood. I personally experienced couple of close calls while driving my car in the narrow lanes due to parking on both sides. We had also noticed some erratic driving as we see parents or adults hurry to get to the tennis counts on time . It is great to see the traffic hazard removed and to meet families and seniors who are walking more confidently in the neighborhood We strongly urge the council to continue the parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in Oct 2020 so as to keep the neighborhood safe from excessive traffic caused due to tennis courts, lessons and tournaments at West Valley College. Given that there is ample parking available at West Valley near the tennis courts we believe that its a win win for all of the community, Thank you Sincerely, Kiran and Praveen Akkiraju 215 From: Joanne Pago Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:29 PM To: Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Parking restriction on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Ct. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Vice Mayor Tina Walia, We received the letter dated 10/19/2021 regarding the review of the parking restrictions for Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Ct, Kenosha Court and Minocqua Court. The safety of our neighborhood has much improved by restricting street parking on our streets. Prior to the parking restriction being implemented, it was dangerous and difficult to navigate our own street and Douglass Lane. Our neighborhood was a parking lot for WVC tennis players and folks who used our neighborhood as a meeting point for group walks, The parking restrictions have made us and our community feel much safer, walking and driving in our own neighborhood. Please keep these restrictions in place for everyone's safety and peace of mind. Joanne and Milton Pagonis cell) 408-391-1212 216 From: kenneth frangadakis Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 12:10 PM To: Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Douglas Lane Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, We are residents at , Saratoga, CA 95070 and a member of the Douglass Lane community. We have been living at this current address for 40+ years. The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. Before the parking restriction went into effect, our family avoided walking on Douglass Lane in the evening as it was quite unsafe due to drivers in a rush to park and go to West Valley for tennis. Thanks to the parking restrictions in the Douglass Lane neighborhood, our family has restarted our evening walk. We are surprised to see many seniors coming out and walking at the same time! It was good to see some familiar senior faces who used to walk 5-6 years back had stopped in recent years due to heavy and sometimes unsafe parking in Douglass lane by people playing tennis at West Valley. We strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you! Sincerely, Ken and Angie Frangadakis 14487 Blackwalnut Court Saratoga, CA 95070 Sent from my iPad 217 From: BV Jagadeesh <bvjagadeesh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:14 AM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Parking on Douglas Lane CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, I am a resident of Saratoga, CA 95070 and a member of the Douglas Lane community. The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. It was a total chaos with 10's of people parking on the street causing nuisance as well as blocking the street thus preventing residents from walking, cycling.. Infact, there were people who used to change their clothes on the street which is visible by woman and children residing in the homes near by.. I strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you ! Thanks and Regards, /Jagadeesh ---------- www.KAAJventures.com "Entrepreneur's Trusted Partner" "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Not Talent; Not Genius; Not Education. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. ---Calvin Coolidge, January 17, 1914, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Senate Remember - Only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary 218 From: Elisa Pagonis <eapago@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:23 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Parking restrictions for Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Court, Kenosha Court and Minocqua Court CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Please keep in place the restrictions for parking on all these streets. I have lived at since 1982 and over the last few years the parking on Douglass at the entrance to our neighborhood had gotten terrible until last year when parking was restricted. People would park at the narrowest point on both sides of Douglass creating such a narrow passage that pedestrians, bike riders and cars weren't safe. Often the people parking their cars there would open their doors to change clothes and shoes and make it even more dangerous. They were using these streets instead of parking at West Valley College to use their facilities to avoid having to pay for parking. Please keep the restrictions in place, it has made it safe to walk and bike in this neighborhood again. Sincerely, Elisa Pagonis 219 From: Ravi Chandra <rchandra2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:00 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Attn: Mainini Cabute, Public Works Department CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, I am Ravishankar Chandrasekaran, resident of , Saratoga and a member of the Douglas Lane community. The public parking situation in Douglas was a huge issue and big concern for us. We are a family of 4 and i was always concerned about accidents while crossing all the parked vehicles. The regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and avoid possible accidents. I strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you ! Ravishankar Chandrasekaran 220 -----Original Message----- From: Glenda Rossie <gsrossie@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:42 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Parking Restriction CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. At the city council meeting on November 17,2021, as you reevaluate the parking restrictions on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Ct, Kenosha Ct, and Minocqua Ct, it would seem that the most important element for you to consider, is the health, safety and peace of mind it has on the residents who live on these streets. The residents of Saratoga are the people you represent. WVC operates on its own set of standards, regardless of the consequences to the surrounding neighborhoods or the city of Saratoga as a whole. If it’s what the college wants, it’s what they do. Forty-five years ago, some of us fought long and hard against a football stadium with tall light standards, a sound system, press box, lighted scoreboard, etc. And we succeeded! We did this to enjoy the quiet, country life that Saratoga provided at that time, with a junior college that was only supposed to have 7500 students. With the continued non-stop growth of the campus, none of which needs the approval of the city of Saratoga, the impact on all the surrounding neighbors is huge! This is what WVC is going to continue to do, and the city of Saratoga needs to step up and protect its residents when it can. You need to let the college know that all its PARKING and activities, needs to take place on their campus and not on the residential streets of Saratoga! As you must notice, the college is again enlarging a recreational facility - the baseball field. They will be putting in a new field, lighted scoreboard, lights, sound system and viewing stands, press box, batting cages and restrooms. So again our life here will be impacted by what the college does. We want to continue to love to live here and we want to know that the city of Saratoga wants to keep its residents safe and secure , and support us in our request. Thanks for hearing me out. Glenda Rossie 19607 Kenosha Ct Sent from my iPad 221 From: Ashok Krishnamurthi <ashokkrishnamurthi@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 12:38 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Attn: Mainini Cabute, Public Works Department, Saratoga CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, I am a resident at , and a member of the Douglas Lane community. The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. I strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you ! Regards Ashok This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you 222 From: Ronald Rossie <rlrossie@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 8:30 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Douglass Lane Community CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Attn: Mainini Cabute Dear Saratoga City Council I am resident of and a member of the Douglass Lane Community. The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. My wife and I believe the new parking regulations have made for a much safer street without the frequent parking on both sides of Douglass Lane. Too often we had had to be at the center of the street to exit with cars on both sides and with the concern of a car on Fruitvale turning onto Douglass with us in the middle. I strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you! Ronald and Glenda Rossie 19607 Kenosha Ct Sent from my iPad 223 From: Joanne Pagonis <jo.pagonis@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 7:21 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Joanne Pagonis <jo.pagonis@gmail.com> Subject: Parking Restriction on Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Ct. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. City of Saratoga Council Members, We received your letter dated 10/19/2021 regarding the review of the parking restrictions for Douglass Lane, Black Walnut Ct, Kenosha Court and Minocqua Court. The safety of our neighborhood has much improved by restricting street parking on our streets. Prior to the parking restriction being implemented, it was dangerous and difficult to navigate our own street and Douglass Lane. We feel much safer, walking and driving in our own neighborhood. Please keep these restrictions in place for everyones safety and peace of mind. Joanne and Milton Pagonis 224 From: Pravin Madhani <pravin.madhani@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 6:02 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Review of Parking Restriction - Douglass Lane CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, We are residents of , Saratoga, CA 95070 and a member of the Douglass Lane community. We have been living at this current address for 20+ years.The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. Before the parking restriction went into effect, our family avoided walking on Douglass Lane in the evening as it was quite unsafe due to drivers in a rush to park and go to West Valley for tennis. Thanks to the parking restrictions in the Douglass Lane neighborhood, our family has restarted our evening walk. We are surprised to see many seniors coming out and walking at the same time! It was good to see some familiar senior faces who used to walk 5-6 years back had stopped in recent years due to heavy and sometimes unsafe parking in Douglass lane by people playing tennis at West Valley. We strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you! Sincerely, Pravin & Vanita Madhani 19628 Kenosha Court Saratoga, CA 95070 225 From: RALPH MULLINS <ralph.mullins@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 12:41 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: RALPH MULLINS <ralph.mullins@comcast.net> Subject: Douglass Lane parking regulations CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, We are residents of and a member of the Douglass Lane Community. The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhoods safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. There is less dumped trash, fewer people standing in the street next to cars, and fewer times when the street parking is so congested that it becomes a one lane road. I strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. I would actually prefer that the 7pm end to restriction time be extended since we still get many tennis players parking on the street until WVC turns off their lights. Thank you! 226 From: Barry and Mary Cohen Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 9:26 PM To: M. Leah Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Parking Regulations in Douglass Ln neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, I am resident of .and a member of the Douglass Lane Community. The parking regulations on Douglass Lane instituted in October 2020 have resulted in a significant improvement in our neighborhood's safety and the quality of life for our seniors, families and children. I strongly support the continuation of these parking regulations and kindly request you to enable us to continue living in a peaceful and safe neighborhood like every other resident of Saratoga. Thank you, BARRY AND MARY COHEN 19519 Kenosha Ct 408.981.2955 Cell 227 228 229 230 231 232 Item #: Item Title Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Zhao & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 Subject: Written Communications, Item 2.2 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting, written communications were submitted for Item 2.2 The communications are attached to this memo. 233 From:nancy kirk To:M. Leah Cabute Cc:Britt Avrit Subject:Douglass Lane Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:54:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Please block my email address and then kindly submit / advise council: 2 Photos with parking restrictions on Harleigh Dr. *(at Allendale) allowing parking on weekends & holidays (not 8am-8pm weekdays) 1. When enlarge pic can see West Valley college lot. *Harleigh street appears to be as wide as Douglass. 234 Sent from my iPhone 235 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department PREPARED BY: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Comment Letter on the Draft EIR for the El Paseo Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize submittal of a letter to the City of San Jose commenting on the Draft EIR for the El Paseo Mixed Use project at 1312 El Paseo De Saratoga & 1777 Saratoga Avenue. BACKGROUND: The El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed Use Project (Project) is one of the most significant development projects in recent years proposed near the City of Saratoga. The project is located on two sites totaling 10.7 acres, just outside the City’s northeast boundary at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway/Quito Road. The application includes two possible development scenarios. Non-Education Mixed-Use Option The proposed uses would include three buildings ranging from eight to 11 stories (up to 145 feet tall). This option would consist of up to 1,100 multifamily units and 165,000 square feet of commercial space. Education Mixed-Use Option The proposed uses would include four buildings ranging from seven to 10 stories (up to 130 feet tall). This option would construct up to 730 multifamily units, 66,000 square feet of commercial space, a K-12 private school, and a 200-room dorm facility. City staff has been closely monitoring the development of this project and on October 26, 2020, a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation for the EIR was submitted expressing concerns about the potential significant impacts of the project including transportation, aesthetic, air quality, and noise impacts. (Attachment A) On October 12, 2021, the City of San Jose issued a Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for public review with a deadline for comments on November 29, 2021. Staff is working with the City Attorney and Public Works Department to 236 ensure that key areas of concerns identified by the City are addressed in the environmental document. Staff’s preliminary conclusions, provided as Attachment B, identify a number of deficiencies in the DEIR. A summary of the key deficiencies is provided below • The DEIR does not identify the full scope of the Project; a proposal for a new Costco retail facility is being considered separately from the proposed Project and the Costco project is not discussed in the DEIR; • The DEIR fails to adequately evaluate and mitigate the Project’s significant transportation impacts, including impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists from the Project’s increase in traffic, and a significant increase in vehicle miles traveled. • The DEIR fails to provide visual simulations of the proposed Project as requested by Saratoga. • The DEIR lacks a legally adequate alternatives analysis because it does not contain a reasonable range of alternatives. The draft comment letter will be provided as a supplemental attachment to this report prior to the November 17 City Council meeting. In summary, the City of Saratoga is requesting that the City of San Jose defer further consideration of the Project until it completes and approves the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village Plan so that the public can understand this project in the context of other expected development in the area. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Comment Letter on Notice of Preparation dated October 26, 2020 Attachment B – Summary of Deficiencies in the DEIR 237 1 October 26 , 2020 Maira Blanco, Environmental Project Manager City of San Jose Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Division 200 E. Santa Clara St., 3rd Floor San Jose, CA 95113-1905 Maira.Blanco@sanjoseca.gov Re: Notice of Preparation for the 1312 El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed -Use Project (PDC19-049 & PD20-006) Dear Ms. Blanco: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1312 El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed - Use Project (Project). The City of Saratoga closely monitors proposed land use changes that have the potential to affect Saratoga’s residents and seeks to ensure the protection and preservation of the City’s built environment and natural resources. Given the Project’s proximity to and potential effect upon Saratoga, we respectfully request that San Jose coordinate with Saratoga to design a project that works well for both cities. As an initial matter, Saratoga did not receive the NOP for this Project. In addition, the community outreach documents in connection with this Project released to date have repeatedly referenced a project with 730 residential units. However, according to the NOP, the Project could be developed with 1,100 residential units. It is important that the NOP and the scoping process overall provide consistent and adequate information about the Project and its potential environmental effects. We bring this to San Jose’s attention to ensure that the public is sufficiently engaged in the scoping process. I. San Jose’s Urban Village Concept The proposed Project would convert existing retail on Saratoga’s border to residential, commercial, and under Scenario 1, educational uses. The proposed project is located within the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village designated in San Jose’s Envision 2040 General Plan. San Jose’s General Plan discourages residential development from proceeding until an Urban Village Plan has been completed. There is no indication that San Jose has developed a plan for Paseo de Saratoga. Nor is there any indication that the Project’s residential development is ancillary to employment use; rather it appears to be the driving force for the Project. Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1222 238 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 2 Under the “Signature” Project concept, however, San Jos e’s General Plan does provide for residential projects to proceed prior to the acceptance or approval of an Urban Village Plan if the project meets the General Plan’s Signature Project requirements. Yet, other than proposing housing density that would appear to meet the 55 dwelling units per acre criterion, there is no indication in the NOP that the proposed Project would comply with San Jose’s Signature Project requirements. In addition, the NOP does not discuss the proposed Project with respect to San Jose’s “Planning Horizons” concept. San Jose’s Envision Task Force sought to ensure that the large amount of growth contemplated by the General Plan proceed in a balanced manner in order avoid undermining the goals of the General Plan. Accordingly, the General Plan timeframe is divided into three Planning Horizons to facilitate coordinated planning and ensure an orderly pace of development. Commercial and mixed use non -residential development is allowed in any Planning Horizon but only those properties within the current Horizon may develop a residential project. Based on the City’s Envision San Jose 2040 – Growth Areas, Paseo de Saratoga is within the third Horizon, the Horizon Planning period that would appeal to be contemplated for development closer to 2040. Therefore it is unclear on what basis the Project is moving forward at this time. If the proposed Project does not meet San Jose’s Signature Project requirements and in light of the fact that Paseo de Saratoga is within the third Horizon, we are concerned that issuing residential land use entitlements in advance of a plan for Paseo de Saratoga would undermine the General Plan’s goal of balanced land use planning and adversely affect Saratoga as well as other communities. Furthermore, facilitating this growth without due consideration to infrastructure could, as discussed below, result in adverse impacts on Saratoga and its residents. The Draft EIR should thoroughly evaluate these issues. II. The NOP Lacks Necessary Information Regarding the Project and Its Probable Environmental Impacts. The purpose of an NOP is to solicit guidance from public agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. In order to effectively solicit such guidance, the NOP must provide adequate and reliable information regarding the nature of the project and its probable environmental impacts. As detailed below, the NOP does not provide sufficient information regarding the Project and its probable environmental impacts. A. Project Description One of CEQA’s fundamental requirements is that an EIR contain an accurate and complete project description. Without a clear and comprehensive project description, the public cannot be assured that the environmental impacts of the entire Project have been considered in the EIR. In addition, CEQA requires evaluation of “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Breaking the project into 239 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 3 smaller sub-projects will lead to inadequate environmental review. The Project as described in the NOP does not provide sufficient detail about the nature of the Project. It provides no information about allowed uses, density and Floor Area Ratio. It does not include land use and design standards nor a discussion about how the Project will fit in wit h the overall Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. Consequently, the City and the public are left with very little understanding of what the Project will look like at build-out. In addition, although the proposed Project is referred to as a “Village Project,” the NOP does not acknowledge that the Project will be the first step toward the development of the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. As discussed above, CEQA requires evaluation of “the whole of an action.” Consequently, it will be imperative that the Draft EIR disclose details about the Urban Village plan so that the EIR preparers are able to (1) identify the type and intensity of development for the proposed Project together with the remaining Village sites; (2) evaluate the environmental effects resulting from the full extent of this development; and (3) identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen the Project’s significant environmental effects. It will also be important for the Draft EIR to include well-defined Project objectives. Without clear objectives, it will not be possible to formulate alternatives to the Project. Here, the objectives are even more important as the Project is proposed for development prior to the preparation of the Urban Village Plan. If it qualifies as a “Signature Project” and moves forward on that basis it will serve as a catalyst for development of the remaining sites in Paseo de Saratoga; accordingly, objectives that set a sound policy framework for the Urban Village will be critically important. B. Alternatives CEQA emphasizes that an EIR must analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The alternatives must feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the project’s environmental impacts. The CEQA Guidelines state that the selection and discussion of alternatives should foster informed decision-making and informed public participation. The NOP does not identify any alternatives to the proposed Project. Given the size and scale of the Project, the potential exists for significant environmental impacts. Consequently, the EIR should identify and evaluate several alternatives to the Project capable of avoiding or substantially reducing those impacts. It will also be importan t for the EIR to fully flesh out the details of each alternative so that the public and decisionmakers are adequately informed of each alternative’s benefits and environmental impacts. Again, the absence of any planning for the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village makes it difficult for the public to provide informed comments about the nature of the alternatives that should be included in the Draft EIR. However, we encourage the EIR preparers to consider alternatives that reduce or avoid impacts to Saratoga. The Project proposes development on just two sites, both of which are located immediately adjacent to Saratoga’s border. This 240 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 4 intensity and density may result in potentially severe environmental impacts within Saratoga. Consequently, the draft EIR should include an alternative that decentralizes or spreads the Project’s development throughout the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village planning area to reduce these environmental impacts. C. Analysis of the Project’s Probable Environmental Effects An NOP must provide sufficient information describing the probable environmental effects of the project, in order to enable the public to make a meaningful response to the NOP. San Jose’s approach of publishing the NOP before the Project has been fully defined contri butes to the document’s lack of detail. The NOP lists the environmental factors that will be addressed in the EIR but it does not provide any specificity as to the nature of these impacts or the inquiry that will be made to thoroughly evaluate those impacts and identify strategies to avoid or significantly reduce their severity. 1. Transportation Impacts Redeveloping suburban uses can be particularly challenging. To be successful, Urban Villages must create a policy framework to direct new job and housing growth within walkable and bike friendly areas that have good access to transit. Without a significant investment in public transit, the growth that San Jose envisions with the proposed Project will likely inundate local streets with traffic and increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In this case the NOP provides no indication that there will be a requirement that the Project be served by a robust multi-modal transportation network. The Draft EIR must thoroughly analyze the Project’s transportation and ci rculation impacts including documenting its methodological approach to evaluating the Project’s potential to increase VMT and clearly identifying its thresholds for determining the significance of these impacts. This analysis of transportation impacts must necessarily take into account traffic and VMT from development anticipated throughout the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. The Draft EIR must also evaluate the Project’s potential to conflict with local and regional circulation and transit plans. As part of this analysis, it must analyze the Project’s potential impacts in Saratoga where the City’s General Plan calls for Level of Service D as the minimum acceptable operation level on City roadway segments and intersections. Specifically, the traffic impact analysis should include the following areas: o Quito Road/Northlawn Drive (especially southbound left/u-turn capacity) o Quito Road/Cox Avenue o Saratoga Avenue/SR 85 NB and SR85SB o For Development Scenario 1, a detailed site access and queuing analysis for the educational facility to limit queuing on Quito Road 241 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 5 In addition, the Draft EIR must consider the Project’s potential to increase transit demand in light of the service changes and reductions anticipated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) due to the Covid-19 pandemic and expected longer term changes in working patterns. According to VTA, the draft 2021 Transit Service Plan will have to reflect new realities related to the Covid-19 pandemic, including lower sales tax revenues, new travel patterns, lower ridership and potential service reduction. Finally, it will be imperative that the Draft EIR evaluate how the increase in traffic from the Project could pose a risk to pedestrians and bicyclists who routinely rely on the area’s roadways. 2. Climate Change Impacts The NOP does not provide any substantive information about the Draft EIR’s approach to analyzing Project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It does not identify the thresholds of significance the EIR would rely upon, or the methodology for analyzing the Project’s increase in GHG emissions. Nor does the NOP identify the other applicable GHG - related plans, policies or regulations with which the Project wou ld be required to be consistent. This analysis is particularly important because existing conditions are such that we have already exceeded the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb additional GHG emissions without risking catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Therefore, even seemingly small additions of GHG emissions into the atmosphere must be considered cumulatively considerable . The City must ensure that the Draft EIR accurately identifies the Project’s increase in GHG emissions and adequately analyzes how the increase in emissions would contribute to climate change. As part of this analysis, the EIR must specifically analyze how the Project would comply with AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires the State of California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels no later than 2020. In addition, the DEIR must analyze the project’s consistency with Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 which calls for reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and EO B-30-15, which establishes an interim target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. It will be critical that the Draft EIR identify mitigation measures to ensure that GHG emissions are reduced to less than significant levels. This mitigation must necessarily include a commitment to increase transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to meet San Jos e’s goals for VMT reduction. 3. Energy Impacts CEQA requires agencies to analyze whether their projects will result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. The Draft EIR must provide a thorough analysis of the Project’s energy impacts. The proposed Project itself must demonstrate a decreased reliance on fossil fuel use and commit to clean-energy (all electric) new construction. 242 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 6 4. Aesthetic Impacts The NOP acknowledges that the EIR will include an analysis of aesthetics impacts. However, based on the few schematics in NOP, the P roject has the potential to be visually intrusive as buildings could range from 7 to 10 stories in height. Because existing surrounding land uses are primarily low scale one and two story buildings, this dramatic increase in height and massing has the potential to significantly alter the urban landscape. The Draft EIR should clearly show the juxtaposition of the proposed development with the surrounding low density community. Adequate review must include detailed visual-impact simulations of how the Project would impact the aesthetics of both day and nighttime views in the area. Simulations must be made from key vantage points, including from locations within Saratoga. The Draft EIR must evaluate the Project’s effect on views of eastern hillsides for people driving east on Saratoga Avenue and of Saratoga hillsides for people driving west. In addition, the EIR must evaluate how lighting of these large buildings could impact adjacent land uses. Again, it will be important that the Draft EIR disclose the design standards for the Project as these standards will presumably be used for additional development of the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. 5. Air Quality Impacts The Draft EIR should thoroughly analyze the Project’s air quality impacts. Particular attention must be paid to comprehensively identifying each source of emissions that would be generated by development within the Project (and the entire Urban Village) including from motor vehicle traffic, stationary sources, and area sources. The Draft EIR mu st also evaluate the Project’s potential to threaten public health from the increase in toxic air contaminants during Project construction and operation. If the Project’s air quality impacts are determined to be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. 6. Noise and Vibration Impacts Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to generate excessive noise particularly during the Project’s construction. The Draft EIR should ensure that this noise and the vibration resulting from the demolition of existing buildings does not adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Significant impacts to the hydrologic regime and water quality could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR must determine whether development of the proposed Project would result in the violation of any water quality standards, result in substantial new amounts of polluted runoff, interfe re with groundwater 243 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 7 recharge, or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. If such impacts are determined to be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. 8. Land Use Impacts The Draft EIR’s analysis of land use and planning impacts is critically important. The EIR must describe the existing land uses adjacent to and within the Project site and the reasonably foreseeable development with the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. The EIR must also evaluate the Project’s consistency with San Jose’s General Plan and any other applicable policy documents relating to the development of Urban Villages and the effect of the Project’s traffic and other spillover impacts on land use in Saratoga. 9. Population, Housing and Growth Inducing Impacts As noted above, the Draft EIR must disclose the maximum amount of growth contemplated within the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. The EIR must also assess whether the proposed Project will induce substantial population growth either directly (by construction of new residential units) or indirectly (by extension of infrastructure such as service facilities). The growth inducing analysis in the EIR must include: (a) an estimate of the amount, location, and time-frame of growth that may occur as a result of the Project and (b) identification of mitigation measures or alternatives to address significant direct and indirect impacts. 10. Recreation Impacts The NOP fails to include impacts to recreation as a probable environmental effect. Adequate recreational opportunities including parks are of the utmost importance particularly as San Jose is contemplating a substantial increase in growth. San Jose’s General Plan recognizes that as Urban Village areas redevelop, urban open space and parkland recreation areas must be created. The Draft EIR must evaluate the Project’s impacts on recreation resources, including impacts related to increased demand for recreational resources. Given that the proposed Project is immediately adjacent to Saratoga, the EIR must also evaluate the increase in demand on Saratoga’s park and recreational facilities. If such impacts are determined to be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. 11. Water Supply Impacts CEQA requires that an EIR present decisionmakers “with sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the [project] will need.” The NOP does not identify the amount of water that would be required to serve the proposed Project nor whether adequate supplies exist. The Draft EIR must include a comprehensive water supply assessment that takes into account long-term availability of water supplies that will serve the Project and full development contemplated by the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. The analysis must evaluate whether the Project can be adequately served by existing water supplies and 244 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 8 entitlements or whether it would require construction of new water facilities or expansion of entitlements. If the Project’s water supply impacts are determined to be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. 12. Public Services Impacts The Draft EIR must analyze the increased demand for all essential public services and utilities resulting from the allowable development under the proposed Project. As part of this analysis, the EIR must provide information about the current capacity of wastewater treatment system(s) and landfills. The Draft EIR must also provide information ab out current levels of service and response times for fire, police and emergency services. A detailed analysis of project and cumulative development demands must be included in order to determine whether there will be a need for expansion of services. Whe re expansion of services would have environmental impacts, the EIR must analyze those impacts as well. If the Project’s impacts are determined to be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. 13. Impacts on Schools The Project’s increase in residential development has the potential to result in a tremendous increase in demand on schools. Scenario 1 includes an education facility (K -12) which would meet an unidentified portion of this demand. Scenario 2, however, would develop about four hundred additional residential units in lieu of the education facility. Under either development scenario it will be important that the Draft EIR identify existing school capacity (for all grade levels) and the Project-specific and cumulative demand for schools. If the Project’s impacts on schools are determined to be significant, the EIR must identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. 14. Cumulative Impacts An EIR must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project if the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, current, and probable future projects. Projects currently under environmental review by the City clearly qualify as reasonably probable future projects to be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis. In addition, projects anticipated beyond the near future should be analyzed for their cumulative effect if they are reasonably foreseeable. As discussed throughout this lett er, it will be imperative that the Draft EIR evaluate the Project’s impacts together with anticipated development of the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village. It will also be particularly important that the Draft EIR evaluate the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the increase in housing production required to meet the most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The California Department of Housing and Community Development identified the Bay Area’s Regional Housing Need Determination as 441,176 additional housing units. The draft methodology recently approved by the ABAG Executive Board would allocate more than 143,000 of these units in Santa Clara County. This 245 NOP for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed -Use Project October 26, 2020 9 substantial increase in residential development has the potential for extensive en vironmental impacts, particularly on the ability of local governments’ ability to meet future water supply and wastewater demand. The Draft EIR must thoroughly analyze the environmental effects from this anticipated increase in residential development in t he region. III. Conclusion Thank you for providing the City of Saratoga with the opportunity to comment on this Project. We remain concerned about the potential far-reaching impacts of this Project and about the lack of detailed information provided about this proposed development. Please keep us informed of all notices, hearings, staff reports, meetings, and other events related to the Project. Thank you and we look forward to reviewing and responding to the draft EIR. Sincerely, Debbie Pedro Community Development Director cc: Michelle Flores, Planner 246 1312 El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed-Use Project DEIR Summary of Deficiencies to be addressed in City of Saratoga’s Comments on the DEIR I.San Jose should defer further consideration of the Project until it completes and approves the Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village Plan so that the public can understand this project in the context of other expected development in the area. II.The DEIR does not comply with CEQA. A.The DEIR’s flawed project description does not permit meaningful review of the Project. The DEIR: 1. does not identify the full scope of the Project; a proposal for a new Costco retail facility is being considered separately from the proposed Project and this Costco project is not discussed in the DEIR; 2.fails to provide necessary information about the Project’s transportation improvements; the DEIR simply states that a series of roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects could be implemented; 3.does not describe the Project’s utility improvements and does not explain how infrastructure connections would tie in with existing systems; 4. fails to describe construction-related Project components (e.g., construction schedule, equipment, location of haul routes and staging areas); 5.fails to include the Project’s lighting and landscaping plans. B.The DEIR fails to adequately evaluate and mitigate the Project’s transportation impacts 1.The DEIR relies on inaccurate roadway network assumptions: (a)It includes incorrect lane geometry at the following intersections: (1) Prospect Road/Lawrence Expressway; (2) Prospect Road/Mall Entrance; and (3) Hamilton Avenue/San Tomas Aquino Road; (b)The trip distribution on Quito Road appears to be incorrect (i.e., too low). Motorists use Quito Road to bypass SR 85 to avoid congestion during peak periods. The approach volumes at Saratoga/Quito-Lawrence intersection show that more vehicles approach that intersection from northbound on Quito Road during the AM peak and go southbound on Quito Road than those vehicles using Saratoga Avenue; and, Attachment B 247 (c) Existing traffic counts may be inaccurate (i.e., it is unclear whether existing uses at the El Paseo site were operational at the time traffic counts were conducted). 2. The DEIR underestimates the Project’s transportation impacts because it omits consideration of traffic from the proposed Costco. This 166,028 square-foot wholesale retail facility would be located in the Westgate West shopping center, near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road. 3. The DEIR fails to analyze potentially significant impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists from the Project’s (and Costco’s) increase in traffic. 4. The DEIR fails to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The DEIR identifies several mitigation measures (e.g., pedestrian network improvements, a Transportation Demand Management Plan, a Commute Trip Reduction Marketing Plan and a Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedule Program) and concludes these measures would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The DEIR fails to provide the required evidentiary support that these measures would reduce the Project’s impacts. 5. The DEIR should consider additional measures to mitigate the Project’s transportation-related impacts. C. The DEIR fails to provide visual simulations of the proposed Project as requested by Saratoga. D. The DEIR lacks a legally adequate alternatives analysis. The DEIR: 1. does not contain a reasonable range of alternatives. In addition to two No- Project alternatives, the DEIR identifies only one Project alternative: the Reduced Development Alternative; 2. defines the Project objectives so narrowly so that only the proposed Project meets all of the objectives; 3. should have considered an alternative that reduces the amount of commercial uses and increases the amount of affordable housing; 4. should have considered an alternative that decentralizes or spreads the Project’s development throughout the Village planning area. E. The DEIR should be recirculated for public review and comment. 1437351.1 248 Item #2.1: Code Enforcement Ordinance Amendments Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To:Mayor Zhao & Members of the Saratoga City Council From:Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Meeting Date:November 17, 2021 Subject:Comment Letter on the Draft EIR for the El Paseo Project As noted in the staff report, the attached draft comment letter on the Draft EIR for the El Paseo project is provided as a supplemental attachment. 249 1 November 18, 2021 Maira Blanco, Environmental Project Manager City of San Jose Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Division 200 E. Santa Clara St., 3rd Floor San Jose, CA 95113-1905 Maira.Blanco@sanjoseca.gov Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 1312 El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed-Use Project (PDC19-049 & PD20-006) Dear Ms. Blanco: Saratoga appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 1312 El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Avenue Mixed-Use Project (Project). As a neighboring jurisdiction, Saratoga has been closely monitoring the proposed land use changes as they have the potential to adversely affect the City, its residents, and its environment. Given the size of the proposed Project and its immediate proximity to Saratoga, it is imperative that the DEIR comprehensively evaluate and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. As we explain below, the DEIR fails to provide this necessary impact analysis and also fails to identify feasible and effective mitigation measures and alternatives capable of addressing the Project’s environmental impacts. This letter is submitted along with the report prepared by Fehr and Peers regarding the DEIR’s transportation analysis, attached as Appendix A. We offer the following comments for San Jose’s consideration and respectfully request that San Jose coordinate closely with Saratoga to ensure the proposed Project is developed in an environmentally responsible manner. I. San Jose’s Urban Village Concept As we explained in our October 26, 2020 letter on the Notice of Preparation, it is troubling that San Josee intends to proceed with the proposed Project before it has approved the Urban Village Plan for the Paseo de Santiago area. San Jose’s Envision Task Force sought to ensure that the large amount of growth contemplated by the General Plan proceeds in a balanced manner in order to avoid undermining the goals of the General Plan. See San José General Plan, Chapter 1, p. 70. Accordingly, the General Plan timeframe is divided into three Planning Horizons to facilitate coordinated planning and ensure an orderly pace of Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1222 250 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 2 development. Commercial and mixed use non-residential development is allowed in any Planning Horizon but only those properties within the current Horizon may develop a residential project. Based on San Jose’s Envision 2040 General Plan – Growth Areas, Paseo de Saratoga is within the third Horizon; the Horizon Planning period that would appear to be contemplated for development closer to 2040. In light of the fact that Paseo de Saratoga is within the third Horizon, Saratoga is concerned that issuing residential land use entitlements in advance of a plan for the Village would undermine the General Plan’s goal of balanced land use planning and which could also adversely affect Saratoga. Compounding matters, we understand that San Jose now intends to approve a Costco within the Village boundaries.1 The DEIR does not even acknowledge this large-scale project, let alone analyze the cumulative effects from the Village Project and the Costco project. Furthermore, as we explained in our prior letter, it is imperative that San Jose support this massive development project (and Costco) with a comprehensive transportation network that provides viable alternatives to the automobile. Without a comprehensive transit, bicycle and pedestrian network, Saratoga’s streets and intersections will likely be inundated with traffic. This increase in motor vehicles will also result in a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which will interfere with the region’s ability to achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals. According to the DEIR, Urban Villages are designated to provide a vibrant and inviting mixed-use setting to attract pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users of all ages and to promote higher density housing growth in combination with a significant amount of job growth (DEIR, p. 219). Yet, while the Project would add higher density housing and significant new jobs, it lacks any public transit infrastructure. In fact, public transit ridership with the proposed Project would add only 8 to 16 new riders in morning and 9 to18 riders in afternoon (DEIR, p. 229). By deferring consideration of the proposed Project until San Jose completes its Urban Village Plan, it will ensure balanced land use planning. This would also allow the City to include Costco in its overall plan for the Village. Finally, it will allow San Jose time to develop a comprehensive transit, bicycle and pedestrian plan that is capable of meeting the Project’s transportation demand. II. The DEIR Fails to Comply With CEQA A. The DEIR’s Flawed Project Description Does Not Permit Meaningful Public Review of the Project. 1 https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/28/costco-big-new-store-west-san-José- develop-retail-real-estate/ 251 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 3 In order for an EIR to adequately evaluate the environmental ramifications of a project, it must first provide a comprehensive description of the project itself. “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” San Joaquin Raptor, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730, (quoting County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193). As a result, courts have found that even if an EIR is adequate in all other respects, the use of a “truncated project concept” violates CEQA and mandates the conclusion that the lead agency did not proceed in a manner required by law. San Joaquin Raptor, 27 Cal.App.4th at 729-30. Furthermore, “[a]n accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.” Id. at 730 [citation omitted]. Thus, an inaccurate or incomplete project description renders the analysis of significant environmental impacts inherently unreliable. In addition, CEQA requires evaluation of “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Breaking the project into smaller sub-projects will lead to inadequate environmental review. See, e.g., Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84 (CEQA mandates that “environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones”). As discussed above, and in our October 26, 2020 letter, we remain concerned that San Jose is proceeding with the proposed Project before completing its full plan for the Village. Such an approach may likely result in piecemealing environmental review under CEQA. It is unclear whether the DEIR accurately identifies the full scope of development contemplated within the Village. Indeed, now that San Jose is anticipating approval of Costco as a project separate from the El Paseo Project, it appears that San Jose is in fact piecemealing the project. This approach thwarts the CEQA process and precludes informed public participation and decision making. It is imperative that the DEIR disclose all of San Jose’s development plans for the El Paseo Village so that Saratoga and the public are apprised of the full extent of San Jose’s plans. The DEIR’s project description is also deficient because it omits significant details necessary to understand the Project. A notable defect is the DEIR’s failure to provide necessary information about the Project’s transportation improvements. Here, the DEIR simply states that a series of roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects could be implemented (DEIR, pp. 28, 29). Transportation infrastructure, and specifically non-auto modes of transportation, should be a key component of this large-scale project. Consequently, the DEIR must clearly explain which transportation projects will be included in the Project and which will be considered as mitigation for the Project’s transportation impacts. The DEIR also fails to describe the Project’s utility improvements. The DEIR simply asserts that lateral connections to sanitary sewer, storm drain and water lines would be required to serve the Project but it does not identify these infrastructure connections nor explain how they would tie in with existing systems. The DEIR also states that the Project will comply with the City’s required Best Management Practices and Treatment Control Measures 252 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 4 to prevent stormwater related impacts, but it fails to provide a description or a site plan showing the locations of these features (DEIR, p. 154). In a development of this size and duration, public and private improvements must be developed in a logical and viable sequence; infrastructure needs to be in place prior to demand for new development. Unfortunately, the DEIR contains no documentation, let alone evidence, that the residential and commercial development would be efficiently linked to necessary infrastructure. The DEIR also fails to include information on the following construction-related components: • construction schedule; • construction equipment; • number of construction employees; • location of haul routes and construction-staging areas; and • description of construction traffic management. It is important that the DEIR provide this information because the Project’s construction has the potential to cause traffic, noise and air quality impacts on nearby residents. In other instances, aspects of the Project critical to its analysis are omitted altogether. For example, the DEIR states that the Project would include outdoor lighting and improvements, yet the document fails to include the lighting plan (DEIR, p. xviii). Similarly, the DEIR indicates that the Project would implement landscaping, including tree replacement consistent with various City requirements, but the landscaping plan does not appear anywhere in the document. And to the extent the City would treat these plans as mitigation rather than part of the Project, their omission from the DEIR would be an impermissible deferral of mitigation. B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Evaluate and Mitigate the Project’s Environmental Impacts. 1. Transportation Impacts (a) The DEIR Does Not Accurately Depict Local Roadway Conditions. Saratoga relies on the DEIR and the Non-CEQA Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) to evaluate how traffic from the proposed Project would affect its transportation network. For this reason, it is imperative that the DEIR and LTA accurately depict existing conditions, the Project’s trip generation, and its trip distribution. A review of the transportation analysis (DEIR Appendix I) reveals that it may have inaccurately characterized the local roadway and intersection network as follows: • The transportation analysis appears to include incorrect lane geometry at the following intersections: (1) Prospect Road/Lawrence Expressway, and (2) Hamilton Avenue/San Tomas Aquino Road (Fehr and Peers at p. 2); 253 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 5 • The trip distribution on Quito Road appears to be incorrect (i.e., too low). Motorists use Quito Road to bypass SR 85 to avoid congestion during peak periods. The approach volumes at the Saratoga Avenue/Quito Road-Lawrence Expressway intersection show that more vehicles approach the intersection from northbound on Quito Road during the AM peak and go southbound on Quito Road than those vehicles using Saratoga Avenue (Fehr and Peers at p. 2); • The trip distribution assumptions discussed above also implicate the intersection level of service analysis. Fehr and Peers at p. 3. The Project will have a significant adverse impact on the intersection of Quito Road/Cox Avenue, particularly when trip distribution is corrected. The DEIR should include a mitigation measure that requires a fair share contribution toward a traffic signal; and, • Existing traffic counts may be inaccurate (i.e., it is unclear whether existing uses at the El Paseo site were operational at the time traffic counts were conducted). We request that San Jose check the aforementioned roadway and trip assumptions and remedy those that are incorrect. To the extent these incorrect assumptions cause the LTA to underestimate trip generation, the DEIR may also underestimate VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. (b) The DEIR and the Transportation Analysis Err Because They Fail to Consider Traffic From the Proposed Costco Facility. San Jose is contemplating approval of a 166,028 square-foot Costco wholesale retail facility within the Village boundaries near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Road. The DEIR errs by not including this large retail warehouse project in the cumulative list of projects and by not including Costco’s traffic and VMT in the LTA or the DEIR. (See DEIR Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List and pp. 238-249). It is imperative that the revised DEIR describe how the Costco project will fit into the overall Village Project. It is also imperative that the DEIR and LTA be revised to include Costco’s vehicular trips and VMT. To the extent the DEIR underestimates VMT because it omits the Costco project, it also underestimates the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions. (c) The DEIR Fails to Mitigate the Project’s VMT-related Impacts. An EIR’s central purpose is to identify a project’s significant environmental effects and then evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing them. Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. CEQA requires lead agencies to identify and analyze all feasible mitigation, even if this mitigation will not reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(l)(A) (EIR “shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR”); Woodward Park Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 724 (“The EIR also must describe feasible measures that could minimize significant impacts.”); 1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act § 14.6 (2d ed. 2008) (“A mitigation measure may reduce or minimize a significant impact 254 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 6 without avoiding the impact entirely.”). Moreover, CEQA requires the agency to adopt measures that mitigate significant effects to the extent feasible before approving any project. See Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443, fn. 8. The DEIR determines that the residential component of the Project would exceed the City’s residential VMT thresholds. This exceedance constitutes a significant impact. DEIR, p. 232. According to Transportation Analysis Policy (City Council Policy 5-1), if a project is found to have a significant impact on VMT, the impact must be reduced by modifying the project to reduce its VMT to an acceptable level (below the established thresholds of significance) and/or mitigating the impact through multimodal transportation improvements, or establishing a trip cap (DEIR, p. 220). The DEIR proposes to mitigate the Project’s residential-related VMT exceedance by implementing a series of mitigation measures. MM TRN-1.1 calls for the applicant to implement a series of pedestrian network improvements, including for example, the removal of the “pork chop” island at the intersection of Campbell Avenue/Hamilton Avenue, modifying signal timing, installing new signal poles and constructing new sidewalks (DEIR, p. 232). MM TRN-1.2 calls for the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that provides for unbundled on-site parking costs (DEIR, p. 233). The TDM Plan also calls for a vehicular trip (VMT) monitoring plan and a trip cap. If the VMT monitoring shows the Project is exceeding the trip cap, penalties shall be assessed. Finally, MMs TRN 2.1 and TRN-3.1 call for the implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction and Marketing and Education Plan to promote, for example, the use of transit and shared rides and a Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedule Program (DEIR, pp. 234 – 236). Similar to MM TRN-1.3, MMs TRN-2.1 and 3.1 call for a trip cap, a VMT monitoring program, and the assessment of penalties for non-compliance with the trip cap. The DEIR concludes that upon implementation of these mitigation measures, VMT impacts relating to the Project would be reduced to less than significant levels (DEIR, pp. 233- 236). The DEIR further asserts these mitigation measures were shown in the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool to reduce the Project’s VMT by specified amounts (DEIR pp. 233 – 236). There are numerous flaws with the DEIR’s mitigation measures. The end result is that DEIR lacks support for the conclusion that these mitigation measures would substantially lessen the Project’s VMT impacts to a less than significant level. First, deferral of mitigation (e.g., the TDM Plan contemplated by MM TRN 1.2 and the Commute Trip Reduction and Marketing and Education Plan contemplated by MMs TRN 2.1 and 3.1) is allowed but only if there is a reason or basis for the deferral and the measures contain specific performance standards that will be met. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 669-71. Here, the DEIR contains no rationale for why it is necessary to defer preparation of the TDM Plan and Commute Trip Reduction and Marketing and Education Plan. Nor do MMs TRN 2.1 and 3.1 contain the necessary performance standards. While the Plans call for the implementation of a trip cap, the DEIR never identifies or describes the nature or amount of the trip cap. Nor does the DEIR make any attempt to 255 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 7 correlate the trip cap to the Project’s VMT or VMT thresholds (i.e., how many trips could the Project generate before it exceeds the Project’s VMT threshold?). Second, the fact that MMs TRN 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1 call for the payment of penalties if the trip caps are exceeded does not provide the necessary assurance that impacts would be mitigated. The DEIR asserts that penalties for non-compliance would be assessed by the City as defined in the Council Policy 5-1 (DEIR, p. 233), but we can find no description of this policy in the DEIR. Nor does the DEIR make any attempt to explain how the payment of penalties would ensure that the trip cap will be met and that the Project’s VMT will not exceed the thresholds of significance. Fee-based mitigation programs for traffic impacts-based on fair share infrastructure contributions by individual projects have been found to be adequate mitigation measures under CEQA. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors, 87 Cal. App. 4th 99, 140 (2001). To be adequate, however, these mitigation fees must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing. Id. at 140-41. See also Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, 130 Cal. App. 4th 1173, 1188-89 (2005) (explaining that fee-based traffic mitigation measures have to be specific and part of a reasonable, enforceable plan or program that is sufficiently tied to the actual mitigation of the traffic impacts at issue). Here, the DEIR’s mitigation simply assumes that the payment will occur, that it will cause trips to be capped, and that VMT thresholds will be achieved, without providing an enforceable plan to achieve those results. The DEIR includes no evidence to support these assumptions. Third, many of the provisions contained in the mitigation measures are vague and directory. Uncertain, vague, and speculative mitigation measures are inadequate because they lack a commitment to enforcement. See, e.g., Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1188-89 (2005)(holding traffic mitigation fee measure inadequate under CEQA due to vagueness in program for implementing required improvements). For example, MM TRN-1.2 calls for the TDM Plan to provide for the unbundling of on-site parking costs. DEIR, p. 233. While we agree that unbundling parking is a promising program to reduce driving and VMT, there is no explanation about how this program would work or how it would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Finally, although the DEIR asserts that the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool shows that these mitigation measures would reduce VMT levels to a less than significant level (DEIR p. 233-236), we can find no factual support in the DEIR or the transportation analysis that supports this assertion. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the DEIR lacks evidentiary support that the mitigation measures would effectively reduce the Project’s significant VMT-related impacts to less than significant levels. (d) The DEIR Fails to Analyze or Mitigate Significant Impacts on Pedestrians and Bicyclists. San Jose’s General Plan emphasizes the importance of pedestrian and bicycle travel in achieving the City’s mobility goals. San Jose’s Bike Plan 2020 calls for reducing bicycle collision rates by 50 percent (DEIR pp. 218, 219, 222). Similarly, San Jose’s Vision Zero Plan is intended to 256 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 8 create a community culture that prioritizes traffic safety and ensures that mistakes on roadways do not result in severe injury or death (DEIR, p. 222). Despite San Jose’s clear priorities to protect pedestrians and bicyclists from harm, the DEIR does not evaluate the potential impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists that would be caused by the Project’s increased vehicular travel. CEQA requires such an analysis. See City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 392-95 (holding EIR was inadequate because it failed to analyze and mitigate project impacts on pedestrians). The DEIR’s failure to analyze impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists is an egregious oversight given the increase in motor vehicle traffic and heavy-duty trucks that would be traveling on City streets to service the new development. In addition to the 5,000 to 6,000 new daily vehicular trips (not including trips generated by Costco) (see DEIR Table 3.17-3), the Project would also generate heavy duty truck traffic. The Project would develop a passenger loading zone and three truck delivery loading zones on the northside of Building 3 that would be accessible from the Mall Entrance driveway (DEIR, p. 25, 26). The northside of Building 3 is “Main Street” which is likely to be heavily traveled by pedestrians. Although DEIR Appendix I generally acknowledges the potential for conflicts between trucks and pedestrians/passenger vehicles (p. 77), the DEIR provides no analysis of these potential impacts. It is imperative that the DEIR disclose existing pedestrian and bicycle accident rates in the study area and then evaluate how these rates would change with the addition of Project traffic. This evaluation must include Saratoga Avenue between I-280 and Quito Road as this roadway segment is designated a “Priority Safety Corridor” as part of Vision Zero San Jose (DEIR, p. 222). At a minimum, the EIR must address the following questions: How many pedestrian and bicycle accidents have occurred on streets in the study area over the last decade? What was the cause of these accidents? What actions has the City taken to prevent such accidents? Widening the sidewalk along Saratoga Avenue and removing the “pork chop” islands at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway/Saratoga Avenue are important public safety improvement buts pedestrians still have to cross multi-lane high-speed arterials to access the commercial land uses. San Jose can and should do more to ensure that those walking or bicycling to the Project site are safe from motor vehicles and heavy-duty truck traffic. (e) The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Cumulative Environmental Impacts. An EIR must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project if the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, current, and probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15130(a), 15065(c). Projects currently under environmental review by San Jose clearly qualify as reasonably probable future projects to be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis. See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco, 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74 n.13 (1984).As discussed above, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative transportation impacts because it fails to include traffic and VMT from the Costco project. 257 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 9 The DEIR’s and the LTA’s cumulative transportation analysis is further deficient because it relies on a truncated study area. The DEIR identifies several large projects in the vicinity of the El Paseo Project (see Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List), yet the DEIR’s and LTA’s cumulative transportation analysis assesses impacts only for those projects within San Jose. The DEIR asserts that pending developments in the City of Saratoga and City of Campbell would not contribute a significant number of trips to the intersections affected by the project; thus, these pending developments would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact (DEIR p. 238). The DEIR lacks any evidence for this conclusion. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze environmental impacts over the entire area where one might reasonably expect these impacts to occur. See Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 721-24. This principle stems directly from the requirement that an EIR analyze all significant or potentially significant environmental impacts. Pub. Resources Code §§ 21061, 21068. An EIR cannot analyze all such environmental impacts if its study area does not include the geographical area over which these impacts will occur. The revised DEIR must examine the effect that vehicular trips from the projects listed in DEIR Table 3.0-1 would have on the local and regional transportation network. In addition, the revised DEIR must evaluate the cumulative increase in VMT from these projects. 2. Visual Resources Impacts The 1777 Saratoga Avenue component of the Project would be located adjacent to an existing single-family residential area. The proposed development, would replace two story buildings with eight-story and ten-story buildings. This significant increase in density, mass, bulk, and height will substantially alter views in the area. Despite these changes, the DEIR fails to include visual simulations of the Project that would show the juxtaposition of the proposed development with the surrounding low density neighborhoods. In its prior letter, Saratoga explicitly requested the DEIR include visual simulations. Although the DEIR’s project description chapter includes building elevations and conceptual renderings, they do not realistically simulate views from off-site locations. Simulations should have been presented that show the changed views from key vantage points. C. The DEIR Lacks A Legally Adequate Alternatives Analysis. CEQA emphasizes that an EIR must analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The alternatives must feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the project’s environmental impacts. Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(4); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a). The CEQA Guidelines state that the selection and discussion of alternatives should foster informed decision making and informed public participation. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)(5). A range of alternatives is particularly important in this case because the Project is being rushed ahead of the planning process for the Urban Village in which it is located; without guidance from that process San Jose has more flexibility in considering Project objectives and the public has a greater interest in seeing a wide range of alternatives. In addition to the two No-Project alternatives, the DEIR provides only one alternative to the Project, the Reduced Development Alternative (DEIR, p. 283). This is not an adequate range 258 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 10 of alternatives by any measure. Moreover, the DEIR determines the Reduced Development Alternative would not achieve the Project’s objectives including the objective calling for the Project to achieve a minimum of 700 residential units. This approach is inconsistent with CEQA. An EIR cannot provide a meaningful comparison between a proposed project and various alternatives unless the project’s objectives are defined broadly enough to make such options at least potentially possible. See Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal. App. 3d at 735-37; City of Santee v. County of San Diego 214 Cal. App. 3d 1438, 1455 (1989). Here, the DEIR essentially states that 700 units must be built as planned by the proposed Project. This is tantamount to saying that the objective of the Project is to implement the Project. Narrowing the Project’s goals in this way tilts the analysis of alternatives unavoidably—and improperly—toward the Project as proposed. Rather than providing the required reasoned, objective analysis, the DEIR seems to be nothing more than a post hoc rationalization for a decision already made. The DEIR’s analysis of the No Project-Redevelopment alternative is also deficient. Most critically, it calls exclusively for commercial development and fails to include any residential units. An alternative that adds only commercial development would appear to have been crafted to avoid meeting those Project objectives calling for housing development (i.e., Objectives 1, 2 and 3). Thus, rather than imparting serious information about potentially viable alternatives, the No Project-Redevelopment Alternative appears crafted specifically to avoid achieving the Project’s objectives and thus has no intention of approving this Alternative). If San José were serious about a redevelopment alternative, it should have crafted the alternative to include some amount of residential development. The DEIR also errs by crafting the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Alternative in an overly restrictive manner. The DEIR explains that under General Plan Policy IP-5.12, projects located at major intersections, such as the Project site, are precluded from 100 percent affordable housing development. We understand San Jose’s position that projects that provide 100 percent affordable housing financing would not allow or support commercial uses (DEIR at xxi). But certainly San Jose could have crafted an affordable housing alternative that would include a sizable amount of affordable housing (e.g., 75 % or 50%) instead of one structured in a manner that directly conflicts with the General Plan. Given the intensity and density of the proposed Project, the Project, including the Costco project, would result in significant environmental impacts to Saratoga. A reasonable and informative range of alternatives would include, at a minimum, an alternative that decentralizes or spreads the Project’s development throughout the Village planning area to reduce these environmental impacts. D. The DEIR Should Be Revised and Recirculated. Under California law, the present DEIR cannot properly form the basis of a final EIR. CEQA and the Guidelines describe the circumstances that require recirculation of a draft EIR. Such circumstances include: (1) the addition of significant new information to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR but before certification, or (2) the draft EIR is 259 DEIR for El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Ave. Mixed-Use Project November 18, 2021 11 so “fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Guidelines § 15088.5. Here, both circumstances apply. Decisionmakers and the public cannot assess the Project’s impacts or even its feasibility through the present DEIR. Among other fundamental deficiencies, the DEIR fails to adequately describe key components of the Project, it understates the Project’s significant environmental impacts and assumes that unformulated mitigation measures will effectively reduce these impacts. It also fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts because it omits consideration of the Costco retail facility. The DEIR also fails to provide a legally adequate alternatives analysis. In order to resolve these issues, San Jose must prepare a revised EIR that would necessarily include substantial new information. This revised EIR must then be recirculated for public review and comment. III. Conclusion Saratoga appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR. We respectfully request that San Jose defer consideration of the proposed Project until completion of an Urban Village Plan that includes a comprehensive transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plan capable of meeting transportation demand within the Village. Upon completion of the Plan, we request that San Jose revise and recirculate a DEIR and coordinate with Saratoga as the Project continues through the process. Sincerely, Debbie Pedro Community Development Director Appendix A – Fehr & Peers Memo, El Paseo Mixed Use Development Transportation Analysis, November 12, 2021 cc: Michelle Flores, Planner 260 160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278 -1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: November 12, 2021 To: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, City of Saratoga From: Franziska Church, AICP, Fehr & Peers Subject: El Paseo Mixed Use Development Transportation Analysis – Peer Review 1025-0446.03 This memorandum presents our peer review findings of the October 6, 2021 Transportation Analysis for El Paseo Mixed-Use Development (“El Paseo Project”) in San José, California. Overview Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared the Transportation Analysis for the El Paseo Project for the City of San José. The analysis included evaluation of two development options: “Non-Education Option” and “Education Option.” The Non-Education Option includes residential units, retail, and offices uses, while the Education Option includes a K-12 school with up to 2,500 students, fewer residential units, less retail square footage, and no office uses. Consistent with the City of San José’s Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018), the analysis included both California Environmental Quality (CEQA) elements (i.e., vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and additional operational analysis. Fehr & Peers reviewed the Transportation Analysis for adequacy and appropriateness of VMT analysis, project trip generation, intersection analysis, and site access/circulation assumptions. The key items discussed in the subsequent sections may require further study or clarification. VMT Analysis We concur with the overall VMT assessment and conclusion that the residential, office, and school uses would have significant VMT impacts. The proposed mitigation measures include improvements to the Campbell Avenue/Hamilton Avenue intersection to provide for better pedestrian and bicycle access and travel demand management (TDM) strategies consistent with the application of the City of San Jose’s VMT tool. The City of San Jose could consider additional pedestrian and bicycle improvements to provide for a robust multimodal transportation network to help address the identified VMT impacts. 261 Debbie Pedro November 12, 2021 Page 2 of 3 Local Transportation Analysis Below are comments that would require updates and refinements to the analysis presented in the Local Transportation Section of the Analysis. Intersection Lane Geometries We request the City double check the lane geometry assumptions under Existing and Background conditions at the following intersection for accuracy, and update the analysis accordingly: • Prospect Road/Lawrence Expressway (the eastbound approach should have two left-turn lanes) • Hamilton Avenue/San Tomas Aquino Road (lane geometries were modified with the addition of bike lanes on San Tomas Aquino Road) Trip Generation The trip generation takes trip credits for the existing uses on the site, which is common practice. However, trip credits should be allocated according to the timing of existing counts. Please confirm whether existing uses at the El Paseo site were operational at the time traffic counts were taken for existing conditions, and if not, update analysis accordingly. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution and assignment were developed based on the existing trip distribution patterns in the project vicinity. The analysis expects between 5 to 10% of trips would travel to the project site via Quito Road, and that between 16 and 20% of trips would travel to the site via Saratoga Avenue from the west. However, many cars use Quito Road to bypass SR 85 during peak congestion (northbound in the morning peak and southbound in the evening peak). The approach volumes at Saratoga/Quito- Lawrence intersection on Figure 18 of the report show that more vehicles approach that intersection from the northbound direction on Quito Road during the AM peak period and travel southbound on Quito Road in the evening than those vehicles using Saratoga Avenue. We request that the City revise these trip distribution assumptions to more accurately represent commute patterns and to shift more vehicles to Quito Road. On-Site Circulation On page 70, in the “Outbound Traffic at Driveway s” section, “Eastbound Movement from Saratoga Site to Saratoga Avenue” subsection, the recommendation should be the first five parking spaces be removed, not four. The analysis states that 125 feet of clearance is needed. Applying the engineering assumption that each vehicle is 25 feet long, then the first five cars (125/25 = 5) would need to be removed. 262 Debbie Pedro November 12, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Intersection Level of Service Analysis For both education and non-education alternatives, the project will have an adverse effect on the Quito Road/Cox Avenue intersection. The analysis notes that the intersection operates at LOS F and select peak hour volume warrants are met. While the condition exists without the project, the El Paseo Project is contributing to the adverse effect and a fair share contribution toward a signal is recommended. Please note that the Project trips added would increase with the recommended trip distribution assumptions outlined above. 263 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17,2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department PREPARED BY:Mainini Cabute, Environmental Programs Manager SUBJECT:Annual Review --Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report on the Annual Review of the City’s Climate Action Plan. BACKGROUND: In December 2020, the City Council adopted the Saratoga Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 (Attachment A).Saratoga’s CAP identifies state and local strategies to reduce emissions 42% below 1990 emissions in 2030 and to exceed the State’s 2030 goal of 40% below 1990 emissions in 2030. The Saratoga CAP was developed using the City’s 2017 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory, which identified the sources of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the community. The 2017 GHG Inventory showed that nearly half of Saratoga’s community emissions comes from transportation. The CAP shows that supporting electric vehicle charger infrastructure and encouraging zero emissions vehicle ownership through incentives are the most impactful ways to reduce emissions in transportation. It also showed that residential emissions, those emissions generated from the use of electricity, natural gas, and propane in Saratoga homes, was the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Saratoga. The CAP states that encouraging energy efficiency upgrades and adopting more energy efficiency standards, such as the City Reach Code adopted in 2019, for new construction and remodels will help the City meet its reduction target. Attached to this report is the 2019 GHG Emissions Inventory (Attachment B), which shows the progress that Saratoga has made compared to the 2017 Inventory. The year 2019 is the most recent year that the data is available. The 2019 GHG Emissions Inventory shows that the Saratoga community has reduced emissions 32% since 2005, which is equivalent to 25% below the estimated 1990 levels. 264 The community inventory tracks emissions in seven sectors. Details of reductions are described Attachment C. Below is a summary of the reductions between the years 2005-2019. Built Environment- Electricity Decrease of 93%. Built Environment- Natural Gas Decrease of 5%. Transportation Decrease of 19%. Waste Decrease of 5%. The Off-Road Decrease of 2%. Wastewater Decrease of 51%. Producing anannual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventory is a quantitative way to evaluate the community’s progress toward Saratoga’s reduction target. Within the CAP is Appendix A, which is an Implementation Table that contains the following eight categories of local mitigation strategies to support the Saratoga community in reducing emissions over time. Low Carbon Transportation Renewable Energy Energy Efficiency Waste Reduction Water Conservation. Carbon Sequestration Adaptation Community Engagement The City is chipping away at the local mitigation strategies and has recently taken progressive steps in four of the eight categories. It’s important to note that the GHG inventory tracks quantitative data, which are significant changes over time. Many of the City’s recent program implementations provide more qualitative data, which shows its commitment and leadership toward sustainable practices. Details of the City’s leadership efforts are listed in Attachment D. While these City programs are not calculated directly toward the reduction targets, the City hopes to influence other Saratoga businesses to adopt sustainable practices when feasible to move the needle toward emission reductions within the larger community. City staff will continue to collaborate and explore ways to encourage more zero emission vehicles and adopt more energy efficiency standards to make impactful emission reductions in the CAP over the near and long term. Staff recommends that the City Council accept this annual review of the Climate Action Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 Attachment B- 2019 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Attachment C- 2019 GHG Inventory Summary of Reductions Attachment D- City’s Qualitative Programs 265 Adopted December 2, 2020 Prepared for City of Saratoga Prepared by CITY OF SARATOGA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2030 266 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan i Credits and Acknowledgments SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Howard Miller, Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald, Vice Mayor Rishi Kumar, Council Member Yan Zhao, Council Member SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Razi Mohiuddin, Chair Anjali Kausar, Vice-Chair Sunil Ahujal, Planning Commissioner Clinton Brownley, Planning Commissioner Kookie Fitzsimmons, Planning Commissioner Tina Walia, Planning Commissioner Herman Zheng, Planning Commissioner SARATOGA CITY STAFF James Lindsay, City Manager John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Mainini Cabute, Environmental Programs Administrator O’ROURKE & ASSOCIATES Christine O’Rourke, Principal 267 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I NTRODUCTION 1 P URPOSE OF THE CLIMATE A CTION P LAN 1 RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL P LAN 1 C LIMATE C HANGE B ACKGROUND 2 T HE E COLOGICAL F OOTPRINT 3 C LIMATE C HANGE IMPACTS IN CALIFORNIA, THE B AY A REA, AND S ARATOGA 4 R EGULATION OF C LIMATE C HANGE – INTERNATIONAL, F EDERAL, AND S TATE L EVELS 6 ACTIONS TAKEN BY SARATOGA TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 8 S ARATOGA’S G REENHOUSE G AS E MISSIONS 1 0 SARATOGA P ROFILE 10 C OMMUNITY E MISSIONS I NVENTORY 1 1 C ONSUMPTION-B ASED I NVENTORY 1 3 C OMMUNITY E MISSION F ORECAST 1 4 C OMMUNITY E MISSIONS R EDUCTION T ARGETS 15 A CTIONS TO R EDUCE G REENHOUSE G AS EMISSIONS AND A DAPT TO CLIMATE C HANGE 1 7 I NTRODUCTION 1 7 STATE ACTIONS 1 8 SUMMARY OF L OCAL G REENHOUSE GAS R EDUCTION STRATEGIES 20 L OW CARBON T RANSPORTATION 2 1 268 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan iii R ENEWABLE E NERGY 2 4 E NERGY E FFICIENCY 2 6 W ASTE R EDUCTION 2 8 W ATER CONSERVATION 30 C ARBON S EQUESTRATION 3 2 A DAPTATION 3 3 C OMMUNITY E NGAGEMENT 3 4 I MPLEMENTATION AND M ONITORING 3 6 R EFERENCES 3 7 A PPENDICES A: IMPLEMENTATION T ABLE A -1 B: GHG R EDUCTION C ALCULATIONS B -1 C: GHG E MISSIONS R EDUCTION T ARGETS C -1 D: ADOPTING R ESOLUTION D -1 269 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The City of Saratoga understands that climate change is already impacting California and the world and will continue to affect Saratoga’s residents and businesses for the foreseeable future, as well as other communities around the world. The City also recognizes that local governments play a strong role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their municipal operations and communities and mitigating the future impacts of climate change. The purpose of this Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to compile existing and potential actions that the City’s government and the community can take to address climate change. It provides a brief background on what climate change is and its potential impacts, but focuses on the efforts Saratoga can make to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate, to the extent feasible at the local level, the impacts of climate change. Through the actions outlined in this plan, such as increasing energy efficiency in buildings, electrifying buildings and appliances, accelerating zero emission vehicle adoption, and using clean, renewable energy sources, the Saratoga community can experience lower fuel and energy bills, improved air quality, reduced emissions, and an enhanced quality of life. The City’s preparation of greenhouse gas emissions inventories and this Climate Action Plan are part of an ongoing planning process that includes assessing, planning, mitigating, and adapting to climate change. Specifically, this plan does the following: • Summarizes various climate-related regulations at the international, federal, and state levels. • Incorporates the City’s 2017 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, which identifies sources of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the community. • Estimates how these emissions may change over time under a business-as-usual forecast that utilizes General Plan build-out estimates and regional forecasts. • Establishes greenhouse gas reduction targets that reflect statewide goals. • Provides energy use, transportation, waste, water, and natural system strategies and specific actions that substantial evidence demonstrates, if fully implemented, will collectively achieve the targeted emissions level for the year 2030. • Incorporates strategies to adapt to climate change. • Includes an implementation schedule and performance measures to enable the City to annually track its progress and set priorities. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN The City of Saratoga’s General Plan contains policies and programs that promote community sustainability and effective management of renewable and non-renewable natural resources through energy conservation and renewable energy generation (LU 6.5), solid waste management and recycling (LU 6.3 and 6.b), water conservation (OSC 10.1, 10.a and 10.b), preservation and replacement of trees (OSC 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 and LU 6.4 and 6.c), reduction of vehicle trips (OSC.15.b and LU 15.2), and improvement of the bicycle and pedestrian network (multiple policies and programs in the Circulation Element). 270 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2 CLIMATE CHANGE BACKGROUND A balance of naturally occurring gases dispersed in the atmosphere determines the Earth’s climate by trapping infrared radiation (heat), a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect (Figure 1). Overwhelming evidence documents that human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases (known as “greenhouse gases” or GHGs) in the atmosphere, causing a rise in global average surface temperature and consequent global climate change. The greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (Table 1)1. Each one has a different degree of impact on climate change. To facilitate comparison across different emission sources with mixed and varied compositions of several GHGs, the term “carbon dioxide equivalent” or CO2e is used. One metric ton of CO2e may consist of any combination of GHGs and has the equivalent Global Warming Potential (GWP) as one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2019 “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018,” the majority of GHG emissions comes from fossil fuel combustion, which in turn is used for electricity, transportation, industry, heating, etc. Collectively, these gases intensify the natural greenhouse effect, causing global average surface temperatures to rise, which affects local and global climate patterns. These changes in climate are forecasted to manifest themselves in ways that will impact Saratoga and California. FIGURE 1: THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT Source: California Waterboard/Marion Koshland Science Museum of The National Academy Of Sciences 1 Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas, but it is not measured as a part of a greenhouse gas inventory and for that reason is not included in this discussion. 271 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 3 TABLE 1: GREENHOUSE GASES Gas Chemical Formula Emission Source Global Warming Potential Carbon Dioxide CO2 Combustion of natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and other fuels 1 Methane CH4 Combustion, anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills, wastewater, and livestock 28 Nitrous Oxide N2O Combustion, wastewater treatment 265 Hydrofluorocarbons Various Leaked refrigerants, fire suppressants 12 to 11,700 Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 100-year values, 2014 THE ECOL OGICAL FOOTPRINT Americans consume resources at a far greater rate than most industrialized nations, and the worldwide use of resources is exceeding the earth’s capacity to renew them. One way to measure the use of natural resources against the planet’s actual biocapacity and ability to renew those resources is the “ecological footprint.” It can be calculated for individuals, regions, countries, or the entire earth and is expressed as the number of global acres (acres with world average biological productivity) that it takes to support one person. As Figure 2 shows, the average American uses 20 global acres per capita. Other western democracies, such as France, Germany, and Italy, have footprints of approximately 11 to 12 global acres per person. FIGURE 2: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT COMPARISON Source: Global Footprint Network National Footprint Accounts, 2019 Edition. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Global Acres Per Person272 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 4 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN CALIFORNIA, THE BAY AREA, AND SARATOGA The Earth’s climate is warming, mostly due to human activities such as changes in land cover and emissions of certain pollutants. Greenhouse gases are the major human-induced drivers of climate change. These gases warm the Earth’s surface by trapping heat in the atmosphere. The evidence that the climate is warming is unequivocal. In 2019, global surface temperatures were 0.98 °C (1.8 °F) higher relative to the 1951-1980 average temperatures, and temperatures are now about 2°F higher than pre-industrial times. The past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years, and every decade since the 1960s has been warmer than the last.2 Consistent with global observations, the average annual temperature in most areas in California is already 1°F higher than historical levels, and some areas have seen average increases exceeding 2°F.3 California is already experiencing climate change impacts. Sea levels along the coast of southern and central California have risen about 6 inches over the past century and even moderate tides and storms are now producing extremely high sea levels.4 Since 1950, the area burned by wildfire each year has been increasing, as warming temperatures extend the fire season and low precipitation and snowpack create conditions for extreme, high severity wildfires to spread rapidly. Five of the state’s largest fires have occurred since 2006. The largest recorded wildfire was the winter 2017 Thomas Fire – until the Mendocino Complex Fire surpassed it in 2018.5 As temperatures continue to rise, California faces serious climate impacts, including: • More intense and frequent heat waves • More intense and frequent drought • More severe and frequent wildfires • More severe storms and extreme weather events • Greater riverine flows • Shrinking snowpack and less overall precipitation • Accelerating sea level rise • Ocean acidification, hypoxia, and warming • Increase in vector-borne diseases and heat-related deaths and illnesses 2 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record,” January 15, 2020. 3 Louise Bedsworth, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja, “Statewide Summary Report,” in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013, 2018, p. 22. 4 Bedsworth et al, p. 31. 5 California Air Resources Board, “Wildfire & Climate Change,” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/wildfires-climate-change, accessed 7-9-20. R EPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATION P ATHWAYS (RCPS ) Emissions scenarios used in the Climate Action Plan are the same as those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report and are called Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs. There are four RCPs: 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5. Each represents a set of possible underlying socioeconomic conditions, policy options, and technological con- siderations, spanning from a low-end scenario that requires significant emissions reductions resulting in zero global emissions by 2080 (RCP 2.6) to a high-end, “business-as-usual,” fossil- fuel-intensive emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). The low-end scenario is most closely aligned with California’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets and the aspirational goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2015 Paris Agreement. Thus far, global emissions continue to follow the business-as-usual trajectory. 273 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 5 • Increase in harmful impacts to vegetation and wildlife, including algal blooms in marine and freshwater environments, spread of disease-causing pathogens and insects in forests, and invasive agricultural pests. California communities can understand how climate change will raise temperatures and exacerbate extreme heat events, drought, wildfire, and coastal flooding in their area with resources provided by Cal-Adapt.org. The Cal-Adapt tool shows projections for two possible climate futures, one in which greenhouse gas emissions peak around 2040 and then decline (RCP 4.5) and another in which emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100 (RCP 8.5). Both futures are considered possible depending on how successful the world is at reducing emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide. A VERAGE M AXIMUM T EMPERATURES Overall temperatures are projected to rise substantially throughout this century. The historical (1951-1980) annual maximum mean temperature for Saratoga is 69.1oF. Under the low emissions (RCP 4.5) scenario, the maximum mean temperature in Saratoga is expected to rise about 4°F by 2100. Under the high emissions (RCP 8.5) scenario, the maximum mean temperature is projected to rise 8°F to about 77°F by 2100. E XTREME HEAT D AYS As the climate changes, some of the more serious threats to public health will stem from more frequent and intense extreme heat days and longer heat waves. Extreme heat events are likely to increase the risk of mortality and morbidity due to heat-related illness, such as heat stroke and dehydration, and exacerbation of existing chronic health conditions. An extreme heat day is defined as a day in April through October where the maximum temperature exceeds the 98th historical percentile of maximum temperatures based on daily temperature data between 1961-1990. In Saratoga, the extreme heat threshold is 93.5°F. Cal-Adapt projects a significant increase in the number of extreme heat days for Saratoga. Between 1990-2005, there was an average of 6 days above 93.5°F. That average is projected to increase to 11 days by 2050 under the low emissions scenario (RCP 4.5). By the end of the century, the average number of extreme heat days is expected to increase to 13 days and could be as many as 32 days under the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). 274 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 6 REGULATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE – INTERNATIONAL, FEDERAL, AND STATE LEVELS I NTERNATIONAL C LIMATE P OLICY In 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the Paris Agreement, the world’s first global pact aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The agreement’s goals are to limit global temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement has been signed by nearly every country in the world, 197 nations in all. The accord includes commitments from all major emitting countries to reduce their GHG emissions, although national plans vary in scope and reduction target. Nonetheless, the emission reduction pledges are not enough to meet the Agreement’s stated goals. Under the accord, the United States had pledged to cut its GHG emissions 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020. U.S. initiatives to meet this goal included the Clean Power Plan and tightening of automotive fuel efficiency standards. In 2017, the President announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Under the terms of the agreement, the United States cannot exit until November 4, 2020. FEDERAL CLIMATE P OLICY Currently, there is no federal legislation mandating comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reporting or reduction in the United States. The U.S. Senate considered, but failed to pass, various cap-and-trade bills in 2009 and 2010. Therefore, the U.S. has used its rulemaking authority under the Clean Air Act to begin to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made an "endangerment finding" that GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.. 6 This finding provided the statutory prerequisite for EPA regulation of GHG emissions from motor vehicles and led to several GHG regulations for stationary sources. In May 2010, the EPA issued a “tailoring” rule that enables the agency to control GHG emissions from the nation’s largest GHG sources, including power plants, refineries, cement production facilities, industrial manufacturers, and solid waste landfills, when these facilities are newly constructed or substantially modified. The EPA reported that its GHG permitting requirements would address 70% of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources 7. In 2013, the EPA announced proposed Clean Air Act standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In 2012, new rules mandated an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by the 2025 model year, up from the existing standard of 35.5 MPG in 2016. 8 The new standards were designed to apply pressure on auto manufacturers to increase development of electric vehicles as well as improve the mileage of conventional passenger cars by producing more efficient engines and lighter car bodies. In 2013, a federal Climate Action Plan was released, which outlined steps the administration could take to reduce GHG emissions. Actions included: reducing emissions from power plants; accelerating renewable energy production on public lands; expanding and modernizing the electric grid; raising fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles; and accelerating energy efficiency initiatives. 6 Final Rule, EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66495, December 7, 2009. 7 Final Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Fact Sheet, EPA. 8 “Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency- standard.. 275 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 7 Since 2016, the 2012 rule that required automakers’ fleet to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 to about 40 miles per gallon and California’s right to set its own more aggressive standards were both revoked. In recent years, the federal government replaced the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal and natural gas power plants, with a new version that lets states set their own rules. In addition, federal agencies no longer include GHG emission analysis in environmental reviews. Many of these federal actions are subject to ongoing legal challenges. STATE CLIMATE P OLICY Since 2005, the State of California has responded to growing concerns over the effects of climate change by adopting a comprehensive approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions in the public and private sectors. In 2005, Executive Order S-3-05 established long-term targets to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2020 GHG reduction target was subsequently codified with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, more commonly known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), passed in 2016, established a longer-term target to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 reaffirmed California’s goal to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and 2018’s Executive Order B-55-18 committed California to achieve carbon neutrality – the point at which the removal of carbon from the atmosphere meets or exceeds emissions – by 2045. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions set forth in AB 32 and SB 32, and is, therefore, coordinating statewide efforts. CARB adopted its first Scoping Plan in 2008 which outlined the actions required for California to reach its 2020 emission target. CARB’s California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan lays out a strategy to achieve the 2030 target. The Scoping Plan encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emissions and move toward establishing similar goals for community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State encourages local governments to track GHG emissions and adopt a Climate Action Plan that identifies how the local community will meet the reduction target. Saratoga has tracked community operations GHG emissions since 2005. The State of California established the Six Pillars framework in 2015. These include (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50%; (2) increasing from one-third to 50% our electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the State's climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California. The actions contained in this Climate Action Plan are designed to support and implement the Six Pillars and the goals of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan on a local level. SB 375, passed by the State Assembly and Senate in August 2008, is another significant component of California’s commitment to GHG reduction. The goal of SB 375 is to reduce emissions from cars and light trucks by promoting compact mixed-use, commercial, and residential development. The first step outlined in SB 375 called for the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and the California Air Quality Board to establish a region’s GHG reduction target for passenger vehicle and light duty truck emissions. Then, the MPO was required to develop a sustainable communities strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target. Here in the Bay Area, four regional government agencies – the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, worked together to create Plan Bay Area, the region’s sustainable communities strategy. Most recently updated in 2017, the plan is projected to reduce regional per capita greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks 16% by 2035. 276 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 8 In 2010, the California State Office of Planning and Research adopted revised CEQA Guidelines that allow streamlining of project-level analysis of greenhouse gas emissions through compliance with a greenhouse gas reduction plan contained in a general plan, long range development plan, or separate climate action plan. Plans must meet the criteria set forth in section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which include requirements for quantifying existing and projected greenhouse gases; identifying a level of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions that would not be considered significant; specifying measures and standards that would ensure achievement of this level; and continued monitoring to track progress. This Climate Action Plan meets those criteria. If this Plan is incorporated in the updated General Plan and evaluated in the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, then it may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project. ACTIONS TAKEN BY SARATOGA TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Although this is the City’s first Climate Action Plan, the City of Saratoga has already implemented a wide range of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RENEWABLE ENERGY  In 2016, the City joined eleven Santa Clara County communities to form Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), a new Community Choice Energy agency. As a public agency, SVCE is chartered to source clean, competitively priced electricity on behalf of residents and businesses in participating jurisdictions.  In 2017, the City began purchasing 100% renewable electricity from SVCE for all municipal facilities.  In 2012, the City installed 78 solar panels at the Corporation Yard that provide approximately 25 kilowatts of electricity. The solar energy system fully powers the Corporation Yard and the remaining electricity is directed to the Community Center. Also that year, the City installed a solar PV system at the Library that produces over 91,00 kWh of electricity annually. ENERGY EFFICIENCY  The City has replaced fluorescent lighting with light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures in its buildings.  The City has converted all its traffic signals and approximately 45% of its streetlights to LED fixtures. LED lighting uses about half of the electricity of conventional lighting.  In 2014, the City installed a cool roof at the Joan Pisani Community Center, which reflects the sun’s energy back to the sky instead of allowing it to enter the building as heat. The cool roof reduced the cost of air conditioning by 20% to 30%. The City has also installed cool roofs on the theater and City Hall buildings.  In 2019, the City adopted a green building reach code that requires all new buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating. Natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces, but these appliance connections must be “electric-ready.” The City also requires new commercial buildings to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15%. LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION  Completed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety improvements to encourage residents, employees, and visitors to walk or bike rather than drive to their destinations. 277 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 9  Installed electric vehicle changing stations at City Hall, downtown, and the library.  Adopted an ordinance that requires new one and two-family homes and townhouses with attached garages to install two EV charger outlets, with one outlet located on the exterior of the building. WASTE REDUCTION  Implemented green purchasing policies for government operations, including preferences for environmentally friendly janitorial supplies, products made from recycled materials, and durable or reusable products. The City also has an extensive recycling program.  Executed a Solid Waste Hauling Franchise Agreement with provisions for recycling and green waste programs. WATER CONSERVATION  Replaced turf areas in Saratoga parks with native, drought tolerant plants to save on water and maintenance costs.  Installed smart irrigation controls at City parks and medians to control watering levels based on weather and moisture content in the air. CARBON SEQUESTRATION  In 2016, the City challenged residents to plant 2,020 trees by the year 2020 after Saratoga lost a significant number of trees due to the drought. To reach this goal, the City partnered with Our City Forest to offer residents discounted trees. The City and community exceeded this goal by May 2019. CLIMATE ACTION  The City is a member of Joint Venture Silicon Valley-Public Sector Climate Action Task Force. Under its action plan, the task force seeks to conduct inventories of greenhouse gas emissions; develop a vision for the region and set goals; identify and analyze specific opportunities to reduce emissions; form procurement pools to obtain the best prices on new technologies; identify and evaluate financing options; pilot solutions and share experiences; and measure progress toward its goals. 278 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 10 SARATOGA’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SARATOGA PROFILE Located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, the City of Saratoga runs along the western edge of Santa Clara County. Saratoga has a land area of approximately 12.8 square miles. The City enjoys a temperate climate, with cool, wet, and almost frostless winters and dry, sunny summers. According to California Department of Finance estimates, the population of Saratoga in 2017 was 31,364 and there were 11,226 housing units. The housing stock is relatively older, with approximately 80% of homes built before 1980, providing excellent opportunities to upgrade homes to include more energy-efficient features (American Community Survey, 2018). The local climate means that electricity consumption spikes during the summer to cool buildings, while natural gas consumption rises in the winter months and fluctuates according to average low temperatures during the rainy season. Water use rises during the summer, and outdoor water use is largely dependent upon local rainfall patterns and weather conditions. Saratoga is a local employment center providing about 8,720 jobs in 2017 (Plan Bay Area Projections 2040). Most people who work in Saratoga commute from other Santa Clara cities and towns (65%), while about 12% come from other counties (Census Transportation Planning Products, 2012-2016). The City has public and private schools for grades K-12, a community college, a post office, a library, two fire stations, and a City Hall. The commercial sector of the built environment, which includes retail and office buildings as well as public and government facilities, uses about 31% of all electricity and 12% of natural gas consumed in Saratoga. As such, the commercial sector has a significant role to play in reducing GHG emissions in the community. Saratoga is served by transit service provided by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. In 2017, five local bus routes connected Saratoga residents, workers, and students to the Santa Clara Caltrain station and transit centers in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Eastridge. An estimated 1% of Saratoga residents commute to work by public transportation. Prior to the novel coronavirus pandemic, about 79% of employed residents drive to work alone and 8% carpool (American Community Survey, 2018). The City’s climate, compact size, and mostly flat topography are conducive to walking and bicycling, and the City’s network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities provides safe and convenient routes. Nonetheless, while approximately 13% of employed Saratoga residents work in the City and not in their homes, only 2% walk or bike to work. Encouraging more residents to walk and bike to destinations within the City will help to reduce transportation emissions. Finally, Saratoga residents are both wealthier and more educated than residents in most California communities. With a median household income more than double that of the average California household ($176,641 vs. $71,228) and a great majority of well-educated residents (78% have a bachelor’s degree or higher), Saratoga residents are well positioned to lead the way in adopting new technologies. Public information campaigns, incentives, and regulatory mechanisms to accelerate solar and battery storage installation, electric vehicle adoption, and electrification of buildings and appliances are strategies that can be used to reduce GHG emissions in the community. 279 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 11 COMMUNITY EMISSIONS INVENTORY The first step toward developing a climate action plan is to identify sources of emissions and establish baseline levels. In 2020, the City prepared a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for community operations emissions for the years 2005 through 2017. The inventory quantifies greenhouse gas emissions from a wide variety of sources, from the energy used to power, heat, and cool buildings, to the fuel used to move vehicles and power off-road equipment, to the decomposition of solid waste and treatment of wastewater. Emissions are quantified according to methodologies established by the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (v. 1.2). The report provides a detailed understanding of where the highest emissions are coming from, and, therefore, where the greatest opportunities for emissions reductions lie. The inventory also establishes a baseline emission inventory against which to measure future progress. Community emissions are quantified according to these seven sectors: • The Residential sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity, natural gas, and propane in Saratoga homes. • The Commercial sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity and natural gas in commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities. • The Transportation sector includes tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicle trips originating and/or ending in Saratoga, a share of tailpipe emissions generated by medium and heavy-duty vehicles travelling on Santa Clara County roads, and emissions from transit vehicles operating within the city limits. Electricity used to power electric vehicles is embedded in electricity consumption reported in the Residential and Commercial sectors. • The Waste sector represents fugitive methane emissions that are generated over time as organic material decomposes in the landfill. Although most methane is captured or flared off at the landfill, approximately 25% escapes into the atmosphere. • The Off-Road sector represents emissions from the combustion of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels from the operation of off-road vehicles and equipment used for light commercial, construction, recreation, and landscape maintenance. • The Water sector represents emissions from energy used to pump, convey, treat, and distribute potable water from the water source to Saratoga. • The Wastewater sector represents stationary, process, and fugitive greenhouse gases that are created during the treatment of wastewater generated by the community and emissions created from energy used to process wastewater. It also includes fugitive emissions from septic systems present within Saratoga’s city limits. Community greenhouse gas emissions totaled 179,893 metric tons in 2008 and 119,974 metric tons in 2017, falling 33%, or 59,919 metric tons CO2e in that period.9 As shown in Table 2, reductions occurred in all inventoried sectors except the Waste sector. The largest decline occurred in the Residential sector, due to a reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption and an improvement in the carbon intensity of electricity. Emissions declined 45% in the Residential sector and 35,000 metric tons between 2008 and 2017. 9 Although the City’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory quantifies emission levels back to 2005, the CAP uses a 2008 baseline from which to establish reduction targets as recommended in the California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 and 2017). See page 15 of this plan for more information. 280 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 12 TABLE 2: COMMUNITY EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2008 TO 2017 Year Residential Commercial Transportation Waste Off-Road Water Wastewater Total % Change from 2008 2008 78,162 22,512 66,612 5,669 4,607 1,474 856 179,893 2009 74,757 21,425 66,342 4,841 4,031 1,265 841 173,501 -4% 2010 67,196 18,633 64,352 4,484 4,486 916 794 160,861 -11% 2011 66,084 16,825 63,226 4,492 4,381 818 779 156,605 -13% 2012 64,033 17,382 61,600 4,574 4,458 945 797 153,790 -15% 2013 64,538 17,240 61,042 4,520 4,631 950 793 153,713 -15% 2014 53,687 15,747 60,756 4,514 4,658 851 795 141,008 -22% 2015 53,493 15,248 58,591 4,381 4,977 633 785 138,108 -23% 2016 48,435 13,240 57,530 4,363 4,907 440 744 129,660 -28% 2017 43,162 9,597 56,847 4,287 5,018 338 724 119,974 -33% Change from 2008 -35,000 -12,915 -9,764 -1,382 410 -1,136 -132 -59,919 % Change from 2008 -45% -57% -15% -24% 9% -77% -15% -33% Figure 3 compares sector emissions between 2008 and 2017. Emissions from the Transportation sector have always been responsible for the greatest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, but that share has grown over the years as energy use has declined and electricity has become cleaner. PG&E has been steadily increasing the amount of renewable energy in its electricity mix, which was 67% less carbon intensive in 2017 than it was in 2008. Silicon Valley Clean Energy, which began providing electricity to Saratoga customers in April 2017, provides its customers with electricity that is generated from 100% greenhouse-free sources. In 2017, about 60% of the electricity consumed in Saratoga was sourced by Silicon Valley Clean Energy. 281 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 13 FIGURE 3: EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2008 AND 2017 CONSUMPTION-BASED INVENTORY In 2016, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and U.C. Berkeley developed consumption-based inventories for Bay Area communities to better understand how purchasing habits contribute to global climate change. A consumption-based inventory includes emission sources that don’t get counted in the typical “activity- based” GHG inventory, as well as other items that are difficult to quantify like airplane travel and upstream emissions from the production, transport, and distribution of food and household goods. Figure 4 shows the results of the consumption-based inventory for Saratoga households. According to this inventory, the average Saratoga household generates 66.2 MTCO2e per year. As a comparison, the City’s community-wide emissions of 119,974 MTCO2e works out to about 11.1 MTCO2e per household. For more information on the consumption-based inventories, visit https://coolclimate.org/inventory. Although the consumption-based inventory is informative, it is not updated regularly and therefore does not provide a useful way to track changes in emissions levels over time. Saratoga’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory instead focuses on emission sources that the City has some control over and that can be reliably quantified using established protocols and tracked annually in order to inform decision-making and measure progress. Residential 36% Transportation 48% Waste 4% Water & Wastewater <1% Off-Road 4% Commercial 8% Residential 43% Transportation 37% Waste 3% Water & Wastewater <1% Off-Road 3% Commercial 13% 2008 2017 282 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 14 FIGURE 4: AVERAGE SARATOGA HOUSEHOLD CARBON FOOTPRINT Source: CoolClimate Network COMMUNITY EMISSIONS FORECAST The Climate Action Plan includes a business-as-usual (BAU) forecast in which emissions are projected in the absence of policies or actions that would occur beyond the base year (2017) to reduce emissions. The forecasts are derived by “growing” 2017 emissions by forecasted changes in population, number of households, and jobs. Transportation emissions are projected utilizing data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which incorporate the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions expected from the implementation of Plan Bay Area 2040 and the Regional Transportation Plan adopted in 2017. As shown in Table 3, emissions are expected to rise about 6.6% by 2030 and 8.7% by 2040, assuming full build-out. Although the MTC has not made official VMT projections for 2050, continuing the trendline suggests community emissions would reach approximately 130,860 MTCO2e by 2050 under the BAU forecast, an increase of 9.1% over 2017 levels. TABLE 3: SARATOGA COMMUNITY EMISSIONS FORECAST 2008 Emissions 2017 Emissions 2030 BAU Emissions 2040 BAU Emissions 2050 BAU Emissions 179,893 119,974 127,885 130,462 130,860 Values are expressed in MTCO2e 283 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 15 COMMUNITY EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS The State of California has adopted goals to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions. Passed in 2006, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32) established the State’s first target to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Because activity data is generally not available to determine 1990 emissions levels for local governments, the California Air Resources Board recommended local governments pursue a target, comparable to the statewide target, to reduce emissions 15% below “current” emissions in its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which was published in 2008. The State subsequently established additional goals for future reductions. Senate Bill 32, passed in 2016, establishes a target to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 reaffirmed California’s goal to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan lays out a strategy to achieve the 2030 target and recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 MTCO2e per capita by 2050. 10 However, the statewide target is based on emissions from all inventory sectors and should be adjusted to reflect local emissions sectors. When adjusted to include only those sectors and emission sources that are included in Saratoga’s GHG community inventory, the adjusted local target is no more than 4.1 MTCO2e per person by 2030 and approximately 1.4 MTCO2e per person by 2050. Appendix C details how the adjusted local target was derived. This Climate Action Plan establishes targets similar to the State’s goals to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In Saratoga, that means emissions would need to drop to 91,745 MTCO2e by 2030 and 30,582 MTCO2e by 2050. The community emissions trend, forecast, and reduction targets are shown in Figure 5. The Plan lays out measures that will exceed the 2030 target and put the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal. The trajectory line in Figure 5 assumes the following strategies are implemented by 2050: • GHG-free electricity • Electrification of all passenger vehicles • Electrification of all transit buses • Continued fuel efficiency improvements in the commercial vehicle fleet and some electrification of medium and heavy-duty trucks • Elimination of all organic waste from the landfill • Continued reductions in natural gas consumption in residential and commercial buildings • Electrification of all lawn and garden equipment In September 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Executive Order defines carbon neutrality as “the point at which the removal of carbon pollution from the atmosphere meets or exceed emissions” and states that carbon neutrality will require both GHG reductions consistent with existing statewide targets and carbon sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes. EO B-55-18 directs the California Air Resources Board to update future Scoping Plans to identify sequestration targets and recommend measures to achieve the new goal. 10 California Air Resources Board, “2017 Scoping Plan,” p. 99. 284 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 16 FIGURE 5: COMMUNITY EMISSIONS TREND, FORECAST, AND TARGETS 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)Year ACTUAL EMISSIONS BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO 2030 Target 40% below 1990 levels 2050 Target 80% below 1990 levels TRAJECTORY LINE 285 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 17 ACTIONS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE INTRODUCTION The Climate Action Plan includes a variety of regulatory, incentive-based, and market-based strategies that are expected to reduce emissions from both existing and new development in Saratoga. Several of the strategies build on existing programs while others provide new opportunities to address climate change. State actions will have a substantial impact on future emissions. Local strategies will supplement these State actions and achieve additional GHG emissions reductions. Successful implementation will rely on the combined participation of City staff and Saratoga residents, businesses, and community leaders. The following sections identify the State and local strategies included in the Climate Action Plan to reduce community emissions. Emissions reductions are estimated for individual actions when quantifiable. Combined, these indicate the City will reduce emissions 42% below 1990 emissions in 2030, which exceeds the State’s 2030 goal. As shown in Figure 6, State and local actions each represent about 50% of the reduction expected through implementation of the Climate Action Plan. FIGURE 6: CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF REDUCTION STRATEGIES 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 2017 2020 2025 2030MTCO2eBUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO 2030 GOAL State Actions Local Actions 286 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 18 STATE ACTIONS The Climate Action Plan incorporates State reduction strategies that have been approved, programmed, and/or adopted and will reduce local community emissions from 2017 levels. These programs require no additional local actions, although local actions may work to support these programs, as in the case of the State Action “Organic Waste Reduction”. State actions are quantified first and deducted from projected community emissions to provide a better picture of what still needs to be reduced at the local level to get to the overall reduction target. State actions and emissions reductions are shown in Table 4 and detailed in Appendix B. L IGHT AND HEAVY-D UTY FLEET R EGULATIONS Assembly Bill 1493, signed into law in 2002, requires carmakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in 2009 through increased fuel efficiency standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted regulations in September 2009 that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles for model years 2012-2016. The Advanced Clean Cars rule was expected to further reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2017-2025 vehicle models years. CARB Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulations accelerated the use of low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic fairing to reduce GHG emissions in the heavy-duty truck fleet. Finally, the Heavy Duty GHG Emissions Standards (Phase One) established GHG and fuel efficiency standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty engines and vehicles for 2014-2018 model years. These regulations have been incorporated into the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) emissions model, EMFAC2017, which is used to calculate emissions from on-road sources for California counties. In June 2020, CARB issued off-model adjustments to EMFAC2017 emission factors to account for the SAFE Vehicles Rules and actions adopted by the U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in late 2019 and early 2020.11 In September 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA issued the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (SAFE Part One) that revoked California’s authority to set its own greenhouse gas emissions standards and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California. In April 2020, the federal agencies issued the SAFE Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Final SAFE Rule) that relaxed federal GHG emissions and fuel economy standards. CARB staff adjusted projected emissions factors by lowering the improvement in fuel economy expected for passenger cars and light trucks for the 2021 to 2026 model years. CARB also froze new ZEV sales at model year 2020 levels. Transportation emissions quantified in this CAP reflect the off-model adjustment. R ENEWABLE P ORTFOLIO S TANDARD (RPS) Established in 2002 in Senate Bill 1078, the Renewable Portfolio Standard program requires electricity providers to increase the portion of energy that comes from eligible renewable sources, including solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and biowaste, to 20% by 2010 and to 33% by 2020. Senate Bill 350, passed in 2015, increased the renewable requirement to 50% by the end of 2030. Senate Bill 100, passed in September 2018, accelerated the RPS standard to 60% by 2030 and zero-carbon by 2045. In 2019, PG&E’s electric power generation mix contained 29% eligible renewable energy and was 100% GHG-free. Silicon Valley Clean Energy’s “GreenStart” electricity 11 California Air Resources Board, “EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final Safe Rule,” June 26, 2020, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery 287 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 19 contained 50% eligible renewable energy and was 100% GHG-free. SVCE’s “GreenPrime” electricity contained 100% eligible renewable energy and was GHG-free. T ITLE 24 The California Energy Commission (CEC) promotes energy efficiency and conservation by setting the State’s building energy efficiency standards. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations covers the structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing system of every building constructed or altered after 1978. The building energy efficiency standards are updated on an approximate three-year cycle, and each cycle imposes increasingly higher demands on energy efficiency and conservation. Emissions reductions are based on lower energy budgets mandated by existing Title 24 energy efficiency standards, as well as mandatory solar installation for residential buildings beginning with the 2019 code. L IGHTING E FFICIENCY AND T OXIC R EDUCTION A CT AB 1109, the Lighting Efficiency and Toxic Reduction Act, tasked the California Energy Commission (CEC) with reducing lighting energy usage in indoor residences by no less than 50% from 2007 levels by 2018, as well as required a 25% reduction in indoor and outdoor commercial buildings by the same date. To achieve these efficiency levels, the CEC applied its existing appliance efficiency standards to include lighting products, as well as required minimum lumen/watt standards for different categories of lighting products. The bill also expanded incentives for energy efficient lighting. O RGANIC W ASTE R EDUCTION Passed in 2016, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50% reduction in statewide organic waste disposal from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle regulatory authority to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20% of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. In 2022, CalRecycle may begin to issue penalties for non-compliance. On January 1, 2024, the regulations may require local jurisdictions to impose penalties for non- compliance on regulated entities subject to their authority. The State has enacted additional laws to reduce organic waste disposal and increase recycling. AB 1826, passed in 2014, requires businesses to recycle their organic waste, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. In this context, organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. The law phases in mandatory recycling of commercial organics over time. As of January 2019, businesses that generate 4 or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week are required to arrange for organic waste recycling services. The State law is intended to reduce statewide disposal of organic waste 50% from 2014 levels by 2020. If that target is not met, the law will be extended to cover businesses that generate 2 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste. In addition, the State's Green Building Code (CALGreen) requires residential and non-residential development projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Table 4 shows the total emissions reductions in Saratoga projected by 2030 through implementation of State actions. 288 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 20 TABLE 4: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM STATE ACTIONS State Action 2030 Emissions Reductions MTCO2e Light and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulations 13,639 Renewable Portfolio Standard 1,529 Title 24 340 Lighting Efficiency 73 Organic Waste Reduction 3,853 Total 19,433 SUMMARY OF LOCAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGIES The local mitigation strategies presented in the following sections, and as summarized in Table 5 below, achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the community of approximately 19,400 MTCO2e in 2030. TABLE 5: LOCAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGIES Strategy GHG Reductions by 2030 (MTCO2e) Percent of Reductions Low Carbon Transportation 8,129 42% Renewable Energy 5,196 27% Energy Efficiency 5,784 30% Waste Reduction n/a - Water Conservation 44 <1% Carbon Sequestration 248 1% Adaptation n/a - Community Engagement n/a - Implementation and Monitoring n/a - Total 19,401 100% These local strategies are detailed with specific actions in the following sections. Some actions are not associated with greenhouse gas reductions because they are in support of other local and/or State actions, or because information was not available to quantify the potential GHG reduction. Together, the projected reductions from State and local actions total 38,834 MTCO2e by 2030. Community emissions are therefore projected to be 89,051 MTCO2e in 2030 with the full implementation of the CAP. This is 42% below 1990 levels and exceeds the statewide reduction target by 2%. 289 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 21 LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION Almost half of Saratoga’s community emissions comes from transportation, and up until the recent commercial success of electric vehicles, it has been hard to see how transportation emissions can be reduced. Sure, improvements in fuel efficiency have driven emissions down – the passenger vehicle fleet in Santa Clara County is about 15% more fuel efficient than it was ten years ago – but vehicle miles traveled by passenger cars have only gone down about 2% over the same period. Surveys show that alternative transportation rates have hardly budged over the years, despite improvements in the bicycle and pedestrian network and public information campaigns to get people to carpool, bicycle, walk, and take transit. All of that is now changing with the viability of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), especially here in Saratoga where electricity is quite clean and expected to get cleaner. ZEVs include all-battery as well as plug-in hybrid vehicles. Santa Clara County is a leader in ZEV adoption rates, and ZEVs already comprise about 4.7% of registered vehicles in the county as of January 2020. In Saratoga, the rate is even higher, at just under 10%. The City’s plan is to increase the rate of ZEV registrations among Saratoga residents and workers to 25% by 2030 by building out the EV charging infrastructure and encouraging ZEVs through incentives, public education, and development requirements. This is an aggressive target, but one that complements the State’s goal to put 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030 and require all new passenger cars sold in California to be zero emission by 2035. Improvements in battery and charging technology, expected cost reductions, and automakers’ commitments to significantly expand ZEV offerings point to an all-electric future. New cars are typically out of the reach of lower-income household budgets, but programs that incentivize used EV car purchases and installation of EV chargers in multi-family buildings can help ensure the benefits of EV ownership are shared by all. That said, Saratoga cannot rely on ZEVs alone to meet its transportation emissions reduction goals; reducing congestion, enabling better biking and walking opportunities, and incentivizing public transit all carry co-benefits and can be enjoyed by all. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from transportation sources. TABLE 6: LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions LCT-1 Zero Emission Vehicles 7,264 89% LCT-2 Bicycling 328 4% LCT-3 Walking 16 <1% LCT-4 Employee Trip Reduction 36 <1% LCT-5 Public Transit 245 3% What You Can Do #1 Drive an all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. #2 Bike, walk, or take transit whenever possible. #3 Reduce the number of miles you drive by working from home when possible and consolidating vehicle trips. #3 Shut your car off when waiting in line at the ATM or school pick up/drop off lane. #4 Better yet, encourage your child to walk or bike to school. 290 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 22 LCT-6 Safe Routes to School 188 2% LCT-7 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling1 n/a - LCT-8 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles 43 1% LCT-9 Low Carbon Fuels 5 <1% LCT-10 City Employee Commute 2 <1% TOTAL 8,129 100% 1 Emissions reductions could not be calculated due to lack of data. LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS LCT-1 Zero Emission Vehicles. Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in Saratoga to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, by 2030. Consider incorporating the following actions in the plan: 1. Work with SVCE to implement and update the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Joint Action Plan. 2. Adopt reach codes that require EV-ready infrastructure and charging station installation above State baseline building requirements for new and remodeled residential, multi-family, and commercial projects. 3. Adopt permit streamlining practices to expedite the approval process for new EV infrastructure and charging station installation. 4. Work with SVCE to identify multi-family sites and corridors appropriate for EV fast chargers. 5. Work with SVCE to promote available rebates and technical support for multi-family and workplace sites. 6. Provide free or low-cost charging for ZEVs at City parking lots. 7. Provide wayfinding signage to public EV chargers. 8. Require new and remodeled gas stations to provide EV fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations. 9. Participate in programs to promote EV adoption, including "Drive an EV" events and other media and outreach campaigns. 10. Encourage or require, as practicable, ride hailing and delivery service companies to utilize zero emission vehicles. 11. Promote use of electric bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles. LCT-2 Bicycling. Encourage bicycling as an alternative to vehicular travel. Establish and maintain a system of bicycle facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. LCT-3 Walking. Encourage walking as an alternative to vehicular travel. Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. LCT-4 Employee Trip Reduction. Reduce vehicle miles traveled commuting to work through the following actions: 1. Work with Santa Clara VTA and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to promote transportation demand programs to local employers, such as rideshare matching programs, vanpool incentive programs, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, transit use discounts and subsidies, showers and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and other incentives to use transportation other than single occupant vehicles. 2. Embark on an outreach and educational campaign to encourage employees to reduce vehicle trips. 291 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 23 LCT-5 Public Transit. Support and promote public transit by taking the following actions: 1. Work with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to maximize ridership through expansion and/or improvement of transit routes, schedules, and stops. 2. Encourage VTA to use renewable diesel as a transition fuel and to purchase electric buses whenever replacing existing buses. LCT-6 Safe Routes to School. Support Safe Routes to School and strive to increase bicycling, walking, carpooling, and taking public transit to school. 1. Promote school and student participation by encouraging schools to implement and/or expand Safe Routes to School programs. 2. Identify issues associated with unsafe bicycle and pedestrian facilities between neighborhoods and schools, apply for Safe Routes to School grants, and execute plans to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. LCT-7 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling. 1. Implement signal synchronization to minimize wait times at traffic lights and to reduce congestion through increased traffic flow. 2. Utilize intelligent traffic management systems to improve traffic flow. 3. Encourage drivers and autonomous vehicles to limit vehicle idling, particularly at schools during drop off and pick up. LCT-8 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles. 1. Purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles for the City fleet whenever feasible, and when not, the most fuel- efficient models available. 2. Promote City adoption and procurement of zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure to the public. LCT-9 Low Carbon Fuels. Use low-carbon fuel such as renewable diesel as a transition fuel in the City's fleet and encourage the City's service providers to do the same. LCT-10 City Employee Commute. Provide City employees with incentives to use alternatives to single occupant auto commuting, such as free electric vehicle charging, transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, ridesharing services, flexible schedules, and telecommuting when practical. 292 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 24 RENEWABLE ENERGY Energy that comes from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and small hydroelectric, are the cleanest and most-environmentally friendly energy sources. Here in Saratoga where there is an abundance of sunny days, solar energy is a particularly good energy source. According to Project Sunroof, 94% of Saratoga buildings have roofs that are solar-viable. These 10,300 roofs could generate over 327 million kWh per year, which is more than double the total electricity usage in Saratoga in 2017. Solar system costs keep falling, too, which make them an attractive option for home and commercial building owners. The Climate Action Plan projects that Saratoga can get about 27% of our electricity from locally produced solar energy systems by 2030, up from about 11% currently, just by maintaining the current growth rate. When solar is not an option, due perhaps to a shady roof or a reluctant landlord, residents and business owners can purchase 100% renewable electricity from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and PG&E. SVCE and PG&E electricity have a high percentage of renewable content, which means it’s some of the cleanest electricity in the country. SVCE’s GreenStart electricity is 100% greenhouse gas free, while SVCE’s GreenPrime is also 100% GHG-free and comes from 100% renewable sources, primarily solar and wind farms in California and on the western grid. The City has been purchasing GreenPrime electricity for governmental operations since it first became available in Saratoga in April 2017. Since Saratoga’s electricity is so clean, it is a great idea to swap out appliances and heating and cooling systems that use natural gas for ones that use electricity. The City’s green building ordinance requires installation of electric heat pump technology for space and water heating in new homes and commercial buildings and requires natural gas appliances like stoves, clothes dryers, and fireplaces, if installed, to be electric-ready. Eventually, the community will need to replace the majority of natural gas appliance and equipment in existing buildings if it is going to achieve its long-term goals. Battery prices are falling and will soon be a cost-effective option, too. Solar energy combined with battery storage is a great option for people concerned about losing electric service during a Public Safety Power Shutoff event or storms and is certainly a cleaner choice than generators running on natural gas or fuel. Fortunately, ongoing research and development of energy storage systems are creating new business opportunities and making an all-electric, 100% renewable future possible. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from energy use. What You Can Do #1 Switch to SVCE GreenPrime or PG&E Solar Choice 100% renewable electricity. #2 Install a solar energy system on your home or business and consider battery storage. #3 Replace appliances that use natural gas for ones that use electricity. #4 Investigate electric hot water heaters and heat pumps so you can swap out heaters and furnaces that use natural gas when it’s time to replace them. 293 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 25 TABLE 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions RE-1 GHG-Free Electricity 3,651 70% RE-2 Renewable Energy Generation 1,528 29% RE-3 Building and Appliance Electrification1 n/a - RE-4 Innovative Technologies2 n/a - RE-5 Municipal 100% Renewable Electricity 17 <1% TOTAL 5,196 100% 1 See Action EE-1 in the Energy Efficiency section for estimated emissions reduction from the City’s green building ordinance. 2 This is a supportive action and therefore no additional GHG reduction is taken. R ENEWABLE E NERGY ACTIONS RE-1 GHG-Free Electricity. Support Silicon Valley Clean Energy in the continued delivery of 100% greenhouse gas free electricity and its 100% renewable electricity option (which is also 100% GHG-free). RE-2 Renewable Energy Generation and Storage. Accelerate installation of solar and other renewable energy installations and energy storage systems at residential and commercial buildings and sites and community facilities through the following provisions: 1. Provide solar permit streamlining and reduce or eliminate fees, as feasible. 2. Amend building codes, development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances, as necessary, to facilitate small (up to 10 kW DC), medium (10 to 250 kW DC), and large-scale (over 250 kW DC) solar power installations. 3. Encourage installation of solar panels on rooftops and over parking areas on commercial projects, schools, and residential developments. 4. Identify and promote incentives and financing and loan programs for residential and non- residential solar projects. 5. Encourage installation of battery storage in conjunction with renewable energy generation projects. RE-3 Building and Appliance Electrification. Promote electrification of building systems and appliances that currently use natural gas, including heating systems, hot water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers. See also Action EE-1 in the Energy Efficiency section. RE-4 Innovative Technologies. Investigate and pursue or adopt policies to allow the commercial and residential sectors to pursue innovative technologies such as microgrids (a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that can disconnect from the grid and operate independently in “island mode”), battery storage, and demand-response programs that will improve the electric grid’s resiliency and help to balance demand and renewable energy production. RE-5 Municipal 100% Renewable Electricity. Continue to purchase Silicon Valley Clean Energy 100% GHG-free and renewable energy for all facilities. 294 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 26 ENERGY EFFICIENCY Increasing the efficiency of buildings is often the most cost-effective approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency upgrades, such as adding insulation and sealing leaks in heating ducts, have demonstrated energy savings of up to 20%, while more aggressive “whole house” retrofits can result in even greater energy savings. Many “low-hanging fruit” improvements can be made inexpensively and without remodeling yet can be extremely cost-efficient, such as swapping out incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs, sealing air leaks, and installing a programmable thermostat. Energy Star-certified appliances and office equipment, high- efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, and high-efficiency windows not only save energy but reduce operating costs in the long run. Rebates, financing, and tax incentives are often available for residents and businesses to help defray the cost of upgrades. The Saratoga community has been doing a good job reducing energy use. Since 2005, electricity consumption has declined an average of 0.8% per year and natural gas consumption has declined about 1.1% each year. The City will work with the utilities and other partners to promote energy efficiency and electrification programs to reduce energy use by at least 0.5% each year. New construction techniques and building materials, known collectively as “green building,” can significantly reduce the use of resources and energy in homes and commercial buildings. Green construction methods can be integrated into buildings at any stage, from design and construction to renovation and deconstruction. The State of California requires green building and energy-efficiency through the Title 24 building codes. The State updates these codes approximately every three years, with increasing energy efficiency requirements since 2001. The State’s energy efficiency goals are to have all new residential construction to be zero net electricity by 2020 and all new residential and commercial construction to be zero net energy by 2030. Local governments can accelerate this target by adopting energy efficiency standards for new construction and remodels that exceed existing State mandates, or by providing incentives, technical assistance, and streamlined permit processes to enable quicker adoption. The City of Saratoga adopted a reach code in December 2019 that requires all new residential and non-residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating. Natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces. However, buildings using natural gas appliances must also be “electric-ready,” meaning that the location of a natural gas appliance can support an electric appliance in the future. The City also requires new commercial buildings to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 15%. The City has taken several actions to reduce energy consumption in governmental operations, including converting streetlights to LED, upgrading inefficient lighting in buildings, and installing cool roofs on the Community Center, What You Can Do #1 Replace indoor and outdoor lights with LED bulbs and turn them off when not in use. #2 Have an energy assessment done for your home or business. #3 Upgrade insulation, seal leaks, and install a programmable thermostat. #4 Purchase Energy Star appliances and equipment. #5 Unplug electronic appliances when not in use and set the thermostat to use less heat and air conditioning. 295 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 27 theater, and City Hall buildings. The City will continue to reduce energy use through an upgrade of remaining heating and cooling systems, continued upgrade to LED lights and streetlights, installation of energy management systems, and, the installation of a solar hot water heaters and/or heat pump systems where feasible. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions through energy efficiency. TABLE 8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions EE-1 Green Building Reach Code 2,350 41% EE-2 Energy Efficiency Programs 3,411 59% EE-3 Public Lighting 8 <1% EE-4 Municipal Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits 16 <1% TOTAL 5,784 100% E NERGY E FFICIENCY ACTIONS EE-1 Green Building Reach Code. Implement the City's green building ordinance that requires all new residential and non-residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating and requires natural gas appliances, if installed, to be electric-ready. EE-2 Energy Efficiency. Promote and expand participation in residential and commercial energy efficiency and electrification programs. 1. Work with organizations and agencies such as Silicon Valley Clean Energy and PG&E to implement energy efficiency and electrification programs and actions. 2. Identify and promote utility, state, and federal rebate, incentive, financing, and loan programs. EE-3 Public Lighting. Replace energy-inefficient street, parking lot, and other municipal outdoor lights with LED lights. EE-4 Municipal Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits. Identify and implement energy efficiency projects in municipal buildings and facilities and electrification of existing building systems and equipment that use natural gas. 296 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 28 WASTE REDUCTION The things we buy, consume, and throw away generate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions during manufacturing, transport, distribution, and disposal. The best way to reduce emissions is to purchase and consume less in the first place, and then find someone who can reuse whatever is no longer need before considering recycling or disposal. Due to the way the City accounts for community emissions, the Climate Action Plan does not take credit for reducing upstream emissions. Instead, our greenhouse gas accounting is directly concerned with emissions that are created from the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in the landfill. The decomposition process creates methane, which is 28 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Although landfills capture most of the methane, and some use that methane to create biogas or electricity, about one- quarter of it escapes into the atmosphere. The good news is that it is relatively easy to divert organic material from the landfill. Paper and cardboard can be recycled. Food scraps, some paper (like napkins and paper towels), and yard waste can be composted, either at home or at the compost facility. Surplus food can be donated to non-profits that distribute it to the needy. About half of the organic material that is put into the landfill is “recoverable.” California has established targets to reduce organic waste disposal by 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2030 and has passed several laws to meet those goals. If achieved, emissions in Saratoga’s waste sector will be reduced by approximately 3,850 MTCO2e (see the section on State Actions). The measures below are local actions that the City will take to assist in implementing statewide programs and achieve our mutual waste reduction goals. To avoid double counting, no emissions reductions are taken for these local actions. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from waste. W ASTE R EDUCTION ACTIONS WR-1 Commercial Organic Waste. Work with the City's waste hauler and other organizations to divert commercial organic waste from the landfill through waste reduction, recycling, composting, and participation in food recovery programs. 1. Require the City’s waste hauler to conduct outreach and education to businesses subject to State organic waste recycling mandates (AB 1826 and SB 1383) and ensure compliance with the law. 2. Require the City’s waste hauler to educate commercial and multi-family property owners on the proper use of on-site recycling and composting facilities. Outreach and education activities may include, but are not limited to, site visits, waste audits, “how-to” demonstrations and presentations, marketing campaigns, and provision of receptacles and signage. 3. Require development projects to provide adequate waste and recycling facilities and access as feasible. What You Can Do #1 Buy only as much as you need. #2 Buy locally grown food and eat less meat. #3 Put your food scraps in the green can and/or compost them at home. #4 Donate extra food and used clothing and housewares to charities. #5 Don’t be a “wishful” recycler. Be scrupulous about how you sort your recyclables. 297 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 29 WR-2 Residential Organic Waste. Work with the City's waste hauler to expand acceptable items for food waste collection and to educate and motivate residents to utilize curbside collection services and home composting for food waste. Outreach and education activities may include, but are not limited to, waste audits, “how-to” demonstrations and presentations, marketing campaigns, and provision of receptacles and signage. WR-3 Construction & Demolition Debris. Require all loads of construction and demolition debris to be processed for recovery of materials as required by law and to the maximum amount feasible. WR-4 Waste Diversion Targets. Review and revise the City's franchise agreement with the City's waste hauler to ensure waste reduction and diversion targets are met. Require regular residential and commercial waste audits and waste characterization studies to identify opportunities for increased diversion and to track progress in meeting targets. WR-5 Extended Producer Responsibility. Encourage the State to regulate the production and packaging of consumer goods and take-back programs. Encourage on-demand delivery services to reduce packaging waste and investigate requirements and incentives for same. WR-6 Waste Reduction. Utilize the City and waste hauler’s websites, how-to guides, newsletters, handouts, presentations, events, and other forms of public outreach to promote reuse, repair, and recycling of products and encourage reduced use of packaging and single use items. WR-7 Waste from Public Facilities. Increase opportunities for recycling, reuse, and composting at City facilities. 1. Embark on an educational and social marketing-based campaign to increase recycling, composting, reuse, and waste reduction within municipal operations. 2. Conduct periodic waste audits of City facilities to understand where opportunities for increased diversion lie and to track progress. 298 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 30 WATER CONSERVATION Saratoga is no stranger to periodic droughts and the need to conserve water, and the community has responded by reducing per capita water use by about 31%, from 143 gallons per person per day (gpcd) in 2005 to 98 gpcd in 2017. In addition to installing low-flow fixtures (showerheads, faucets, and toilets) and water-efficient appliances (clothes washers and dishwashers), residents and businesses are planting native, drought-tolerant species and even replacing lawns with attractive, low-water use gardens. Good thing, because as temperatures continue to rise, we will experience more droughts and more intense heat waves than before. Saratoga’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory counts emissions that are generated from the energy used to pump, treat, and convey water from the water source to Saratoga water users. Far more emissions are created from the energy that is used to heat water, but those emissions are counted in the residential and commercial sectors. Therefore, the water sector comprises a much smaller share of community emissions than one might expect. The water agencies that supply Saratoga’s water are committed to sustainable business practices. San Jose Water Company switched to Santa Clara Valley Clean Energy in 2017, and Santa Clara Valley Water District (which provides water to San Jose Water Company) has a goal to be carbon neutral in 2020. As a result, emissions from the water sector are relatively small. While the community has reduced water consumption about 1.9% each year since 2005, this plan conservatively assumes water consumption will continue to decline an average of 1% each year through 2030. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from water use. TABLE 8: WATER CONSERVATION ACTIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions WC-1 Water Conservation 44 100% WC-2 Municipal Water Use Included in above - W ATER CONSERVATION A CTIONS WC-1 Water Conservation. Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in residential and commercial buildings and landscaping. 1. Work with San Jose Water Company (SJWC), Valley Water, and other organizations to promote water conservation programs and incentives. What You Can Do #1 Replace your lawn with a drought-tolerant garden. #2 Install a drip irrigation system and check it regularly for leaks. #3 Install low water flow faucets, showerheads, and toilets. #4 Buy water-efficient dishwashers and clothes washers when it’s time to replace them. 299 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 31 2. Educate residents and businesses about local and State laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale. 3. Ensure all projects requiring building permits, plan check, or design review comply with State and SJWC regulations. 4. Encourage the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycled water where available. WC-2 Municipal Water Use. Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in municipal facilities and operations. 1. Replace high water use plants and inefficient irrigation systems with water-efficient landscaping. 2. Replace turf with water-efficient plantings as appropriate. 3. Replace inefficient plumbing fixtures with high-efficiency fixtures. 300 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 32 CARBON SEQUESTRATION The natural environment has been extensively altered by human civilization, often with little consideration for how natural systems function, depriving us of the important benefits they offer. Clearing and draining of wetlands, forestlands, grasslands, and other open space for agricultural production or urban development decreases or eliminates the capacity of those natural systems to store carbon. The carbon dioxide stored in soil, trees, and other vegetation is released into the atmosphere when forestland and open space is converted to other uses. Restoration of these natural areas, and establishment of new ones, has the potential to tie up or sequester greenhouse gas emissions in the form of soil and wood carbon. One way Saratoga can sequester emissions is by encouraging tree planting in the community. TABLE 9: CARBON SEQUESTRATION ACTIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions CS-1 City Forest 248 100% C ARBON S EQUESTRATION ACTIONS CS-1 City Forest. Increase carbon sequestration and improve air quality and natural cooling by increasing tree cover in Saratoga. 1. Plant additional trees on City-owned land, including public parks, open space, medians, and rights of way, where feasible. 2. Review and amend, as appropriate, parking lot landscape standards to maximize tree cover, shade, size, growth, and sequestration potential. 3. Regulate and minimize removal of large trees and require planting of replacement trees. 4. Require that the site planning, construction, and maintenance of new development preserve existing healthy trees and native vegetation on site to the maximum extent feasible. Replace trees and vegetation not able to be saved where applicable. 5. Encourage community members to plant trees on private land by providing reduced-cost trees to the public through a bulk purchasing program. 6. Provide information to the public, including landscape companies, gardeners, and nurseries, on carbon sequestration rates, drought tolerance, and fire resistance of different tree species. What You Can Do #1 Plant trees appropriate to your situation. #2 Add compost to your soil. #3 Purchase carbon offsets for airplane flights and other emissions that are difficult to mitigate. 301 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 33 ADAPTATION California is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Every year, it seems like the news gets grimmer: more wildfires, more heat waves, longer droughts, more intense storms, less snowpack, and less fresh water. Annual average air temperatures have already increased by about 1.8 °F in California, and that number will likely double even if the world can reduce emissions 80% by 2050. Saratoga needs to be prepared for the likely impacts of climate change, including flooding from more intense storms, health impacts from heat exposure and poor air quality, and safety risks from the increased likelihood of wildfires and landslides. Many of the recommended actions incorporated in this Climate Action Plan will help the community prepare for the effects of climate change. Reducing water use will ease competition for limited water supplies expected from higher temperatures and reduced snowmelt, while reducing electricity use will help ease demand for diminishing hydroelectric power. Other expected effects from climate change – such as higher frequency of large damaging fires and pest and insect epidemics – must be anticipated through adequate public safety, emergency, and public health responses. The City will take the following actions to adapt to climate change. A DAPTATION ACTIONS AD-1 Climate Change Adaptation. Prepare for and respond to the expected impacts of climate change. 1. Continue to incorporate the likelihood of increased risk of wildfire and extreme heat and storm events in the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2. Incorporate the likelihood of climate change impacts into City emergency planning and training. 3. Provide cooling centers during extreme heat events and facilities to recharge batteries and connect to power during power outages such as Public Safety Power Shut off events. Provide public safety notifications to community members, especially vulnerable populations. 4. Consider climate change implications, including wildfire risk, when approving new projects and planning for growth, facilities, and infrastructure in areas potentially affected by climate change. Require mitigation measures, such as defensible space and fire-resistant landscaping and structural design, to reduce identified hazards, as feasible. 5. Coordinate with water districts, wildlife agencies, flood control and fire districts, Santa Clara County, and other relevant organizations to address climate change impacts and develop adaptation strategies. Address human health and the health and adaptability of natural systems, including the following: a. Water resources, including expanded rainwater harvesting, water storage and conservation techniques, water reuse, water-use and irrigation efficiency, and reduction of impervious surfaces. b. Biological resources. c. Public health, including heat-related health plans, vector control, air quality, safe water, and improved sanitation. d. Environmental hazard defenses, including flood control and fire prevention and suppression. 302 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 34 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Climate Action Plan contains actions that the City will undertake to reduce community emissions. While the City can compel some action by adopting ordinances and building regulations, much of the success of our plan will depend on informing community members and encouraging them to take action on their own. This section details the ways in which the City will seek public engagement and work with local businesses and community groups to achieve the emissions reductions identified for actions in other sections of the Plan. The City will take the following actions to engage the community to reduce emissions. TABLE 10: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIONS ID Measure CE-1 Community Education CE-2 Community Outreach CE-3 Advocacy CE-4 Green Businesses C OMMUNITY E NGAGEMENT A CTIONS CE-1 Community Education. Work with community-based outreach organizations to educate and motivate community members on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their homes, businesses, transportation modes, and other activities. CE-2 Community Outreach. Implement a community-wide public outreach and behavior change campaign to engage residents, businesses, and consumers around the impacts of climate change and the ways individuals and organizations can reduce their GHG emissions and create a more sustainable, resilient, and healthier community. 1. Conduct outreach to a wide variety of neighborhood, business, educational, faith, service, and social organizations. 2. Inform the public about the benefits of installing energy and water efficient appliances and fixtures, electrifying homes and commercial buildings, installing solar energy systems, and purchasing 100% carbon- free and renewable electricity. 3. Inform the public about the benefits of using carbon-free and low-carbon transportation modes, such as driving electric vehicles, walking, bicycling, taking public transportation, and ridesharing. 4. Inform the public about the environmental benefits of eating less meat and dairy products, growing food at home, and purchasing locally produced food. What You Can Do #1 Commit to reducing your carbon footprint by taking the actions identified in this Plan. #2 Get your business certified as a Green Business with the Santa Clara County Green Business Program. 303 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 35 5. Partner with SVCE, Valley Water, PG&E, San Jose Water Company, West Valley Collection & Recycling, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and other entities to promote available financing, audits, rebates, incentives, and services to the Saratoga community. 6. Utilize the City's website, newsletters, social media, bill inserts, public service announcements and advertisements, recognition programs, handouts, presentations, events, and other forms of public outreach. CE-3 Advocacy. Advocate at the state and federal levels for policies and actions that support the rapid transition to GHG-free energy sources, electrification of buildings and the transportation fleet, and other impactful measures to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CE-4 Green Businesses. Encourage local businesses to participate in the Santa Clara County Green Business Program. 304 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 36 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Plans are only effective if they’re implemented and results are carefully evaluated. The City will prepare an annual assessment of its progress implementing the actions contained in this Climate Action Plan and will continue to quantify community and greenhouse gas emissions to determine if it is on track to meet its reduction targets. The City will take the following actions to implement and monitor the Climate Action Plan. TABLE 11: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ACTIONS ID Measure IM-1 Annual Monitoring IM-2 Update GHG Emissions Inventories IM-3 Funding Sources IM-4 Update the Climate Action Plan IM-1 Annual Monitoring. Monitor and report on the City's progress annually. Create an annual priorities list for implementation. IM-2 Update GHG Emissions Inventory. Update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for community emissions annually. IM-3 Funding Sources. 1. Identify funding sources for recommended actions and pursue local, regional, state, and federal grants as appropriate. 2. Investigate creation of a local carbon fund or other permanent source of revenue to implement the Climate Action Plan. IM-4 Update the Climate Action Plan. Update the Climate Action Plan regularly to incorporate new long-term reduction targets and strategies to meet those targets. 305 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 37 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (April 2013.) Draft Plan Bay Area Draft Environmental Impact Report. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2018.) Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. Retrieved from http://projections.planbayarea.org/. Bedsworth, Louise, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher and Sonya Ziaja. (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission). Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. (2018). Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM- CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf. Cal-Adapt. https://cal-adapt.org/ California Air Resources Board. (2017). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/wildfires-climate-change. California Air Resources Board. (June 26, 2020) “EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final Safe Rule.” Retrieved from https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. California Department of Finance, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2019, with 2010 Benchmark. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. California Adaptation Planning Guide. Final Public Review Draft. (March 2020). https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/APG2-FINAL-PR-DRAFTAccessible.pdf City of Saratoga. (May 2020). 2017 Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Community Emissions and Emissions Forecast through 2050. City of Saratoga. (2010). General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highway Element. City of Saratoga. (2007). General Plan Land Use Element. City of Saratoga. (2007). General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Cool Climate Network. Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved from https://coolclimate.org/inventory. Global Footprint Network. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2019 Public Data Package. Retrieved from https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ 306 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan 38 Jones, Christopher and Daniel Kammen. (December 15, 2015). A Consumption-Based Greenhouse Gas Inventory of San Francisco Bay Area Neighborhoods, Cities and Counties: Prioritizing Climate Action for Different Locations. ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA. (July 2019). U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 1.2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Fifth Assessment Report. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (January 15, 2020). “NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record.” Retrieved from https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20200115/. Office of the Press Secretary, the White House. “Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.” Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. August 28, 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. EPA 430-R- 20-002. U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (December 7, 2009.) Final Rule, EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act. 74 Fed. Reg. 66495. U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Final Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Fact Sheet. 307 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-1 APPENDIX A: IMPLEMENTATION TABLE The work plan in Table A-1 contains information to support staff and community implementation of the measures to effectively integrate them into budgets, the capital improvement program, and other programs and projects. The headings included in Table A-1 are defined as follows: Code: The abbreviation that is used to refer to the strategy in the CAP. Strategy/Action: The strategy language used to guide actions and the specific actions that will be used to implement the strategy. Time Frame: The year by which a measure should be effective by year’s end. For a measure to be effective, the necessary programs and efforts should be active, and any infrastructure or other capital improvements should be in place. Once effective, many measures will continue through 2030, so they do not have end dates. Time frames for effectively setting up the measures are described as follows: • Ongoing (continuation of an action that has been implemented since 2018) • Near-Term (by 2023) • Mid-Term (by 2025) • Long-Term (by 2030) City Staff Time: The estimated cost to the City (in staff hours) to complete implementation of the measure, identified as follows: • Low (less than 80 hours) • Medium (80–500 hours) • High (more than 500 hours) GHG Reductions (MTCO2e): Amount of GHG emissions reduced by 2030. If no amount is identified, either additional information is needed to quantify a reduction amount or the action is supportive of another action, as described in the CAP. Key Metrics: Targets and datapoints that the City will use to track progress and measure success. 308 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-2 TABLE A-1: IMPLEMENTATI5ON TABLE CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION LCT-1 Zero Emission Vehicles. Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in Saratoga to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, by 2030. Consider incorporating the following actions in the plan: 7,264 Rate of ZEV registrations in Saratoga and Santa Clara County. Target is 25%. 1. Work with SVCE to implement and update the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Joint Action Plan. Mid-Term Medium 2. Adopt reach codes that require EV-ready infrastructure and charging station installation above State baseline building requirements for new and remodeled residential, multi-family, and commercial projects. Mid-Term Medium 3. Adopt permit streamlining practices to expedite the approval process for new EV infrastructure and charging station installation. Near-Term Low 4. Work with SVCE to identify multi-family sites and corridors appropriate for EV fast chargers. Near-Term Low 5. Work with SVCE to promote available rebates and technical support for multi-family and workplace sites. Near-Term Low 6. Provide free or low-cost charging for ZEVs at City parking lots. Near-Term Low 7. Provide wayfinding signage to public EV chargers. Mid-Term Medium 8. Require new and remodeled gas stations to provide EV fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations. Near-Term Medium 309 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-3 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 9. Participate in programs to promote EV adoption, including "Drive an EV" events and other media and outreach campaigns. Near-Term Low 10. Encourage or require, as practicable, ride hailing and delivery service companies to utilize zero emission vehicles. Mid-Term Medium 11. Promote use of electric bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles. Near-Term Low LCT-2 Bicycling. Encourage bicycling as an alternative to vehicular travel. Establish and maintain a system of bicycle facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Long-Term High 328 Complete projects identified in the City’s General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. LCT-3 Walking. Encourage walking as an alternative to vehicular travel. Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Long-Term High 16 Complete projects identified in the City’s General Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. LCT-4 Employee Trip Reduction. Reduce vehicle miles traveled commuting to work through the following actions: 36 Number and % of employers subject to requirement that are providing transportation demand programs to employees. Target is 100%. 1. Work with Santa Clara VTA and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to promote transportation demand programs to local employers, such as rideshare matching programs, vanpool incentive programs, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, transit use discounts and subsidies, showers and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and other incentives to use transportation other than single occupant vehicles. Near-Term Medium 2. Embark on an outreach and educational campaign to encourage employees to reduce vehicle trips. Near-Term Low LCT-5 Public Transit. Support and promote public transit by taking the following actions: 245 % of VTA buses serving Saratoga that use renewable diesel and 310 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-4 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 1. Work with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to maximize ridership through expansion and/or improvement of transit routes, schedules, and stops. Mid-Term Medium are electric. Target is 50% use renewable diesel and 50% are electric. 2. Encourage VTA to use renewable diesel as a transition fuel and to purchase electric buses whenever replacing existing buses. Near-Term Low LCT-6 Safe Routes to School. Support Safe Routes to School and strive to increase bicycling, walking, carpooling, and taking public transit to school. 188 Projects implemented. Target is a 29% decrease in the number of children arriving to school by car. 1. Promote school and student participation by encouraging schools to implement and/or expand Safe Routes to School programs. Near-Term Low 2. Identify issues associated with unsafe bicycle and pedestrian facilities between neighborhoods and schools, apply for Safe Routes to School grants, and execute plans to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Long-Term High LCT-C7 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling. - Projects implemented. 1. Implement signal synchronization to minimize wait times at traffic lights and to reduce congestion through increased traffic flow. Long-Term High 2. Utilize intelligent traffic management systems to improve traffic flow. Long-Term High 3. Encourage drivers and autonomous vehicles to limit vehicle idling, particularly at schools during drop off and pick up. Short-Term Low LCT-C8 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles. 43 Decrease in amount of gasoline consumption. Target is 50% decrease. 1. Purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles for the City fleet whenever feasible, and when not, the most fuel- efficient models available. Long-Term Medium 311 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-5 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 2. Promote City adoption and procurement of zero- emission vehicles and charging infrastructure to the public. Near-Term Low LCT-C9 Low Carbon Fuels. Use low-carbon fuel such as renewable diesel as a transition fuel in the City's fleet and encourage the City's service providers to do the same. Near-Term Medium 5 Amount of diesel that is replaced by renewable diesel. Target is 100% LCT-10 City Employee Commute. Provide City employees with incentives to use alternatives to single occupant auto commuting, such as free electric vehicle charging, transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, ridesharing services, flexible schedules, and telecommuting when practical. Near-Term Medium 2 Increase in number and percent of City employees who take alternative transportation to work. Target is at least 5.4%. RENEWABLE ENERGY RE-1 GHG-Free Electricity. Support Silicon Valley Clean Energy in the continued delivery of 100% greenhouse gas free electricity and its 100% renewable electricity option (which is also 100% GHG-free). Ongoing Low 3,651 SVCE continues to provide 100% GHG-free electricity RE-2 Renewable Energy Generation 1,528 1,452 KW DC distributed solar capacity added each year on average. 1. Provide solar permit streamlining and reduce or eliminate fees, as feasible. Near-Term Medium 2. Amend building codes, development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances, as necessary, to facilitate small (up to 10 kW DC), medium (10 to 250 kW DC), and large-scale (over 250 kW DC) solar power installations. Near-Term Medium 3. Encourage installation of solar panels on rooftops and over parking areas on commercial projects, schools, and residential developments. Long-Term Medium 4. Identify and promote incentives and financing and loan programs for residential and non-residential solar projects. Near-Term Low 312 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-6 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 5. Encourage installation of battery storage in conjunction with renewable energy generation projects. Near-Term Low RE-3 Building and Appliance Electrification. Promote electrification of building systems and appliances that currently use natural gas, including heating systems, hot water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers. See also Action EE-1 in the Energy Efficiency section. Near-Term Low - Actions implemented. RE-4 Innovative Technologies. Investigate and pursue or adopt policies to allow the commercial and residential sectors to pursue innovative technologies such as microgrids (a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources that can disconnect from the grid and operate independently in “island mode”), battery storage, and demand-response programs that will improve the electric grid’s resiliency and help to balance demand and renewable energy production. Near-Term Medium - Actions implemented. RE-5 Municipal 100% Renewable Electricity. Continue to purchase Silicon Valley Clean Energy 100% GHG-free and renewable energy for all facilities. Ongoing Low 17 City continues to purchase 100% renewable energy each year. ENERGY EFFICIENCY EE-1 Green Building Reach Code. Implement the City's green building ordinance that requires all new residential and non-residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating and requires natural gas appliances, if installed, to be electric-ready. Ongoing Low 2,350 Number of new buildings subject to ordinance each year. EE-2 Energy Efficiency Programs. Promote and expand participation in residential and commercial energy efficiency and electrification programs. 3,411 Monitor PG&E reports. Target is for community-wide electricity and natural gas consumption declines an average of 0.5% each year. 1. Work with organizations and agencies such as Silicon Valley Clean Energy and PG&E to implement energy efficiency and electrification programs and actions. Near-Term Medium 313 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-7 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 2. Identify and promote utility, state, and federal rebate, incentive, financing, and loan programs. Near-Term Low EE-3 Public Lighting. Replace energy-inefficient street, parking lot, and other municipal outdoor lights with LED lights. Long-Term High 8 Convert all streetlights to LED. EE-4 Municipal Energy Efficiency Audits and Retrofits. Identify and implement energy efficiency projects in municipal buildings and facilities and electrification of existing building systems and equipment that use natural gas. Long-Term High 16 Implement projects. Target is to reduce energy use 20%. WASTE REDUCTION WR-1 Commercial Organic Waste. Work with the City's waste hauler and other organizations to divert commercial organic waste from the landfill through waste reduction, recycling, composting, and participation in food recovery programs. 1. Require the City’s waste hauler to conduct outreach and education to businesses subject to State organic waste recycling mandates (AB 1826 and SB 1383) and ensure compliance with the law. 2. Require the City’s waste hauler to educate commercial and multi-family property owners on the proper use of on-site recycling and composting facilities. Outreach and education activities may include, but are not limited to, site visits, waste audits, “how-to” demonstrations and presentations, marketing campaigns, and provision of receptacles and signage. 3. Require development projects to provide adequate waste and recycling facilities and access as feasible. Near-Term Medium - Monitor CalRecycle reports for tons of waste landfilled and composition of alternative daily, and statewide characterization of waste reports. Target is for organic waste disposal to decline 75% from 2014 level. WR-2 Residential Organic Waste. Work with the City's waste hauler to expand acceptable items for food waste collection and to educate and motivate residents to utilize curbside collection services and home composting for food waste. Outreach and education activities may include, but are not limited to, waste audits, “how-to” demonstrations Near-Term Medium - 314 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-8 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS and presentations, marketing campaigns, and provision of receptacles and signage. WR-3 Construction & Demolition Debris. Require all loads of construction and demolition debris to be processed for recovery of materials as required by law and to the maximum amount feasible. Ongoing Low - WR-4 Waste Diversion Targets. Review and revise the City's franchise agreement with the City's waste hauler to ensure waste reduction and diversion targets are met. Require regular residential and commercial waste audits and waste characterization studies to identify opportunities for increased diversion and to track progress in meeting targets. Near-Term Medium - WR-5 Extended Producer Responsibility. Encourage the State to regulate the production and packaging of consumer goods and take-back programs. Encourage on-demand delivery services to reduce packaging waste and investigate requirements and incentives for same. Near-Term Low - Actions implemented. WR-6 Waste Reduction. Utilize the City and waste hauler’s websites, how-to guides, newsletters, handouts, presentations, events, and other forms of public outreach to promote reuse, repair, and recycling of products and encourage reduced use of packaging and single use items. Near-Term Medium - Actions implemented. WR-7 Waste from Public Facilities. Increase opportunities for recycling, reuse, and composting at City facilities. 1. Embark on an educational and social marketing-based campaign to increase recycling, composting, reuse, and waste reduction within municipal operations. 2. Conduct periodic waste audits of City facilities to understand where opportunities for increased diversion lie and to track progress. Near-Term Medium - Organic waste disposal declines 75% from 2014 level. WATER CONSERVATION WC-1 Water Conservation. 44 315 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-9 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 1. Work with San Jose Water Company (SJWC), Valley Water, and other organizations to promote water conservation programs and incentives. Near-Term Low Monitor community-wide water consumption (gpcd) as reported by San Jose Water Company. Target is for water consumption to decline an average of 1% each year. 2. Educate residents and businesses about local and State laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale. Near-Term Medium 3. Ensure all projects requiring building permits, plan check, or design review comply with State and SJWC regulations. Near-Term Medium 4. Encourage the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycled water where available. Near-Term Medium WC-2 Municipal Water Use. Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in municipal facilities and operations. Included in above Monitor City’s water consumption. Target is for water consumption to decline an average of 1% each year. 1. Replace high water use plants and inefficient irrigation systems with water-efficient landscaping. Long-Term 2. Replace turf with water-efficient plantings as appropriate. Long-Term 3. Replace inefficient plumbing fixtures with high- efficiency fixtures. Long-Term Medium CARBON SEQUESTRATION CS-1 City Forest. 248 Target is for 700 new trees to be planted each year. 1. Plant additional trees on City-owned land, including public parks, open space, medians, and rights of way, where feasible. Long-Term High 316 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-10 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS 2. Review and amend, as appropriate, parking lot landscape standards to maximize tree cover, shade, size, growth, and sequestration potential. Near-Term Medium 3. Regulate and minimize removal of large trees and require planting of replacement trees. Ongoing Medium 4. Require that the site planning, construction, and maintenance of new development preserve existing healthy trees and native vegetation on site to the maximum extent feasible. Replace trees and vegetation not able to be saved where applicable. Ongoing Medium 5. Encourage community members to plant trees on private land by providing reduced-cost trees to the public through a bulk purchasing program. Long-Term High 6. Provide information to the public, including landscape companies, gardeners, and nurseries, on carbon sequestration rates, drought tolerance, and fire resistance of different tree species. Mid-Term Medium ADAPTATION AD-1 Climate Change Adaptation. - Actions implemented. 1. Continue to incorporate the likelihood of increased risk of wildfire and extreme heat and storm events in the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mid-Term Medium 2. Incorporate the likelihood of climate change impacts into City emergency planning and training. Mid-Term Medium 3. Provide cooling centers during extreme heat events and facilities to recharge batteries and connect to power during power outages such as Public Safety Power Shut off events. Provide public safety Near-Term Medium 317 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-11 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS notifications to community members, especially vulnerable populations. 4. Consider climate change implications when approving new projects and planning for growth, facilities, and infrastructure in areas potentially affected by climate change. Long-Term High 5. Coordinate with water districts, wildlife agencies, flood control and fire districts, Santa Clara County, and other relevant organizations to address climate change impacts and develop adaptation strategies. Address human health and the health and adaptability of natural systems, including the following: a. Water resources, including expanded rainwater harvesting, water storage and conservation techniques, water reuse, water-use and irrigation efficiency, and reduction of impervious surfaces. b. Biological resources. c. Public health, including heat-related health plans, vector control, air quality, safe water, and improved sanitation. d. Environmental hazard defenses, including flood control and fire prevention and suppression. Long-Term High COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CE-1 Community Education. Work with community-based outreach organizations to educate and motivate community members on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their homes, businesses, transportation modes, and other activities. Near-Term Medium - Actions implemented. CE-2 Community Outreach. Implement a community-wide public outreach and behavior change campaign to engage residents, businesses, and consumers around the impacts of climate change and the ways individuals and Long-Term High - Actions implemented. 318 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-12 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS organizations can reduce their GHG emissions and create a more sustainable, resilient, and healthier community. 1. Conduct outreach to a wide variety of neighborhood, business, educational, faith, service, and social organizations. 2. Inform the public about the benefits of installing energy and water efficient appliances and fixtures, electrifying homes and commercial buildings, installing solar energy systems, and purchasing 100% carbon- free and renewable electricity. 3. Inform the public about the benefits of using carbon- free and low-carbon transportation modes, such as driving electric vehicles, walking, bicycling, taking public transportation, and ridesharing. 4. Inform the public about the environmental benefits of eating less meat and dairy products, growing food at home, and purchasing locally produced food. 5. Partner with SVCE, Valley Water, PG&E, San Jose Water Company, West Valley Collection & Recycling, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and other entities to promote available financing, audits, rebates, incentives, and services to the Saratoga community. 6. Utilize the City's website, newsletters, social media, bill inserts, public service announcements and advertisements, recognition programs, handouts, presentations, events, and other forms of public outreach. CE-3 Advocacy. Advocate at the state and federal levels for policies and actions that support the rapid transition to GHG-free energy sources, electrification of buildings and the transportation fleet, and other impactful measures to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Long-Term Medium - Actions implemented. 319 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan A-13 CODE STRATEGY/ACTION TIME FRAME CITY STAFF TIME GHG REDUCTION (MTCO2e) KEY METRICS CE-4 Green Businesses. Encourage local businesses to participate in the Santa Clara County Green Business Program. Ongoing Low - Number of green businesses enrolled each year. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING IM-1 Annual Monitoring. Monitor and report on the City's progress annually. Create an annual priorities list for implementation. Near-Term Medium - Actions implemented. IM-2 Update GHG Emissions Inventory. Update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for community emissions annually. Near-Term Medium - Action implemented. Target is for emissions to continue to decline an average of 2,380 MTCO2e each year. IM-3 Funding Sources. - Adequate funding for CAP actions. Number and amount of grants received annually. 1. Identify funding sources for recommended actions and pursue local, regional, state, and federal grants as appropriate. Long-Term High 2. Investigate creation of a local carbon fund or other permanent source of revenue to implement the Climate Action Plan. Mid-Term Medium IM-4 Update the Climate Action Plan. Update the Climate Action Plan regularly to incorporate new long-term reduction targets and strategies to meet those targets. Long High - Action implemented. 320 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-1 APPENDIX B: GHG REDUCTION CALCULATIONS GHG Emissions Reductions (MTCO 2 e/yr) by 2030 LCT-1 Zero Emission Vehicles -7,264 LCT-2 Bicycling -328 LCT-3 Walking -16 LCT-4 Employee Trip Reduction -36 LCT-5 Public Transit -245 LCT-6 Safe Routes to School -188 LCT-8 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles -43 LCT-9 Low Carbon Fuels -5 LCT-10 City Employee Commute -2 RE-1 GHG-Free Electricity -3,651 RE-2 Renewable Energy -1,528 RE-5 Municipal 100% Renewable Electricity -17 EE-1 Green Building Reach Code -2,350 EE-2 Energy Efficiency -3,411 EE-3 Public Lighting -8 EE-4 Municipal Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits -16 WC-1 Water Conservation -44 CS-1 City Forest -248 -19,401 -13,639 RPS -1,529 TITLE 24 -340 -73 -3,853 -19,433 EMISSIONS REDUCTION SUMMARY Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 Organic Waste Reduction Measure Local Actions State Actions Light and Heavy-Duty Fleet Regulations TOTAL - STATE ACTIONS TOTAL - LOCAL ACTIONS Lighting Efficiency (AB 1109) 321 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-2 127,885 -38,834 89,051 152,909 91,745 -42% 2.7 2.1 GHG Target to Meet State Goals (40% below 1990 levels) % Below 1990 Levels Emissions per Service Population Projected Emissions Projected BAU Community-Wide GHG Emissions Community-Wide Emissions with Local and State Actions Implemented Emissions Reductions from Local and State Actions Estimate GHG Emissions in 1990 (15% below 2008 levels) Emissions per Capita 322 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-3 Jurisdiction 2015 2017 2020 2030 2040 2017-2030 Population 31,202 31,364 31,622 32,792 33,922 1,428 Person Per Household 2.87 2.88 2.88 2.81 2.88 Households 10,799 10,834 10,980 11,670 11,778 836 Jobs 8,750 8,720 8,675 10,413 12,150 1,693 Additional Commercial Sq. Ft.629,618 1,259,236 629,618 Service Population (population + jobs)39,952 40,084 40,297 43,205 46,072 3,121 2015-2017 household, population, and persons per household data from Cal. Department of Finance E-5 Report (2019) VMT Forecasts Passenger Commercial Bus Total 2017 156,589,136 2,179,762 138,149 158,907,047 2020 159,654,813 2,125,032 138,149 161,917,994 2030 163,190,068 2,338,366 138,149 165,666,583 2040 163,242,792 2,598,713 138,149 165,979,654 Passenger vehicle data from http://capvmt.us-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data PeMS derived from Caltrans PeMS 17.1 http://pems.dot.ca.gov Commercial VMT data from MTC utilizing 2017 Regional Transportation Plan forecasts LEHD share from https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Projected Emission Factors PG&E electricity 0.0000964 MTCO2e/kWh 0.0000922 MTCO2e/kWh SVCE electricity1 0.0000000 MTCO2e/kWh 0.0000000 MTCO2e/kWh DA electricity 0.0001962 MTCO2e/kWh 0.0001294 MTCO2e/kWh Electricity, weighted average2 0.0000639 MTCO2e/kWh 0.0000556 MTCO2e/kWh Residential electricity, weighted average3 0.0000536 MTCO2e/kWh 0.0000513 MTCO2e/kWh Commercial electricity, weighted average4 0.0000395 MTCO2e/kWh 0.0000378 MTCO2e/kWh Natural Gas 0.0053187 MTCO2e/therm 0.0053187 MTCO2e/therm Gasoline/off-road 0.0088523 MTCO2/gallon 0.0088523 MTCO2/gallon Diesel/off-road 0.0102951 MTCO2/gallon 0.0102951 MTCO2/gallon 0.0003288 MTCO2e/mile 0.0002620 MTCO2e/mile Passenger vehicle coefficient 0.0003148 MTCO2e/mile 0.0002494 MTCO2e/mile Passenger vehicle coefficient w/o EVs 0.0002609 MTCO2e/mile Commercial vehicle coefficient 0.0012533 MTCO2e/mile 0.0010247 MTCO2e/mile Bus coefficient 0.0022605 MTCO2e/mile 0.0022605 MTCO2e/mile PG&E 47.17% SVCE 43.44% Other Direct Access 9.38% PG&E 55.61% SVCE 44.39% PG&E 40.99% SVCE 59.01% Other Direct Access 0.00% Transportation coefficient Population data provided by M-Group FORECAST 2030 and 2040 household data derived from M-Group population projections and ABAG Person Per Household projections from ABAG-MTC's Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 (November 2018): http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/files/Projections_2040-ABAG- MTC-web.pdf. 2017 data is interpolated from 2015 and 2020 values. 2020 2030 Bus VMT within Saratoga City limits, calculated from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority schedules and route maps for routes 26, 37, 53, 57 and 58. 2018 data used as a proxy for all other years. 2015 and 2020 jobs data from ABAG's Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 (November 2018). 2030 and 2040 projections data provided by M-Group. 4 Commercial weighted average is based on 2017 load distribution without DA as follows: 2Weighted average is based on 2017 electricity load distribution as follows: 3 Residential weighted average is based on 2017 load distribution as follows: 323 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-4 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2e) -7,263.6 2030 Methodology ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES LCT-1 Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in Saratoga to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, by 2030. Consider incorporating the following actions in the plan: 25% of VMT from Saratoga residents and workers is driven by ZEVs by 2030. 6. Provide free or low-cost charging for ZEVs at City parking lots. 7. Provide wayfinding signage to public EV chargers. 8. Require new and remodeled gas stations to provide EV fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations. 9. Participate in programs to promote EV adoption, including "Drive an EV" events and other media and outreach campaigns. 10. Encourage or require, as practicable, ride hailing and delivery service companies to utilize zero emission vehicles. 11. Promote adoption of electric bicycles, scooters and motorcycles. 1. Work with SVCE to implement and update the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Joint Action Plan. 2. Adopt reach codes that require EV-ready infrastructure and charging station installation above State baseline building requirements for new and remodeled residential, multi-family and commercial projects. 3. Adopt permit streamlining practices to expedite the approval process for new EV infrastructure and charging station installation. 4. Work with SVCE to identify multi-family sites and corridors appropriate for EV fast chargers. 5. Work with SVCE to promote available rebates and technical support for multi- family and workplace sites. Santa Clara County has approximately 13% of all ZEVs in California (DMV, 1-1-19), or 61,344 ZEVs in Santa Clara County out of a total 478,542 ZEVs in California. ZEVs include battery electric cars (BEVs), plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) and fuel cell vehicles. CARB's proposed strategy is to put 4.2 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, which is approximately 14% of light duty vehicles in California in 2030. In January 2018, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-48-18 set a new goal of having a total of 5 million ZEVs in California in 2030. In January 2019, DMV reports there were 37,789 battery EVs, 22,748 plug-in hybrid EVs, and 807 fuel cell vehicles, for a total of 61,344 ZEVs in Santa Clara County. We conservatively assume the same percentage of EVs in Saratoga in 2030: 62% battery EVs and 38% plug-in hybrids. There were 1,417,534 registered automobiles in Santa Clara County in 2019. ZEVS represent an estimated 4.3% of registered automobiles in Santa Clara County in 2019. 324 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-5 Sources Assuming the same share of ZEV ownership in Santa Clara County in 2030 as in 2019 (12.82%) means there would be approximately 538,440 ZEVs registered in Santa Clara County by 2030, or approximately 38% of existing automobile registrations. We conservatively assume 25% of the projected number of registered automobiles will be ZEVs in Santa Clara County by 2030. This would require an average annual growth rate of 18%. Electric vehicle sales in California grew by 20% in 2016, followed by 29% growth in 2017 (ICCT, 2018). The number of ZEVs grew 35% in Santa Clara County between 2018 and 2019. This data suggests that an annual growth rate of 18% is reasonable, especially as the number of models expands and battery technology and charging capacity improves. In January 2019, DMV reports there were 1,797 BEVs, 773 PHEVs, and 59 fuel cell vehicles registered to Saratoga residents (zip codes 95070 and 95071), for a total of 2,629 ZEVs. This represents 0.59% of all ZEVS in California in 2019. 74% of the distance PHEVs drive is electric (Smart et al, 2014). EV kWh/mile is 0.32 (US Dept of Energy). Silicon Valley Clean Energy is projecting a seven-fold increase in EVs registered in its territory between the end of 2018 (approximately 26,000 EVs) and 2025 (190,000 EVs) under a business-as-usual scenario. We are conservatively projecting a six- fold increase in the number of EVs between 2018 and 2030. According to the Department of Energy, towns (population 2,500 to 50,000) need 54 public EV plugs per 1,000 PEVs. The City has installed 10 EV charging stations at City Hall, downtown and the library (10 Level II ports and 10 Level I ports) and is installing two Level II EV chargers (four ports total) at the Senior Center. California Air Resources Board, 2017 Scoping Plan. Smart, J., Bradley, T., and Salisbury, S., "Actual Versus Estimated Utility Factor of a Large Set of Privately Owned Chevrolet Volts," SAE Int. J. Alt. Power. 3(1):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-1803. U.S, Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html. Sales weighted average of 2016 model year vehicles with sales in 2015: 2015 sales from "U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales by Model" (https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/vehicles.html); MPGs from 2016 Fuel Economy Guide (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/) The International Council on Clean Transportation, "California's continued electric vehicle market development," May 2018, https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CA-cityEV-Briefing- 20180507.pdf. 325 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-6 45,373 1,477,289 25% 369,322 323,949 21.9% Saratoga passenger VMT (Live In/Work In Area only)112,553,206 miles 24,681,378 miles 22,692,059 miles Emissions without EV program 8,460 MTCO 2e 7,778 MTCO 2e 7,261,459 kWh 515 MTCO 2e 7,264 MTCO 2e Electricity used by ZEVs Electricity emissions from ZEVs Emissions reduction Additional ZEVs as a percent of Santa Clara vehicles VMT from additional ZEVs VMT driven with electricity Percent of ZEVs in Santa Clara County in 2030 Projected number of ZEVs in Santa Clara County in 2030 Increase in ZEVs Tailpipe emissions reduction with EV program Projected number of registered passenger vehicles in Santa Clara County in 2030 Calculation US Department of Energy, "National Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Analysis," September 2017. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/69031.pdf Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Vehicle Miles Dataportal, http://capvmt.us-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/, accessed 11/13/19. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Estimated Vehicles Registered by County for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2019," "Fuel Type by County as of 1/1/2019," and "Fuel Type by Zip Code as of 1/1/2019." 2030 Number of registered Santa Clara ZEVs in January 2018 Silicon Valley Clean Energy, "Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Joint Action Plan," September 2019. 326 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-7 Action Target GP Related Policies Reductions (MTCO2 e) -328.5 Methodology and Assumptions Sources Bay Area Air Quality Management District Vehicle Miles Traveled Dataportal, http://capvmt.us-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data. BICYCLING LCT - 2 Encourage bicycling as an alternative to vehicular travel. Establish and maintain a system of bicycle facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Bicycle and Master Pedestrian Plan, and Complete Streets policies. 2030 Studies cited by CAPCOA show each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile increases the share of workers commuting by bicycle by 1% (CAPCOA SDT- 5). We have applied this to the following population segments: • Live in/work in area • Live in/work out of area • Live in area/non-worker • Live out of area/work in area 7.06 miles of Class I bike paths and 3.82 miles of Class II bike lanes constructed by 2030. Policy CI 5.1: Develop and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which will outline policies and improvements to streets, trails and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis. Policy CI 5.2: Integrate the City’s bikeway and walkway system with those of adjacent communities, where economically feasible. Policy CI 5.3: Pursue the expansion and continuation of the multi-use path along the Union Pacific Railroad alignment (Joe’s trail) east of Saratoga Avenue and west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that will link the Stevens Creek Recreational Trail in Cupertino with the Los Gatos Creek Trail in Los Gatos. Policy CI 5.4: Pursue other potential rights-of-way such as Santa Clara Valley Water District and utility easements for bicycle, pedestrian, and/or equestrian trail development. Policy CI 5.5: Promote safer and more direct connections between pedestrian and bicycle generators (i.e. schools, library, trails, parks, the Village, and other non-residential uses). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. Personal communication with Franziska Church, Senior Associate, Fehr and Peers, April 15, 2020. 327 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-8 112,553,206 miles 7.06 miles 3.82 miles 10.88 miles 0.85 958,199 miles 328.5 MTCO 2 eEmissions reductions Miles of new Class I bike lanes New bike lanes per square mile Calculation Miles of new Class II bike lanes Total miles new bike lanes VMT generated by targeted population segments Reduction in local VMT 2030 328 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-9 Action Target Related GP Policies Reductions (MTCO2e) -16 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 4,782,902 miles 1.0% 47,829 miles GHG emissions reductions 16 MTCO 2 e WALKING LCT-3 1% reduction in VMT for vehicle trips that start and end in Saratoga by 2030. Policy CI 5.1: Develop and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which will outline policies and improvements to streets, trails and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis. Policy CI 5.2: Integrate the City’s bikeway and walkway system with those of adjacent communities, where economically feasible. Policy CI 5.3: Pursue the expansion and continuation of the multi-use path along the Union Pacific Railroad alignment (Joe’s trail) east of Saratoga Avenue and west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that will link the Stevens Creek Recreational Trail in Cupertino with the Los Gatos Creek Trail in Los Gatos. Policy CI 5.4: Pursue other potential rights-of-way such as Santa Clara Valley Water District and utility easements for bicycle, pedestrian, and/or equestrian trail development. Policy CI 5.5: Promote safer and more direct connections between pedestrian and bicycle generators (i.e. schools, library, trails, parks, the Village, and other non-residential uses). Passenger vehicle trips starting and ending in Saratoga % decrease in VMT due to pedestrian improvements Annual decrease in VMT Encourage walking as an alternative to vehicular travel. Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities that are consistent with the City's General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and Complete Streets policies. Studies cited by CAPCOA show pedestrian network improvements can reduce VMT 1-2% (CAPCOA SDT-1). We apply this to passenger vehicle trips that start and end in Saratoga and assume a 1% reduction 2030. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Vehicle Miles Traveled Data Portal, http://capvmt.us-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data Calculation 2030 329 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-10 Program Description Target GP Related Policies Reductions (MTCO2e) -36.4 2030 Sources Personal communication with Corey Dodge, Program Coordinator, Bay Area Metro, April 2, 2020. EMPLOYEE TRIP REDUCTION LCT-4 SB 1339 requires employers with 50 or more employees within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s geographic boundaries to offer their employees specific alternative commute incentives, including the option to pay for their transit or vanpooling with pre-tax dollars, a subsidy to reduce or cover the employee’s transit or vanpool costs, or free or low-cost bus, shuttle or vanpool service operated by or for the employer. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. Reduce vehicle miles traveled commuting to work through the following actions: 1. Work with Santa Clara VTA and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to promote transportation demand programs to local employers, such as rideshare matching programs, vanpool incentive programs, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, transit use discounts and subsidies, showers and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and other incentives to use transportation other than single occupant vehicles. 2. Embark on an outreach and educational campaign to encourage employees to reduce vehicle trips. Methodology CAPCOA Measure TRT-1. Assuming a suburban center and 100% of employees are eligible for incentives, VMT reduction is 5.4%. Measure assumes the employer support program will include carpooling, ride- matching, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, vanpool assistance, bicycle parking, showers, and locker 100% of covered employers provide an employee trip reduction program. MTC identifies 35 businesses with 50 or more employees in Saratoga. 13 of these businesses were unregistered as of April 2020. There were 592 estimated employees associated with 8 of the 13 non-registered employers. We conservatively assume the other 5 employees have the minimum of 50 employees. We assume all of these employers participate in the program by 2030. We assume 240 work days per year. Policy CI 5.7: Develop a set of practical and realistic transportation demand management (TDM) measures that can be used by employers in the City to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips. These measures would encourage ride-sharing and transit alternatives. 330 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-11 Action Target Related GP Policies Reductions (MTCO2 e) -244.9 2030 Methodology Sources 138,149 miles 312 MTCO 2e 50% 50% 67 MTCO 2e 245 MTCO 2e CARB adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Rule in December 2018. This rule outlines a transition of California transit agencies to a zero emission fleet by 2040. 100% of transit agencies' bus purchases must be zero emission beginning in 2029. VTA's Vehicle Replacement Plan identifies purchases that will achieve the ICT zero emission fleet mandate in 2040. We assume 50% of VTA's vehicle fleet will be electric by 2030. Transit miles, BAU Emissions BAU Calculation 2030 Percentage of renewable Diesel VMT Percentage of electric bus VMT Tailpipe emissions GHG emissions reductions PUBLIC TRANSIT LCT-5 Support and promote public transit by taking the following actions: 1. Work with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to maximize ridership through expansion and/or improvement of transit routes, schedule, and stops. 2. Encourage VTA to use renewable diesel as a transition fuel and to purchase electric buses whenever replacing existing buses serving Saratoga. VTA lines 26, 37, 53, 57 and 58 travel approximately 138,149 miles each year within Saratoga's jurisdictional boundary. Policy CI 4.1: Coordinate with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to improve transit infrastructure, transit stop amenities, service range and frequency and access in the City. Policy CI 4.2: Install transit improvements (such as shelters, benches, and schedules) to improve service, increase safety, and maintain traffic flow on streets serving as transit routes. 50% of buses serving Saratoga are electric and the remaining buses use renewable diesel by 2030. 331 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-12 Action Target Related GP Policies Reductions (MTCO2e) -188.3 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources Transportation Authority of Marin Average one way school trip lengths in Marin County are 1.7 miles for elementary and middle schools and 2.3 miles for high schools. We assume similar transportation mode rates and trip lengths for Saratoga schools. Policy CI 4.3: Encourage public school districts, private schools, recreation groups and other operators to develop a local bus system and to expand ride- sharing activities that will help to reduce school-generated vehicle traffic in neighborhoods and on City streets. Bussing should be one of the first measures considered, along with walking and biking, to reduce school generated traffic before substantial roadway capacity enhancements are implemented. Policy CI 5.6: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to all public and private schools to enhance safety. Policy CI.8.1: Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all public and private schools serving the City. Policy CI.8.2: Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements in street modification projects that affect school travel routes to enhance safe school access. Policy CI.8.3: Support education programs that promote safe walking and bicycling to schools. greatschools.org To demonstrate the benefits of providing Safe Routes to Schools, the Marin County Bicycle Coalition recruited nine pilot schools in four different geographic locations. Initial surveys reported that 62% of the students were arriving by car, with only 14% walking, 7% biking to school, 11% carpool, and 6% arriving by bus. Every school in the pilot program held periodic Walk and Bike to School Days and participated in the Frequent Rider Miles contest, which rewarded children who came to school walking, biking, by carpool or bus. At the end of the pilot program, the participating schools experienced a 57% increase in the number of children walking and biking and a 29% decrease in the number of children arriving alone in a car. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL LCT-6 Support Safe Routes to School and strive to increase bicycling, walking, carpooling, and taking public transit to school. 1. Promote school and student participation by encouraging schools to implement and/or expand Safe Routes to school programs. 2. Identify issues associated with unsafe bicycle and pedestrian facilities between neighborhoods and schools, apply for Safe Routes to School grants, and execute plans to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 29% decrease in number of children arriving to school by car. Safe Routes to School Marin County, http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/history.html#success 332 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-13 2,377 761 1,371 1.7 miles 1.7 miles 2.3 miles 62% 29% 549,405 miles Emissions reductions 188.3 MTCO 2 e Number of students in Saratoga elementary schools Number of students in Saratoga middle school Number of students in Saratoga high school Average trip length elementary school student Calculation 2030 Average trip length high school student Percent of student estimated to drive to school VMT avoided Average trip length middle school student Potential percent decrease in students driving to school 333 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-14 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2e) -43.3 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 9,780 gallons 87 MTCO 2 50% 43.3 MTCO 2e City vehicle fleet gasoline consumption City fleet tailpipe emissions Emissions reductions Fuel reduction ZERO AND LOW EMMISION CITY VEHICLES LCT-8 Purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles for the City fleet whenever feasible, and when not, the most fuel-efficient models available. Promote City adoption and procurement of zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure to the public. 2030 Calculation 50% decrease in gasoline consumption for City vehicles by 2030. As vehicles are replaced, there will be opportunities to purchase/lease electric vehicles or improve vehicle fuel efficiency with similar models. For City electric vehicles, we assume EVs are powered with SVCE electricity and therefore produce no emissions. City of Saratoga 334 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-15 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2e) -5 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 830 gallons 100% 9 MTCO 2e 3 MTCO 2e 5 MTCO 2e Use low-carbon fuel such as renewable diesel as a transition fuel in the City's fleet and encourage the City's service providers to do the same. 100% of diesel use is replaced with renewable diesel by 2030. City fleet diesel consumption Renewable diesel percentage Emissions from diesel fuel Emissions from renewable diesel fuel Emissions reductions City of Saratoga http://www.nexgenfuel.com/fleets-commercial-use/ Calculation 2030 LOW CARBON FUELS LCT-9 Emission factor for renewable diesel derived from data from Nexgen Fuel. 335 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-16 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2e) -2.3 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 56 9.7 miles 130,953 miles 5.2% 6,810 miles 2.3 MTCO 2e We assume City of Saratoga commute VMT is similar to average daily VMT of Saratoga employees. We also assume an average of 240 work days for a City employee. Estimated daily VMT per employee Reduction in VMT The City of Saratoga implemented one of the required four commuter benefit options in 2014, specifically the Alternative Commuter Benefit option, which consists of one required primary measure, plus two required secondary measures from a pre–approved list. The City of Saratoga qualifies for the primary measure with its 9/80 compressed workweek schedule and the two secondary measures: secure, on-site bicycle parking; and showers and lockers for employees. Staff are encouraged to take public transportation or bicycle ride to work. The City provides bicycle racks near the Warner Hutton House and the Recreation Department. Showers and lockers are also available for employees at City Hall and the Corporation Yard. CITY EMPLOYEE COMMUTE LCT-10 Provide City employees with incentives to use alternatives to single occupant auto commuting, such as free electric vehicle charging, transit subsidies, bicycle facilities, ridesharing services, flexible schedules, and telecommuting when practical. Estimated annual VMT for City employees This measure assumes the City will augment its commuter benefits to include actions such as: providing free charging for EV s at the Civic Center; providing transit subsidies; and encouraging telecommuting. CAPCOA Measure TRT-1. Assuming a suburban center and 100% of employees are eligible for incentives, VMT reduction is 5.4%. 5% reduction in city employee commute VMT. VMT avoided Emissions reduction (MTCO2e) California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. Calculation Number of City employees 2030 336 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-17 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2 e) -3,651.2 Methodology Sources 68,890,936 kWh 73,392,598 kWh 142,283,534 kWh 33,558,163 kWh 105,246,159 kWh 3,479,212 kWh 36,355,222 kWh GHG emissions reductions 3,651.2 MTCO 2e 100% GHG-free electricity from SVCE through 2030. Electricity saved from other measures GHG-FREE ELECTRICITY RE-1 Support SVCE in the continued delivery of 100% GHG-free electricity. 2030 2030 As of October 2018, the territory-wide opt-out rate for Silicon Valley Clean Energy was 3.2 percent. This opt-out rate is assumed for Saratoga customers and is applied to the overall PG&E load. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/ Calculation Additional SVCE electricity use SVCE provides 100% GHG-free electricity to its customers. SVCE began serving Saratoga customers in April 2017. Future SVCE electricity use SVCE electricity use, BAU Total SVCE and PG&E electricity use, BAU Future PG&E electricity use PG&E electricity use, BAU 337 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-18 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2e) -1,528.1 2030 Methodology Sources 2,903 KW DC 1,452 KW DC 15,968 KW DC 27,364,074 kWh GHG emissions reductions 1,528.1 MTCO 2e RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION RE-2 Accelerate installation of solar and other renewable energy installations and energy storage systems at residential and commercial buildings and sites, and at community facilities. 1. Provide solar permit streamlining and reduce or eliminate fees, as feasible. 2. Amend building codes, development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances, as necessary, to facilitate small, medium, and large-scale solar installations. 3. Encourage installation of solar panels on rooftops and over parking areas on commercial projects, schools, and residential developments. 4. Identify and promote financing and loan programs for residential and non- residential solar projects. 5. Encourage installation of battery storage in conjunction with renewable energy generation projects. According to Project Sunroof, 94% of Saratoga buildings have roofs that are solar- viable. These 10,300 roofs have the capacity for 228 MW DC and could generate 327,000,000 kWh per year, which is more than the 139,488,000 kWh consumed in Saratoga in 2017. Project Sunroof estimates there are 1,400 existing solar installations in Saratoga. As of the end of 2017, there were 1,382 installed residential PV systems in Saratoga according to California Solar Statistics. 1,452 KW DC distributed solar capacity added each year on average. An average of 1,223 KW DC has been installed in Saratoga each year since 2012, excluding industrial installations. We assume new distributed solar capacity will be added at the same rate as 2018-2019 through 2030, or 1,452 KW DC each year. California Distributed Generation Statistics, "NEM Currently Interconnected Data Set," https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/downloads/, as of January 31, 2020. Project Sunroof, https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/data- explorer/place/ChIJRf47R3CahYARV2ndbPAFwMk/, accessed March 12, 2020. Calculation Additional electricity produced by distributed PV 2030 Solar capacity added 2018-2019 Average solar added annually Additional solar 2020-2030 338 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-19 Action Reductions (MTCO2 e) -16.6 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 660,104 kWh 165,123 kWh 494,981 kWh 16.6 MTCO 2 e Remaining electricity to be purchased from SVCE Reduction in GHG emissions City of Saratoga PG&E Bills Calculation Government operations electricity consumption in 2017 Electricity emissions reduced through other measures 2030 Purchase remaining electricity from SVCE. MUNICIPAL 100% GHG-FREE ELECTRICITY RE-5 Continue to purchase SVCE 100% GHG-free energy for all facilities. 339 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-20 Action Reductions (MTCO2e) -2,350.4 Sources California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. CAPCOA Measure BE-1 used for estimating non-residential building electricity savings subject to Municipal Code Section 16-47.040. The City adopted a reach code in December 2019 that requires all new residential and non-residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating. Natural gas is permitted as a fuel source for clothes drying, food cooking, and fireplaces. However, buildings using natural gas appliances must also be “electric-ready,” meaning that the location of a natural gas appliance is capable of supporting an electric appliance in the future. Methodology and Assumptions Replacing residential space and water systems in Climate Zone 4 that use natural gas with systems that use heat pumps and electricity reduces emissions by approximately 95% (derived from CRASS, Tables 2-9 and 2-25). We assume the same emissions reduction for electrifying non-residential space heating systems. An estimated 88% of new homes use natural gas for ranges and ovens and 58% use natural gas for dryers (CRASS, Table 2-22). We assume the ordinance will reduce these numbers by half. An estimated 97% of homes in climate zone 4 use natural gas for primary space heating and 91% use natural gas for water heating (CRASS, Table 2-25). We assume the ordinance reduces these numbers by 100%. Electricity used to power these systems is regulated under Title 24, which requires solar energy to supply energy requirements. 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (CRASS), Volume 2, Tables 2-6, 2-9, 2-22 and 2-25. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-200-2010-004/CEC-200-2010- 004-V2.PDF California Energy Commission, California Commercial End-Use Survey (March 2006), https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-005/CEC- 400-2006-005.PDF GREEN BUILDING REACH CODE EE-1 Implement the City's green building ordinance that requires all new residential and non-residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating and requires natural gas appliances, if installed, to be electric-ready. Implement Municipal Code Section 16-47.040 which requires new commercial buildings to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by 2030 340 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-21 Residential 787 units 50% 160 therms 195 therms 35 therms 27 therms 279,989 therms 268 kWh 549 kWh 218,032 kWh 1,477.0 MTCO 2e Commercial 172,776 therms 95% 873.0 MTCO2e 15 % New construction electricity use, BAU 6,464,910 kWh New construction electricity use, after Title 24 4,045,094 kWh Additional reduction in electricity use 10,922 kWh GHG emissions reductions from reduced electricity use 0.4 MTCO2e GHG emissions reductions 873.4 MTCO2e Estimated natural gas use for space heating, per housing unit Estimated electricity use for cooktop and range Estimated natural gas use for water heating, per housing unit GHG emissions reductions New construction natural gas use 2020-2030, BAU, for heating, cooling, and water heating Total electricity used for electrified appliances Estimated natural gas use for clothes dryer Total natural gas reduced for appliances and heating systems GHG emissions reductions from reduced natural gas use Estimated electricity use for clothes dryer Calculation 2030 Estimated reduction in emissions after adjusting for additional electricity use 2030 Reduction in appliances that use natural gas Estimated annual natural gas use for cooktop and range New housing units, 2020-2030 Percent over Title 24 Energy Requirements 341 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-22 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2 e) -3,410.8 2030 Methodology Electricity consumption declined 9% between 2005 and 2017 (including electricity generated by distributed PV), or an average of 0.8% per year in Saratoga. Natural gas consumption declined 14% between 2005 and 2017 in Saratoga, or an average of 1.1% per year. ENERGY EFFICIENCY EE-2 We are forecasting an annual electricity savings of 0.5% and an annual natural gas savings of 0.5% based on the following: Promote and expand participation in residential and commercial energy efficiency and electrification programs. 1. Work with organizations and agencies such as Silicon Valley Clean Energy and PG&E to promote and implement energy efficiency and electrification programs and actions. 2. Promote utility, state, and federal rebate, incentive, financing, and loan programs. In order to avoid double counting, we exclude energy consumed by commercial buildings that are expected to be redeveloped under General Plan full build-out. This includes 311,870 sq. ft. of existing commercial buildings and 51,205 sq. ft. of existing office use. We assume 400 sq. ft. per employee for commercial use and 250 sq. ft. per employee for office use. We assume one-half of this redevelopment will occur by 2030. The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency states among its key findings "consistently funded, well-designed programs are cutting annual savings for a given program year of 0.15 to 1 percent of energy sales." Silicon Valley Clean Energy's Implementation Plan states "With regard to SVCEA’s anticipated energy efficiency savings, a reasonable baseline assumption (for efficiency savings related to the demand-side portion of the SVCE resource plan) appears to be steady growth towards 0.5 percent of SVCEA’s projected energy sales by 2024. These savings would be in addition to the savings achieved by PG&E administered programs. " Electricity and natural gas consumption is reduced an average of 0.5% per year between 2017 and 2030. The American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEE) reports for states already operating substantial energy efficiency programs, energy efficiency goals of one percent, as a percentage of energy sales, is a reasonable level to target. 342 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-23 Sources 139,487,797 kWh 1,630,724 kWh 660,104 kWh 1,025,191 kWh 0.5% 8,851,166 kWh 8,099,811 therms 36,717 therms 11,882 therms 0.5% 523,329 therms GHG emissions reductions 3,410.8 MTCO 2e Less electricity used in government operations Less electricity savings from Lighting Efficiency Act Less natural gas used in government operations Less estimated natural gas used in redeveloped commercial sites National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, July 2006, Section 6: Energy Efficiency Program Best Practices (pages 5-6). Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: Experience and Recommendations, Steve Nadel, March 2006 ACEEE Report E063 (pages 28-30). Silicon Valley Clean Energy Community Choice Aggregation Implementation Plan and Statement of Intent, July 2016. Personal communication with Heather Bradley, M-Group, 5/13/20. Calculation Natural gas savings less government use Residential and commercial electricity use, 2017 Residential and commercial natural gas use, 2017 2030 Annual reduction in electricity consumption Annual reduction in natural gas consumption Electricity savings Less estimated electricity used in redeveloped commercial sites 343 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-24 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2 e) -7.6 2030 Methodology 198 Annual electricity consumption 150,468 kWh Electricity reduction 50% Electricity savings 75,234 kWh 7.6 MTCO 2 eReduction in electricity emissions As of March 2020, there were 111 high pressure sodium and 11 mercury vapor streetlights left to be converted to LED. City of Saratoga PG&E Bills Calculation 2030 Number of streetlights to be converted to LED PG&E Electric Schedule LS-1, Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 45482-E PG&E Electric Schedule LS-2, Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 33883-E Sources Replace energy-inefficient street, parking lot and other municipal outdoor lights with LED lights. Replace all streetlights with LED lamps. The City has converted its 13 traffic signals and 95 streetlights in Saratoga Village to LED. As of December 2017, 155 of PG&E and City-owned streetlights had been converted to LED, leaving 180 high pressure sodium and 18 mercury vapor streetlights. An analysis of PG&E bills and tariff schedule shows these 198 streetlights annually use 150,468 kWh. Converting to LED can reduce electricity consumption by 50% or more. PUBLIC LIGHTING EE-3 344 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-25 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2e) -15.6 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 449,443 kWh 11,882 therms 20 % 89,889 kWh Annual natural gas savings 2,376 therms GHG emissions reductions 15.6 MTCO 2e Annual electricity savings We assume the City can reduce energy use 20% through upgrade of remaining HVAC systems, continued upgrade to LED lights, installation of energy management systems, and potential installation of solar hot water heater and/or heat pump system. 2030 In 2014, the City installed a cool roof at the Joan Pisani Community Center, which reflects the sun’s energy back to the sky instead of allowing it to enter the building as heat. The cool roof was expected to cool the building’s roof by an average of 20 to 30 degrees, reducing the need for costly air conditioning use. Benefits from reduced electricity use are reflected in the baseline inventory for 2017. The City has also installed cool roofs on the theater and City Hall buildings. By 2009, the City had upgraded all lights in City buildings to more efficient T8 lights. As these burn out, the City is replacing them with LED lights. 2030 Annual electricity use in buildings Annual natural gas use in buildings Energy savings MUNICIPAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY AUDIT AND RETROFITS Identify and implement energy efficiency projects in municipal buildings and facilities and electrification of existing building systems and equipment that use natural gas. Calculation EE-4 Complete remaining viable energy efficiency projects identified in the 2009 Siemens Clean Energy Project Preliminary Study, including: upgrade of existing interior fluorescent lighting to LED lighting and installation of occupancy room sensors; upgrade existing HVAC systems and other equipment to more efficient units; installation of solar thermal heating systems; installation of energy management systems to monitor and optimize heating and cooling levels; and installation of PC power management system. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., "Clean Energy Project Preliminary Study," September 23, 2009. Reduce energy use in municipal buildings and facilities 20% by 2030. 345 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-26 Action Target GP Related Policies Reductions (MTCO2e) -44.0 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 338 MTCO 2 e 1.0% Annual decrease in water emissions 3.4 MTCO 2 e GHG emissions reduction 44.0 MTCO 2 e WATER CONSERVATION WC-1 Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in residential and commercial buildings and landscaping. 1. Work with San Jose Water Company (SJWC), Valley Water, and other organizations to promote water conservation programs and incentives. 2. Educate residents and businesses about local and State laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale. 3. Ensure all projects requiring building permits, plan check, or design review comply with State and SJWC regulations. 4. Encourage the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycled water where available. Saratoga water consumption declined from 1,547 million gallons (MG) per year in 2005 to 1,128 MG, a decrease of 27%, or approximately 1.9% per year. We conservatively assume a 1% annual reduction in water consumption for years 2018-2030. Personal Communication with Colby Sneed, Director of Operations, San Jose Water Company. Policy OSC-11.1: Implement water conservation provisions of the San Jose Water Company’s Urban Water Management Plan. Reduce water consumption 1% each year. Calculation Water emissions, 2017 Annual decrease in water consumption 2030 346 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-27 Action Target Reductions (MTCO2 e) -247.8 2030 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 0.0354 MTCO 2 700 10 7,000 GHG emissions reduction from sequestration 247.8 MTCO 2 e CITY FOREST CS-1 Increase carbon sequestration and improve air quality and natural cooling through increasing tree cover in Saratoga. 1. Plant additional trees on City-owned land, including public parks, open space, medians, and rights of way, where feasible. 2. Review parking lot landscape standards to maximize tree cover, shade, size, growth, and sequestration potential. 3. Regulate and minimize removal of large trees and require planting of replacement trees. 4. Require that the site planning, construction and maintenance of new development preserve existing healthy trees and native vegetation on site to the maximum extent feasible. Replace trees and vegetation not able to be saved where apllicable. 5. Encourage community members to plant trees on private land. Provide reduced-cost trees to the public through a bulk purchasing program. 6. Provide information to the public, including landscape companies, gardeners and nurseries, on carbon sequestration rates, drought tolerance, and fire resistance of different tree species. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. Sequestration: CAPCOA Measure V-1. Assumed default annual sequestration rate of .0354 MTCO2 accumulation per tree per year and an active growing period of 20 years. Thereafter, the accumulation of carbon in biomass slows with age, and will be completely offset by losses from clipping, pruning, and occasional death. In 2016, the City challenged residents to plant 2,020 trees by the year 2020 after Saratoga lost a significant number of trees due to the drought. To reach this goal, the City partnered with Our City Forest to offer residents discounted trees. By May 2019, the City and community planted more than 2,100 trees, or approximately 700 trees per year. We assume the City can maintain this rate by continuing the program through 2030. Plant 700 net new trees each year between 2020 and 2030. Calculation Annual sequestration rate per tree Number of net new trees planted each year Number of years 2030 Number of trees planted over period in active growing stage in inventory year 347 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-28 Reductions (MTCO2 e) -13,638.6 2030 Program Description Methodology and Assumptions Sources Passenger VMT, BAU 163,190,068 VMT 138,836,253 VMT Commercial VMT, BAU 2,338,366 VMT Emissions, BAU 50,658 MTCO 2 e Emissions with regulations 37,019 MTCO 2 e Reduction in emissions 13,639 MTCO 2 e LIGHT AND HEAVY-DUTY FLEET REGULATIONS State Action Current federal and State regulations and standards will reduce transportation emissions from the light and heavy duty fleet. These include: 2. Advanced Clean Cars Program which will reduce greenhouse gas and smog emissions for light-duty vehicles sold between 2017 and 2025. New automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHG emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017 v.1.0.2. 1. Pavley Standards which increase fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for 2009-2016 model years. 3. ARB Tractor -Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulations which accelerate the use of low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic fairing to reduce GHG emissions in the heavy-duty truck fleet. 4. Heavy Duty GHG Emissions Standards (Phase One) which establish GHG and fuel efficiency standards for medium duty and heavy duty engines and vehicles for 2014- 2018 model years. Passenger VMT, net reductions from other measures 2030 Transportation emissions estimated using EMFAC 2017. Emission factors have been adjusted to account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. Calculation California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2014 Volume III - Technical Documentation, v1.0.7, May 12, 2015 California Air Resources Board, "EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule," June 26, 2020, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery 348 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-29 Program Description Reductions (MTCO2e) -1,528.6 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 155,371,327 kWh 2,226,555 kWh 28,911,793 kWh 3,479,212 kWh 13,087,793 kWh 3,628 MTCO2e 2,100 MTCO2e 1,528.6 MTCO2e California Public Utilities Code Section 454.52 requires each load-serving entity to procure at least 50 percent eligible renewable energy resources by 2030 and to meet the economywide reductions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Electricity saved through local actions Net electricity use (PG&E) RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD The CPUC calculator version 3c provides projected emission factors for 2020. That number is higher than PG&E's 2017 emission factor. We therefore assume the same 2017 PG&E emission factor for 2020. For 2030, the CPUC has set electric sector GHG reductions at a level that represents a 50% reduction from 2015 levels. We therefore apply a 50% reduction to PG&E and DA 2015 emission factors to forecast 2030 emission factors. 2030 2030 Electricity use, BAU This State Action assumes PG&E and Direct Access entities will meet the Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements and that these entities will carry the same share of the community's electricity load as in 2016. GHG reductions related to MCE's GHG reduction policies are quantified separately as a local action. GHG Calculator, version 3c_Oct2010. Calculation Established in 2002 in Senate Bill 1078, the Renewable Portfolio Standard program requires electricity providers to increase the portion of energy that comes from eligible renewable sources, including solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass and biowaste, to 20 percent by 2010 and to 33 percent by 2020. Senate Bill 350, passed in September of 2015, increases the renewable requirement to 50 percent by the end of 2030. Senate Bill 100, passed in September 2018, accelerated the RPS standard to 60 percent by 2030 and zero- carbon by 2045. State Action PG&E, "Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors: Guidance for PG&E Customers," November 2015, https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf California Public Utilities Commission "CPUC Adopts Groundbreaking Path to Reduce Greenhouse Gases in Electric Sector," Press Release Docket #: R.16-02- 007, Feb. 8, 2018. GHG emission reductions Net electricity use (DA) Electricity saved through other State actions Electricity emissions, BAU Electricity emissions w/RPS 349 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-30 Program Description Reductions (MTCO2 e) -339.7 Methodology and Assumptions TITLE 24 Estimated commercial energy use is based on annual electricity and natural gas intensities for all commercial buildings in the PG&E service area as reported in the California Commercial End-Use Survey. Only end uses covered by Title 24 (heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating and, after 2019, lighting) are included in the analysis. State Action 2030 The California Energy Commission (CEC) promotes energy efficiency and conservation by setting the State’s building efficiency standards. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations consists of regulations that cover the structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing system of every building constructed or altered after 1978. The building energy efficiency standards are updated on an approximate three-year cycle, and each cycle imposes increasingly higher demands on energy efficiency and conservation. The California Energy Commission's 2007 Integrated Policy Report established the goal that new building standards achieve "net zero energy" levels by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for commercial buildings. Estimated energy reductions for the 2016 and 2019 building codes based on information provided by the California Energy Commission. CAPCOA Measure BE-1 used for estimating building energy savings. We assume all residential electricity use subject to Title 24 is offset by mandatory solar installation beginning with the 2019 building code. Estimated residential energy use assumes 97% of homes use natural gas for primary space heating and 91% for water heating prior to 2020. Beginning in 2020, we assume 100% of homes use electricity for water heating and primary space heating due to the City's reach code ordinance adopted in December 2019 that requires all new residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating. We assume all new homes install central air conditioning and outdoor lighting. Only end uses covered by Title 24 are included in the analysis. No natural gas consumption subject to Title 24 is assumed after 2020 due to City's reach code ordinance adopted in December 2019 that requires all new non- residential buildings to use electric heat pump technology for their space and water heating. 350 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-31 Sources California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures," August, 2010. California Energy Commission, https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_B uilding_Standards_FAQ.pdf 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (CRASS), Volume 2. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-200-2010-004/CEC-200-2010-004- V2.PDF California Energy Commission, 2016 Energy Standards Overview (June 15, 2016), https://www.lgc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-Energy- Standards-Overview-California-Energy-Commission.pdf City of Saratoga, Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2019. California Energy Commission, California Commercial End-Use Survey (March 2006), https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-400-2006-005/CEC-400-2006- 005.PDF 351 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-33 Reductions from Title 24 Upgrades Energy Savings Electricity Savings Natural Gas Savings Electricity Savings Natural Gas Savings Residential New Construction 28%100%7%100%50% Non-residential New Construction 5%30%30%50%50% Projected Residential Development with Title 24 Energy Reductions 2018-2019 2020-2022 2023-2030 TOTAL through 2020 GHG Reductions through 2020 TOTAL through 2030 GHG Reductions through 2030 New Residential (units)49 236 551 49 836 Electricity Use BAU, subject to Title 24 30,123 360,118 840,275 30,123 1,230,516 Electricity Use Savings 971 360,118 840,275 971 0 1,201,364 67.1 Natural Gas Use BAU 16,300 16,300 16,300 Natural Gas Use Savings 4,039 4,039 21 4,039 21.5 Projected Non-Residential Development with Title 24 Energy Reductions 2018-2019 2020-2022 2023-2030 TOTAL through 2020 GHG Reductions through 2020 TOTAL through 2030 GHG Reductions through 2030 0 1,939,473 4,525,437 0 6,464,910 Electricity Use Savings 0 157,097 2,262,718 0 0 2,419,816 251.1 Electricity Use BAU, including redeveloped commercial buildings, subject to Title 24 2016 Reductions from 2013 Standards (assumed for development after 2017) Calculation Projected average reduction 2023-2030 from 2017 baseline Energy Savings for 2019 Code (assumed for development 2020- 2023) 352 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-33 Reductions (MTCO2e) -72.7 Methodology and Assumptions Sources 14,539,228 kWh Commercial electricity use, 2017 43,753,568 kWh 12,644,781 kWh 2,275,186 kWh Reduction in residential electricity use 781,484 kWh 189,672 kWh 54,036 kWh 72.7 MTCO 2eGHG emission reductions Program Description AB 1109, the Lighting Efficiency and Toxic Reduction Act, tasks the California Energy Commission (CEC) with reducing lighting energy usage in indoor residences by no less than 50% from 2007 levels by 2018, as well as requires a 25% reduction in indoor and outdoor commercial buildings by the same date. To achieve these efficiency levels, the CEC applies its existing appliance efficiency standards to include lighting products, as well as requires minimum lumen/watt standards for different categories of lighting products. The bill also expands existing incentives for energy efficient lighting. 28.9% of nonresidential electricity is used for indoor lighting (California Energy Commission 2006) 2030 Residences use 1,342 kWh for indoor lighting on average (U.S. Department of Energy 2012) Itron, Inc., "California Commercial End-Use Survey," California Energy Commission, March 2006, Publication Number: CEC-400-2006-005, p. 186. Accessed March 26, 2015. Calculation 5.2% of nonresidential electricity is used for outdoor lighting (California Energy Commission 2006) Navigant Consulting, Inc., "2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization," U.S. Department of Energy, January 2012, p. 42. Accessed March 26, 2015. <http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc- final-jan-2012.pdf> Commercial indoor lighting use, 2017 The CEC reports that between 2008 and 2010, interior residential lighting electricity dropped 7%, commercial interior lighting electricity dropped 13%, and commercial outdoor lighting dropped 6 percent. We assume 1/8 of the remaining goal will be achieved between 2017 and 2018. Commercial outdoor lighting use, 2017 LIGHTING EFFICIENCY AND TOXIC REDUCTION ACT State Action 2030 Residential electricity indoor lighting use, 2017 Reduction in commercial outdoor lighting use Reduction in commercial indoor lighting use 353 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan B-34 Reductions (MTCO2 e) -3,853.1 2030 Methodology and Assumptions 4,658.0 MTCO 2e 75% 1,164.5 MTCO 2e 5,017.6 MTCO 2e GHG emissions reduction 3,853.1 MTCO 2e Passed in 2016, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20% of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. In 2022, CalRecycle may begin to issue penalties for non-compliance. On January 1, 2024, the regulations may require local jurisdictions to impose penalties for noncompliance on regulated entities subject to their authority. We assume a 75% reduction in organic waste from 2014 levels by 2030. The State's Green Building Code (CALGreen) requires residential and non-residential development projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. The City of Saratoga contracts with Green Halo, a third party web-based data collection system, to document construction waste diversion as required by the California Green Building Code. ORGANIC WASTE REDUCTION State Action Program Description Passed in 2014, AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle their organic waste, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. The law phases in mandatory recycling of commercial organics over time. In 2017, businesses that generate 4 cubic yards of organic waste per week were required to arrange for organic waste recycling services and divert all organic waste they produce. In 2019, the law extended to businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste. The State law is intended to reduce statewide disposal of organic waste by 50% by 2020. If that target is not met, the law will be extended to cover businesses that generate 2 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste. 2030 Calculation Waste emissions, 2014 Reduction in waste emissions Targeted GHG emissions Waste emissions, 2017 354 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan C-1 APPENDIX C: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS The GHG emissions reduction targets established in this CAP align with the Statewide reduction goal to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In addition to this goal, the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan provides guidance to local governments on how to address State goals in local plans with per capita emissions targets. As stated in the Scoping Plan (pages 99-100): “CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than six metric tons CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The statewide per capita targets are also consistent with Executive Order S-3-05, B-30- 15, and the Under 2 MOU that California originated with Baden-Württemberg and has now been signed or endorsed by 188 jurisdictions representing 39 countries and six continents… Since the statewide per capita targets are based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the State, it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence-based local per capita goals based on local emissions sectors and population projections that are consistent with the framework used to develop the statewide per capita targets.” Table C-1 shows the information provided in the Scoping Plan regarding statewide baseline (1990) and projected (2030) emissions by sector. TABLE C-1: ESTIMATED CHANGE IN STATEWIDE GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (MMTCO2e) Sector 1990 Emissions (MMTCO2e) 2030 Projected Emissions under 2017 Scoping Plan (low end) (MMTCO2e) % Change Transportation 152 103 -32% Residential and Commercial 44 38 -14% Industrial 98 83 -15% Electric Power 3 8 267% Recycling and Waste 7 8 14% Agriculture 26 24 -8% High GWP 108 30 -72% Source: CARB, 2017 Scoping Plan, Table 3 , p. 31 In order to derive an appropriate local per capita target based on local emissions sectors, the project team estimated 1990 emissions for subcategories based on year 2000 emissions as reported in CARB’s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017. Table C-2 identifies the subcategories and emissions that are included in the Saratoga’s Community-wide GHG Emissions Inventory to determine the local per capita target. 355 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan C-2 TABLE C-2: ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR AND SUBCATEGORY (MMTCO2e) Sector and Subcategory Column A Column B Column C Column D CA 1990 Emissions1 Applicable Categories for Saratoga CAP Change from 1990 Level to Meet 2030 Target2 2030 Target for Applicable Categories for Saratoga CAP3 Transportation 152 -32% On-Road 139.11 139.11 94.59 Passenger Vehicles 105.74 Heavy Duty Vehicles 33.36 Ships & Commercial Boats 4.10 Aviation (Intrastate) 3.55 Rail 1.59 Off-Road 2.22 1.144 0.77 Unspecified 1.67 Commercial & Residential 44 -14% Residential Fuel Use 30.19 Natural Gas 28.01 28.01 24.08 Other Fuels 1.41 1.41 1.21 Fugitive Emissions 0.78 Commercial Fuel Use 11.48 Natural Gas 10.06 10.06 8.65 Other Fuels 1.42 Commercial Cogeneration Heat Output 1.09 Other Commercial and Residential 1.24 Industrial 98 -15% Refineries and Hydrogen Production 28.69 General Fuel Use 20.37 Natural Gas 16.92 16.92 14.38 Other Fuels 3.45 Oil & Gas Production & Processing 19.51 Fuel Use 17.64 Fugitive Emissions 1.88 Cement Plants 9.56 Clinker Production 5.55 Fuel Use 4.00 Cogeneration Heat Output 11.76 Other Fugitive and Process Emissions 8.10 Natural Gas Transmission & Distribution 3.54 Manufacturing 0.32 Wastewater Treatment 1.87 1.87 1.59 356 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan C-3 Sector and Subcategory Column A Column B Column C Column D CA 1990 Emissions1 Applicable Categories for Saratoga CAP Change from 1990 Level to Meet 2030 Target2 2030 Target for Applicable Categories for Saratoga CAP3 Other 2.36 Electric Power 108 -72% Electricity Generation - In State 60.72 60.72 17.00 Natural Gas 52.45 Other Fuels 7.05 Fugitive and Process Emissions 1.21 Electricity Generation - Imports 47.28 47.28 13.24 Unspecified Imports 14.70 Specified Imports 32.59 Recycling & Waste 7 14% Landfills 6.88 6.88 7.84 Composting 0.12 Agriculture 26 -8% Livestock 16.05 Enteric Fermentation (Digestive Process) 8.28 Manure Management 7.77 Crop Growing & Harvesting 6.75 Fertilizers 5.25 Soil Preparation and Disturbances 1.44 Crop Residue Burning 0.07 General Fuel Use 3.20 Diesel 2.12 Natural Gas 0.82 Gasoline 0.26 Other Fuels 0.01 High-GWP 3 267% Depleting Substance (ODS) Substitutes 2.66 Electricity Grid SF6 Losses 0.24 Semiconductor Manufacturing 0.10 TOTAL 438 339 -46% 183 1 Subcategory emissions are estimated by applying the proportionate share of year 2000 emissions as reported by CARB in the California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017 – by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan to 1990 emissions as reported by sector in the 2017 Scoping Plan. 2 From Table C-1. 3 Derived by multiplying Column C by the applicable sector reduction in Column B. 4 Local emissions for the Off-Road category are adjusted to reflect only the categories that are included in the communitywide GHG inventory. 357 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan C-4 The projected statewide population that was used for the Scoping Plan is inferred by dividing total projected emissions for 2030 (260 MMTCO2e) by the statewide per capita target (6 MTCO2e) for a population of 43,333,333. The local per capita goal is calculated by dividing total projected emissions for the applicable Saratoga CAP categories (183 MMTCO2e) by the statewide population. The local target for 2030 would therefore be 4.2 MTCO2e. However, the California statewide population is expected to grow approximately 6.8% between 2017 and 2030, while the Saratoga population is forecasted to increase 4.6%.12 Adjusting for the difference in population growth yields an adjusted local per capita target for 2030 of 4.1 MTCO2e. CARB recommends a statewide per capita target of 2 MTCO2e for 2050, which is one-third of the 2030 target. The corresponding local target is therefore one-third of 4.1 MTCO2e, or 1.4 MTCO2e per capita in 2050. CARB further recommends expressing GHG emissions reduction goals in mass emissions, per capita emissions, and service population emissions. These are shown in Table C-3. TABLE C-3: LOCAL EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS PER 2017 SCOPING PLAN GUIDANCE 2030 2050 A Projected Population for Saratoga 32,792 33,922 B Projected Jobs for Saratoga 10,413 12,150 C Projected Service Population for Unincorporated Marin (A + B) 43,205 46,072 D Per Capita Target (MTCO2e) 4.1 1.4 E Mass Emissions Target (MTCO2e) (A x D) 134,447 47,491 F Per Service Population Target (MTCO2e) (E / C) 3.1 1.0 The emissions reductions in 2030 expected to be achieved through the implementation of this CAP exceed these targets as follows:  Mass Emissions in 2030: 89,051 MTCO2e  Per Capita Emissions in 2030: 2.7 MTCO2e  Per Service Population Emissions in 2030: 2.1 MTCO2e 12 Statewide population growth is derived from CA Department of Finance, Table P-1: State Population Projections (2010-2060), baseline 2019. 358 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan D-1 APPENDIX D: ADOPTING RESOLUTION 359 City of Saratoga Climate Action Plan D-2 360 CITY OF SARATOGA GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY FOR COMMUNITY EMISSIONS FOR YEAR 2019 July 2021 361 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I NTRODUCTION 2 P URPOSE OF I NVENTORY 2 GENERAL M ETHODOLOGY 2 COMMUNITY I NVENTORY 4 C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY S UMMARY 4 P ER CAPITA E MISSIONS 6 M AJOR SOURCES OF E MISSIONS 7 E LECTRICITY USE 7 N ATURAL G AS U SE 7 T RANSPORTATION 8 W A STE D ISPOSAL 9 W A TER U SE 10 A PPENDIX A -1 362 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Saratoga committed to publishing annual communitywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates when it adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2020. Annual inventories help the City to more closely monitor its progress in meeting its local GHG reduction goals and the statewide goal to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This report reviews emissions generated from the community from 2005 through 2019, the most recent year data is available. The inventory shows that the Saratoga community has reduced emissions 32% since 2005, which is equivalent to 25% below estimated 1990 levels. Emissions dropped from about 167,693 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005 to 114,729 MTCO2e in 2019. The community emissions trend and targets are shown below. Saratoga needs to reduce emissions another 22,514 MTCO2e to meet the 2030 CAP and state target for 2030 and another 83,991 MTCO2e to meet the State target for 2050, which is 80% below 1990 levels. FIGURE 1: SARATOGA GHG EMISSIONS TREND 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 1990 (est.)2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019MTCO2e 2030 Goal 2050 Goal T HE T AKEAWAY: C OMMUNITY E MISSIONS D OWN 3 2 % S INCE 2005 363 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF INVENTORY The objective of this greenhouse gas emissions inventory is to identify the sources and quantify the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the activities of the Saratoga community in 2019. This inventory provides a comparison to baseline 2005 emissions and identifies the sectors where significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have occurred. In some instances, previous year emissions were updated with new data and/or recalculated to ensure the same methodology was employed for all inventory years. GENERAL METHODOLOGY This inventory uses national standards for the accounting and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.2 (July 2019) was used for the quantification and reporting of community emissions. Quantification methodologies, emission factors, and activity and source data are detailed in the appendix. Community emissions are categorized according to seven sectors:  Built Environment - Electricity  Built Environment – Natural Gas  Transportation  Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment  Waste  Water  Wastewater C ALCULATING E MISSIONS Emissions are quantified by multiplying the measurable activity data – e.g., kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, and gallons of diesel or gasoline – by emissions factors specific to the energy source. Most emissions factors are the same from year to year. Emission factors for electricity, however, change from year to year due to the specific sources that are used to produce electricity. For example, electricity that is produced from coal generates more greenhouse gases than electricity that is generated from natural gas and therefore has a higher emissions factor. Electricity that is produced solely from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind has an emissions factor of zero. This inventory calculates individual greenhouse gases – e.g., carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – and converts each greenhouse gas emission to a standard metric, known as “carbon dioxide equivalents” or CO2e, to provide an apple-to-apples comparison among the various emissions. Table 1 shows the greenhouse gases identified in this inventory and their global warming potential (GWP), a measure of the amount of warming each gas causes when compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide. Methane, for example, is 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide; therefore, one metric ton of methane is equivalent to 28 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions are reported in this inventory as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e. 364 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 3 T ABLE 1 : GREENHOUSE GASES Gas Chemical Formula Emission Source Global Warming Potential Carbon Dioxide CO2 Combustion of natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and other fuels 1 Methane CH4 Combustion, anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills and wastewater 28 Nitrous Oxide N2O Combustion, wastewater treatment 265 Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014) T YPES OF E MISSIONS Emissions from each of the greenhouse gases can come in a number of forms:  Stationary or mobile combustion resulting from the on-site combustion of fuels (natural gas, diesel, gasoline, etc.) to generate heat or electricity, or to power vehicles and equipment.  Purchased electricity resulting from the generation of power from utilities outside the jurisdictional boundary.  Fugitive emissions resulting from the unintentional release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, such as leaked refrigerants and methane from waste decomposition.  Process emissions from physical or chemical processing of a material, such as wastewater treatment. U NDERSTANDING T OTALS The totals listed in the tables and discussed in the report are a summation of emissions using available estimation methods. Each inventoried sector may have additional emissions sources associated with them that were unaccounted for due to a lack of data or robust quantification methods. For example, greenhouse gas emissions associated with air travel and the production of goods outside the community’s boundary are not included in the inventory. Additionally, the community inventory does not include refrigerants released into the atmosphere from the use of air conditioning in cars and buildings. 365 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 4 COMMUNITY INVENTORY COMMUNITY INVENTORY SUMMARY In 2005, the activities taking place by the Saratoga community resulted in approximately 167,693 metric tons of CO2e. 1 In 2019, those activities resulted in approximately 114,729 metric tons of CO2e, a reduction of 32% from 2005 levels, which is equivalent to 25% below estimated 1990 levels. The community inventory tracks emissions in seven sectors: • The Built Environment – Electricity sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity in Saratoga homes and commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities 2. • The Built Environment – Natural Gas sector represents emissions generated from the use of natural gas in Saratoga homes and commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities. Propane used as a primary heating source is also included, although it represents less than 1% of emissions in this sector. • The Transportation sector includes tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicle trips originating and/or ending in Saratoga, as well as tailpipe emissions generated by medium and heavy-duty vehicles travelling on Santa Clara County roads based on the City’s share of certain truck-generating industries. Emissions from buses serving Saratoga while travelling on roads within the jurisdiction are also included. Electricity used to power electric vehicles is embedded in electricity consumption reported in the Built Environment - Electricity sector. • The Waste sector represents fugitive methane emissions that are generated over time as organic material decomposes in the landfill. Although most methane is captured or flared off at the landfill, approximately 25% escapes into the atmosphere. • The Off-Road sector represents emissions from the combustion of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels from the operation of off-road vehicles and equipment used for light commercial, construction, recreation, and landscape maintenance. • The Water sector represents emissions from energy used to pump, convey, treat, and distribute potable water from the water source to Saratoga. • The Wastewater sector represents stationary, process and fugitive greenhouse gases that are created during the treatment of wastewater generated by the community and emissions created from energy 1 Baseline and historical emissions are recalculated in the annual inventory to integrate new data and improved calculation methodologies and to ensure consistent comparison across each year. For this reason, emission levels may differ from levels reported in previous inventories. 2 Previous inventories categorized emissions from electricity, natural gas, and propane in the built environment according to the Residential and Non-Residential sectors. Beginning with this inventory, we are categorizing emissions in the built environment as Electricity and Natural Gas in order to align and better track with the Climate Action Plan’s goals to electrify the built environment. 366 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 5 used to process wastewater. It also includes fugitive emissions from septic systems present within Saratoga’s city limits. Table 2 shows how emissions in each sector have changed since 2005. Emissions have declined in all sectors. The greatest reductions have occurred in the Built Environment – Electricity sector (-35,084 MTCO2e), followed by the Transportation sector (-13,391 MTCO2e). Figure 2 shows the relative contribution of emissions from these sectors in 2019. The likely reasons for the largest emissions decreases are described in the remainder of this report. T ABLE 2 : E MISSIONS SUMMARY BY SECTOR (MTCO2 E ), 2005 THROUGH 2019 Year Built Environment - Electricity Built Environment – Natural Gas Transportation Off-Road Waste Water Wastewater Total % Change from 2005 % Change from 1990 1990 (est.)1 153,691 2005 37,877 48,476 70,472 4,123 4,799 1,136 809 167,693 2006 36,584 51,884 69,248 5,658 4,539 1,057 797 169,767 1% 2007 48,350 50,991 68,920 6,288 4,528 1,546 861 181,483 8% 2008 48,478 51,638 68,012 5,669 4,607 1,546 863 180,813 8% 2009 45,731 55,579 67,876 4,841 4,031 1,369 853 180,280 8% 2010 32,903 50,187 65,838 4,484 4,486 978 801 159,677 -5% 2011 29,221 53,291 64,695 4,492 4,381 874 785 157,739 -6% 2012 31,118 49,206 63,153 4,574 4,458 1,000 802 154,311 -8% 2013 29,825 49,153 62,678 4,505 4,631 1,005 798 152,594 -9% 2014 28,890 38,830 62,535 4,492 4,658 890 798 141,092 -16% 2015 26,291 40,769 60,585 4,358 4,977 661 788 138,429 -17% 2016 18,638 41,444 62,105 4,334 4,907 456 744 132,629 -21% 2017 10,015 44,230 59,059 4,252 5,018 349 722 123,645 -26% 2018 2,395 43,624 57,747 4,152 4,092 354 477 112,841 -33% 2019 2,793 46,144 57,080 4,048 4,262 8 394 114,729 -32% -25% Change from 2005 -35,084 -2,332 -13,391 -76 -538 -1,128 -415 -52,964 % Change from 2005 -93% -5% -19% -2% -11% -99% -51% -32% 1 Per California Air Resources Board guidance, 1990 levels are estimated at 15% below 2008 levels. 367 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 6 FIGURE 2 : E MISSIONS BY S ECTOR, 2019 P ER CAPITA E MISSIONS Per capita emissions can be a useful metric for measuring progress in reducing greenhouse gases and for comparing one community’s emissions with neighboring cities and against regional and national averages. That said, due to differences in emission inventory methods, it can be difficult to produce directly comparable per capita emissions numbers. Dividing the total communitywide GHG emissions by residents yields a result of 15.6 metric tons CO2e per capita in 2005. Per capita emissions decreased 32% between 2005 and 2019, falling to 10.6 metric tons per person. Figure 2 shows the trend in per capita emissions over time. It is important to understand that this number is not the same as the carbon footprint of the average individual living in Saratoga, which would include lifecycle emissions, emissions resulting from air travel, etc. F IGURE 3: E MISSIONS P ER C APITA Built Environment - Electricity 2% Transportation 50% Waste 4% Off-Road 4% Water & Wastewater <1% Built Environment - Natural Gas 40% 15.6 15.8 16.9 16.8 16.8 14.9 14.7 14.3 14.2 13.2 12.9 12.4 11.5 10.5 10.6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019MTCO2e 368 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 7 MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS The following sections provide a year-by-year analysis of the changes in GHG emissions from the City’s largest sources: electricity, natural gas, transportation, waste, and water use. Whenever possible, each section discusses the change in emissions from previous years and the likely influence of state and local programs or policies and external factors on reducing emissions. E LECTRICITY USE Electricity use in homes and businesses in Saratoga decreased about 17% between 2005 and 2019, and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity consumption decreased 93% since 2005, as shown in Figure 4. This is additional decline is due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity. PG&E has been steadily increasing the amount of renewable energy in its electricity mix. In 2019, PG&E electricity came from a mix of renewable (29%), large hydroelectric (27%), and nuclear (44%) energy sources and was virtually GHG-free.3 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) began providing 100% GHG-free electricity to Saratoga customers in April 2017. Approximately 7% of electricity is provided by Direct Access providers; these electric service providers are responsible for the electricity emissions reported in 2018 and 2019. FIGURE 4: ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS N ATURAL G AS U SE Natural gas is used in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings to provide space and water heating and power appliances. Use of natural gas is highly variable depending on weather conditions. This variability has led natural gas use consumption in Saratoga to fluctuate from year to year, from a high of 10.42 million therms in 2009 to a low of 7.27 million therms in 2014. Emissions from natural gas consumption increased 1% between 2018 and 2019. Overall, natural gas use and emissions have declined 5% since 2005. 3 PG&E, 2019 Power Mix, https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand- your-bill/bill-inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 0 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,000 160,000,000 180,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 MTCO2ekWhsElectricity Use Electricity Emissions 369 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 8 Reduction in energy use may be attributed to energy efficiency programs and rebates, the City’s green building ordinances, and State building codes. California’s goal is to require all new residential and commercial buildings to be zero net energy by 2030. FIGURE 5: NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS T RANSPORTATION Transportation activities accounted for approximately half Saratoga’s emissions in 2019. Vehicle miles traveled have decreased approximately 0.5% since 2005. Transportation emissions have decreased 19%; the additional decline is due to more fuel-efficient and alternatively fueled cars (Figure 6). As shown in Figure 7, most transportation emissions come from passenger vehicles, accounting for 95% of transportation emissions in 2019. Santa Clara continues to be a leader in zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) with 74,125 ZEVs in the county at the end of 2020, or about 5.3% of registered automobiles. ZEVs include battery electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and zero-emission motorcycles. Saratoga had 3,073 ZEVs by the end of 2020, representing 11.2% of all light-duty vehicles. FIGURE 6: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 MTCO2eThermsNatural Gas Use Natural Gas Emissions 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 0 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,000 160,000,000 180,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 MTCO2eMilesTransportation VMT Transportation Emissions 370 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 9 FIGURE 7: TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS BY VEHICLE TYPE While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how each land use and transportation policy affects emissions, the City has undertaken many efforts to reduce transportation emissions. The City encourages workforce housing and has made it easier for residents to use carbon-free modes of transportation, such as bicycling and walking, through improvements to the transportation network. W ASTE D ISPOSAL Landfilled waste (including alternative daily cover) 4 increased 4% between 2018 and 2019 and was 3% above the 2005 level in 2019. Emissions from waste disposal decreased 11% since 2005 due to the lower organic content of landfilled waste and material used for alternative daily cover FIGURE 8: DISPOSED WASTE AND EMISSIONS 4 Alternative daily cover is cover material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Passenger Vehicles 95% Commercial Vehicles 4% Public Transportation 1% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 MTCO2eTonsDisposed Waste Waste Emissions 371 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 10 W A TER USE Per capita water use declined 31% since 2005. Emissions, which are based on an estimate of energy used to pump, treat, and convey water from the water source to the City limits, dropped 99% between 2005 and 2019. The additional reduction is due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity of SVCE and PG&E electricity. FIGURE 9: PER CAPITA WATER USE FIGURE 10: WATER USE AND EMISSIONS 143 143 150 148 137 129 129 132 136 121 96 92 98 100 98 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Gallons Per Capita Per Day0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 MTCO2eMillion GallonsWater Use Water Emissions 372 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix A-1 APPENDIX Community GHG Emissions Summary Table Jurisdiction: City of Saratoga Inventory Year: 2019 Population: 30,940 (CA Department of Finance) Date Prepared: July 27, 2021 Number of Households: 10,773 (CA Department of Finance) Reporting Framework: Communitywide Activities ID Emissions Type Source or Activity Included, Required Activities Included, Optional Activities Excluded (IE, NA, NO or NE) Notes Emissions (MTCO2e) 1.0 Built Environment 1.1 Use of fuel in residential and commercial stationary combustion equipment Both ● 46,144 1.2 Industrial stationary sources Source NE 1.3 Power generation in the community Source NO 1.4 Use of electricity in the community Activity ● 2,793 1.5 District heating/cooling facilities in the community Source NE 1.6 Use of district heating/cooling facilities in the community Activity NE 1.7 Industrial process emissions in the community Source NE 1.8 Refrigerant leakage in the community Source NE 2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources 2.1 On-road passenger vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activity- based method instead 2.2 On-road passenger vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 54,493 2.3 On-road freight and service vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activity- based method instead 2.4 On-road freight and service vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 2,275 2.5 On-road transit vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 312 2.6 Transit rail vehicles operating with the community boundary Source NO 2.7 Use of transit rail travel by the community Activity NE 2.8 Inter-city passenger rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NO 373 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix A-2 2.9 Freight rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NE Freight rail crosses Saratoga but does not stop within the City. 2.10 Marine vessels operating within the community boundary Source NO 2.11 Use of ferries by the community Activity NE 2.12 Off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment operating within the community boundary Source ● 4,048 2.13 Use of air travel by the community Activity NE 3.0 Solid Waste 3.1 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities in the community Source NO 3.2 Generation and disposal of solid waste by the community Activity ● 4,262 4.0 Water and Wastewater 4.1 Operation of water delivery facilities in the community Source IE Energy use is included in 1.1 and 1.4. 4.2 Use of energy associated with use of potable water by the community Activity ● 8 4.3 Use of energy associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity ● 200 4.4 Process emissions from operation of wastewater treatment facilities located in the community Source NO 4.5 Process emissions associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity ● 155 4.6 Use of septic systems in the community Source ● 39 5.0 Agriculture 5.1 Domesticated animal production Source NE 5.2 Manure decomposition and treatment Source NE 6.0 Upstream Impacts of Communitywide Activities 6.1 Upstream impacts of fuels used in stationary applications by the community Activity NE 6.2 Upstream and transmission and distribution (T&D) impacts of purchased electricity used by the community Activity ● Included in 1.3 above. 6.3 Upstream impacts of fuels used by water and wastewater facilities for water used and wastewater generated within the community boundary Activity NE 6.4 Upstream impacts of select materials (concrete, food, paper, carpets, etc.) used by the whole community. Activity NE Legend IE – Included Elsewhere: Emissions for this activity are estimated and presented in another category of the inventory. NE – Not Estimated: Emissions occur but have not been estimated or reported (e.g., data unavailable, effort required not justifiable). NA – Not Applicable: The activity occurs but does not cause emissions. NO – Not Occurring: The source or activity does not occur or exist within the community. 374 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix A-3 Community Emissions Data Sources and Calculation Methodologies Sector/ID Emissions Source Source and/or Activity Data Emission Factor and Methodology 1.0 Built Environment 1.1 Stationary Combustion Stationary Combustion (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Known fuel use (meter readings by PG&E) and estimated fuel use (American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and U.S. Energy Information Administration Household Site Fuel Consumption data.) Default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type (U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Tables B.1 and B.3). U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method BE.1.1 and BE.1.2. 1.4 Electricity Use Electricity Use (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Known electricity use (meter readings by PG&E and Silicon Valley Clean Energy) and direct access electricity consumption as reported by PG&E. Non-government direct access usage failed the 15/15 rule for years 2005-2016 and was estimated using reported 2017 data. Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E) and eGrid subregion default emission factors. SVCE is GHG-free. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method BE.2.1 Electric Power Transmission and Distribution Losses (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Estimated electricity grid loss for Western region from eGrid. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method BE.4.1 2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources 2.2 On-Road Passenger Vehicle Operation On-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated passenger vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, http://capvmt.us-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data). CO2 for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model. Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.1.A. On-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, http://capvmt.us- west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data). CH4 and N2O for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values. Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.1.A. 2.4 On-Road Freight and Service Truck Freight Operation On-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission). CO2 for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.2.A. On-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission). CH4 and N2O for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.2.A. 2.5 On-Road Transit Operation On-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated fuel consumption from estimated route VMT within the jurisdictional boundary and estimated fuel economy for buses on routes 26, 37, 53, 57 and 58 operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2018 data used as a proxy for years 2005-2016. CO2 emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.4.A. On-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated VMT within the jurisdictional boundary for buses on routes 26, 37, 53, 57 and 58 operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2018 data used as a proxy for years 2005-2016. CH4 and N2O emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.4.B. 375 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix A-4 2.12 Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Off-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD2007 for Lawn and Garden (all categories) and Recreational Equipment (golf carts only). Estimated emissions from OFFROAD2017 for Light Commercial, Construction and Portable equipment. All categories are allocated by share of countywide households. CO2 emissions calculated according U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in Table TR.1.6. Off-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD2007 for Lawn and Garden (all categories) and Recreational Equipment (golf carts only). Estimated emissions from OFFROAD2017 for Light Commercial, Construction and Portable equipment. All categories are allocated by share of countywide households. CH4 and N2O emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in the Local Government Operations Protocol Table G.11 and G.14. 3.0 Solid Waste 3.2 Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Fugitive Emissions from Landfilled Waste (CH4) Estimated landfilled tons based on reporting to CalRecycle by Saratoga. Waste characterization estimated based on the Statewide Waste Characterization Study (2008 and 2014) and Alternative Daily Cover by Jurisdiction of Origin and Material Type as reported to CalRecycle. Emission factors calculated utilizing U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Report of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.1, July 2013, Appendix E, Method SW.4. 4.0 Water and Wastewater 4.2 Energy Use for Water Electricity Use (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Water consumption estimated from District-wide gallons per capita per day data provided by San Jose Water Company. Estimated electricity use from "Embedded Energy in Water Studies, Study 2: Water Agency and Function Component Study and Embedded Energy-Water Load Profiles" Appendix B prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission (2010). Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E) and eGrid subregion default emission factors. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.14 and includes T&D losses calculated according to Method BE.4.1. 4.3 Energy Use for Wastewater Electricity Use (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Known electricity consumption from San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. 2016 data used as a proxy for years 2005-2015. Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E). Emissions allocated based on share of service population. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.15 and includes T&D losses calculated according to Method BE.4.1. Stationary Combustion for Wastewater (CO2 CH4 & N2O) Known natural gas consumption from San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. 2016 data used as a proxy for years 2005-2015. Default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type (U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Tables B.1 and B.3). Emissions allocated based on share of service population. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.15. 4.5 Treatment of Wastewater Stationary Emissions from Combustion of Digester Gas (CH4) Known amount of digester gas produced per day and percent of methane in digester gas. 2005 data provided by San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility used as a proxy for years 2006-2010. 2016 data provided by San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility used as a proxy for years 2011-2015. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.1.a. 376 Saratoga Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix A-5 Stationary Emissions from Combustion of Digester Gas (N2O) Known amount of digester gas produced per day and percent of methane in digester gas. 2005 data provided by San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility used as a proxy for years 2006-2010. 2016 data provided by San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility used as a proxy for years 2011-2015. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.2.a. Process Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plant with Nitrification or Denitrification Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant. 2016 data provided by San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility used as a proxy for years 2005-2015. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.7. Fugitive Emissions from Effluent Discharge (N2O) Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant. 2016 data provided by San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility used as a proxy for years 2005-2015.Assumed significant industrial or commercial input. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.12. 4.6 Septic Systems Fugitive Emissions from Septic Systems (CH4) Estimated number of septic systems within jurisdictional boundary based on information from Cupertino Sanitary District, West Valley Sanitation District, and Santa Clara County Department of Health. 2018 data used as a proxy for 2005-2017. Population estimated using average household population estimate from Department of Finance Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2018. 2016 data used as a proxy for 2005- 2017. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method WW.11(alt). 6.0 Upstream Impacts of Community-wide Activities 6.1 Emissions from Electric Power Transmission and Distribution Electricity Use (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Western Region T&D losses estimated in U.S. EPA’s eGrid reports. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method B.4.1. 377 ATTACHMENT C: SARATOGA GHG EMMISSION REDUCTIONS 2005-2019 Built Environment- Electricity sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity in Saratoga homes and commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities. Data shows a decrease of 93% from 2005-2019. This is primarily due to PG&Es increase of renewable energy in its electricity mix. Additionally, Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) began providing 100% GHG-free electricity to Saratoga customers in April 2017. Built Environment- Natural Gas sector represents emissions generated from the use of natural gas in Saratoga homes and commercial, industrial, and governmental buildings and facilities. Propane used as a primary heating source is also included, although it represents less than 1% of emissions in this sector. Data shows a decrease of 5% from 2005-2019. Transportation sector includes tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicle trips originating and/or ending in Saratoga, as well as tailpipe emissions generated by medium and heavy- duty vehicles traveling on Santa Clara County roads based on the City’s share of certain truck-generating industries. Emissions from buses serving Saratoga while traveling on roads within the jurisdiction are also included. Electricity used to power electric vehicles is embedded in electricity consumption reported in the Build Environment-Electricty Sector.Data shows a decrease of 19% from 2005-2019. Waste sector represents fugitive methane emissions that are generated over time as organic material decomposes in the landfill. Although most methane is captured or flared off at the landfill, approximately 25% escapes into the atmosphere. Data shows a decrease of 5% from 2005-2019. The Off-Road sector represents emissions from the combustion of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels from the operation of off-road vehicles and equipment used for light commercial, construction, recreation, and landscape maintenance. Data shows a decrease of 2% from 2005-2019. Wastewater sector represents stationary, process and fugitive greenhouse gases that are created during the treatment of wastewater generated by the community and emissions created from energy used to process wastewater. It also includes fugitive emissions from septic systems present within Saratoga’s city limits. Data shows a decrease of 51% from 2005-2019. 378 ATTACHMENT D: CITY’S LEADERSHIP EFFORTS Low Carbon Transportation Installed two, dual-port Level 2 chargers for City employees at City Hall to encourage the use of electric vehicles. Developed a telecommuting policy allowing eligible employees to work from home, based on an agreed upon schedule with the department director. Received a grant award for the Safe and Seamless Grant to fund the construction of the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad, to connect two neighborhoods and promote pedestrian and bike connections to various local destinations such as schools, parks and grocery stores. Developing a Safe Routes to School Master Plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety to encourage biking and walking to school. Renewable Energy Received a grant award from Silicon Valley Clean Energy to install a battery back-up system for all traffic lights in the event of a power outage. Waste Reduction City Council recently adopted the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance in compliance with Senate Bill 1383, which requires residents and businesses to recycle all organic waste in appropriate organic waste carts and bins. Water Conservation Made a commitment in July 2021 to voluntarily reduce water usage by 12% from 2019 water use to support the recommendations stated in the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) declaration of Water Shortage Emergency Condition in Santa Clara County. The City will reduce water usage by 10% systemwide and convert additional grass to native landscaping to achieve a total estimated savings of 3.6 gallons per year or 12% of the City’s 2019 water usage. 379 Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 Annual Review Public Works Department 380 •City Council adopted Saratoga Climate Acton Plan in December 2020. •The CAP has local strategies to reduce emissions 42% below 1990 emissions in 2030 and to exceed the State’s 2030 goal of 40% below 1990 emissions in 2030. Saratoga Climate Action Plan 2030 381 •The 2017 GHG Inventory showed: •Nearly half of Saratoga’s community emissions comes from transportation. •Residential emissions, those emissions generated from the use of electricity, natural gas, and propane in Saratoga homes, was the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Saratoga. Emissions By Sector 2019 382 •Transportation •Support electric vehicle charger infrastructure and encourage zero emissions vehicle ownership through incentives. •Natural Gas: •Encourage energy efficiency upgrades and adopt more energy efficiency standards, such as the City Reach Code adopted in 2019, for new construction and remodels will help the City meet its reduction target. Impactful Strategies to Reduce Emissions 383 Saratoga GHG Emissions Trend •The 2019 GHG Emissions Inventory shows that the Saratoga community has reduced emissions 32% since 2005, which is equivalent to 25% below the estimated 1990 levels. 384 Electricity Emissions •Built Environment-Electricity in homes and businesses decreased 17% between 2005-2019 and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity consumption decreased 93% since 2005. •Pacific Gas and Electric has been increasing the amount of renewable energy in its electricity mix, therefore decreasing the GHGs. 385 Natural Gas Use 386 VMT and Transportation Emissions •Vehicle miles traveled have decreased approximately 0.5% since 2005. Transportation emissions have decreased 19%; the additional decline is due to more fuel-efficient and alternatively fueled cars. •At the end of 2020, Santa Clara County had 74,125 Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), of which Saratoga had 3,073 ZEVs. 387 Waste Disposal •Waste Disposal: Landfill waste increased 4% between 2018 and 2019 and was 3% above the 2005 level in 2019. Emissions from waste disposal decreased 11% since 2005 due to the lower organic content of landfilled waste and material used for alternative daily cover. 388 •Water: Per capital water use declined 31% since 2005. Emissions, which are based on estimate of energy used to pump, treat, and convey water from the water source to the City limits, dropped 99% between 2005 and 2019. The additional reduction is due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity of SVCE and PG&E electricity. Water Use and Emissions 389 •The CAP contains eight categories of local mitigation strategies to support the Saratogacommunityinreducingemissionsovertime. •Low Carbon Transportation •Renewable Energy •Energy Efficiency •Waste Reduction •Water Conservation. •Carbon Sequestration •Adaptation •Community Engagement •The City is chipping away at the local mitigation strategies and has recently taken progressive steps in four of the eight categories. •Many of the City’s recent program implementations provide more qualitative data, which shows its commitment and leadership toward sustainable practices. Local Mitigation Strategies 390 •Low Carbon Transportation •Installed two,dual-port Level 2 chargers for City employees at City Hall to encourage the use ofelectricvehicles. •Developed a telecommuting policy allowing eligible employees to work from home,based on anagreeduponschedulewiththedepartmentdirector. •Received a grant award for the Safe and Seamless Grant to fund the construction of the Blue HillsElementaryPedestrianCrossingatUnionPacificRailroad,to connect two neighborhoods andpromotepedestrianandbikeconnectionstovariouslocaldestinationssuchasschools,parks andgrocerystores. •Developing a Safe Routes to School Master Plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety toencouragebikingandwalkingtoschool. •Renewable Energy •Received a grant award from Silicon Valley Clean Energy to install a battery back-up system for alltrafficlightsintheeventofapoweroutage. City’s Leadership Efforts 391 •Waste Reduction •City Council recently adopted the Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance in compliance with Senate Bill 1383,which requires residents and businesses to recycle all organic waste in appropriate organic waste carts and bins. •Water Conservation •Made a commitment in July 2021 to voluntarily reduce water usage by 12%from 2019 water use to support the recommendations stated in the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) declaration of Water Shortage Emergency Condition in Santa Clara County.The City will reduce water usage by 10%systemwide and convert additional grass to native landscaping to achieve a total estimated savings of 3.6 gallons per year or 12%of the City’s 2019 water usage. City’s Leadership Efforts 392 •City staff will continue to collaborate and explore ways to encourage more zero emission vehicles and adopt more energy efficiency standards to make impactful emission reductions in the CAP over the near and long term. •Staff will provide the next annual report in the 2022. Conclusion 393 394 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance Banning Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on whether to prepare an ordinance expanding current restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco to include menthol tobacco products. BACKGROUND: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Council Member Bernald, with the support of Vice Mayor Walia, to provide the City Council with the opportunity to consider directing staff to prepare an ordinance that would expand the current restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco in Saratoga to include menthol tobacco products. Per City Code Section 4-90, all businesses in Saratoga that sell tobacco products or paraphernalia are required to obtain a tobacco retailer license. There are 4 authorized tobacco retailers in the City. Retailer Location Fuel Stop/Tobacco 12015 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Safeway 12876 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Stop N Save 12304 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Vikhar/Tobacco 14395 Big Basin Way In 2018, the City Council adopted City Code changes that prohibited tobacco retailers in Saratoga from selling flavored tobacco, not including menthol products. Since then, a number of California communities have adopted bans that prohibit the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol. This includes San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara County. Example City Code excerpts from the cities of Cupertino and Palo Alto are provided in the attachments. If directed by the City Council, staff can prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration that would amend the City Code to prohibit sale of menthol flavored tobacco products in addition to all other flavored products. 395 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – City of Cupertino City Code Excerpt Attachment B – City of Palo Alto City Code Excerpt 396 11/8/21, 4:33 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/34f38a32-a2e5-4554-bb76-184f50958a1b/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/34f38a32-a2e5-4554-bb76-184f50958a1b/download/1/2 5.50.030 Requirements and prohibitions. A. Permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a retailer of tobacco products in the city without first obtaining and maintaining a valid retailer permit pursuant to this chapter for each location at which retailing occurs. Tobacco product retailing without a valid tobacco retailer permit is a nuisance as a matter of law. B. Lawful business operation. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any retailer to violate any local, state, or federal law applicable to tobacco products or the retailing of such products. C. Display of permit. Each current retailer permit shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible place at the location identified in the permit. D. Notice of minimum age for purchase of tobacco products. Retailers shall post conspicuously, at each point of purchase, a notice stating that selling tobacco products to anyone under twenty-one years of age is illegal and subject to penalties. Such notice shall be subject to the approval of the city or its designee. E. Positive identification required. No retailer shall sell or distribute a tobacco product to another person who appears to be under thirty years of age without first examining the customer's identification to confirm that the customer is at least the minimum age required under state law to purchase and possess the tobacco product. F. Minimum age for individuals selling tobacco products. No individual who is younger than the minimum age established by state law for the purchase or possession of tobacco products shall engage in retailing. G. False and misleading advertising prohibited. A retailer without a permit: 1. Shall keep all tobacco products out of public view. 2. Shall not display any advertisement relating to tobacco products that promotes the sale or distribution of such products from the retailer's location or that could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that tobacco products can be obtained at that location. H. Limitation on storefront advertising. No more than fifteen percent of the square footage of the windows and clear doors of a physical storefront used for retailing tobacco products shall bear advertising or signs of any sort, and all advertising and signage shall be placed and maintained in a manner that ensures that law enforcement personnel have a clear and unobstructed view of the interior of the premises, including the area in which the cash registers are maintained, from the exterior public sidewalk or entrance to the premises. However, this latter requirement of this subsection (H) shall not apply to an establishment where there are no windows or clear doors, or where existing windows are located only at a height that precludes a view of the interior of the premises by a person standing outside the premises. I. Flavored tobacco products. 1. No retailer shall sell a tobacco product containing, as a constituent or additive, an artificial or natural flavor or aroma (other than tobacco ) or an herb or spice, including but not limited to strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, mint, menthol, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor or aroma of the tobacco product, smoke or vapor produced by the tobacco product. 2. A tobacco product shall be subject to a rebuttable presumption that the product is prohibited by paragraph (1) of this subsection (I) if: a. The product's manufacturer or any other person associated with the manufacture or sale of tobacco products makes or disseminates public statements or claims to the effect that the product has 397 11/8/21, 4:33 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/34f38a32-a2e5-4554-bb76-184f50958a1b/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/34f38a32-a2e5-4554-bb76-184f50958a1b/download/2/2 or produces a characterizing flavor or aroma, other than tobacco; or b. The product's label, labeling, or packaging includes a statement or claim—including any text and/or images used to communicate information—that the product has or produces a characterizing flavor or aroma other than tobacco. J. Vending machines prohibited. No tobacco product shall be sold, offered for sale, or distributed to the public from a vending machine or appliance, or any other coin or token operated mechanical device designed or used for vending purposes, including, but not limited to, machines or devices that use remote control locking mechanisms. K. Prohibition on sale or distribution of tobacco products to persons under twenty-one years. No retailer shall sell, offer for sale, or distribute any tobacco product to any individual who is under twenty- one years of age. L. Prohibition on sale or distribution of electronic cigarette products. No retailer shall sell or distribute electronic cigarette products. (Ord. 20-2197, § 1 (part), 2020) 398 11/8/21, 4:34 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/c69f580c-42f4-4e17-b272-d9f924e54757/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/c69f580c-42f4-4e17-b272-d9f924e54757/download/1/2 4.64.030 Requirements and prohibitions. (a) Permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a retailer without first obtaining and maintaining a permit pursuant to this chapter for each location at which retailing occurs. (b) Lawful business operation. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any retailer to violate any local, state, or federal law applicable to tobacco products or the retailing of such tobacco products. (c) Display of permit. Each permit shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible place at the location identified in the permit. (d) Notice of minimum age for purchase of tobacco products. Retailers shall post conspicuously, at each point of purchase, a notice stating that selling tobacco products to anyone under twenty-one years of age is illegal and subject to penalties. Such notice shall be subject to the approval of the public health department. (e) Positive identification required. No retailer shall sell or distribute a tobacco product to another individual who appears to be under thirty years of age without first examining the individual's identification to confirm that the individual is at least the minimum age required under state law to purchase and possess the tobacco product. (f) Minimum age for individuals selling tobacco products. No individual who is younger than the minimum age established by state law for the purchase or possession of tobacco products shall engage in retailing. (g) False and misleading advertising prohibited. A retailer without a permit: (1) Shall keep all tobacco products out of public view. (2) Shall not display any advertisement relating to tobacco products that promotes the sale or distribution of such products from the retailer's location or that could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that tobacco products can be obtained at that location. (h) Limitation on storefront advertising. No more than fifteen percent of the square footage of the windows and clear doors of a physical storefront used for retailing tobacco products shall bear advertising or signs of any sort, and all advertising and signage shall be placed and maintained in a manner that ensures that law enforcement personnel have a clear and unobstructed view of the interior of the premises, including the area in which the cash registers are maintained, from the exterior public sidewalk or entrance to the premises. However, this latter requirement of this subsection (h) shall not apply to an establishment where there are no windows or clear doors, or where existing windows are located only at a height that precludes a view of the interior of the premises by an individual standing outside the premises. (i) Flavored tobacco products. (1) Except as permitted in paragraph (3) of this subsection (i), no retailer shall sell a tobacco product containing, as a constituent or additive, an artificial or natural flavor or aroma (other than tobacco) or an herb or spice, including but not limited to strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, mint, menthol, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor or aroma of the tobacco product, smoke, or vapor produced by the tobacco product. (2) A tobacco product shall be subject to a rebuttable presumption that the product is prohibited by paragraph (1) of this subsection if: (i) The product's manufacturer or any other person associated with the manufacture or sale of tobacco products makes or disseminates public statements or claims to the effect that the product has or produces a characterizing flavor or aroma, other than tobacco; or 399 11/8/21, 4:34 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/c69f580c-42f4-4e17-b272-d9f924e54757/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/c69f580c-42f4-4e17-b272-d9f924e54757/download/2/2 (ii) The product's label, labeling, or packaging includes a statement or claim–including any text and/or images used to communicate information–that the product has or produces a characterizing flavor or aroma, other than tobacco. (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection (i), paragraph (1) of this subsection (i) shall not apply to any retailer that meets all the following criteria: (i) Primarily sells tobacco products; (ii) Generates more than sixty percent of its gross revenues annually from the sale of tobacco products; (iii) Does not permit any individual under twenty-one years of age to be present or enter the premises at any time, unless accompanied by the individual's parent or legal guardian, as defined in Section 6903 of the Family Code; (iv) Does not sell alcoholic beverages or food for consumption on the premises; and (v) Posts a sign outside the retail location that clearly, sufficiently, and conspicuously informs the public that individuals under twenty-one years of age are prohibited from entering the premises. (4) No retailer that is issued a new permit after September 2, 2020 shall sell or distribute flavored tobacco products under paragraph (3) of this subsection (i) after permit issuance. No retailer that receives a permit renewal after September 2, 2020 shall sell or distribute flavored tobacco products under paragraph (3) of this subsection (i) after permit renewal. Regardless of the date of permit issuance or renewal, no retailer shall sell or distribute flavored tobacco products after September 2, 2020. (j) Vending machines prohibited. No tobacco product shall be sold or distributed to the public from a vending machine or appliance, or any other coin or token operated mechanical device designed or used for vending purposes, including, but not limited to, machines or devices that use remote control locking mechanisms. (k) Prohibition on sale or distribution of tobacco products to individuals under twenty- one. No retailer shall sell or distribute any tobacco product to any individual who is under twenty-one years of age. (l) Prohibition on sale or distribution of electronic cigarette products. No retailer that is issued a new permit after September 2, 2020 shall sell or distribute electronic cigarette products after permit issuance. No retailer that receives a permit renewal after September 2, 2020 shall sell or distribute electronic cigarette products after permit renewal. Regardless of the date of permit issuance or renewal, no retailer shall sell or distribute electronic cigarette products after September 2, 2020. (Ord. 5502 § 2 (part), 2020: Ord. 5418 § 2 (part), 2017) 400 Item #: Item Title Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Zhao & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 Subject: Written Communications, Item 2.5 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting, written communications were submitted for Item 2.5 The communications are attached to this memo. 401 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 11:40:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Vanessa Marvin Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Support for menthol flavor ban (Agenda item 2.5, November 17) Comments Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, The Tobacco-Free Coalition of Santa Clara County, which consists organizations and individuals interested in promoting the health of our citizens, is urging you to move forward with an ordinance to prohibit sale of menthol flavored tobacco products (Agenda Item 2.5, November 17, 2021). We greatly appreciate the past leadership your council and city have shown on tobacco control issues. And we are excited to see this leadership continue further with this decision. Menthol flavor is a concern because it makes cigarettes easier to start and is disproportionately used to hook African-Americans, LGBTQ individuals and youth. - Among Santa Clara County youth who smoke, 52.6% smoke menthol cigarettes. - Menthol is an anesthetic with a numbing and cooling sensation that allows for deeper inhalation; the more nicotine and toxins you take in the more addicted you become; and the more addicted you become, the harder it is to quit. - In 1953, only 5% of African Americans smoked menthol cigarettes. Today, 88% African American adults and 95% of Black youth who smoke are using menthol products. As a result, black people are dying disproportionately from tobacco related diseases. Other communities across our County have already stepped up 402 to protect their residents from these harmful products. Six jurisdictions in Santa Clara County already restrict the sale of menthol products (County, San Jose, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale). For these reasons, we urge you to move forward with a menthol ban in Saratoga. Thank you again for fighting for the health of Saratoga residents. Sincerely, Vanessa Marvin, Co-Chair Carol Baker, Co-Chair Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 403 404 1775 Story Road, Suite 120 San Jose, CA 95122 Saratoga City Council City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 November 15, 2021 Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, The Tobacco-Free CoaliIon of Santa Clara County, which consists organizaIons and individuals interested in promoIng the health of our ciIzens, is urging you to move forward with an ordinance to prohibit sale of menthol flavored tobacco products (Agenda Item 2.5, November 17, 2021). We greatly appreciate the past leadership your council and city have shown on tobacco control issues. And we are excited to see this leadership conInue further with this decision. Menthol flavor is a concern because it makes cigareVes easier to start and is disproporIonately used to hook African-Americans, LGBTQ individuals and youth. •Among Santa Clara County youth who smoke, 52.6% smoke menthol cigareVes. •Menthol is an anestheIc with a numbing and cooling sensaIon that allows for deeper inhalaIon; the more nicoIne and toxins you take in the more addicted you become; and the more addicted you become, the harder it is to quit. •In 1953, only 5% of African Americans smoked menthol cigareVes. Today, 88% African American adults and 95% of Black youth who smoke are using menthol products. As a result, black people are dying disproporIonately from tobacco related diseases. Other communiIes across our County have already stepped up to protect their residents from these harmful products. Six jurisdicIons in Santa Clara County already restrict the sale of menthol products (County, San Jose, CuperIno, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale). For these reasons, we urge you to move forward with a menthol ban in Saratoga. Thank you again for fighIng for the health of Saratoga residents. Sincerely, Vanessa Marvin, Co-Chair Carol Baker, Co-Chair 405 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Mary-Lynne Bernald; Yan Zhao; Rishi Kumar; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:24:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Phillip Gardiner Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Include Menthol in Saratoga's Flavor Restrictions! Comments November 16, 2021 To: Mayor Yan Zhao. Vice-Mayor Tina Walia, Councilmember Mary Lynne Bernald, Councilmember Kookie Fitzsimmons and Councilmember Rishi Kumar From: The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council Re: Prohibit the Sale of Menthol and all Other Flavored Tobacco Products in Saratoga. No Exemptions: All Flavors, All Products, All Locations! The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC) strongly encourages the Saratoga City Council to prohibit the sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco products. No exemptions. We are glad to see that the Council is considering adding menthol to the City’s flavor restrictions. Frankly, this couldn’t come at a better time. We already know that 80% of youth, 12-17 start smoking using flavored cigarettes (Ambrose et al., 2015). Indeed, in the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic nothing could be more important than getting these products out of our community. We already know that smokers are more susceptible to COVID infection (CDC, 2020). If the Council truly wants a healthier Saratoga, and we believe that you do, then it is imperative that menthol flavored cigarettes be included in the City’s flavor restrictions. This will prevent the predatory marketing of these products that is essentially a social injustice; an issue that disproportionately impacts poorer communities, marginalized groups, youths and communities of color. Menthol the Ultimate Candy Flavor; It Helps the Poison Go Down Easier! This is no minor matter. Menthol and flavored tobacco products are driving tobacco-related deaths and diseases nation-wide. While the use of non-flavored tobacco cigarettes has been 406 decreasing, the use of menthol cigarettes is on the rise, among youth and adults; among Latinos, Blacks, and Whites (Villanti, 2016). Let’s be clear, the majority of women smokers smoke menthol cigarettes; folks from the LGBTQ community disproportionately smoke these products; 47% of Latino smokers prefer menthol cigarettes, with 62% of Puerto Rican smokers using menthol; nearly 80% of Native Hawaiians; a majority of Filipinos; and a majority of smokers with behavioral health issues smoke menthol cigarettes. Frankly, the most marginalized groups disproportionately use these so-called “minty” products (CDC, 2010; Fallin, 2015; Forbes, 2013; Delnevo, 2011; Hawaii State Dept. of Health, 2009; Euromonitor, 2008; Hickman, 2015). Be appraised that 85% African American adults and 94% of Black youth who smoke are using menthol products (Giovino, 2013). These striking statistics arise from the predatory marketing of these products in the Black Community, where there are more advertisements, more lucrative promotions, and cheaper prices for menthol cigarettes compared to other communities (Henriksen et al., 2011; Seidenberg et al., 2010). These predacious practices for the past 50 years have led to Black folks dying disproportionately from heart attacks, lung cancer, strokes and other tobacco related diseases (RSG, 2014). Take note that new research, just published this year shows that menthol cigarettes were responsible for 1.5 million new smokers, 157 000 smoking-related premature deaths and 1.5 million life- years lost among African Americans over 1980–2018. While African Americans constitute 12% of the total US population, these figures represent, respectively, a staggering 15%, 41% and 50% of the total menthol-related harm (Mendez & Le, 2021) The Council should be aware that menthol is an anesthetic by definition, and as if to add insult to injury, masks the harsh taste of tobacco and allows for deeper inhalation of toxins and greater amounts of nicotine. The greater the nicotine intake, the greater the addiction. Hence, it is no surprise menthol cigarette users find it harder to quit than non-menthol cigarette users (Ton et al., 2015; Levy et al., 2011). The “cool refreshing taste of menthol” heralded by the tobacco industry is just a guise; ultimately, menthol and all flavors allow the poisons in cigarettes and cigarillos “to go down easier!” Hookah: The Manipulation of Culture for Industry Profits! While we have all become aware of the meteoric rise of E- Cigarette use, especially among kids, another addictive product is growing in popularity: flavored shisha / Hookah. Let’s not be fooled: passing tobacco smoke through water does nothing to stop the user from inhaling all the toxins, nicotine and cancer- causing chemicals associated with tobacco smoking. Let’s be clear, Hookah is just as deadly as cigarettes, if not more. Studies show that in a single hookah smoking session of 40 minutes, smokers consume 25 times the tar, 125 times the smoke 2.5 times the nicotine and 10 times the carbon monoxide compared 407 to smoking a cigarette (Primack et al., 2016). Moreover, both patrons and employees at Hookah lounges are exposed to elevated levels of 2nd hand smoke an already recognized cause of cancer (Zhou et al., 2016) Then there is the fiction that Hookah smoking is a 1000-year-old tradition in the Middle East. Look, tobacco only made its way the Europe some 500 years ago and only gradually made its way to the Middle East 3 to 4 hundred years ago. Make no mistake about it, it’s the Hookah Lounge owner’s manipulation of culture argument that is used to attract more business and profits. Flavored shisha like Blue Mist, Irish Kiss and Sex on the Beach has nothing to do with Middle Eastern Culture. Once it was determined in the 1960s that smoking kills, Islamic Leaders deemed tobacco, Hookah and Shisha Forbidden. At bottom, Hookah lounges with their nightclub atmosphere have nothing to do with Middle Eastern Culture, rather it’s all about the Benjamin’s! It’s not about getting rid of all hookahs or all tobacco products, it's about getting rid of all flavors, at all places, in all products, period. We Can’t Wait on the State or the FDA The AATCLC is calling upon the Saratoga City Council to join a growing number of cities, counties and states around the country that are prohibiting, jurisdiction-wide, the sales of menthol cigarettes and all other flavored tobacco products. In June 2018, San Francisco voters passed the first ever citywide restriction on the sales of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarette juices. This “strongest flavor ban law ever” was rapidly replicated in the numerous cities in California and around the Country, including Oakland, Alameda, Hayward, Fremont, Berkeley and Sacramento, just to mention a few. Today over 72 municipalities prohibit the sale of all menthol tobacco products including flavored e-juices https://no- smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/flavored-tobacco-product- sales.pdf Indeed, in June of 2020, the State of Massachusetts became the first State to prohibit the sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco products state-wide and in August of 2020 California followed suit and became the second state to do so. With the tobacco industry forcing a referendum of SB 793, it becomes even more imperative that local jurisdictions take steps to protect their citizenry. We can’t wait on the State, let’s take steps to make Saratoga healthier now! And while it is important that the FDA finally began the rulemaking process in April of 2021 to remove menthol cigarettes and flavored little cigars from the marketplace, this process will take years. First, the proposed rule will not be made public until April of 2022. Then, after 60-day public comment period, the tobacco industry will demand more time for comment, that has been granted in the past. Drawing out the comment period to 90 to 120 days. Once the public comment is over, the “rule” is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who’s review could take a number of months. Once a final rule is made public 408 and there is more public comment, the industry will sue to stop the process from going forward. And may sue for numerous reasons. The bottom line is that we can’t wait of the FDA. Localities, like Saratoga, must take steps to protect the health of their citizens, lives are at stake. Who Are the Racists: The Tobacco Control Advocates or the Tobacco Industry? We should note that some groups, spurred on and funded by the tobacco industry, have been spreading falsehoods, stating that restricting the sale of menthol and flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-juices will lead to the “criminalization” of particularly young Black men. Nothing could be further from the truth. All ordinances adopted around the country would prohibit the sale of flavored products, it would not prohibit the possession of these products. The facts are that the adoption of menthol restrictions will not lead to police having any greater interaction with any youth; it won’t be illegal to possess these products, just retailers cannot sell them. Indeed, when these ordinances were passed in Oakland and San Francisco, the Police Chiefs stood with us and said there would be no arrest for possession of these products. These same groups rail about “unintended consequences.” We respond: Look at the Intended Consequences! As mentioned before, Black folks die disproportionately from tobacco related diseases of heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke compared to other racial and ethnic groups. (RSG, 2014); menthol cigarettes and flavored little cigars are the agents of that destruction. It is estimated that 45,000 Black folks die each year from tobacco related diseases (RSG, 1998). In this regard, the Council should remove all criminal penalties associated with the purchase, use and possession of all tobacco products. Decriminalize tobacco! Hold retail owners responsible, not clerks, don’t punish kids! Still other groups funded by the tobacco industry insist that removing menthol cigarettes and flavored little cigars would be taking away “our” cigarette; we’d be discriminatory; racist. This line of argumentation stands history on its head. As was pointed out earlier, it was and is the tobacco industry that predatorially markets these products in the Black Community. The facts are these: there are more advertisements, more lucrative promotions, and most disturbing is that menthol cigarettes are cheaper in the Black Community compared to other communities (Henriksen et al., 2011; Seidenberg et al., 2010). This is how these flavored death sticks became “our” cigarettes, they pushed it down our throats! The AATCLC Formed in 2008, the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council is composed of a cadre of dedicated community activists, academics, public health advocates and researchers. Even though based in California, we are national in our scope and reach. We have partnered with community stakeholders, elected officials, and public health agencies, from 409 Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis to Berkeley and San Francisco. Our work has shaped the national discussion and direction of tobacco control policy, practices, and priorities, especially as they affect the lives of Black Americans, African immigrant populations and ultimately all smokers. The AATCLC has been at the forefront in elevating the regulation of mentholated and other flavored tobacco products on the national tobacco control agenda, including testifying at the FDA hearings in 2010 and 2011 when the agency was first considering the removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace. In November of 2019 we testified on Capitol Hill in support of HR 2339 (The Pallone Bill), this bill would prohibit the manufacturing and sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco products throughout the United States. This Bill was passed in the House of Representatives in February of 2020 but went nowhere in the Senate. In June of 2020 the AATCLC along with its partner Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) filed a lawsuit against the FDA for dragging their feet by leaving menthol on the marketplace with overwhelming scientific evidence showing that it should be removed immediately. Subsequently and importantly the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Medical Association (NMA) have joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. Call to Action! Now is the time to adopt strong tobacco control measures that can protect our families. We already know that menthol and flavors “makes the poison go down easier.” Let’s not now allow menthol to make COVID-19 go down easier too! The Council needs to put the health of Saratoga residents in the forefront of their thoughts, not the interests and profits of the tobacco industry, the vaping industry and their surrogates. This is not the time for half-steps, like continuing to allow these products to be sold in adult-only venues, rather it is time to take a stand for the public’s health and say: No Selling of Menthol Cigarettes and All Other Flavored Tobacco Products, including Flavored E-Juices and Flavored Hookah in Saratoga! Say “No” to the continued predatory marketing of menthol flavored tobacco products to our youth and say “Yes” to the health and welfare of our kids, who are the most vulnerable. In fact, say “Yes” to the protection for all residents of Saratoga. We are all counting on you! Sincerely, Phillip Gardiner, Dr. P.H. Co-Chair AATCLC www.savingblacklives.org Carol McGruder, Co-Chair AATCLC Valerie Yerger, N.D., Co-Chair AATCLC Email Subscription Unsubscribe 410 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 411 From:Phillip Gardiner To:Yan Zhao; Tina Walia; Mary-Lynne Bernald; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Rishi Kumar; Crystal Bothelio; Britt Avrit Cc:Tran, Don; Lindsey Freitas; Carol McGruder; Dr. Val; Nicole Turkson; Phillip Gardiner Subject:Include Menthol in Saratoga"s Flavor Restrictions Date:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 10:04:20 AM Attachments:Menthol Restrictions Saratoga.docx Menthol AA Mendez.pdf Menthol Val Editorial.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Greetings, Attached is a letter from the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC) calling on the Saratoga City Council to include menthol cigarettes in the City's flavor restrictions. We are glad to see that the Council is considering adding this provision to the existing flavor ordinance. This is no minor matter: New research shows that: "menthol cigarettes were responsible for 1.5 million new smokers, 157 000 smoking-related premature deaths and 1.5 million life-years lost among African Americans over 1980–2018. While African Americans constitute 12% of the total US population, these figures represent, respectively, a staggering 15%, 41% and 50% of the total menthol-related harm.." (Mendez & Le, 2021) (the full article and an accompanying editorial are also attached.) Saratoga can be a leader in putting an end to this outright discriminatory health disparity. Please do not hesitate to reach out to AATCLC with any questions or concerns. Best regards, Phillip Gardiner, Dr. P.H. Co-Chair African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council 412 November 16, 2021 To: Mayor Yan Zhao. Vice-Mayor Tina Walia, Councilmember Mary Lynne Bernald, Councilmember Kookie Fitzsimmons and Councilmember Rishi Kumar From: The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council Re: Prohibit the Sale of Menthol and all Other Flavored Tobacco Products in Saratoga. No Exemptions: All Flavors, All Products, All Locations! The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council (AATCLC) strongly encourages the Saratoga City Council to prohibit the sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco products. No exemptions. We are glad to see that the Council is considering adding menthol to the City’s flavor restrictions. Frankly, this couldn’t come at a better time. We already know that 80% of youth, 12-17 start smoking using flavored cigarettes (Ambrose et al., 2015). Indeed, in the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic nothing could be more important than getting these products out of our community. We already know that smokers are more susceptible to COVID infection (CDC, 2020). If the Council truly wants a healthier Saratoga, and we believe that you do, then it is imperative that menthol flavored cigarettes be included in the City’s flavor restrictions. This will prevent the predatory marketing of these products that is essentially a social injustice; an issue that disproportionately impacts poorer communities, marginalized groups, youths and communities of color. Menthol the Ultimate Candy Flavor; It Helps the Poison Go Down Easier! This is no minor matter. Menthol and flavored tobacco products are driving tobacco-related deaths and diseases nation-wide. While the use of non-flavored tobacco cigarettes has been decreasing, the use of menthol cigarettes is on the rise, among youth and adults; among Latinos, Blacks, and Whites (Villanti, 2016). Let’s be clear, the majority of women smokers smoke menthol cigarettes; folks from the LGBTQ community disproportionately smoke these products; 47% of Latino smokers prefer menthol cigarettes, with 62% of Puerto Rican smokers using menthol; nearly 80% of Native Hawaiians; a majority of Filipinos; and a majority of smokers with behavioral health issues smoke menthol cigarettes. Frankly, the most marginalized groups disproportionately use these so-called “minty” products (CDC, 2010; Fallin, 2015; Forbes, 2013; Delnevo, 2011; Hawaii State Dept. of Health, 2009; Euromonitor, 2008; Hickman, 2015). Be appraised that 85% African American adults and 94% of Black youth who smoke are using menthol products (Giovino, 2013). These striking statistics arise from the predatory marketing of these products in the Black Community, where there are more advertisements, more lucrative promotions, and cheaper prices for menthol cigarettes compared to other communities 413 (Henriksen et al., 2011; Seidenberg et al., 2010). These predacious practices for the past 50 years have led to Black folks dying disproportionately from heart attacks, lung cancer, strokes and other tobacco related diseases (RSG, 2014). Take note that new research, just published this year shows that menthol cigarettes were responsible for 1.5 million new smokers, 157 000 smoking-related premature deaths and 1.5 million life-years lost among African Americans over 1980–2018. While African Americans constitute 12% of the total US population, these figures represent, respectively, a staggering 15%, 41% and 50% of the total menthol-related harm (Mendez & Le, 2021) The Council should be aware that menthol is an anesthetic by definition, and as if to add insult to injury, masks the harsh taste of tobacco and allows for deeper inhalation of toxins and greater amounts of nicotine. The greater the nicotine intake, the greater the addiction. Hence, it is no surprise menthol cigarette users find it harder to quit than non-menthol cigarette users (Ton et al., 2015; Levy et al., 2011). The “cool refreshing taste of menthol” heralded by the tobacco industry is just a guise; ultimately, menthol and all flavors allow the poisons in cigarettes and cigarillos “to go down easier!” Hookah: The Manipulation of Culture for Industry Profits! While we have all become aware of the meteoric rise of E-Cigarette use, especially among kids, another addictive product is growing in popularity: flavored shisha / Hookah. Let’s not be fooled: passing tobacco smoke through water does nothing to stop the user from inhaling all the toxins, nicotine and cancer-causing chemicals associated with tobacco smoking. Let’s be clear, Hookah is just as deadly as cigarettes, if not more. Studies show that in a single hookah smoking session of 40 minutes, smokers consume 25 times the tar, 125 times the smoke 2.5 times the nicotine and 10 times the carbon monoxide compared to smoking a cigarette (Primack et al., 2016). Moreover, both patrons and employees at Hookah lounges are exposed to elevated levels of 2nd hand smoke an already recognized cause of cancer (Zhou et al., 2016) Then there is the fiction that Hookah smoking is a 1000-year-old tradition in the Middle East. Look, tobacco only made its way the Europe some 500 years ago and only gradually made its way to the Middle East 3 to 4 hundred years ago. Make no mistake about it, it’s the Hookah Lounge owner’s manipulation of culture argument that is used to attract more business and profits. Flavored shisha like Blue Mist, Irish Kiss and Sex on the Beach has nothing to do with Middle Eastern Culture. Once it was determined in the 1960s that smoking kills, Islamic Leaders deemed tobacco, Hookah and Shisha Forbidden. At bottom, Hookah lounges with their nightclub atmosphere have nothing to do with Middle Eastern Culture, rather it’s all about the Benjamin’s! It’s not about getting rid of all hookahs or all tobacco products, it's about getting rid of all flavors, at all places, in all products, period. 414 We Can’t Wait on the State or the FDA The AATCLC is calling upon the Saratoga City Council to join a growing number of cities, counties and states around the country that are prohibiting, jurisdiction-wide, the sales of menthol cigarettes and all other flavored tobacco products. In June 2018, San Francisco voters passed the first ever citywide restriction on the sales of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarette juices. This “strongest flavor ban law ever” was rapidly replicated in the numerous cities in California and around the Country, including Oakland, Alameda, Hayward, Fremont, Berkeley and Sacramento, just to mention a few. Today over 72 municipalities prohibit the sale of all menthol tobacco products including flavored e- juices https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/flavored-tobacco-product-sales.pdf Indeed, in June of 2020, the State of Massachusetts became the first State to prohibit the sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco products state-wide and in August of 2020 California followed suit and became the second state to do so. With the tobacco industry forcing a referendum of SB 793, it becomes even more imperative that local jurisdictions take steps to protect their citizenry. We can’t wait on the State, let’s take steps to make Saratoga healthier now! And while it is important that the FDA finally began the rulemaking process in April of 2021 to remove menthol cigarettes and flavored little cigars from the marketplace, this process will take years. First, the proposed rule will not be made public until April of 2022. Then, after 60-day public comment period, the tobacco industry will demand more time for comment, that has been granted in the past. Drawing out the comment period to 90 to 120 days. Once the public comment is over, the “rule” is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who’s review could take a number of months. Once a final rule is made public and there is more public comment, the industry will sue to stop the process from going forward. And may sue for numerous reasons. The bottom line is that we can’t wait of the FDA. Localities, like Saratoga, must take steps to protect the health of their citizens, lives are at stake. Who Are the Racists: The Tobacco Control Advocates or the Tobacco Industry? We should note that some groups, spurred on and funded by the tobacco industry, have been spreading falsehoods, stating that restricting the sale of menthol and flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-juices will lead to the “criminalization” of particularly young Black men. Nothing could be further from the truth. All ordinances adopted around the country would prohibit the sale of flavored products, it would not prohibit the possession of these products. The facts are that the adoption of menthol restrictions will not lead to police having any greater interaction with any youth; it won’t be illegal to possess these products, just retailers cannot sell them. Indeed, when these ordinances were passed in Oakland and San Francisco, the Police Chiefs stood with us and said there would be no arrest for possession of these products. 415 These same groups rail about “unintended consequences.” We respond: Look at the Intended Consequences! As mentioned before, Black folks die disproportionately from tobacco related diseases of heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke compared to other racial and ethnic groups. (RSG, 2014); menthol cigarettes and flavored little cigars are the agents of that destruction. It is estimated that 45,000 Black folks die each year from tobacco related diseases (RSG, 1998). In this regard, the Council should remove all criminal penalties associated with the purchase, use and possession of all tobacco products. Decriminalize tobacco! Hold retail owners responsible, not clerks, don’t punish kids! Still other groups funded by the tobacco industry insist that removing menthol cigarettes and flavored little cigars would be taking away “our” cigarette; we’d be discriminatory; racist. This line of argumentation stands history on its head. As was pointed out earlier, it was and is the tobacco industry that predatorially markets these products in the Black Community. The facts are these: there are more advertisements, more lucrative promotions, and most disturbing is that menthol cigarettes are cheaper in the Black Community compared to other communities (Henriksen et al., 2011; Seidenberg et al., 2010). This is how these flavored death sticks became “our” cigarettes, they pushed it down our throats! The AATCLC Formed in 2008, the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council is composed of a cadre of dedicated community activists, academics, public health advocates and researchers. Even though based in California, we are national in our scope and reach. We have partnered with community stakeholders, elected officials, and public health agencies, from Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis to Berkeley and San Francisco. Our work has shaped the national discussion and direction of tobacco control policy, practices, and priorities, especially as they affect the lives of Black Americans, African immigrant populations and ultimately all smokers. The AATCLC has been at the forefront in elevating the regulation of mentholated and other flavored tobacco products on the national tobacco control agenda, including testifying at the FDA hearings in 2010 and 2011 when the agency was first considering the removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace. In November of 2019 we testified on Capitol Hill in support of HR 2339 (The Pallone Bill), this bill would prohibit the manufacturing and sale of menthol and all flavored tobacco products throughout the United States. This Bill was passed in the House of Representatives in February of 2020 but went nowhere in the Senate. In June of 2020 the AATCLC along with its partner Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) filed a lawsuit against the FDA for dragging their feet by leaving menthol on the marketplace with overwhelming scientific evidence showing that it should be removed immediately. Subsequently and importantly the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Medical Association (NMA) have joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. 416 417 418 419 3Mendez D, Le TTT. Tob Control 2021;0:1–3. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056748 Brief report The negative impact of menthol cigarettes on the public’s health is significant, as Le and Mendez described in ref 10. For African Amer- ican smokers, though, the harm wrought by menthol smoking is much higher than that for the rest of the population. Despite having a similar overall smoking prevalence as the general population,20 it is well known that African Americans suffer, proportionally or disproportionately, more serious smoking- attributable health conse- quences.21 Main probable causes for this phenomenon are the high overall mortality rates due to economic and social conditions and the high prevalence of menthol among African American smokers, which causes them to be more addicted and quit less. In fact, our results show that menthol was responsible for 157 000 smoking- related deaths among African Americans during 1980–2018, over two and a half times their proportional share of menthol deaths compared with the general population. And, what is even more depressing, 50% of all the life- years lost to menthol smoking during 1980–2018 occurred among African Americans. Additionally, our results (shown in online supplemental figure A1) also indicate that, without menthol, smoking prevalence among African Americans in 2018 would have been 8.3%, instead of the NHIS reported 14.9% (a 44% reduction). We note that our results may be considered conservative, since we do not take into account the future harm that menthol smoking over 1980–2018 will cause to the African American population. Considering that cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths in the USA, menthol in cigarettes is an important factor in creating and exacerbating health disparities in this country. Removing menthol cigarettes from the market will save thousands of African American lives per year and help reduce health disparities at a time when inequalities among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are increasingly salient. What this paper adds ►Menthol cigarettes have been disproportionately used among African Americans. ►Menthol cigarettes exacerbate health inequalities for the African American community. ►Removing menthol can have the double effects of saving lives and reducing inequalities. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the University of Michigan Data Analysis and Dissemination Core led by Dr. Jihyoun Jeon for providing us some data for this work. Contributors DM and TTTL conceptualised the project. TTTL calibrated the model and conducted all the analysis. DM supervised the work. Both authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript. Funding The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration Centre for Tobacco Products (award number U54CA229974). Competing interests None declared. Patient consent for publication Not required. Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. ORCID iD Thuy T T Le http:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0002- 3106- 4045 REFERENCES 1 Food and Drug Administration. Preliminary scientific evaluation of the possible public health effects of menthol versus nonmenthol cigarettes. Food and Drug Administration, 2013. 2 Davis RM, Gilpin EA, Loken B. The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. USA, 2008. 3 Gardiner PS. The African Americanization of menthol cigarette use in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res 2004;6 Suppl 1:55–65. 4 Levy DT, Pearson JL, Villanti AC, et al. Modeling the future effects of a menthol ban on smoking prevalence and smoking- attributable deaths in the United States. Am J Public Health 2011;101:1236–40. 5 Anderson SJ. Marketing of menthol cigarettes and consumer perceptions: a review of tobacco industry documents. Tob Control 2011;20 Suppl 2:ii20–8. 6 Sutton CD, Robinson RG. The marketing of menthol cigarettes in the United States: populations, messages, and channels. Nicotine Tob Res 2004;6 Suppl 1:83–91. 7 Delnevo CD, Ganz O, Goodwin RD. Banning menthol cigarettes: a social justice issue long overdue. Oxford University Press US, 2020. 8 Cadham CJ, Sanchez- Romero LM, Fleischer NL, et al. The actual and anticipated effects of a menthol cigarette ban: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1–17. 9 Robert N. Proctor, golden holocaust: origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition, 2012. 10 Le TTT, Mendez D. An estimation of the harm of menthol cigarettes in the United States from 1980 to 2018. Tob Control 2021. doi:10.1136/ tobaccocontrol-2020-056256. [Epub ahead of print: 25 Feb 2021]. 11 Population by age groups, race, and sex for 1960-97. centers for disease control and prevention. 12 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ. Births: final data for 2015, 2017. 13 ed..Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M. Births: final data for 2018. In: National vital statistics reports. Services DoHaH, 2019. 14 Arias E, Xu J. United States life tables: 2017, 2019. 15 Babb S, Malarcher A, Schauer G, et al. Quitting Smoking Among Adults - United States, 2000-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;65:1457–64. 16 Mills SD, Hao Y, Ribisl KM, et al. The relationship between menthol cigarette use, smoking cessation, and relapse: findings from waves 1 to 4 of the population assessment of tobacco and health study. Nicotine Tob Res 2021;23:966–75. 17 Mendez D. Results from a Population Dynamics Model of the Consequences of Menthol Cigarettes for Smoking Prevalence and Disease Risks. Appendix A, 2011. Available: http://www fda gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/ CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/ UCM247689 pdf 18 Nonnemaker J, Hersey J, Homsi G, et al. Initiation with menthol cigarettes and youth smoking uptake. Addiction 2013;108:171–8. 19 Nonnemaker J, Feirman SP, MacMonegle A, et al. Examining the role of menthol cigarettes in progression to established smoking among youth. Addict Behav 2019;98:106045. 20 Cornelius ME, Wang TW, Jamal A, et al. Tobacco Product Use Among Adults - United States, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1736–42. 21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco use among U.S. racial/ ethnic minority Groups African Americans, American Indians and Alaska natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: a report of the surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1998, 1998.copyright. on September 20, 2021 at UCSF. Protected byhttp://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056748 on 16 September 2021. Downloaded from 420 1Yerger V. Tob Control Month 2021 Vol 0 No 0 What more evidence is needed? Remove menthol cigarettes from the marketplace—now Valerie Yerger 1,2 Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the USA and many other countries. However, among all racial and ethnic groups in the USA, African Americans bear the greatest burden from tobacco- related morbidity and mortality.1 Every year, 45 000 African Americans prematurely and unnecessarily die from tobacco- caused diseases. An esti- mated 85% of them smoked menthol cigarettes.2 Menthol’s sensory properties reinforce smoking, increase uptake of nicotine and toxic smoke components, and discourage cessation. Menthol’s cooling, anaesthetic and analgesic effects ease initiation among new smokers by masking the harshness and irritation of tobacco smoke, reducing pain sensations in the mouth and throat, and enabling deeper inhalation that facili- tates greater exposure to nicotine.3 On 3 March 2009, Representative Henry Waxman and 124 congressional cosponsors introduced H.R. 1256—the ‘Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.’4 Representative Waxman’s Committee Report expressed concerns about the disproportionate use of menthol cigarettes among African Americans, the targeted marketing of menthol cigarettes in black communities, and the higher rates of lung cancer among African Amer- ican smokers compared with non- African American smokers, urging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move quickly to address the unique public health issues posed by menthol cigarettes. Yet, although most other characterising flavours in cigarettes were prohibited in 2009 under the final version of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, menthol was inexplicably excluded.5 It has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of African Americans and other menthol smokers are destined to die prematurely if the exemption of menthol is allowed to continue.6 The disproportionate toll of menthol ciga- rettes among African Americans compared with the general population is a social injus- tice. The black community has long been subjected to the predatory marketing of mentholated tobacco products, particularly in lower income areas, where there are not only more advertisements, but more promo- tions and cheaper prices for menthol ciga- rettes when compared with more affluent neighbourhoods.7 Tobacco companies also heavily rely on their cooptation of commu- nity leaders to defuse tobacco control efforts.8 Black- led organisations with finan- cial ties to the tobacco industry have played a critical role in disseminating misinforma- tion throughout the black community. Such misinformation, for example, includes the idea that local policies prohibiting the sale of mentholated tobacco products are racist and will increase the criminalisation of individ- uals who possess or smoke them, exploiting legitimate concerns about racist policing to defend the tobacco industry’s targeted preda- tion on the black community.9 10 Authors Mendez and Le, in their article ‘Consequences of a match made in hell: the harm caused by menthol smoking to the African American population over 1980–2018,’11 show why none of us can remain silent and complicit. This paper should serve as a kick upside the head for those who are in a position to remove these deadly products from the market- place. Until this paper, no prior study has fully quantified the health harm inflicted on African Americans by menthol ciga- rettes. Yet, for at least three decades, African American tobacco control activists have been out there resisting the perva- sive presence of the tobacco industry and their deadly products in black communi- ties,12–15 including filing a lawsuit to get the Center for Tobacco Products of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to act on menthol.16 Now the evidence is irrefutable: menthol cigarettes are killing our people at a rate unmatched by any other assaults on our community. Though constituting only 12% of the total US population, African Amer- icans bear an alarming amount of the total menthol- related harm: 41% of the smoking- related premature deaths and 50% of the life- years lost. This anal- ysis demonstrates the contribution of menthol cigarettes toward the annihila- tion of a people already under siege by a racist society and its myriad of inequities, governmental policies and political domi- nation.17 18 Institutionalised racism, its long historical impact, and the associated, yet unresolved, intergenerational trauma experienced by black people in America have made them vulnerable to the clever marketing and predatory dumping of mentholated tobacco products in their communities. For decades, the tobacco industry has exploited social and economic inequities to foster the uptake and use of menthol cigarettes, and create brand loyalty among African Americans. Tobacco companies strategically targeted menthol cigarettes to low- income African Americans, blanketing inner city communities with marketing, free samples, and music promotions,19 and thereby contributing to the tobacco- related health disparities observed today, as Mendez and Le have now confirmed. We can no longer ignore the intersecting, overlapping and distinctive systems of oppression that shape ‘being black in America’ and how menthol cigarettes contribute to sustained and widening health disparities.20 This paper is compelling on its own merit; however, read in tandem with the authors’ previous paper,21 one can fully appreciate the significant role menthol cigarettes have played in addicting millions of young people to nicotine and in the deaths of thousands due to tobacco. As the authors emphasise, mentholated cigarettes have a ‘significant detrimental impact on the public’s health and could continue to pose a substantial health risk.’ More than a decade after the FDA was given authority to regulate tobacco products, long after other flavours favoured by white children were banned from most tobacco products, and long after the first of several scientific reports found menthol cigarettes to pose a public health risk above that seen with non- menthol cigarettes,22–24 the FDA still has not acted. The black community has been abandoned at the federal level, leaving activ- ists to seek local and state policy changes. So, the question for me is: Given the mountains of evidence, will anything push the federal government to consider social justice and act on its commitment to finally ban menthol cigarettes and all flavoured cigars?25 26 The recent highly publicised killings of black men and women, including George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and many others, brought to the forefront 1Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA 2African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, San Francisco, California, USA Correspondence to Dr Valerie Yerger, Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143-0612, USA; Valerie. Yerger@ ucsf. edu Editorial copyright. on September 20, 2021 at UCSF. Protected byhttp://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056988 on 16 September 2021. Downloaded from 421 422 From:Tim Gibbs To:Yan Zhao; Tina Walia; Mary-Lynne Bernald; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Rishi Kumar Cc:Britt Avrit; Lindsey Freitas Subject:Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids Letter of Support Date:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:21:35 PM Attachments:TFK Saratoga Menthol Flavored Tobacco Ordinance Letter of Support 11.16.21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mayor Zhao and Members of the Saratoga City Council: Please find a support letter attached on behalf of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids regarding the proposal to prohibit the sale of menthol flavored tobacco products in Saratoga. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tim Gibbs Tim Gibbs Tim Gibbs Consulting 423 November 16, 2021 The Honorable Yan Zhao, Mayor Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Flavored Tobacco Products Dear Mayor Zhao and Members of the Saratoga City Council: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids & the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund are pleased to submit this letter in support of your efforts in the City of Saratoga to reduce tobacco use, particularly among youth. We are in strong support of the proposed ordinance to prohibit the sale of menthol flavored tobacco products (Agenda Item 2.5, November 17, 2021). The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is the nation’s largest non-profit, non-governmental advocacy organization solely devoted to reducing tobacco use and its deadly toll by advocating for public policies that prevent kids from using tobacco, and help smokers quit. Menthol Cigarettes Increase Smoking Among Youth No other flavored product contributes more to the death and disease caused by tobacco use than menthol cigarettes. We applaud your decision not to exempt menthol cigarettes from your ordinance. Menthol delivers a pleasant minty taste and imparts a cooling and soothing sensation. These characteristics successfully mask the harshness of tobacco, making it easier for beginner smokers and kids to tolerate smoking. The FDA’s Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) has reported that: 424  Menthol cigarettes increase the number of children who experiment with cigarettes and the number of children who become regular smokers, increasing overall youth smoking.  Young people who initiate using menthol cigarettes are more likely to become addicted and become long-term daily smokers.  The availability of menthol cigarettes reduces smoking cessation in some populations, especially among Black Americans, and increases the overall prevalence of smoking among Black Americans.  Menthol cigarettes are marketed disproportionately to younger smokers and are disproportionately marketed per capita to Black Americans. After a thorough review of the evidence, TPSAC concluded that “Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.”1 A decade later—in April 2021—the FDA announced its intention to pursue rulemaking to prohibit menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. However, until any FDA action is finalized, states and cities should continue their growing efforts to end the sale of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products. It will take time for the FDA to finalize and implement the necessary regulations to prohibit menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and tobacco industry lawsuits could cause more delays. States and cities have an obligation to protect the health of their citizens and must act now to stop tobacco companies from targeting kids, Black Americans and other groups with menthol cigarettes and other flavored products. We can’t afford more delay in taking action to protect kids and save lives. As the only flavored cigarette left on the market, it’s also no surprise that menthol cigarettes are popular among youth. Menthol cools and numbs the throat, reducing the harshness of cigarette smoke, thereby making menthol cigarettes more appealing to youth who are initiating smoking. About half of youth smokers use menthol cigarettes. 2 As noted previously, young people who initiate using menthol cigarettes are more likely to become addicted and become long-term daily smokers.3 Tobacco companies have a long history of targeting and marketing flavored tobacco products to Black Americas and youth. Tobacco industry marketing, often targeted at minority communities, has been instrumental in increasing the use of menthol products and in the disproportionate use of menthol products by minority groups and youth. TPSAC concluded that menthol cigarettes are marketed disproportionately to younger smokers and Black Americans.4 Dating back to the 1950s, the tobacco industry has targeted these communities with marketing for menthol cigarettes through sponsorship of community and music events, targeted magazine advertising, youthful imagery, and 425 426 1 Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM269697.pdf. 2 Wang, TW, et al., “Tobacco Product Use and Associated Factors Among Middle and High School Students—United States, 2019,” MMWR 68(12), December 6, 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/ss/pdfs/ss6812a1-H.pdf. 3 TPSAC, Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011. 4 TPSAC, Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011. 5 Henriksen, L, et al., “Menthol cigarettes in black neighbourhoods: still cheaper after all these years,” Tobacco Control, published online August 12, 2021. 6 Delnevo, CD, et al., “Banning Menthol Cigarettes: A Social Justice Issue Long Overdue,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22(10): 1673-1675, 2020. 7 FDA, Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013. 8American Cancer Society, “Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2016-2018,” 2016, http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-047403.pdf;. American Heart Association, “African Americans and Cardiovascular Diseases: Statistical Fact Sheet, 2012 Update,” http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_319568.pdf. HHS, “Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups—African Americans, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General,” 1998, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/1998/complete_report/pdfs/complete_report.pdf 9 HHS, “Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups—African Americans, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General,” 1998; CDC, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 68, No. 9. Table 10, 2019 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf. 10 HHS, “Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups—African Americans, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General,” 1998; HHS, Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2014. See also Alexander, LA, et al., “Why we must continue to investigate menthol’s role in the African American smoking paradox,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(S1): S91-S101, 2016. 11 Mendez, D and Lee, TT, “Consequences of a match made in hell: the harm caused by menthol smoking to the African American population over 1980- 2018,” Tobacco Control, published online September 16, 2021. 427 From:Crystal Bothelio To:Britt Avrit Subject:FW: Urging ban on menthol flavored tobacco sales Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 11:25:25 AM Attachments:Saratoga let flavored tobacco 11-21.pdf Crystal Bothelio Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue │ Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1269 │ cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Margo Sidener Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 9:30 PM To: Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Urging ban on menthol flavored tobacco sales CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers: Please find attached our agency’s letter of support for amending your tobacco retail license to include a ban on the sale of menthol flavored tobacco. Margo Leathers Sidener, MS, CHES Chief Executive Officer of the Bay Area, Golden Gate, and Central Coast 1469 Park Avenue, San Jose, CA 95126 | Web: www.lungsrus.org Breathe California is dedicated to fighting lung disease, advocating for clean air, and promoting public health for all its communities. 428 429 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 17, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Suicide Prevention Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on whether to prepare a suicide prevention policy for Council consideration at a future meeting. BACKGROUND: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Zhao to provide the City Council with the opportunity to consider whether to direct staff to prepare a suicide prevention policy and schedule it for Council consideration at a future meeting. A number of Santa Clara County communities have adopted suicide prevention policies to raise awareness of suicide as a public health concern and promote strategies for suicide prevention and intervention. Some of the communities that have adopted suicide prevention policies include: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. Example policies from Campbell and Cupertino are provided in the attachments. Many of these policies call for educating city employees about the causes of suicide, identifying early warning signs, and strategies for preventing suicide. The City’s Human Resources Division already has a of practice of promoting awareness and resources with City staff. Additionally, some policies also call for developing public safety protocols to responding to suicide attempts on city property and sharing suicide prevention resources with community members. If directed by the City Council, staff can prepare a suicide prevention policy for consideration at a future meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –City of Campbell Suicide Prevention Policy Attachment B –City of Cupertino Suicide Prevention Policy Attachment C –Written Communications 430 SECTION 1.32 SUICIDE PREVENTION POLICY PURPOSE This policy reflects an ongoing commitment to increase awareness of suicide as a public health problem.The framework in this policy promotes the planning,implementation and evaluation of strategies for suicide prevention and intervention,as well as encouraging mental health care. POLICY SCOPE This policy shall advance current strategies and best practices of the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services,National Council for Behavioral Health,National Alliance on Mental • Illness,and the World Health Organization. This policy shall call for the collaboration between the City of Campbell and local and regional organizations,to educate employees and residents to gain a better understanding of the causes of suicide,learning the appropriate methods for identifying those at risk,and how to report threats of suicide or those showing signs of becoming at risk to the appropriate parental, familial,and/or professional authorities. The City will promote strategies and resources provided by the County as well as the Suicide Prevention Resource Center under the following guiding framework: CITY EMPLOYEES Annually,the City Manager or his/her designee will share with its current employees and retirees information that helps staff and retirees gain a better understanding of the causes of suicide and learn the appropriate methods for identifying and preventing the loss of life.The Human Resources division will work with the County's Behavioral Health Services Suicide Prevention Program to ensure that information shared reflects current research.The City shall provide a copy of this policy to all employees. CITY FACILITIES The City Manager,through the Safety/Risk Management Committee,will ensure that the City's public safety protocols governing a response to a suicide attempt on City facilities is reviewed annually.This review of protocols will seek to update internal procedures and address any needed support for employees that may witness such events.The Safety/Risk Management Committee will further ensure an appropriate communications strateqy is in place if a suicide attempt occurs in a City facility.The communication strategy will reflect best practices for reporting on suicide,as shared by the County. CITY RESIDENTS The City will link to the County's Behavioral Health Services webpage and actively collaborate with the County to disseminate information including event information and resources as they become available.The City Council will also raise awareness by recognizing National Suicide Prevention Month (September)via a proclamation annually and supporting state and/or federal legislation aimed at increasing awareness and reducing deaths by suicide. 1 >;.!:! oIl. c:o:;::::;c:Q)>Q)•.. Il. Q) "C:§::::s ~ >-.!:! "0Il. eo:;::::;c:Q)>Q)•.. Il. Q) "C:§::::s U) "C Q) tJ)oc..ec,-c:Q)E..c: (.J ItS ~ 431 GENERAL RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of this policy will occur through regular communication with the County's Behavioral Health Services.Employees will be provided the following resources to learn more about suicide prevention:.. •Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services -Suicide Prevention &Crisis www.sccbhd.org/suicideprevention •Santa Clara County Suicide Prevention Strategic Plan https://www.sccgov.org/sites/bhd/Services/SP /Docu ments/20 18/s p-strateg ic-plan-rev-03- 2011-final.pdf . •California Mental Health Services Authority https://calmhsa.org/ •Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -Violence Prevention -Suicide https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/index.html •U.S.Department of Health &Human Services -Office of the Surgeon General https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/suicide-prevention/index.html •Suicide Prevention Resource Center https://www.sprc.org/ •American Foundation for Suicide Prevention https://afsp.org/.~"0c.. c:o:;:::::c:Q)>Q)•..c.. Q) "'C.(3 :::srJ) "'C Q) VIoc..ec.. •National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 800-273-8255 (800-273-TALK) •Suicide Prevention Chat Services (www.SuicidePreventionLifeline.org) •Veterans Crisis Line 800-273-8255,1,Text:838255 This policy shall be reviewed annually to confirm compliance and to make any necessary revisions. -c: Q)E..c:o~-~ 2 432 RESOLUTION NO. 21- A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A SUICIDE PREVENTION POLICY WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino recognizes suicide as a public health issue, evidenced by Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services data which shows that after a three-year decline in the suicide rate in the County, suicide rates increased in 2018 and 2019; and WHEREAS, the Suicide Prevention Policy seeks to support the strategies recommended by the Santa Clara County Suicide Prevention Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, educating the community on suicide risk factors, warning signs, how to report threats of suicide or those showing signs of becoming at risk, and removing the stigma about mental health treatment, recovery, and resiliency, is good public policy; and WHEREAS, the Suicide Prevention Policy formalizes a process by which general resources are shared and safe messaging best practices are followed when communicating with employees and the community; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopts and approves the attached Suicide Prevention Policy, as the official suicide prevention policy of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 21st day of September 2021, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Darcy Paul, Mayor City of Cupertino Date 433 Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date 434 CITY OF CUPERTINO SUICIDE PREVENTION POLICY Purpose This policy reflects an ongoing commitment to increase awareness of suicide as a public health problem. The framework in this policy promotes the planning, implementation and evaluation of strategies for suicide prevention and intervention, as well as encouraging mental health care. Policy This policy shall advance current strategies and best practices of the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services, National Council for Behavioral Health, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the World Health Organization. This policy shall call for the collaboration between the City of Cupertino and local and regional organizations, to provide information to employees and residents to gain a better understanding of the causes of suicide, learn the appropriate methods for identifying those at risk, and learn how to report threats of suicide or those showing signs of becoming at risk to the appropriate authorities. The City will promote strategies and resources provided by the County as well as the Suicide Prevention Resource Center1 under the following guiding framework: City Employees Annually, the City Manager or designee will share with its current employees information that helps staff and gain a better understanding of the causes of suicide and learn the appropriate methods for identifying and preventing the loss of life. The Human Resources Division will work with the County’s Behavioral Health Services Suicide Prevention Program to ensure that information shared reflects current research. The City shall provide a copy of this policy to all employees. City Facilities The City Manager or designee will develop public safety protocols governing a response to a suicide attempt on City facilities and will ensure that those protocols are reviewed annually. This review of protocols will seek to update internal procedures and address any needed support for employees that may witness such events. The City Manager or designee will further ensure an appropriate communications strategy is in place if a suicide attempt occurs in a City facility. The 1 https://www.sprc.org/ 435 Resolution No. Page 4 communication strategy will reflect best practices for reporting on suicide, as provided by the County. City Residents The City will link to the County’s Behavioral Health Services webpage2 and actively collaborate with the County to disseminate information including event information and resources as they become available. The City Council will also raise awareness by recognizing National Suicide Prevention Month annually in September and support state and/or federal legislation aimed at increasing awareness and reducing deaths by suicide. 2 https://bhsd.sccgov.org/home 436 November 2, 2021 Honorable Yan Zhao Mayor, Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Zhao, I respectfully urge the Saratoga City Council to adopt the Suicide Prevention Policy under consideration. In doing so, the City of Saratoga would join nine other cities in the County of Santa Clara that have already adopted such a policy. The challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have ignited a mental health crisis across the country. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one-third of Americans are showing signs of clinical anxiety or depression during the pandemic. The findings among young people and children are even more striking: in 2020, nearly half (49%) of Americans between the ages of 18-29 exhibited symptoms of anxiety or depression, and the proportion of mental health-related emergency department visits among adolescents aged 12-17 years increased by 31% from 2019. During a time when mental health challenges have grown for so many, especially our youth, we must expand existing support systems while creating new ones to meet the additional need. In recognition of the mental health crisis, the State invested hundreds of millions of dollars to support immediate mental health needs as well as early intervention services, which play a crucial role in suicide prevention. The City of Saratoga has a timely opportunity to promote awareness of suicide and critical prevention resources among its community members by adopting a Suicide Prevention Policy. The policy falls in line with the Santa Clara County Suicide Prevention Strategic Plan, which I proudly supported the adoption of as County Supervisor in 2010. It is our duty as elected officials to ensure the health and wellbeing of our communities. As such, I strongly support the adoption of a Suicide Prevention Policy by the City of Saratoga. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dave Cortese California State Senate, 15th District senator.cortese@sen.ca.gov sd15.sen.ca.gov 437 Item #: Item Title Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Zhao & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 Subject: Written Communications, Item 2.6 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 17, 2021 City Council meeting, written communications were submitted for Item 2.6 The communications are attached to this memo. 438 From:Khuu, Lucy To:Britt Avrit Subject:FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - Suicide Prevention Policy - Office of Asm. Evan Low Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 2:45:10 PM Attachments:Saratoga City Council Meeting 11.17.21 - Suicide Prevention Policy.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Britt, I hope this email finds you well. Please find attached a letter of support from Assemblymember Evan Low regarding the Suicide Prevention Policy on the Saratoga City Council November 17th, 2021 Agenda. Please let me know if you have any questions at all or if there is anyone from the City of Saratoga that our office should include in the email. Sincerely, Lucy Khuu Field Representative Office of Assemblymember Evan Low | 28th Assembly District District Office Mainline: (408) 446-2810 439 November 17, 2021 Saratoga City Council City of Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Saratoga City Council Meeting November 17th, 2021 – Suicide Prevention Policy Dear Saratoga City Council: I am writing to strongly urge the City of Saratoga to adopt a Resolution approving the addition of a Suicide Prevention Policy to the Council Policy Manual. Each year, thousands of people die due to suicide nationwide. Santa Clara County, specifically, has over one hundred instances of suicide deaths annually. While the causes of suicide are complex and are determined by multiple factors, suicide prevention is simple. With a suicide prevention policy, communities can raise awareness of suicide and support people who are at risk of suicide. Currently, all school districts in Santa Clara County and 9 out of 15 cities in the County have adopted a form of suicide prevention policy. By adopting the policy as well, Saratoga will be the 10th city who will be part of the battle against suicides. Suicide is an important public health concern that impacts our community at all ages, genders, and ethnicities, and results in long-lasting negative effects on individuals and their families. Adopting a suicide prevention policy is a step in the direction that we need to ensure that we continue to protect and support our community from mental and public health concerns. As a committed mental health advocate, I respectfully ask for your support in adopting a suicide prevention policy to save the lives of the residents here in Saratoga and Santa Clara County. Evan Low Chair, Committee on Business & Professions Assemblymember, 28th District – San José/Silicon Valley 440 From:Crystal Bothelio To:Britt Avrit Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 10:58:16 AM Crystal Bothelio Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue │ Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1269 │ cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 11:10 PM To: Mary-Lynne Bernald <mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Rishi Kumar <rkumar@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Uday Kapoor Phone Number 4087410658 Email Address Subject Letter of support for Suicide Prevention Policy Comments As a 46 year Saratoga resident and Member of Board, NAMI Santa Clara County, I commend Mayor Zhao for recommending the adoption of a Suicide Prevention Policy by the City of Saratoga to join nine other sister cities of Santa Clara County that already have such a policy. The Santa Clara County Suicide Prevention Plan has a robust program with workgroups supporting a diverse set of trainings, presentations and other actions that could become a mainstream action by our city. Like some other Public Health matters, an all-hands-on-deck approach is needed to overcome stigma that has prevented self 441 help. Best wishes for success in this much needed policy initiative. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 442