HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2008 City Council Agenda PacketAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 18, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING – 6:00 P.M. – SARATOGA COMMUNITY CENTER -SAUNDERS ROOM -19655 ALLENDALE AVENUE. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6:00
P.M. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 12, 2008.) COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the
council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. CALL MEETING
TO ORDER – 6:00P.M. 1. Joint Meeting with the Home Owner Association Presidents. Recommended Action: Informational only. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the? City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to
the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posing of Agenda: I, Ann
Sullivan, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 12, 2008, at the
office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 12th day of June 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC, Acting City Clerk 1
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, June 18, 2008 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL
CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 12, 2008) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally
prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to
Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar
contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item
on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 1
1. CIP Study Session Minutes -June 3, 2008 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 2. City Council Minutes -June 4, 2008 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 3. Review of Accounts Payable
Check Registers Recommended action: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for Accounts Payable cycles: May 29, 2008 June 5, 2008 4. North Campus Fellowship Hall – Amendment
-Independent Contractor Agreement Approval Recommended action: 1. Approve Independent Contractor Agreement with Amendment between the City of Saratoga and Steve Benzing, Architect 2.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 5. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution authorizing No Parking Recommended action: Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No
Parking” on a portion of Kirkmont Drive 6. Award of Contract for Street Sweeping Services Recommended action: 1. Move to award a two year Street Sweeping Contract to Universal Sweeping
Services in the amount of $90,000 per year with an additional $10,000 allocation per year for unscheduled sweeping. 2. Move to authorize the City Manager to execute a Street Sweeping
Contract with Universal Sweeping Services. 7. Upper Old Oak Way Vacation Recommended action: 1. Adopt Resolution vacating a portion of Old Oak Way. 2. Adopt Resolution accepting offer
of dedication for Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail purposes (Attachment 1). 8. Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Library General Obligation Bonds Recommended action: Adopt
the resolution which sets the FY 2008/09 property tax levy rate for the Library General Obligation Bonds. 9. Citizen Options for Public Safety -Supplemental Law Enforcement Services
Funds Grant (COPS/SLESF) Recommended action: Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of the Citizen Options for Public Safety Program’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (COPS/SLESF)
grant as a 2
source of funds for additional public safety services. 10. Annual Approval of the City’s Investment Policy -for Fiscal Year 2008/09 Recommended action: For the City Council to approve
the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2008/09. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of
the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested
for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting 11. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 -Public Hearing, Approval of Engineer’s Report, and Confirmation
of Assessments for FY 08-09 Recommended action: Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for FY 08-09 OLD BUSINESS 12. 2008 Summer
Issue of The Saratogan Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. NEW BUSINESS 13. Facility Naming Application for Saratoga Community Center Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly. 14. Saratoga Village Parking and Valet Service Report Recommended action: Accept report and provide direction to staff regarding Saratoga
Village Parking and Valet Service 15. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM PROCEDURES Recommended action: Provide direction to staff as to whether the
City should: 1. Maintain the existing CDBG procedures or elect to have a study session prior to the formal meeting. 2. Modify the existing CDBG application form used by applicants for
City CDBG funding. 3. Have the Community Grant Program follow a parallel process consistent with the CDBG program application, noticing, and meeting schedule. 4. Allow the CDBG applications
to take priority over the Community Grant Programs 3
16. Review the possible formation of a CH-2 District Review Committee Recommended action: Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following: 1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory,
or Commission) 2. Confirm participants 17. Review the possible formation of a Village Economic Development Committee Recommended action: Review report and direct Staff accordingly on
the following: 1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission) 2. Participants 18. City Council Meeting Time Limits Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Ann Waltonsmith Association of Bay Area Government Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Advisory Board (PAB) Hakone Foundation Executive
Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Council SASCC West Valley Mayors and Mangers Association Sister City Liaison Council Finance Committee Highway 9 Safety AdHoc TEA AdHoc Vice Mayor
Chuck Page Chamber of Commerce Hakone Executive Board West Valley Sanitation District Council Finance Committee Village AdHoc Valley Transportation Authority PAC Councilmember Kathleen
King Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Santa Clara County Cities Association City School AdHoc TEA AdHoc Councilmember Jill Hunter Historic Foundation KSAR 4
Library Joint Powers Association Santa Clara County Valley Water Commission Village AdHoc West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Councilmember Aileen Kao County HCD Policy
Committee Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) City School AdHoc Highway 9 Safety
AdHoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting
(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on June 12, 2008, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location.
The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 12th day of June 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC Acting City Clerk 5
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2008 6/18 Regular
Meeting – Joint Meeting with HOA Presidents 7/2 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Heritage Preservation Commission and Historic Foundation 7/16 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with
SASCC 8/6 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation 8/20 Summer Recess – No Meeting 9/3 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees 9/17 Regular Meeting
– Joint Meeting with Saratoga Union Elementary School District 10/1 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts 10/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga Union
High School District 11/5 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery 12/3 Regular Meeting – Reorganization
12/17 Regular Meeting – Traffic Safety Commission 6
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave
Anderson SUBJECT: CIP Study Session Minutes – June 3, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following meeting: CIP Study Session
– June 3, 2008 FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from CIP Study Session – June 3, 2008 7
1 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CIP STUDY SESSION JUNE 3, 2008 Mayor Waltonsmith called the CIP Study Session to order at 7:00PM. PRESENT: Councilmembers: Jill Hunter, Aileen Kao, Kathleen
King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager John Cherbone, Public Works Director Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk Thomas Scott, Facilities Manager Shawn Gardner, Park Lead Worker Director Cherbone began the meeting by highlighting the results of the two previous CIP
Study Sessions: May 7, 2008: o Preliminarily fund two Operational Efficiency Projects; 1) Community Development Document Imaging Project at $60,000 and 2) City Website Upgrade Project
at $50,000. o Gather any additional information available connected to the feasibility of the proposed City Hall Solar Project. o Develop a list of building efficiency projects to add
to the Operational Efficiency Project List. o Park and Trail Projects for 2008/09 to be prioritized by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle, and
Trails Advisory Committee. May 21, 2008: o Continue funding both General CIP Projects and Operational Efficiency Projects at $600,000 apiece for a total of $1.2 million. o Submit a list
of hillside infrastructure needs. o Schedule a third Study Session to be held on June 3rd to continue the discussion of the FY 2008/09 CIP. Total Funding Available for Operational Efficiency
Projects: $600,000 Projects Preliminarily Funded at the May 7th Study Session: (110,000) Remaining Funds Available: $490,000 8
2 Total Cost of Remaining Operational Efficiency Projects: $1,643,326 Director Cherbone went on to explain the results of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Pedestrian, Equestrian,
Bicycle, and Trails Advisory Committee’s prioritization of the Parks and Trail Projects for 2008/09; which are: 1. Park Restroom Improvement Work 2. Lower Tank Trail (Parker Ranch) Repair
Project 3. Village Creek Trail 4. De Anza Trail Phase II 5. Petanque Court at Azul Park 6. Heritage Orchard Monument Sign There was discussion regarding the inclusion of the first set
of prioritized trail projects; which included Hakone Gardens that was voted on two years ago by Council, and to include those projects in this new list. Council proposal: 1) Combine
prioritized ranking list of Parks and Trail Projects for 2008/09 as noted on Attachment 5 of the CIP Staff Report; and current approved priority list of Parks & Trails Projects; 2) Exclude
the Hakone project from this ranking and authorize Parks and Recreation Commission and Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Advisory Committee to complete prioritization of combined
list. Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page and Mayor Ann Waltonsmith were in agreement with the above proposal. Motion passed 4 – 1 with Councilmember Jill
Hunter opposing. In addition, Council directed staff to ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to create a new “trails only” priority list and rank in order of the highest number to
the lowest – with the highest number being the highest on the priority list; and bring the results forward for future discussion. Council moved on to discuss Operational Efficiency Projects
noting there were seven (7) items on this list totaling $1,643.326; with a total of $490,000 available for funding. Director Cherbone stated the list of seven projects is being presented
to fulfill the intentions of the operational efficiencies criteria of the CIP, to “increase efficiencies in the operation of the City which can include money savings, power savings,
staff time savings, and increased level of service to the public at a lower cost. He also noted some of the facility projects are currently included in the preventative maintenance schedule.
There was discussion regarding the use of solar power to the Community Center and Maintenance Building by constructing a solar array on top of a new equipment shelter structure, which
would be located in the Corporation Yard. Shawn Gardner presented solar project development information: 1) Purchase and install the smaller system at the Recreation/Center and Corporation
Yard and consider it a long-term investment. 2) If the City wishes to install the entire 227 kW system for the entire City Hall buildings, then consider a Power Purchasing Agreements
(PPA) where the City could contract with a company to do all the work; but the 9
3 City doesn’t own any of the equipment. He noted if the City decides to implement the solar energy project for the Community Center and Maintenance Building, it would cost $444,326;
it would not have to be paid in full up front; a PPA could be written and payments would be made based on the agreement. Councilmember King raised the question as to what was discussed
at the February 2008 Retreat regarding $600,000 for Operational Efficiencies and $600,000 for Capital Improvement Projects. City Manager Dave Anderson explained that at the February
2008 Retreat, Council provided direction to staff regarding the 2008/09 budget. He noted that after considerable discussion, Council directed $1.2 million dollars from unallocated end
of year savings to be equally allocated to two types of reserve accounts, namely 1) Operational Efficiencies, and 2) General Capital Improvements. He noted this decision has been reflected
in the recent CIP meetings and budget discussions. Councilmember King stated she wasn’t in favor of of using $600,000 for Capital improvements funding and $600,000 for efficiency funding
– why not put everything together and prioritize in that manner. Councilmembers Page, Kao, Hunter and Mayor Waltonsmith were in favor of keeping the 1.2 million dollars as separate categories
– the CIP prioritization and Operational Efficiencies prioritization. Discussion then continued regarding operational efficiency options and what the City could do to become more “green”.
Councilmember King brought up a previous suggestion from Chuck Page to turn the Saratogan green through email distribution, rather than paper distribution. Mayor Waltonsmith suggested
that they continue discussion regarding the seven items on the Operational Efficiency (OE) list and asked Director Cherbone if they allocated some funds for the Operational Efficiency
list, could he begin the implementation process on some of the items. Director Cherbone stated Council could specify which item/s on the list they would prefer to start with and that
it would be implemented throughout City Hall, not just in specific areas. He noted Council could prioritize the items on the OE list and they could specify the amount of money to be
funded – the total amount to do the project or only a portion of the project. Mayor Waltonsmith asked the Council to voice their opinions regarding the seven items on the Operational
Efficiency list and if the Solar Project was something they wanted to consider along with the remaining six items; or separate it from the rest of the items on the list. The Mayor also
noted the City has strict rules in place for building requirements and we urge citizens to think “green” when they do remodeling and feels the City of Saratoga should be a leader in
“green” building. She also feels the State will soon be setting higher energy efficient requirements. Discussion took place regarding the City Hall Solar Project and Councilmembers noted
their opinions regarding solar energy. Members of the audience stated the City should do more research regarding the pay back in savings with solar energy and that it is premature to
install solar at this time. More changes are coming regarding solar energy. Councilmember King – objects to solar; could focus on financing North Campus improvements, Prospect Avenue
median improvements, Hakone Gardens; and feels this isn’t a good use of $490,000. She noted she would not support funding for any of the seven items on the OE list at this time. She
prefers to move forward with the CIP projects and hear everything – CIP and OE projects – at one time. 10
4 Councilmember Hunter – agrees with members of the audience that new changes are coming all the time with regard to solar energy and feels the City should wait and doesn’t support the
solar issue. Councilmember Kao – supports some of the items on the OE list – such as motion-control lighting and double pane windows. Vice Mayor Page – agrees that solar technology is
changing all the time and is concerned about the rate of payback; but feels that if we “spot fix” buildings now, we will continue to do that all the time. We need to lower our carbon
footprint for the League of California Cities and we need to make some kind of commitment to solar energy. He feels that if we take the lead in solar energy, other people will follow
our lead. Mayor Waltonsmith – prefers to move forward with solar energy and realizes that it is expensive; supports PPA to do the work. She feels it is time to kick-start projects that
were introduced five years ago and is comfortable with allocating $150,000 to $200,000 to go forward with the process. She feels Operational Efficiencies are an important sub-group of
the CIP. Facilities Supervisor Thomas Scott noted that some of the items on the list will be done regardless, due to annual maintenance. He cited the roof issue – when it needs repair
or replacement, staff will think energy efficiency and go with the “cool roof”. Councilmember King noted one option for funding some of the OE items would be to set aside $100,000 from
TEA allocations and set aside another $100,000 – making it a total of $200,000 for this year, with staff prioritizing the projects on the OE list. City Manager Dave Anderson noted Council
already had set aside $100,000 from TEA. Councilmember Hunter noted deferred maintenance has to be done anyway; is a big part of the budget, and supports the allocation of an additional
$200,000 to the $100,000 TEA monies to begin projects on the OE list. Mayor Waltonsmith then asked Director John Cherbone to move forward to the CIP projects. Director Cherbone went
on to explain the various items regarding the 1) General CIP Projects; 2) the Existing Unfunded CIP Projects; and 3) Park Development Projects. He also noted item 23 – Hakone Gardens
Well and Koi Pond Repairs (on the Facility Improvement Project category) -was just added due to the newly discovered well problem with the Koi Pond. He noted the need for immediate repair
work in order to save the Koi fish. He also noted the following on Attachment 3 – the Unfunded CIP Projects: Items 2 and3 – Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements: Premature to fund these
items at this time. Item 5 – Glen Brae Avenue Median Choker: Is a Traffic Calming issue. Item 6 – Komina Walking Path: Just had second meeting on this issue; premature to fund at this
time. Item 7 – Saratoga Elementary School Driveway & Sidewalk Modifications: Premature to fund at this time. Item 8 – El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements: Beneficial
to City. Consider funding at this time. Item 9 – Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements: Beneficial to City; consider funding at this time. Items 1, 4, 5, and 10 – are items Council
should consider funding. 11
5 Lon Saavedra, Executive Director for Hakone Gardens, was present and thanked Director Cherbone for summarizing the Koi Pond situation and went on to explain in more detail the problems
with the Koi pond and the need to re-drill the well. He also addressed the Council regarding the need for funding support to help create a bigger gift shop and a Visitors Center where
people can sit down and have tea and rice cakes. He feels this expanded service could dramatically increase the annual profits for Hakone Gardens. Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment.
The following people spoke in support of a multi-purpose room at Redwood Middle School and asked for Council funding: Pat Vogel Kathy Clark Carolyn Doles Doug Robertson Dawn Glajchen
Dan Douglass Sarah Rothenberg Francesca Contini-Ruff Mark Linsky Marc Hoffman Emily Lo Kelly Berman Tom Alexander Kelly Berryhill Katherine Tseng (Marc Hoffman also requested to speak
off-line regarding the solar energy issue.) City Manager Dave Anderson responded to a suggestion that use of City facility credits at West Valley College might help with obtaining playing
time for MJB basketball. He also asked for Marc Hoffman’s contact information to follow up. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked all the speakers and closed the public comments. She then asked
Council for their comments. Councilmember Hunter noted she would support the demolition of the Community Recreation Center and rebuild with a multi-purpose room in it. She also noted
schools are very successful in getting bonds passed for projects such as a multi-purpose room. Mayor Waltonsmith expressed her thanks to Doug Robertson for his diligent support of the
Utility User Tax effort when it was presented to the community. Vice Mayor Page thanked everyone for their comments and hoped the community did not view this Council as being anti-children.
He emphasized the many projects Council has approved with the children of the community in mind, such as the many park improvements. He also noted the City only receives 5.45% of the
property property tax dollars, the schools receive 54% of the property tax dollars and the Saratoga Fire District receives 10% of the tax dollars. He noted it is his objective to start
with a base of $50,000 to begin building something for the community. 12
6 Councilmember King noted that out of 30,000 residents only 18 people came to this meeting to share with the Council what they feel is important to the community. She thanked them for
coming and encouraged them to speak to more community members regarding this issue. Mayor Waltonsmith stated she is more concerned about finding the funds to repair and/or replace the
items that need funding and has a difficult time considering funding for new buildings. Councilmember Kao thanked the speakers for sharing their thoughts and noted the Council has listened
to public input by keeping the North Campus. She noted funding for improvements to the North Campus has been included in the CIP projects and that Council has committed to setting aside
money each year to create something for the entire community to use and enjoy – such as a multi-purpose room. Mayor Waltonsmith noted the lateness of the hour and asked Council to provide
direction to staff regarding the CIP discussion. It was the consensus of Councilmembers Kao, Hunter, Vice Mayor Page and Mayor Waltonsmith to keep the Operational Efficiency Projects
and the General CIP Projects separate and prioritize them separately. Councilmember King does not support this method and prefers to combine the two lists and then prioritize the items.
Councilmember Hunter asked about the Hakone Koi Pond issue and what should be done to solve that problem. Council agreed to add the item to the June 4th Council Meeting Agenda as an
Urgency Item allocating $50,000 from Unallocated Funds. Council also directed staff to schedule another CIP meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:00PM. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan
Acting City Clerk 13
7 14
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave
Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Minutes – June 4, 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Regular
Meeting – June 4, 2008 FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from June 4, 2008 15
MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 4, 2008 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:30 p.m. MAYOR’S REPORT ON
CLOSED SESSION Mayor Waltonsmith stated there was no reportable information on Closed Session. The City Council held a Joint Meeting at 6:00PM with the Saratoga Parks and Recreation
Commission. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Aileen Kao, Jill Hunter,
Kathleen King, Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk Mary
Furey, Administrative Services Director John Livingstone, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Michael Taylor, Recreation Director Michael Fossati, Assistant
Planner REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of June 4, 2008
was properly posted on May 29, 2008. Mayor Ann Waltonsmith announced that on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, Council was asked by the Hakone Foundation to add an Urgency Item to the June 4, 2008
Council agenda regarding the Koi fish pond at Hakone Gardens. City Manager Dave Anderson presented the facts regarding the Urgency Item stating the Koi Pond at Hakone Gardens was failing
and needed immediate repairs and re-drilling of the well to preserve the Koi fish in
the pond. City Attorney Richard Taylor advised Council they could place an Urgency Item on the Council meeting agenda after the agenda had been posted; however, they would need a motion
by a four fifths vote to authorize adding the item to the agenda and determine where on the agenda they would like to place the Urgency Item for discussion. 16
2 HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADD HAKONE KOI POND URGENCY ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND PLACE IT AT THE END OF THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. MOTION PASSED 5 -0. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Janice Gamper – addressed the Council regarding the blinking speed limit sign and asked if it could be returned to Chester Avenue to monitor speeds. She noted that when the speed monitor
was on Chester Avenue, people didn’t speed as much. Mehran Madani – spoke to Council regarding a neighbor on Bohlman Road who is removing trees on his property for quite some time, and
was concerned that the tree removal could cause potential land slides. He felt the tree removal was an invasion of his privacy and was diminishing the aesthetic appearance and value
of his home. Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Mayor Waltonsmith responded to Janice Gamper’s request stating the blinking speed limit sign was on a rotational schedule
and that it would return to Chester Avenue later on in the schedule. Council directed staff to follow up with Mr. Madani’s concern regarding the tree removal in his neighborhood. City
Manager Dave Anderson stated he would have the City Arborist contact Mr. Madani the very next day to research this issue. Communications from Boards and Commissions Tom Soukup, Chair
of the Parks and Recreation Commission, addressed the Council regarding their 6:00PM Joint Meeting that evening. He noted the commission had been suspended for some time and had just
recently been reinstated. He spoke about the commission’s work plan for the coming year and noted the commission has established three categories of interest: 1) Naming the North Campus
facility. 2) Playground improvements. 3) Community involvement by more use of the community parks and facilities; using the parks for healthy living and life styles; and the possibility
of using the parks for music/art in the parks. He also noted their long term planning involved working with the Planning Commission on the Parks and Trails Master Plan. Council Direction
to Staff Council thanked Mr. Soukup for his presentation, welcomed the Commission back, and to keep up the good work. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Jill Hunter announced the Village Sidewalk
Sale on the upcoming Friday, Saturday and Sunday and invited people to participate. She also invited everyone 17
3 to come and enjoy the live band in the Bank of America parking; which would start at 6:30 in the evenings. Mayor Waltonsmith announced the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors was
having a fund raiser for the City of Saratoga and the Town of Los Gatos on Sunday, August 3, 2008. The association had purchased all the tickets for the San Jose Giants baseball game
for that day and all proceeds from the sale of those tickets would go to the Saratoga Recreation Summer Youth Program and to the Los Gatos Recreation program. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1. APPOINTMENT
OF LIBRARY COMMISSIONER AND OATH OF OFFICE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution appointing one new member to the Library Commission and direct the Acting City Clerk to
administer the Oath of Office. RESOLUTION NO. 08-033 HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ONE NEW MEMBER TO THE LIBRARY COMMISSION AND DIRECT THE ACTING CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER
THE OATH OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan administered Oath of Office to new Library Commissioner Javed S. Khan. 2. APPOINTMENT OF ELEVEN YOUTH COMMSSIONERS
AND OATH OF OFFICE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution appointing eleven members to the Youth Commission and direct Acting City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
RESOLUTION NO. 08–034 HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELEVEN MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION AND DIRECT ACTING CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE. MOTION PASSED
5 – 0. Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan administered Oath of Office to ten new Youth Commissioners: Aditya Dev, Justin El-Diwany, Kaitlin Finch, Tara Fatemi, Sammy Rao, Cory Rateau, Elena
Reese, Natalie Tkolcevic, Tiffany Tseng, and Cynthia Zhou. Kia Fariba was absent. 3. COMMENDATIONS HONORING FOUR OUTGOING YOUTH COMMISSIONERS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present commendations.
18
4 Mayor Waltonsmith presented commendations to Elli Rezaii and Shireen Gupta. Youth Commissioners Kelly Langstaff and Ted Scalvos were absent. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR
4. JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES – MAY 13, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE JOINT STUDY SESSION MINUTES FOR MAY 13, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 5.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING MAY 20, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember King removed this item for discussion. Councilmember King stated she was not
present at this meeting and requested the records show she was absent. KING/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 20, 2008, AS AMENDED . MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 6. CIP SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES – MAY 21, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE CIP SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – MAY 21, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 7. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
– MAY 21, 2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – MAY 21, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 19
5 8. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTERS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable cycles: May 15, 2008 May 22,
2008 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CYCLES – MAY 15, 2008, MAY 22, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 9. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept Treasurer's Report for the month ended December 31, 2007 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ACCEPT TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31,
2007. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 10. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the Gann Appropriations Limit for FY 2008/09 RESOLUTION
NO. 08-035 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GANN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY2008/09. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 11. RESOLUTION CALLING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION – NOVEMBER
4, 2008. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopts the Resolution Calling the General Municipal Election for November 4, 2008. RESOLUTION NO. 08-036 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION CALLING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2008. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 12. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY A PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION BY A PERSON UNDER TWENTY-ONE AND IMPOSING A 20
6 FEE FOR THE COSTS OF PROVIDING A SECOND POLICE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC DISTURBANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ordinance requiring supervision by a parent or guardian of alcoholic
beverage possession or consumption by a person under twenty-one and imposing a fee for the costs of providing a second police response to public disturbances. ORDINANCE NO. 258 PAGE/KAO
MOVED TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY A PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION BY A PERSON UNDER TWENTY-ONE AND IMPOSING A FEE FOR THE COSTS
OF PROVIDING A SECOND POLICE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC DISTURBANCES. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 13. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO
TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement (JPA) to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act, as amended for the period of October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011. RESOLUTION NO. 08-037 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONAUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A JOINT EXERCISE
OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT JPA) TO UNDERTAKE OR TO ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT,
AS AMENDED FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2008 T0 SEPTEMBER 30, 2011. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZAARDOURS
VEGETATION (BRUSH). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; listen to public testimony and close public hearing. Adopt resolution over-ruling objections and ordering hazardous vegetation
abatement (brush). Acting City Clerk Ann Sullivan presented staff report and announced that all noncompliance properties on the abatement list were now in full compliance. 21
7 Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing for comment. No one spoke on this item. Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 08-038 PAGE/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
OVER-RULING OBJECTIONS AND ORDERING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ABATEMENT (BRUSH). MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. OLD BUSINESS 15. ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution approving the Proposed FY 2008/09 Operating and Capital Budgets, directing staff to incorporate within the final adopted budget any changes related to minor corrections,
carry forward appropriations, refined estimates, grant approvals, claim reimbursements, pass-through appropriations, or additional direction from Council upon adoption of the budget.
Administrative Services Director Mary Furey presented staff report. Mary Furey began her presentation addressing budget questions Council had asked at the May 21, 2008 proposed FY 2008/09
Operating & Capital Budget hearing and referred Council to the Staff Report provided to them reflecting the responses to the questions Council had presented. There was council discussion
regarding the wording pertaining to the division of the undesignated fund balance for the CIP and Operational Efficiency Projects. Councilmember King stated she did not agree with the
statement “divide” the remaining undesignated fund balance. She noted it should be divided “in half – based on the needs each year. Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment. The following
people spoke: Marty Goldberg – stated he would like the Council to designate monies for the Prospect Median Project. He also noted the City should consider additional advertisement methods
regarding city budget study sessions. Ray Muzzy – stated he would like to see Council designate $150,000 as “good faith money” for the Prospect Road Median Project. Mayor Waltonsmith
closed the public comment. 22
8 Council agreed to pass the proposed FY 2008/09 budget in two separate motions: RESOLUTION NO. 08-039 KING/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED FY 2008/09 OPERATING
AND CIP BUDGETS, DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE WITHIN THE FINAL ADOPTED BUDGET ANY CHANGES RELATED TO MINOR CORRECTIONS, CARRY FORWARD APPROPRIATIONS, REFINED ESTIMATES, GRANT APPROVALS,
CLAIM REIMURSEMENTS, PASS-THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS AS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL; INCLUDING THE AMOUNTS, BUT EXCLUDING HOW TO APPORTION CIP/OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY FUNDS. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0.
HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ALLOCATE $1.2 MILLION FOR CIP/ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY PROJECTS, RESERVING FUNDS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS FOR WEB DEVELOPMENT AND MICROFICHE SCANNING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $110,000. MOTION PASSED 4 – 1 – 0 WITH MAYOR WALTONSMITH OPPOSING. NEW BUSINESS 16. PROSPECT ROAD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – MASTER PLAN APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve
Master Plan for Prospect Road Median Improvement Project. Public Works Director John Cherbone presented presented staff report. Director Cherbone stated the Saratoga Public Works Department
held two public meetings regarding the City of Saratoga and City of San Jose Prospect Road Median Improvements with approximately a total of 25 residents from both cities in attendance.
He noted the Saratoga City Council had approved funding of $50,000 for the Master Plan with the expectation of the City of San Jose committing to half of the funding for the joint project
– which they were unable to commit to financially during the Master Plan phase. Director Cherbone went on to explain the total estimated cost of the project is $3.4 million dollars.
He noted funds are not currently allocated to this project; however, there is a line item in the CIP proposal for discussion during the CIP Study Sessions and subsequent public hearings,
to determine if funding at any level will be allocated to the project. Director Cherbone proposed a change to the Master Plan regarding the intersection at Scully and Prospect Avenue;
instead of a left turn lane onto west bound Prospect Avenue – the Traffic Engineer recommends a merge lane (refuse pocket) be incorporated into the intersection in the final plan; in
addition to any other changes Council recommends. Director Cherbone stated the City of San Jose has been a part of the Master Plan process and has been informed of this recommended change
as well as any additional changes Council recommends. 23
9 Councilmember Page had a question regarding the height of plants shown on the Master Plan. Director Cherbone stated the project consultant would be providing information regarding
the types of plants, trees, etc. Councilmember King asked if San Jose Public Works Department had participated in the meetings. Director Cherbone stated the assistant to Pete Constant
(District Representative) had attended the last public meeting and had communicated the Master Plan project results to Mr. Constant. Councilmember King also asked Director Cherbone if
the City of San Jose was able to commit their share of funding for this project. Director Cherbone noted the City of San Jose has indicated this would be a low priority for them and
that they would not be able to commit to any funding at this time. He stated he would be looking for possible grants from VTA for future funding. Councilmember King noted that the City
of San Jose had stated they would look at this project in a different level of importance if the project involved traffic safety issues – as opposed to only beautification of Prospect
Road. Director Cherbone stated there are sections of the project that do have safety issues such as the Titus Road area and the City of San Jose is aware of this section and have already
agreed to placing this section of the project higher on their priority list – if Saratoga finds funding and moves forward with the project. He also noted there are more opportunities
to find funding for traffic and pedestrian safety purposes – especially if you have a joint application for a project. Councilmember Page asked about the neighborhood participation at
the public meetings and Cherbone stated it was good, with approximately 50/50 resident participation from the San Jose side and Saratoga side; with more San Jose residents attending
the first public meeting and less at the second meeting. There was additional discussion regarding the total cost of the project, funding possibilities, landscape and lighting district,
and “tree fine” funding for trees. At the conclusion of Director Cherbone’s presentation, City Manager Dave Anderson noted the discussion regarding the status of low priority for the
City of San Jose’s funding commitment to split the direct cost of construction of the median project and asked if Council was willing to consider any other form of in-kind or real costs
that they apply to Saratoga – such as pavement management, use of sports fields, or recreation areas/credits. Basically, how flexible would Council be in order to receive some sort of
in-kind contribution from the City of San Jose showing their commitment, but not necessarily in the form of actual dollars, in order to meet their half of the construction project? 24
10 Councilmember King asked if this topic should be agendized as another discussion item, and City Manager Dave Anderson replied that the question is related to this agenda item as a
policy issue. Mayor Waltonsmith noted Council would be voting this evening on approval of the Master Plan and council direction to staff. Councilmember Hunter also stated that she had
an opportunity to speak to Mr. Constant’s aid at the second public meeting and she said the City of San Jose was not in a position to commit any funding for this project at this time.
City Manager Anderson stated that is the reason for his question regarding Council’s flexibility on receiving any other form of in-kind or real costs from San Jose for their share of
the project. Councilmember Kao asked if the San Jose City Council has had an opportunity to review this project and the Master Plan. Director Cherbone said Pete Constance and the San
Jose city staff has the project material; however, he is not familiar with their city policy regarding master plan reviews and approval; whereas, in the City of Saratoga, Council reviews
and approves master plan proposals. Mayor Waltonsmith noted the City of San Jose has approved the process of the design phase. Director Cherbone concluded his presentation and invited
the project consultant to present additional information regarding the proposed Master Plan. Project Consultant, Marie Mai, representative from Calendar & Associates, provided additional
information regarding the media project. She noted that public input regarding this project was very important to them and listed the following items of importance: • safety for both
pedestrians and vehicles • maintain existing traffic circulation patterns • existing views of the surrounding hills • design of median • low maintenance landscaping • provide seasonal
color • preserve existing right-of-way – bike lane width • environmentally friendly • Clarkspur Lane traffic concerns • Scully Avenue & Larkin Avenue safety concerns The consultant noted
that overall most of the residents were supportive of the project and several of them expressed an interest in getting involved in fund-raising efforts for the project. She continued
with a slide presentation depicting proposed landscaping and median designs. She also concurred with Director Cherbone’s recommendation of phase implementation due to the cost of the
project and displayed five different phases that could be massaged based on available funding. 25
11 She also noted proposed traffic improvements to two areas for safety reasons: o Clarkspur Lane – changes that would allow for a signal light intersection in the future facilitating
a left turn lane from Prospect Avenue into the North Campus parcel. o Scully & Larkin Avenue – extension of current median on Prospect Avenue to the west allowing a left turn onto Scully
Avenue; and removal of left turn lane onto Larkin. She noted some residents expressed concern regarding this proposed change because it would impact their ability to exit and enter their
neighborhood. Existing patterns of traffic would be changed – redirecting traffic to other neighborhoods. o Proposed pedestrian refuge at “the nose of the median” – this allows for pedestrians
to stop mid-block, wait for traffic to clear and then continue crossing movement. In addition to this, trees would be set back from the median to maintain clear sight lines for vehicles.
o Modification of existing striping for proposed median at Provincetown allowing for for vehicle refuge as they make a left turn onto Prospect. o Titus/Prospect Avenue intersection crossing
improvements for McAuliffe Elementary School. Mayor Waltonsmith asked Council if they had any questions or comments: Councilmember: Hunter – suggested preserving the existing oak trees
when possible. King – noted City of San Jose and Saratoga has a “tree fine” fund; could use some of these funds for the proposed tree/shrub planting Kao – asked for clarification of
amendment to master plan regarding left turn onto Prospect Avenue from Scully Avenue. Page – asked if San Jose’s approval of proposed changes to Master Plan would be required even if
they did not provide their share of funding for the project; Cherbone stated they would seek their approval and if there was a conflict with the proposed change, they would try to work
it out. He also noted that since Saratoga was paying for the Master Plan, Saratoga would draw up the plans and make a notation of any changes the City of San Jose objected to. Mayor
Waltonsmith – noted the North Campus area should be fully vetted prior to proposed changes on Prospect. Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comment and the following people spoke on this
item: Marty Goldberg – spoke in favor of this project and advocates the City moving forward with the Master Plan approval. 26
12 Gail Stanislow – San Jose resident stated that if Larkin Avenue is closed off, there will be a lot of traffic on Clarkspur Lane. If Saratoga funds this project, does that mean Saratoga
can close off these streets on the San Jose side? Mayor Waltonsmith responded that based on the earlier discussion the proposed changes in traffic flow/direction, is due to traffic safety
concerns. Ms. Stanislow responded by saying she was under the impression that the City of San Jose had not yet approved this Master Plan. Director John Chebone’s response – the City
of San Jose has seen the proposed Master Plan through every phase of the design process and as per the agreement between the two cities, they review the plans and add comments such as:
change this median, add this, etc., and the City of Saratoga has worked jointly with them in this process. Ms. Stanislow also spoke about the proposed increase in median width for safety
purposes on Prospect Avenue at Larkin Avenue. She questioned the safety issue when you are narrowing the width of the street in order to widen the median, and have cars parked on the
side of the street; which happens all the time. Director Cherbone’s response – Narrowing lanes and widening medians generally calms traffic and as a result people drive slower. City
Manager Dave Anderson asked Director Cherbone what the lane size is currently and what is the proposed lane width? Director Cherbone’s response – the City of San Jose requested “mow
strips” on their side of Larkin Avenue and as a result the median has to be widened; therefore, approximately one foot would be removed from each lane side. He noted this is a schematic
plan and the exact measurements would not be necessary; however, the lane width would still be approximately12 feet and even at 11feet they would be fine. He stated the wider the lanes
are the faster traffic will go. Ms. Stanislow also stated that not everyone on the City of San Jose side received proper noticing regarding this project. Director Cherbone’s response
– the Public Works Department from the City of Saratoga sent out equal amounts of notices to both sides of Prospect Avenue for both public meetings, totaling $3,200 for each noticing.
In addition, notices regarding the meeting for this evening were sent to those people that had attended both public meetings held prior to the meeting this evening. Bob Alley – agreed
with the unsafe left turn issue from both directions onto Scully Avenue from Prospect Avenue, and expressed his support to the proposed “merge lane” from Scully Avenue onto Prospect
Avenue and feels safety is a major concern in this area. Jerry Streb – San Jose resident, noted he participated in the first public meeting and fully supports the proposed changes on
Prospect Avenue. He stated it would eliminate the illegal u-turns on Prospect Avenue near Ascension Parish and Beth David Parish. He supports the proposed plan and agrees the “phased”
approach 27
13 would be a prudent way to proceed with the median improvements. In addition, he stated he received prior notification to the first scheduled public meeting, provided his name and
address, received subsequent meeting notification and felt the system works the way it is supposed to work, and fully supports the proposed median improvements. Julie Tomlin – stated
she attended the first public meeting and fully supports this Master Plan. She also noted that not only is it a beautification project, it will help calm the traffic on Prospect Avenue
and supports the proposed narrowing of lanes. She recommended the City of Saratoga move forward with this proposal in phases. Ray Muzzy – stated both San Jose residents and Saratoga
residents have waited 35 years to see the proposed plans and feels a lot of thought has been put into the proposed plans to get to the stage where they are today. He noted that the vast
majority of citizens that live on both sides of Prospect Avenue support the plan that has been presented presented this evening and Director John Cherbone needs the necessary support
to get this project funded – Council’s approval of the proposed plans and the commitment of seed money to show the City is ready to move forward with this project. He asked the Council
to consider the commitment of $150,000 to make this project a reality. Seeing no additional speakers on this item, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public comment. KING/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE
MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL FOR PROSPECT AVENUE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS – 1) PRESERVE AS MANY OAK TREES AS POSSIBLE, 2) ACCEPT THE SCULLY AVENUE MERGE LANE RECOMMENDATION,
AND 3) PROVIDE FUTURE FUNDING LATITUDE. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. Mayor Waltonsmith brought the Hakone Gardens Koi Pond Urgency Item forward for discussion. Public Works Director John Cherbone
presented the facts regarding the status of the Koi Pond. Director Cherbone stated the Koi Pond well at Hakone Gardens is in need of immediate repairs and re-drilling in order to preserve
the Koi Koi fish. He also stated the pond system needs to be updated and managed by a professional pond maintenance person. Hakone Executive Director Lon Saavedra addressed the Council
stating all the assets of Hakone Gardens are owned by the people of the City of Saratoga and if the City of Saratoga approves professional management of the Koi pond, Hakone is prepared
to provide funding for the professional maintenance program. KING/PAGE MOVED TO ALLOCATE $50,000 FROM UNALLOCATED FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR IMMEDIATE REPAIRS AND RE-DRILLING OF WELL IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THE KOI FISH IN THE POND AT HAKONE GARDENS. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. 28
14 17. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH LSA ASSOCIATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP, INC. FOR LAND-USE PLANNING CONSULTANT SRVICES. STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with LSA Associates (LSA) to prepare environmental documents for land development applications within the City of
Saratoga (City). The agreement would include a three year contract with an option of two additional years of service if approved by the City Council. 2. Authorize the City Manager to
execute an agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) for land-use planning consultant services within the City. The Agreement would include a three year contract with an option
of two additional years of service if approved by the City Council. Michael Fossati presented staff report. HUNTER/KAO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION – 1) AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT WITH LSA ASSOCIATES (LSA) TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF SARATOGA (CITY). THE AGREEMENT WOULD INCLUDE A THREE YEAR
CONTRACT WITH AN OPTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS OF SERVICE IF APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 2) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGEEMENT WITH METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP (M-GROUP)
FOR LAND-USE PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY. THE AGREEMENT WOULD INCLUDE A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH AN OPTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS OF SERVICE IF APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED 5 – 0. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Ann Waltonsmith SASCC – reported SASCC has elected four new people to the board and has provided an informational
flyer. Vice Mayor Chuck Page Chamber of Commerce – reported he is unavailable to attend the next meeting and Councilmember Jill Hunter will be attending in his place. West Valley Sanitation
District – reported he will be unable to attend the next meeting and recommended Alternate Aileen Kao attend in his place. Residents off Bainter Way want to be hooked up to the sewer
system and are planning to attend the next scheduled meeting.
West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – reported he will resign from this committee due to conflict of interest. Alternate Jill Hunter will attend the remaining two meetings
of this year. 29
15 Village AdHoc – reported they met recently to discuss Village sidewalk improvements. Valley Transportation Authority PAC – reported the board meets on June 12th and he will be attending
in place of Dolly Sanders. Councilmember Kathleen King Peninsula Division, League of California Cities – reported she will be attending the Peninsula Division dinner on June 19, 2008.
Santa Clara County Cities Association – reported there will be an update at the June meeting developing solar panel criteria that would be similar for all cities. City of San Jose is
looking at going bagless at all grocery stores in San Jose and is hoping other cities will consider going bagless in grocery stores as well. The Leadership Group gave a talk on the “Turkey
Trot” challenge between the cities and she will have more information on this item later on. Artsopolis will be giving a presentation at the June Meeting. TEA AdHoc – reported the four
cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga are still waiting to hear the outcome of AB 1827 and the four cities will be sending a letter to Asemblymember Jim Beall,
Jr. thanking him for his sponsorship of this bill. City Manager Dave Anderson added that bills have a cut off date and if they don’t make it out of the Committee by a certain date, the
bill dies; which is what happened with Bill AB 1827, and that the cities will meet again in the Fall of 2008 to develop a strategy for the following year regarding the TEA increment
dollars. The letter thanking Assemblymember Beall is being circulated for signatures among the four cities. Councilmember Jill Hunter: Library Joint Powers Association – reported she
will be attending the next meeting on Thursday, June 5, 2008. Councilmember Aileen Kao: Northern Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Board – reported the May 28th meeting was cancelled.
Instead of attending this meeting she attended the Airport Land Use Committee meeting; which discusses land use for the airports of San Jose, San Martin and Palo Alto. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember King asked to agendize on a future council agenda what the 2005 budget cuts were of the $1.2 million that was never brought back. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT
PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:30PM. MOTION PASSED 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, 30
16 Ann Sullivan, CMC Acting City Clerk 31
Dave Anderson Melanie Whittaker Anil Paul RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: May 29, 2008 June 05,
2008 REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 05/29/08 107941 107989 49 $102,749.81 05/29/08 05/22/08 107940 06/05/08 107990 108043 54 $140,945.14
06/05/08 05/29/08 107989 Total $243,694.95 AP Date Check No. Issued to Dept. Amount 05/29/08 107953 Various $22,838.89 05/29/08 107975 Various $23,308.53 06/05/08 108010 CIP Activity
$15,043.37 06/05/08 108021 CIP Activity $29,911.82 06/05/08 108026 Public Works $18,802.75 06/05/08 108040 CIP Activity $27,757.23 On-Line Striping Services General 2008 Traffic Striping
Top Grade Construction, Inc Saratoga/Sunnyvale PH 2 Sara/Sun Rd Rehab /Overlay Various Irrigation and Electrical repairs -Civic Center MPA Design, Inc Kevin Moran Kevin Moran Landscape
Design Hydrotec Irrigation Equipment Gachina Landscape Various Landscaping -Monthly Services Shute Mihaly & Weinberg Various Legal Fees/City Attorney/Litigation -Monthly Services Accounts
Payable Accounts Payable The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $10,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: Fund Purpose SUBJECT: Review of Accounts
Payable Check Registers. Type of Checks Date Starting Check No. Ending Check No. Total Checks Amount Checks Released Prior Check Register SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18,
2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR: 32
The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check No. Issued to Amount 5/29/2008 6/5/2008 107837 (36.07) The following is a list of
cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 5/29 AP 6/05 Total 001 General 63,652.64 49,246.14 112,898.78 201 Manor Drive Landscape 1 60.00 160.00 202 Ferdericksburg Landscape 1 32.00 132.00 203
Greenbriar Landscape 3 99.00 399.00 204 Quito Lighting -205 Azule Lighting -206 Sarahills Lighting -207 Village Lighting 219.00 219.00 209 McCartysville Landscape 3 84.44 384.44 210
Tricia Woods Landscape 7 5.00 75.00 211 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 8 5.00 85.00 212 Leutar Court Landscape 8 5.00 85.00 215 Bonnet Way Landscape 1 27.00 127.00 216 Beauchamps Landscape
8 5.00 85.00 217 Sunland Park Landscape 2 ,351.38 2,351.38 222 Prides Crossing Landscape 4 50.00 450.00 224 Village Commercial Landscape -225 Saratoga Legends Landscape 4 71.50 471.50
226 Bellgrove Landscape 1 ,985.00 1,985.00 227 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscp 1 45.00 145.00 228 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 6 20.00 620.00 229 Tollgate LLD 9 0.00 90.00 231 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting
3 20.00 320.00 232 Gateway Landscape 2 45.00 245.00 233 Carnelian Glen 1 35.00 135.00 270 CDBG Administration -271 Saratoga Housing & Rehab.Prg. -320 Library Expansion Cap Prg. -400
Library Bond Debt Service -501 Equipment Replacement ISF -502 Information Technology 3 ,992.84 3,992.84 503 Facility Improvement 3 27.30 1,611.31 1,938.61 504 Facilities 4 ,458.06 7,501.49
11,959.55 505 Information Technology 1 26.08 539.95 666.03 506 Office Stores Fund 1 ,639.58 365.83 2,005.41 510 Liability/Risk Mgt -511 Workers' Comp -701 Traffic Safety -702 Highway
9 Safety -704 -706 Sidewalk Annual Project -708 27,757.23 27,757.23 The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: (cont.) Economy Lumber Void Fund Description Annual Street Resurfacing
Saratoga Sunnyvale PH 2 Description No Manual /Void Checks 33
Fund # AP 5/29 AP 6/05 Total 716 Highway 9/Oak Pedestrain -720 KSAR/CATV Agency Fund -724 Village Newsrack Enclosures -726 2 Solar Radar Feedbacks -727 El Quito Area Curb Replacement
-731 Storm Drain Upgrades -732 Median Landscape/Irrigation -734 Civic Center Landscape 3 ,098.79 7,370.00 10,468.79 735 Village Lights (Zone 7A) -736 Village Trees Lighting -738 Cox
Ave Railroad Crossing -739 -744 Village Sidewalk, Curb/Gutter -746 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Gateway -747 -748 El Ca Grante/Monta Vista -749 Sara-Sun Gateway Sidewalk -751 Financial System
Upgrade -752 -755 Warner Hutton House Improv. -760 Facility Projects -761 2,584.00 2,584.00 762 North Campus/19848 Prospect -766 Historical Park Fire Alarm 1 ,711.00 1,711.00 778 -780
-783 -785 4 ,909.00 8,843.37 13,752.37 786 -788 -789 -790 8 ,232.35 8,232.35 791 7 52.77 29,911.82 30,664.59 792 1 ,504.08 4,995.00 6,499.08 793 -794 -795 -796 -797 San Marcos OP Space
Trail -102,749.81 140,945.14 243,694.95 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the A/P Checks By
Period and Year report format Trail Segment #3 Repair Teerlink Ranch Trail Repair Hakone Garden D/W Wildwood Park Improvement Carnelian Glen Footbridge UPRR/De Anza Trail El Quito Park
Improvement Beauchamp Park Fund TOTAL Kevin Moran Alternative Soccer Field Parks/Trails Repair Heritage Orchard Path Wildwood Park -Wtr/Seat Citywide Tree Replanting Prospect Road Medians
Sara-Sun ADA Curb Ramps Document Imaging Project Fire Alarm McWill&Book Go Fund Description 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer
Public Works SUBJECT: North Campus Fellowship Hall – Independent Contractor Agreement Approval RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve Independent Contractor Agreement with Amendment between
the City of Saratoga and Steve Benzing, Architect 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the same. REPORT SUMMARY: In February 2007, Recreation Department solicited bids for architectural
services for the design and construction drawings for the renovation and addition of the North Campus Fellowship Hall. The lowest bid in the amount of $19,500 was submitted by Steve
Benzing, Architect. Since the contract amount was below threshold of $25,000, City Council approval of the contract was not required. Resulting plans were approved by the City Council
at their September 19, 2007 meeting and, subsequently, the construction contract was awarded by the the City Council on February 20, 2008. Construction is currently progressing as scheduled.
The Architect has submitted a proposal in an amount not to exceed $8,000 for construction administration for the Fellowship Hall and electrical design work associated with the electrical
service upgrade. In addition, $1,000 is needed for securing approval from County Environmental Health Department. The additional $9,000 will increase the total contract amount to $28,500,
which per current City purchasing policy requires City Council approval. The additional services for project administration and electrical design are needed in order to proceed with
the project construction. It is therefore recommended the City Council approve attached Independent Contractor Agreement between the City of Saratoga and Steve Benzing, Architect with
Amendment. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for the North Campus Fellowship Hall independent contractor services is available in the adopted budget. Page 1 of 2 44
Page 2 of 2 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Steve Benzing, Architect will not provide additional services. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW
UP ACTION: The Independent Contractor Agreement with Amendment shall be executed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Independent Contractor
Agreement 2. Amendment to Independent Contractor Agreement 3. Proposal from Steve Benzing 45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Analyst
SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution authorizing No Parking RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Move to adopt the Motor Vehicle Resolution authorizing “No Parking” on a portion of Kirkmont Drive
REPORT SUMMARY: The City received a request from Park Saratoga Homeowners Association to restrict parking at the corner of Atrium Circle where it meets Kirkmont Drive. Residents of the
complex are concerned with difficulty entering and exiting Atrium Circle when parked cars are parked too close to the corner. Atrium Circle is a narrow street and when one car is leaving
the complex and another is trying to enter at the same time usually one car has to give the other the right away. The site distance while exiting Atrium Circle is also compromised when
cars are parked too close to the corner. This item was brought before the Traffic Safety Commission at the May 8, 2007 meeting. It was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and recommended
by the Commission that parking be restricted for ten feet on each side of Atrium Drive where it meets Kirkmont due to the lack of visibility and potential safety hazard. It is therefore
recommended that parking along this section of Kirkmont Drive be designated as “No Parking Anytime”. In order to enforce the new parking restriction on Kirkmont, it is necessary that
the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approximately $250 in labor and materials is required for the City to post signs. These improvements
are paid through the CIP which has a fund devoted to Traffic Safety. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The MV Resolutions would not be adopted and traffic conditions
would continue as is. Page 1 of 2 72
Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The signs will be posted and the Sheriff’s Department will be notified of the new restrictions. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND
PUBLIC CONTACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Motor Vehicle Resolution 2. Memo from Fehr & Peers 3. Map 73
RESOLUTION NO. MV-______ RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING ON KIRKMONT DRIVE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section I: Based upon an engineering and
traffic study, the following parking restrictions shall be designated on Kirkmont Drive: NAME OF STREET DESCRIPTION RESTRICTION Kirkmont Drive Beginning of the southeastern edge No Parking
or of the southwestern exit of Atrium Circle Stopping Anytime on Kirkmont Dr. and continuing east for ten feet. Beginning at the southeastern exit of Atrium Circle on Kirkmont Dr. and
continuing west for ten feet, and beginning at the southeastern exit of Atrium Circle on Kirkmont Dr. and continuing east for ten feet. This resolution shall become effective at such
time as the signs and/or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the
18th day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting
City Clerk 74
75
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: June 11, 2008 To: John Cherbone, City of Saratoga Public
Works Director From: Franziska Holtzman/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Review of Potential Red Curbs at the Two Kirkmont Drive/Atrium Circle intersections, Saratoga, California 1025-446-1 Fehr
& Peers has completed an evaluation of traffic concerns at the two Kirkmont Drive/Atrium Circle intersections in Saratoga, California. The intersections are located south-east of the
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road intersection. Atrium Circle is a private roadway that provides circulation through the Park Saratoga townhome development and intersects with Kirkmont
Drive at two points. The first intersection is located approximately 150 feet east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the second intersection is located approximately 360 feet east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road. During the May 8, 2008, Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) meeting, meeting, the Park Saratoga Homeowners Association (HOA) requested six to ten feet red curbs on the south
side of Kirkmont Drive east and west of the Atrium Circle intersections. After review of the item and input from the HOA and Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended that red curbs be painted
east of the first intersection and on both sides of the second Atrium Circle intersection. This memorandum summarizes the traffic concerns and recommendations for the red curb installation.
Atrium Circle is a private roadway that intersects with Kirkmont Drive, which is a public local street. Atrium Circle is about 20-feet wide and provides the minimal roadway width generally
required for two-way traffic. Currently, “T-markers” are painted on the south side of Kirkmont Drive between the two Atrium Circle intersections and east of the second Atrium intersection
to indicate where vehicles can park. The “T-markers” indicate that vehicles should not park within eight to ten feet of the Atrium Circle intersections. It should be be noted that the
paint for the “Tmarkers” has faded in some locations and thus no longer clearly delineates where vehicles can park. The concern raised at the May 2008 TSC meeting is that vehicles are
parking too close Atrium Circle and thus blocking visibility of drivers in vehicles exiting Atrium Circle. The HOA requested that the City install red curbs on the south side of Kirkmont
Drive six to ten feet east and west of the Atrium Circle intersections. Fehr & Peers conducted field observations at the Kirkmont Drive/Atrium Circle intersections in May 2008. The field
visit showed that the markings of the parking “Ts” on the Kirkmont Drive are fading in some locations (especially closets to the first Atrium Circle intersection). Additionally, the
field visit confirmed that vehicles are parking too close to Atrium Circle and thus blocking visibility for exiting drivers on Atrium Circle, as shown in Figure 1. Based on the field
observations, Fehr & Peers presented two alternative recommendations: • Repaint the existing T-markers 76
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 2 of 2 • Remove the existing T-markers and paint up to ten feet of curb red east of the first Atrium Circle intersection and on both sides of the second
Atrium Circle intersection. Each of the recommendations would effectively provide the same benefit to clearly delineate where vehicles can park on Kirkmont Drive and provide sufficient
visibility to vehicles exiting at Atrium Circle. Neither of these measures would physically prevent a vehicle from parking too close the Atrium Circle driveway. To ensure compliance
with the parking restrictions, periodic enforcement will be required. After deliberation and input from the resident and Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended the curbs be painted red. The
red curbs at this location would not change the existing parking supply on Kirkmont Drive, but rather clearly delineate to drivers where they can park on Krikmont Drive. Figure 1: Visibility
for Vehicles Exiting Second Atrium Circle Intersection 77
Kirkmont Drive Parking RestrictionsN Kirkmont Drive 0 25 50 100 150 200Feet Atrium Circle Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 78
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ______ ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: Rick Torres DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Award of
Contract for Street Sweeping Services ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Move to award a two year Street Sweeping
Contract to Universal Sweeping Services in the amount of $90,000 per year with an additional $10,000 allocation per year for unscheduled sweeping. 2. Move to authorize the City Manager
to execute a Street Sweeping Contract with Universal Sweeping Services. REPORT SUMMARY: On May 20, 2008 Request for Proposals were mailed to seven contractors for street sweeping services.
The City received proposals from three contractors namely Universal Sweeping Services of San Jose, Clean Sweep of Gardena, and Vipur of Morgan Hill. Universal Sweeping Services submitted
the low proposal at $90,000 annually, Clean Sweep was second at $96,500, and Vipur was third at 116,000. An additional day of street sweeping was added to the Village sweeping schedule
and the Village will now be swept twice weekly on Tuesdays and Fridays. Additionally, staff recommends approving $10,000 for unscheduled sweeping to the annual contract amount. Unscheduled
sweeping is performed normally on an as needed basis in particular in the fall when leaf accumulation is high. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding for this work is programmed in the 08/09 budget.
79
2 of 2 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Universal Sweeping will not be awarded a Street Sweeping Contract and the City would not meet its obligations as mandated
by California Regional Water Control Board. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Council could direct staff to solicit additional proposals. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The contract will be executed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposals submitted by Contractors. 2. Contract for Universal Sweeping Services. 80
81
82
83
FY 2008-09 CITYWIDE STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT CITY OF SARATOGA This Contract is made at Saratoga, California, as of July 1, 2008, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
(“City”), and Universal Sweeping Services,(“Contractor”), who agree as follows: 1. Scope of Service. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract, Contractor shall
provide to City the services described in Exhibit A. Contractor shall provide said services at the time, place and in the manner specified in Exhibit A. 2. Term. The Term of this Agreement
commences on July 1, 2008 and extends through June 30, 2010 or the completion of the project, whichever occurs first, unless it is extended by written mutual agreement between the parties,
provided that the parties retain the right to terminate this agreement as provided in Exhibit D at all times. 3. Payment. City shall pay Contractor for services rendered pursuant to
this Contract at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B. The payments specified specified in Exhibit B shall be the only payments to be made to Contractor for services rendered
pursuant to this Contract not to exceed $100,000.00. Contractor shall submit all billings for said services to City in the manner specified in Exhibit B. 4. Facilities and Equipment.
Except as set forth in Exhibit C, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment, which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this
Contract. City shall furnish to Contractor only the facilities listed as City Obligations in Exhibit C according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 5. General Provisions.
The general provisions set forth in Exhibit D are part of this Contract. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Contract,
the other term or condition shall control insofar as it is inconsistent with the general provisions. 6. Standard of Performance. The performance standards set forth in Exhibit E shall
be achieved. 7. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein. 8. Termination. City has the right to terminate this Contract
at any time upon written notice given to the Contractor. The effective date of the termination shall be set forth in the written notice. 9. Notices. Any written notices to Contractor
shall be sent to: Attention: Gina Vella Universal Sweeping Services P.O. Box 28010 681 Lenfest Road San Jose, Ca 95159-8010 Page 1 of 16 84
Telefax: (408-258-0122) Any written notices to City shall be sent to: To the City: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 FAX (408) 867-8559 with a copy
to: Rick Torres (which copy shall Public Work Manager not constitute City of Saratoga notice) 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX (408) 868-1278 10. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of City by Rick Torres ("Administrator"). The Administrator has complete authority to receive information, interpret and define City's
policies consistent with this Agreement, and communicate with Contractor concerning this Agreement. All correspondence and other communications shall be directed to or through the Administrator
or his or her designee. Executed as of the day first above stated: Contractor: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By _____________________ By ____________________ City Manager
Name ___________________ Attest: _________________________ City Clerk Its ______________________ Approved as to form: _____________________________ City Attorney Approved as to budget
authority and insurance: ____________________________________ Finance Director Page 2 of 16 85
Exhibit A Scope of Services Definitions and General Information 1. This contract is for Professional Street Sweeping Service for a period beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2010.
2. The contractor shall meet or exceed all minimum requirements of this contract. 3. The City has approximately 65 arterial curb miles of roadway to be swept. The city has approximately
210 residential curb miles of roadway to be swept. The City has parking lot areas to be swept including 4 Village Parking Districts, Hakone Gardens, Congress Springs Park, El Quito Park
(West Hope Church Lot) and Civic Center. In addition, the City may have seasonal leaf drop street sweeping and other unscheduled street sweeping needs. 4. The term ”debris” shall mean
all materials normally picked up by a mechanical sweeper, such as sand, glass, paper, cans, and other litter and materials. 5. The term “street” shall mean the paved area between the
normal curb line of a roadway whether an actual curb line exists or not. It shall not include any ways that would cause damage to the equipment used. It does not include sidewalks, areas
adjacent to the roadway or parking lots. 6. The term “parking lot” shall mean the paved area where cars park. 7. “Adverse weather conditions” shall mean heavy rains, extreme cold and
other weather conditions as so designated by the Administrator. 8. “Holidays” shall be New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day,
Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Scope of Work 1. The Contractor will sweep designated streets and parking lots currently owned and maintained by the City. 2.
The Contractor will sweep the following: • Sweep monthly arterial streets totaling approximately 65 curb miles. • Sweep monthly citywide residential streets totaling approximately 210
curb miles. • Sweep weekly 4 Village Parking District parking lots witch includes Big Basin Way, 3rd Street, 4th Street and 5th street • Sweep monthly Civic Center parking lots, City
Hall, Community Center and Corporation Yard. • Sweep monthly the Hakone Gardens parking lot. • Sweep monthly parking lot adjacent to Congress Springs Park. • Sweep monthly parking lot
adjacent to El Quito Park (West Hope Church lot) • Perform other sweeping as requested. Page 3 of 16 86
3. Sweeping will be performed between the hours of 6 A.M. and 6 P.M., Monday through Friday, except the Village Parking District Lots where the contractor can start sweeping at 5 AM.
Sweeping may occur outside of these hours only when the City determines that a noise problem would not result, and only upon written approval of the City. 4. The contractor will supply
and maintain all labor and equipment necessary to accomplish the scope of work. 5. The Contractor will dump all materials swept up at 19700 Allendale, or locations designated by the
City. 6. The Contractor may be required to sweep certain areas at times other than stated above. When this occurs, contractor shall be compensated at an hourly rate as referred to in
Exhibit B. 7. All streets shall be swept with the normal flow of traffic. 8. The Contractor will distribute public information notices about the street sweeping program annually at no
additional cost to the City. The cost of distributing other public information such as reminder tags and/or newspaper advertisements shall be negotiated. (Annual notice, and maintenance
of web site) 9. Contractor shall maintain a principal office that shall at all times during the term of this Contract be located either in the City or within twenty (20) miles of the
City. The office shall be opened at a minimum from 8A.M. to 4:30P.M. Monday through Friday, holidays excluded. Calls received before office hours begin shall be returned the following
morning. A representative of Contractor shall be available during office hours at Contractor’s office for communication with City representatives and the public. 10. Contractor’s principal
office shall be accessible by a local (toll-free to caller) telephone number at least during the office hours of 8 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. At Contractor’s expense, the telephone number shall
be listed under Contractor’s name in the telephone directories for Saratoga. 11. The Contractor shall investigate all public complaints concerning street sweeping. Complaints brought
to the Contractor’s attention prior to 3:00 P.M. shall be investigated that day. Those brought to the Contractor’s attention after 3:00 P.M. shall be investigated before noon of the
following day. A complaint log shall be filled out for each complaint referred to or received by the Contractor. The log, which must be approved by the City, shall be filed with the
City on the first working day following the day the complaint was received. The Contractor shall report what actions were necessary to resolve each complaint. 12. Documentation (hardcopy)
in a narrative and a graphic format prescribed by the City of all work will be provided by Contractor on a monthly and annual basis. 13. Equipment, when in operation, shall travel
under 5 miles per hour to ensure that streets are swept in a satisfactory manner. If it can be proven to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that the equipment maybe operated
at a higher speed, and still operate effectively, written permission to do so may be granted. 14. Equipment operators shall be able to speak, read, and write in English. Page 4 of 16
87
15. The Contractor must submit sweeping documentation in a format prescribed by the City on a monthly and annual basis. 16. The Contractor shall maintain the agreed upon frequency of
sweeping as closely as possible, subject to adverse weather conditions, defined under the terms of this Contract. The Contractor will be required to perform hand blowing in parking lots
as directed by the City. In addition, the City may require the Contractor to return to sweep areas previously blocked by parked vehicles or other obstructions. If so required, Contractor
shall perform the re-sweeping within 24 hours of notification. 17. Contractor shall propose separate schedules for arterial and residential sweeping. The City shall approve both schedules
before work under the contract begins. Changes to the approved schedules must be approved in writing by the Director of Public Works before Contractor can proceed to implement such changes.
Page 5 of 16 88
Exhibit B1 Payment Schedule 1. As full compensation under the terms of this Contract, the City shall pay the Contractor the following: Unit Price Description of Service $22.92*per Monthly
sweeping of approximately 65 curb mile of arterial streets curb mile $22.92*per Monthly sweeping of approximately 210 curb mile of residential streets curb mile $200.00 Weekly sweeping
of 4 Village Parking District Parking Lots, Which includes 3rd St, 4th St and 5th St $80.00 Monthly sweeping of Hakone Gardens Parking Lot $80.00 Monthly sweeping of Parking Lot at Congress
Springs Park $80.00 Monthly sweeping of Civic Center Parking Lots $80.00 Monthly Sweeping of West Hope church parking lot $7489.00 Total Monthly Charges for above sweeping $90.00 per
hour Unscheduled Sweeping Included at no Monthly and Annual Documentation of Street Sweeping cost to City Included at no Public Information to be mailed annually and maintain web site
cost to City Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of the Contract, based on the cost for services performed prior to the invoice date. 2.
City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for services satisfactorily performed. City shall make no payment for any extra, further or additional service pursuant to this
Contract unless such extra service and the price therefore is agreed to by the Director of Public Works prior to the time such extra service is rendered. 3. Send invoices to: City of
Saratoga Department of Public Works 19700 Allendale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Page 6 of 16 89
* In the event a change in the number of curb miles to be swept increases or decreases by more than twenty-five percent (25%) during the term of this contract, either party may request
an adjustment to the unit price. Both parties shall meet to determine the appropriate adjustments. Page 7 of 16 90
Exhibit C Facilities and Equipment Equipment Specifications 1. The Contractor shall have proof of ownership, or a signed lease for the duration of the Contract, of at least one (1) motorized
machine suitable for meeting the requirements of this Contract. A description of the machine shall be submitted to the City before work under the contract can begin. Where new equipment
will be purchased, the Contractor shall provide a signed quotation from an equipment dealer, with guaranteed delivery date, in order to ensure that work can begin on time. Equipment
that is not new shall have been rebuilt within two years prior to the start of work. For the purposes of this Contract, “rebuilt” means, at a minimum, replacement of worn parts and reconditioning
or replacement of hydraulic systems, transmissions, differentials, electrical systems, engines, and brake systems. In addition, the vehicles must be repainted and tires must have at
least eighty-five percent (85%) of tread remaining. 2. The Contractor shall, at all times, maintain the ability to place at least one (1) back-up machine into service in the event of
any mechanical failure of the primary machine which renders it incapable of operating or performing to the standards of this contract, or at the direction of the City. In either case,
the back-up machine shall be operational within two (2) hours from when the primary machine experiences mechanical failure, or from when the City directs the Contractor to place the
back-up machine into service. The Contractor shall provide satisfactory evidence of the availability of a back-up machine. The back-up machine shall conform to all of the standards and
specifications applicable to the primary machine. 3. All street sweeping machines used by Contractor in the performance of services shall be of sufficient quality to perform the work
required. 4. Machines must be capable of transporting debris to locations designated by the City. 5. Machines must be equipped with an efficient water spray system for dust control,
and the spray system must be maintained in good operating condition. 6. Machines must be properly registered and insured in accordance with the motor vehicle laws of the State of California.
7. Contractor shall maintain street-sweeping equipment in a clean and presentable condition and in good repair at all times. All parts and systems of the collection equipment shall operate
properly and be maintained in a condition satisfactory to the City. If a machine becomes inoperative, a replacement street sweeping machine shall be put into service within 2 hours.
City of Saratoga identification shall be affixed to right and left side of vehicle i.e.: “Sweeping Saratoga” or other name agreed upon by Contractor and the Director of the Department
of Public Works. 8. A sufficient supply of spare brooms or vacuum and other parts must be kept on hand to ensure the timely and continuous fulfillment of the services. 9. Equipment must
be capable of removing litter, leaves, and debris sufficiently to meet applicable industry, NPDES Program, State, Federal, and City standards. Page 8 of 16 91
10. Equipment must conform to all Federal, State, and Local regulations regarding emissions, safety, and operating standards. 11. Vehicles must be of the regenerative air type and equipped
with dual gutter brooms and main broom capable of sweeping at a minimum of a nine-foot path. City’s Obligations 1. The City will provide and maintain adequate disposal site(s) for dumping
debris picked up by the Contractor. 2. The City will provide routine safety efficiency checks. Contractor’s Obligations 1. The Contractor will be responsible for securing adequate hydrant
access throughout the City for filling water spray systems. In addition, the Contractor will be responsible for securing any necessary permits from the San Jose Water Company. 2. The
Contractor will provide fuel, water, and maintenance for all vehicles and for equipment. Page 9 of 16 92
Exhibit D General Provisions 1. Service Standards. Contractor shall perform all services under this Contract in a thorough and professional manner. Street sweeping services described
in Exhibit A of this Contract shall be performed except during adverse weather conditions. Additionally, all services described in Exhibit A of this Contract shall be performed professionally,
on schedule, and courteously. 2. Labor and Equipment. Contractor shall provide and maintain all labor, equipment, tools, facilities, and personnel supervision required for the performance
of Contractor’s obligations under this Contract. Contractor shall at all times have sufficient backup equipment and labor to fulfill Contractor’s obligations under this Contract. No
compensation for Contractor’s services or for Contractor’s supply of labor, equipment, tools, facilities or supervision shall be provided or paid to Contractor by City except as expressly
provided by this contract. 3. Holiday Service. Contractor shall not be required to perform services under this Contract on ten (10) holidays: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day,
President’s Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Street sweeping services that would be performed but for Holidays
shall be rescheduled to the day immediately following the Holiday, or subsequent regular street sweeping day, unless otherwise specifically approved in advance in writing by the Director
of Public Works. 4. Independent Contractor. In the performance of services pursuant to this Contract, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and not an officer, agent, servant
or employee of City. Contractor shall have exclusive control over the details of the services and work performed and over all persons performing such services and work. Contractor shall
be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors, if any. Neither Contractor nor its officers, employees, agents,
contractors, or subcontractors shall obtain any right to retirement benefits, Workers’ Compensation benefits, or any other benefits which accrue to employees of City, nor Contractor
expressly waives any claim it may have or acquire to such benefits. Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including, but not limited
to, federal and state income taxes, and in connection therewith Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability that City may incur because of Contractor's
failure to pay such taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor. 5. Law to Govern. The laws of the State of California shall
govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of City and Contractor under this Contract and shall govern the interpretation of this Contract. 6. Venue. Any litigation between
City and Contractor concerning or arising out of this Contract shall be filed and maintained exclusively in the Municipal or Superior Courts of Santa Clara county, State of California,
or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the fullest extent permissible by law. Each party consents to service of process in any manner authorized
by California law. 7. Assignment. Neither party shall assign its rights nor delegate or otherwise transfer its obligations under this Contract to any other person without the prior written
consent of Page 10 of 16 93
the other party. Any such assignment made without the consent of the other party shall be void and the attempted assignment shall constitute a material breach of this Contract. For purposes
of this exhibit, “assignment” shall include, but not limited to: A. A sale, exchange or other transfer or substantially all of Contractor’s assets dedicated to service under this agreement
to a third party. B. A sale, exchange or other transfer of ten percent (10%) or more of the outstanding common stock of Contractor to a person other than the shareholder(s). Establishment
of a living trust will not constitute such a transfer, provided that control of the Company is retained by the shareholders. C. Any reorganization, consolidation, merger, recapitalization,
stock issuance or reassurance, voting trust, pooling agreement, escrow arrangement, liquidation or other transaction to which Contractor or any of its shareholders is a party which results
in a change in ownership or control of ten percent (10%) or more of the value value or voting rights in the stock of Contractor; and D. Any combination of the foregoing (whether or not
in related or contemporaneous transactions) which has the effect of any such transfer or change of ownership. 8. Subcontracting. The use of a subcontractor to perform services under
this contract shall not be permitted. 9. Binding on Successors. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit to and be binding on the successors and permitted assigns of
the parties. 10. Parties in Interest. Nothing in this Contract, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights on any persons other than the parties to it ant their representatives,
successor and permitted assigns. 11. Compliance with Law. In the performance of this contract, Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances and codes of
the federal, state and local governments, including without limitation the Municipal Code of City. A. Employment Eligibility. Contractor shall ensure that all employees of of Contractor
and any subcontractor retained by Contractor in connection with this Agreement have provided the necessary documentation to establish identity and employment eligibility as required
by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Failure to provide the necessary documentation will result in the termination of the Agreement as required by the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986. B. Discrimination Prohibited. Contractor assures and agrees that Contractor will comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws prohibiting
discrimination and that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, disability, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, religion, Vietnam era veteran's status, political
affiliation, or any other non-merit factors be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under this Agreement. C. Drug-free
Workplace. Contractor and Contractor's employees and subcontractors shall comply with the City's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. Neither Page 11 of 16 94
Contractor nor Contractor's employees and subcontractors shall unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess or use controlled substances, as defined in 21 U.S. Code Section
812, including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, at any facility, premises or worksite used in any manner in connection with performing services pursuant to this Agreement.
If Contractor or any employee or subcontractor of Contractor is convicted or pleads nolo contendere to a criminal drug statute violation occurring at such a facility, premises, or worksite,
the Contractor, within five days thereafter, shall notify the City. 12. Permits and Licenses. Contractor shall obtain, and shall maintain throughout the term of this Contract, all necessary
permits, licenses and approvals required for Contractor to perform the work and services agreed to be performed by Contractor to perform the work and services agreed to be performed
by Contractor pursuant to this Contract. Contractor shall show proof of such permits, licenses or approvals and shall demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions of such permits,
licenses and approvals upon the request of the Director of Public Works. 13. Ownership of Written Materials. All reports, documents, brochures, public education materials, and other
written, printed or photographic materials developed by city or Contractor in connection with the service to be performed under this Contract or in connection with the Street sweeping
Services, whether developed directly or indirectly by city or Contractor, shall be and shall remain the property of City without limitation or restriction on the use of such materials
by City. Contractor shall not use such materials in connection with any project not connected with this Contract without the prior written notice to and consent of the Director of Public
Works. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 14. Waiver. The waiver by City or Contractor of any breach or violation of any term, covenant or condition of this Contract shall
not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant or condition or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant or condition. The subsequent
acceptance by City of any fee, tax, or any other moneys, which may become due from Contractor to City shall not be deemed to be a waiver by city of any breach or violation of any term,
covenant or condition of this Contract. 15. Prohibition Against Gifts. Contractor shall not offer any city officer or other employees any gift. 16. Notices. All notices and other communications
required or which may be given under this Contract shall be deemed given when deposited in the United States mail or when personally delivered or telefax to the parties as specified
in this Exhibit. In the case of a notice or communication by telefax, the telefax shall be sent to the number specified below and a written copy shall be mailed or personally delivered
within three (3) days of the transmittal of the telefax. All notices or other communications sent by mail shall be sent postage prepaid and return receipt requested to the address specified
in section 9 of this agreement. Either party may designate a different mailing address or a different telefax number by providing notice to the other party as provided in this Exhibit.
Such notice shall be deemed to be effective when received if served personally or sent via Federal Express, and three days after being deposited in the mail. 17. Transition to Next Contractor.
In the event Contractor is not awarded an agreement to continue to provide services following the expiration or earlier termination of this Page 12 of 16 95
Contract, Contractor shall cooperate fully with City and any subsequent contractor(s) to assure a smooth transition of services described in this Contract. 18. City Representative. Except
as otherwise provided in this Contract, City Representatives shall be authorized to act on behalf of City in the administration of this Contract. 19. Contractor’s Records. Contractor
shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures
and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law. Contractor shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate
performance under this Contract for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Contract. Any records
or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this contract shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the
Director of Public Works or other designated representative. Copies of such documents shall be provided to city for inspection at City Hall when it is practical to do so. Otherwise,
unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shall be available at Contractor’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Contract. Where City has reason to believe
that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Contractor’s business, City may, by written request or demand of any of the
above-named officers, require that custody of the records be given to City, and that the records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Contractor, Contractor’s representative,
or Contractor’s successor-ininterest. 20. Amendment. This Contract may be amended or modified only by written agreement duly authorized by contractor and the City Council, and executed
by their authorized representatives. 21. Severability. Should one or more of the provisions if this Contract be held by any court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions shall nevertheless remain and continue in full force and effect, provided that the continuation of such remaining provisions does not materially change the duties or obligations
of either party from those duties or obligations originally contemplated by this Contract. 22. Time. Contractor shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Contract as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Contractor’s obligations pursuant to this Contract. 23. Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall procure and maintain
for the duration of the contract “occurrence coverage” insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance
of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Contract unit prices. The Contractor
shall maintain automobile liability insurance of at least $1 million dollars, and property damage insurance of at least $1 million dollars. The Contractor shall also maintain property
damage and bodily injury insurance of at least $1 million dollars. Employees will be covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The City shall be Page 13 of 16 96
named as an additional insured on all policies except in workers’ compensation. Evidence of current insurance shall be provided in the form of a certificate to the City prior to the
start of work. The Contractor makes the following certification, required by section 1861 of the California Labor Code: I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code
which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply
with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract. 24. Hold Harmless and Responsibility of Contractors. Contractor shall take all responsibility for
the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to him, to the City, to City officers and employees, or to parties designated by the City, on account of
the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents, occurrences, or other causes predicted on active or passive negligence of the Contractor. Contractor shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, directors, employees and agents from and against any or all loss, liability, expense, claim, costs (including costs
of defense), suits, and damages of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the performance of the work. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt
the City, its employees and officers from its own fraud, willful injury or violation of law whether willful or negligent. For purposes of Section 2782 of the Civil Code, the parties
hereto recognize and agree that this Contract is not a construction contract. By execution of this Contract, Contractor acknowledges and agrees that it has read and understands the provisions
hereof and that this paragraph is a material element of consideration. Approval of the insurance contracts does not relieve the Contractor from liability under this paragraph. 26. Default
and Remedies. A. Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default hereunder: 1. Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach immediately upon receiving notice of such breach, if the breach is such that the City determines the health, welfare, or safety of the public is immediately endangered; or
2. Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such breach, if the breach is such that the
City determines that the health, welfare, or safety of the public is not immediately endangered, provided that if the nature of the breach is such that the City determines it will reasonably
require more than fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in default if Contractor promptly commences the cure and diligently proceeds to completion of the cure. B. Remedies
upon default. Upon any Contractor default, City shall have the right to immediately suspend or terminate the Agreement, seek specific performance, contract with another party to perform
this Agreement and/or seek damages including incidental, consequential and/or special damages to the full extent Page 14 of 16 97
allowed by law. C. No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights hereunder or any right to seek any remedy
for any subsequent default. D. Litigation. If any litigation is commenced between parties to this Agreement concerning any provision hereof or the rights and duties of any person in
relation thereto, each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 27. Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the City. 28. Entirety. This Contract and
the exhibits attached hereto represent the entire agreement of City and Contractor with respect to the services to be provided under this Contract. No prior written or oral statement
or proposal shall alter any term or provision of this Contract. Page 15 of 16 98
Page 16 of 16 Exhibit E Performance Standards The primary objective of street sweeping is to remove all leaves, paper, dirt, rocks, glass, bottles, cans and other litter and debris from
streets to ensure free flow of water in the gutter and to maintain streets in an overall state of cleanliness. The City will make the final determination as to whether the work has been
satisfactorily completed and will order the Contractor to re-sweep areas not swept in a satisfactory manner. 99
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 4, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Director
Public Works Director SUBJECT: Upper Old Oak Way Vacation RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution vacating a portion of Old Oak Way. 2. Adopt Resolution accepting offer of dedication
for Pedestrian/Equestrian Trail purposes (Attachment 1). REPORT SUMMARY: In 2001 David House approached the City to ask that the upper end of Old Oak Way be relinquished to him. State
law provides that this may be accomplished by vacating the public right of way in the street. Because Mr. House owns all the land surrounding the portion of the street to be vacated,
the request was considered feasible. The section of roadway to be vacated is relatively short (584 feet) and is surrounded entirely by land owned by Mr. House. (Attachment 2) The effect
of the vacation would be to transform Old Oak Way from a street terminating within Mr. House’s property to one terminating at the property boundary as is typically the case. Vacation
of City roadways is not a common occurrence. Usually they deal with abandoned right-of-ways that were never improved but still encumber a property. The proposal to relinquish the end
of Old Oak Way is unique because it is a fully improved road with properties both sides of the City’s right-of-way owned by the same party. The City considers three main issues when
considering a vacation request: 1) How will public and emergency access be impacted? 2) What are the financial benefits or detriments to the City? 3) Does the proposed vacation conform
to the City General Plan? 1) Public Trails and Emergency Access: Because there are no anticipated plans or developments which would extend Old Oak Way beyond its current limits, staff
determined that for the proposed relinquishment only non-motorized public access needed further investigation i.e. pedestrian and equestrian access. Because this area of the City has
many interconnecting public trails the issue was forwarded to the Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) to investigate any potential trail opportunities.
100
The PEBTAC determine there was an opportunity for trial links which would enhance the connectivity of the City’s trail system. Mr. House was notified of the proposal and agreed to investigate
the feasibility of trail linkages through his property. Over the ensuing time, the City Council Ad Hoc comprised of Ann Waltonsmith and Kathleen King, the PEBTAC, Mr. House, the Parker
Ranch Homeowners Association, the Garrod Family, and City staff explored various routes that might provide trial linkages. The final agreed upon trail easement location (Attachment 2)
will provide the opportunity for a future link with the Garrod property. Additionally, Mr. House
Agreed to pay for improvements to the “Upper Tank Trail” located in Parker Ranch, which provides connection to the Fremont Older Open Space area (Attachment 2). This trail segment,
in its current state, is virtually unusable and improving it will provide safe passage for both pedestrians and equestrians. Mr. House has provided the City with $61,000 to pay for these
improvements. For emergency vehicular access the Fire Department conditioned a hammer head turn around area be built at the new terminus of the road (Attachments 2 and 3). If the relinquishment
of Old Oak Way is approved, the City will need to accept a street dedication for the emergency turnaround area (Attachment 4). Once the turn around area is constructed by Mr. House,
the City would take action via resolution to accept the street dedication encompassing the emergency turnaround area. Mr. House will be providing a cash bond to ensure the work is completed.
2) Financial Considerations: If upper Old Oak Way were relinquished by the City, the City would save future costs associated with maintenance of the road. Annualized savings are approximately
$2,800. The developer of the subdivision funded the original road improvements therefore no City funds were expended in there construction. 3) General Plan Conformity: The Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposed vacation for conformity with the City’s General Plan and determined that the proposal is in conformity as discussed in the attached Planning Commission resolution
(Attachment 7). FISCAL IMPACTS: Depends on City Council direction. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The relinquishment and acquisitions would not move forward at this
time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 101
None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will follow Council’s direction regarding relinquishment of upper Old Oak Way. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Interested
parties were contacted regarding the issue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement 2. Overall Aerial View 3. Fire Truck Turn Around 4. Offer to dedicate Property for Street
Purposes 5. Resolution Accepting the Offer to Dedicate the Trail Easement 6. Resolution Summarily Vacating a Portion of Old Oak Way 7. Planning Commission Resolution Regarding General
Plan Conformity for Vacation of Old Oak Way 102
103
104
105
106
107
Star Oaks Di amond Ridge Ct. Comer Ct . Chiqui ta Dr. Ct. Future Chadwi Ln. Edencrest Rd. Cocci ard Ct . Trail Easement To Be Dedicated Old Oak Way To Be Vacated Existing Upper Tank
Trail Proposed Upper Tank Trail Location Old Oak Way Property To Be Dedicated for Street Purposes Star Picea Court 108
109
110
111
112
113
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 . RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA ACCEPTING OFFER TO DEDICATE TRAIL EASEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has received the Offer to Dedicate the Trail Easement on property owned by David L. House as
Trustee under David L. House Living trust U/A 9/6/00 (APN 503-15-076) attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Trail Easement Offer of Dedication”) and the Offer to Dedicate Property for Street
Purposes on property owned by David L. House as Trustee under David L. House Living trust U/A 9/6/00 (APN 503-15-074) attached hereto as Exhibit B (“Street Offer of Dedication”). WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that the acceptance of the Trail Easement Offer of Dedication would provide opportunity for a future trail connection and would be in the public interest;
and WHEREAS, the property subject to the Street Offer of Dedication is needed for construction of of an emergency vehicular access and turn around and the owner of the property has agreed
to construct said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA hereby: 1. Accepts the Trail Easement Offer of Dedication as described hereinabove
and attached hereto; and 2. Will await completion of improvements on the property subject to Offer to Dedicate Property for Street Purposes as described hereinabove and attached hereto
and then evaluate the acceptance of the said Offer; and 2. Authorizes and directs City Clerk to accept the Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement. 114
Passed and adopted by on the 18th day of June, 2008. by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ann Waltonsmith,
Mayor Attest: City of Saratoga Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 115
116
117
118
119
120
Attachment 7 The Planning Resolution regarding General Plan Conformity was approved with minor modifications at the Planning Commission’s June 11th Meeting. The Assistant City Attorney
will be revising the Resolution on Monday and the Attachment will be forwarded to City Council once available. 121
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Payments on the Library General Obligation Bonds RECOMMENDED ACTION The City Council adopt the attached resolution which sets the FY 2008/09
property tax levy rate for the Library General Obligation Bonds at $.01040 per $100 of Assessed Valuation to provide for the Library Bond’s debt service requirements over the fiscal
year. REPORT SUMMARY Background In March 2000, the citizens of Saratoga approved the issuance of City of Saratoga General Obligation Bonds to pay for improvements to the City’s library
building. The General Obligation Bonds were issued in May of 2001, and the debt service payments began in February 2002. With this bond approval, property owners are to be assessed an
additional property tax levy over thirty years to fund the debt service resulting from the bond issuance. The annual tax levy is calculated each year to determine the assessment rate
to charge property owners in order to fund the debt service payments (principal and interest), as the tax levy rate adjusts each year due to ongoing increases in property values. The
County of Santa Clara requires that the local jurisdictions approve a tax levy rate to meet the debt service payments and notify the County no later than August 1st of each year, prior
to the County preparing and mailing the property tax bills. Discussion The Library bond’s principal and interest requirements for FY 2008/09 total $1,012,756. The tax levy rate calculation
is structured to yield an amount approximately equal to this debt service. The property tax levy is a percentage of property tax valuation. As the Santa Clara County’s Auditor-Controller’s
Office does not provide the City of Saratoga’s secured assessed valuation for the upcoming fiscal year until days before the tax levy rate is due to the County, an estimate is used in
the tax rate calculation. The FY 2008/09 estimated assessed property valuation is calculated by increasing the FY 2007/08 assessed valuation by 4%: FY 2007/08 assessed property valuation:
$ 9,329,953,365 FY 2008/09 estimated valuation with 4% increase: $ 9,703,151,500 122
The property tax levy is then subsequently determined by dividing the annual debt service per $100 of estimated assessed valuation: Fiscal Year 2008/09 Calculation Debt Service – Principal
$ 310,000 Debt Service – Interest 702,756 Total Debt Service $1,012,756 Property Tax Levy Calculation: Total Debt Service $ 1,012,756 Divided per $100 estimated valuation $ 97,031,515
Property Tax Levy Rate: .01044 ?? shown as 5 decimal points but rounded to 4 decimals = .01040 Therefore, it is estimated that a property tax levy rate of .01040 per $100 of assessed
valuation will fund the $1,012,756 of debt service payments in FY 2008/09. The Library Bond Fund’s fund balance reserves will provide for the estimated $5,200 of annual administrative
costs. FISCAL IMPACT The tax levy funds the annual debt service requirements of the voter approved General Obligation Bond, and tax revenues are included in the City’s operating budget,
within the Library Bond Debt Service Fund. A reserve balance is maintained in the Library Bond Fund to provide sufficient funding for the debt service prior to the property tax levy
remittance to the City. With the adoption of this property tax levy, the debt service payment is funded with the supplemental tax assessment, and would not impact city operations. ALTERNATIVE
ACTION If the property tax levy is not approved, supplemental funds would not be collected by the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor for the debt service related to the Library General
Obligation Bond, and the debt service payments would be funded from City reserves. FOLLOW UP ACTION Direct the City Clerk to send a certified copy of the resolution setting the property
tax levy for the Library General Obligation Bond no later than August 1, 2007 to: Mu-Hua Cheng County of Santa Clara Controller-Treasurer Department 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing,
2nd Floor San Jose, CA 95110-1705 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A: Resolution authorizing the Tax Rate Levy for the General Obligation Bonds and reporting
the levy rate to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector. 123
Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR THE DEBT SERVICE OF THE LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR
2008/09 AT $.01040 PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUATION WHEREAS, in March 2000, the citizens of Saratoga approved an increase in their property tax rate to pay for the debt service and other
expenses of the general obligation bonds for construction of the Library, and WHEREAS, the general obligation bonds were sold on April 24, 2001, and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the
City Council of the City of Saratoga to establish an annual property tax levy to provide funds for the debt service and related expenditures due in FY 2008/09. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the 2008/09 Property Tax Levy for debt service on the Library General Obligation Bonds be established at $.01040 per $100 of assessed valuation. The above and foregoing
resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18th day of June 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________
___ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor City of Saratoga ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk City of Saratoga 124
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Admin Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey SUBJECT:
Citizen Options for Public Safety -Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds Grant (COPS/SLESF) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of the Citizen Options
for Public Safety Program’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (COPS/SLESF) grant as a source of funds for additional public safety services. REPORT SUMMARY: Assembly Bill 3229, Chapter
134, Statue of 1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Under this program, compliant cities are allocated a proportionate share of COPS funds by the
State, for the exclusive purpose of funding supplemental front line law enforcement services. Proportionate shares are based on population estimates determined by the California Department
of Finance. The City of Saratoga is eligible to receive a grant amount of $100,000 each year. Funds from this program cannot supplant existing funding and are to be used for personnel
and/or equipment. On an annual basis, the spending plan of the City must be submitted to the County’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee for review and certification. Upon
Council’s approval authorizing the use of these grant funds, this report and attached resolution will be submitted to the County to provide compliance with this requirement. FISCAL IMPACTS:
For Fiscal Year 2008/09 the City of Saratoga will allocate the $100,000 COPS/Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) grant funding for the supplemental law enforcement and
patrol officer hours and neighborhood resource officer, as provided by Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The proposed contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for Fiscal
Year 2008/09 will include the following supplemental services: 1. 1,046 additional law enforcement at a cost of $144,474 2. 3,889 additional patrol hours at a cost of $489,690 3. and
the the addition of a neighborhood resource officer at a flat fee of $100,000 The $100,000 in Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funding pays for 12.24% of the additional services
in the FY 2008/09 contract. 125
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City would become ineligible for the $100,000 in Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund grant funding. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION: Direct the City Clerk to send a copy of the report; a certified copy of the resolution; and the Supplemental Law Enforcement Form, to the County of Santa Clara, Office
of the District Attorney. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution Attachment B – Supplemental Law Enforcement Form CC: Captain Terry Calderone
(electronically – Terry.Calderone@sho.co.santa-clara.ca.us) 126
ATTACHMENT – A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA REPORTING THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUNDS (SLESF) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
WHEREAS, the State of California has made additional funding available to supplement City funds for front line municipal public safety services; WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has determined
the best use of the SLESF funds is to improve public safety with supplemental patrol officer hours and neighborhood resource officer; WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is required to report
planned use of such funds to the County of Santa Clara, Office of the District Attorney annually; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
resolves to approve the use of the $100,000 available from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund for supplemental patrol officer hours and neighborhood resource officer; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council wishes to notify the District Attorney’s Office of of their approved spending plan by copy of this resolution. The above and foregoing resolution
was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 18th day of June, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________
Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk 127
ATTACHMENT – B BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ -Prior Year Adjustment -Prior Year Encumbrance Reversals -RESTATED FUND BALANCE $ -REVENUES State Funding 100,000 Interest Revenue -Other Revenue
-TOTAL REVENUES $ 100,000 EXPENDITURES Salaries & Benefits 100,000 Services & Supplies -Equipment -Administrative Overhead -TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 100,000 ENCUMBRANCES Current Year Services
& Supplies -Equipment -Total Current Year $ -NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE $ -ENDING FUND BALANCE $ -Hours Rate Cost Additional General Law Enforcement Hours 1,046.00 147.28 154,055 Supplemental
Patrol Hours 3,888.90 144.81 563,152 Neighborhood Resource Officer Flat Rate 100,000 Total Supplemental Cost 817,206 Percent paid by SLESF Funds 12.24% From SCC Sheriff's FY 2008/09
Contract Proposal dated 4/18/08 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARIZED FORM Oversight Committee Summary For FY 2008/09 SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES EXPENSE 128
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Admin Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey SUBJECT:
Annual Approval of the City’s Investment Policy -for Fiscal Year 2008/09 RECOMMENDED ACTION For the City Council to approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2008/09. REPORT SUMMARY
California Government Code Section 53600 et seq., City of Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2-20.035, and Section 16.0 of the City of Saratoga Investment Policy require the City Council
to annually review and approve the City’s Investment Policy. The Investment Policy lays the foundation for the City’s investment management functions. It serves as a guide for setting
and achieving investment objectives, defines rules and established benchmarks, prohibits and/or restricts investment instruments and reduces the exposure to liability of both staff and
City Council. Compliance with the Policy is an element of fiscal discipline considered by the City’s auditors and rating agencies during their respective reviews. Last year, at the June
20, 2007 Council Meeting, the City Council approved the Investment Policy in its current version, there are no changes recommended to that investment policy. The policy is modeled on
the policy approved by the Association of Public Treasurers of the United States and Canada (APT US&C) in August 2002. FISCAL IMPACTS None. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED
ACTION The City would not be in compliance with State and Local regulations. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Direct Staff to make changes to the Investment Policy and return at the next meeting.
FOLLOW UP ACTION N/A 129
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A: Investment Policy 130
Attachment A City of Saratoga INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 1.0 Policy: It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to invest public funds in a manner which will provide
the maximum security with the highest investment return, while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment
of public funds. 2.0 Scope: This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Saratoga. These funds are accounted for in the City of Saratoga's Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report and include: 2.1 Funds: 2.1.1 General Fund 2.1.2 Special Revenue Funds 2.1.3 Capital Project Funds 2.1.4 Debt Service Funds 2.1.5 Trust and Agency Funds 2.1.6 Any new
fund, unless specifically exempted 2.2 Exceptions: The following financial assets are excluded: 2.2.1 Deferred Compensation Plans-Investments are directed by the individual plan participants.
2.2.2 Debt Service Funds Held by Trustees-Investments is placed in accordance with bond indenture provisions. 2.2.3 Notes and Loans-Investments are authorized by separate agreements
approved by City Council. 3.0 Prudence: Investments shall be made with judgment and care--under circumstances then prevailing--which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence
exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investments, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived.
3.1 The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment
officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's
credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 131
4.0 Objectives: The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City of Saratoga's investment activities shall be: 4.1 Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the
investment program. Investments of the City of Saratoga shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objectives will
be to mitigate credit risk and market risk. a. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing only in investment
grade securities and by diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will have a minimal impact on the portfolio. b. Market risk, defined as
market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general level of interest rates, shall be mitigated by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investment portfolio to two
years and the maximum maturity of any one security to five years, and by structuring the portfolio based on on cash flow analysis so as to avoid the need to sell securities prior to
maturity. 4.2 Liquidity: The City of Saratoga's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City of Saratoga to meet all operating requirements, which might be
reasonably anticipated. 4.3 Return on Investments: The City of Saratoga's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a rate of return throughout budgetary
and economic cycles, commensurate with the City of Saratoga's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. 5.0 Delegation of Authority: Authority to
manage the City of Saratoga's investment program is derived from the following: California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and Saratoga Municipal Code Section 2-20.035. Management
responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the City Manager who shall be responsible for supervising all treasury activities of the Administrative Services Director
and who shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to: safekeeping, delivery
vs. payment, investment accounting, wire transfer agreements, banking service contracts and collateral/depository agreements. Such procedures shall include explicit delegations of authority
to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by
the City Manager. The City Manager shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials.
6.0 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution
of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. These officers and employees involved in the investment process shall disclose
to the City Manager any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business with the City. Employees and investment officials shall refrain from undertaking
personal investment transactions with individuals with who business is conducted on behalf of the City of Saratoga. 7.0 Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions: 132
The City Manager will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services to the City. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security
broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness and who are authorized to provide investment services in the State of California. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers
that qualify under Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by
state laws. All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the City Manager with the following: personal
interview, firm description and audited financial statements, proof of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) certification, proof of State of California registration, completed
broker/dealer questionnaire and certification of having read the City of Saratoga's investment policy policy and applicable depository contracts. An annual review of the financial condition
and registrations of qualified bidders will be conducted by the City Manager. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and broker/dealer
with which the City of Saratoga invests prior to any transaction. 8.0 Authorized and Suitable Investments: The City of Saratoga is empowered by Government Code Section 53601, and further
limited by this investment policy, to invest in the following types of securities: Type Guarantee Limits Term to Maturity LAIF State Fund $40,000,000 On Demand U.S. Treasury Bills U.S.
Treasury No Limit 1 Year U.S. Treasury Notes U.S. Treasury No Limit 5 Years U.S. Govt. Agency Issues (e.g. FNMA, GNMA) Federal Agencies No Limit 5 Years Certificates of Deposit (California
Bank or Savings & Loan Companies) FDIC/FSLIC and Collateral 20% portfolio per institution; 30% total portfolio 3 Years Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Issuing Institution 20% portfolio
per institution; 30% total portfolio 5 Years Investment Grade Obligations of California, or Local Governments, or Public Agencies Public Entity 20% portfolio per institution; 30% total
portfolio 5 Years Money Market Mutual Funds Fund 10% portfolio per institution; 20% total portfolio On Demand Passbook Savings Account and Demand Deposit Issuing Bank Minimum necessary
for current cash flow On Demand 133
The City shall not engage in leveraged investing, such as margin accounts, or any form of borrowing for the purpose of investing. The City shall not invest in instruments whose principal
and interest could be at risk contrary to Section 4.1 of this policy. Examples of these instruments are options and future contracts. The City shall not invest in "derivatives". See
Glossary for description of above securities. 9.0 Collateralization: Collateralization will be required on certificates of deposit and other deposit-type securities. In order to anticipate
market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be 110% of market value of principal and accrued interest, in accordance with California
Government Code Section 53651 and 53652. The City of Saratoga chooses to limit collateral to those listed in Section 8.0. Collateral will always be held by an independent third party
with whom the entity has a current custodial agreement. A clearly marked evidence of ownership (safekeeping receipt) must be supplied to the City of Saratoga and retained. The right
of collateral substitution may be granted. 10.0 Safekeeping and Custody: All security transactions entered into by the City of Saratoga shall be conducted on a delivery-versuspayment
(DVP) basis. Securities will be held by a third party custodian, in the City of Saratoga's name and control, designated by the City Manager and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. 11.0
Diversification: The City of Saratoga will diversify its investments by security type and institution. Limits are provided for in Section 8.0. With the exception of U.S. Treasury securities
and authorized pools, no more than 30% of the City of Saratoga's total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or 20% with a single financial institution. 12.0
Maximum Maturities: To the extent possible, the City of Saratoga will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow,
the City of Saratoga will not directly invest in securities maturing more than five (5) years from the date of purchase. However, the City of Saratoga may collateralize its certificates
of deposits using longer-dated investments not to exceed ten (10) years to maturity. Debt reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding five (5) years if the maturities of such
investments coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds. The City of Saratoga will retain a general operating reserve adopted annually by the City Council. The
amount of active deposits and inactive investments with maturity of one year or less shall always 134
be equal to or greater than the required general operating reserve. The report discussed in Section 15.0 shall demonstrate this policy is in effect. 13.0 Internal Control: The City of
Saratoga is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal
control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the
cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by the City Manager and staff. Accordingly,
the City shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures.
The internal controls shall address the following points: • Control of collusion. • Separation of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping. • Custodial safekeeping. •
Avoidance of physical delivery of securities. • Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members. • Written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers.
• Development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third-party custodian. 14.0 Performance Standards: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of
obtaining a reasonable rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. 14.1 Market Yield (Benchmark):
The City’s investment strategy is passive. Given this strategy, the benchmark used by the City of Saratoga to determine whether market yields are being achieved shall be the one year
U.S. Treasury Bill. 15.0 Reporting: The City Manager is charged with the responsibility of including a market report on investment activity and returns in the City of Saratoga's Cash
and Investment Report. The report will be in compliance with California Government Code Section 53646. 16.0 Investment Policy Adoption: The City of Saratoga's investment policy shall
be reviewed and adopted by the City Council annually. 135
GLOSSARY Broker Someone who brings buyers and sellers together and is compensated for his/her service. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) The City’s annual financial statements
and footnotes, along with an executive summary, financial outlook, statistical information, and other financial information. Certificates of Deposit Commonly called time deposit certificates
or time deposit open accounts. These are nonnegotiable. Collateralization Process by which a borrower pledges securities, property or other deposits for the purpose of securing the repayment
of a loan and/or security. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies. Custodian A bank or other financial institution that keeps custody of stock
certificates and other assets. Dealer Someone who acts as a principal in all transactions, including buying and selling from his/her own account. Delivery vs. Payment The preferred method
of delivering securities, with an exchange of money for the securities. Demand Deposits A deposit of monies which are payable by the bank upon demand of the depositor. Derivative Securities
that are based on, or derived from, some underlying asset, reference date, or index. FDIC Federal Depository Insurance Corporation FSLIC Federal Savings and Loans Insurance Corporation
Liquidity An asset that can easily and rapidly be converted into cash without significant loss of value. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) The LAIF was established by the State of
California to enable treasurers to place funds in a pool for investments. There is a limitation of $30 million per agency subject to a maximum of ten (10) total transactions per month.
The City uses this fund when market interest rates are declining as well as for shortterm investments and liquidity. Money market mutual funds Mutual funds that invest in short term
securities and strive to maintain a share price of $1. 136
Negotiable certificates of deposit A bank deposit issued in negotiable form (i.e., one that can be bought or sold in the open market). Passive Investment Strategy An approach to managing
the investment portfolio, which entails a “buy and hold” strategy in which investments are generally held until they mature. Portfolio Combined holding of more than one stock, bond,
commodity, cash equivalent or other asset. The purpose of a portfolio is to reduce risk through diversification. Primary Dealer A group of government securities dealers that submit daily
reports of market activity and security positions held to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its oversight. Regional Dealer A dealer who is not a primary dealer,
and therefore not monitored by the Federal Reserve, but is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Safekeeping Offers storage and protection of assets provided by an
institution serving as an agent U.S. Treasury Bills Commonly referred to as T-Bills these are short-term marketable securities sold as obligations of the U.S. Government. They are offered
in three-month, six-month and one-year maturities. T-Bills do not accrue interest but are sold at a discount to pay face value at maturity. U.S. Treasury Notes These are marketable,
interest-bearing securities sold as obligations of the U.S. Government with original maturities of one to ten years. Interest is paid semi-annually. U.S. Government Agency Issues Include
securities, which fall into this category. Issues, which are unconditionally, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, e.g. Small Business Administration Loans. 137
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ______ ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Landscaping
& Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 -Public Hearing, Approval of Engineer’s Report, and Confirmation of Assessments for FY 08-09 _____________________________________________________________________
________ RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for FY 08-09. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the final
Resolution, which requires adoption by the Council to complete the renewal of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for FY 08-09 (Attachment 1). Once adopted, the Resolution
approves the appropriate Engineer’s Report and confirms the assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The Council can consider the Resolution only after the close of the Public Hearing.
Zone 31, Horseshoe Drive This year the City has asked the property owners within Zone 31, Horseshoe Drive, to consider increasing their assessment to maximum of $175.00 for FY 08-09
from the current FY assessment of $98.50 (Attachment 2). Currently, the operating cost to administer and maintain Zone 31 exceeds the maximum allowed assessment. A ballot was mailed
to each property owner in Zone 31 asking whether or not they want the City, through its Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District, to continue providing for the maintenance of the frontage
landscaping to the Horseshoe Drive area through a private contractor at the current level of maintenance at an increased cost (Attachment 3). The ballot asks each property owner to vote
on the approval of a maximum annual assessment of $175 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008, along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years. Any increase in the assessment
above this level will require further approval by property owners. Because each property owner’s assessment would be the same, each property owner’s vote will 138
be weighted equally. Thus, the results of the balloting will be determined by a simple majority of those voting. If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment proposal
exceeds the number of votes received in support thereof, the City will be legally obligated to abandon the proposal for an increase in assessment for Zone 31. In that event, the City
would be unable to continue providing for the maintenance of the landscaping at the current level. Instead, the level of maintenance would be reduced to match the available revenue under
the existing assessment amount. Property owners from Zone 31 can return their ballots to the City Clerk. Ballots may be submitted at the public hearing and all ballots must be received
by the close of the Public Hearing. Following the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the Council continue consideration of this item to a point later in the meeting to allow the City
Clerk time to tabulate the results of the balloting. If the increase is approved, Council is authorized to approve the attached resolution together with the Engineer’s Report attached
as Attachment 4. If the increase is not approved, Council may approve the attached resolution only if it uses the Engineer’s Report attached as Attachment 5. FISCAL IMPACTS: All of the
costs associated with the administration and operation of the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District are recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties. CONSEQUENCES
OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The Resolution would not be adopted and the assessments would not be confirmed. If this occurs, the Council will need to direct staff accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The assessment roll will be finalized and transmitted to the County Auditor by August 10 for placement on the
upcoming tax roll. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The Resolution of Intention and Notice of Hearing have been published a locally distributed newspaper as prescribed by law.
ATTACHMENTS: 139
1. Resolution Confirming Assessments. 2. Letter to Zone 31 Property Owners Dated April 11, 2008. 3. Letter to Zone 31 Property Owners Dated with Ballot Dated April 30, 2008 4. Engineer’s
Report #1 Based on Increased Zone 31 Assessment 5. Engineer’s Report #2 Based on Existing Zone 31 Assessment. 140
1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LLA-1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: WHEREAS, on the 5th day of March, 2008, said Council adopted its Resolution No. 08-010, "A Resolution
Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2008-2009" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1, pursuant
to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and directed the City Assessment Engineer to prepare and file with the Clerk of this City a written report called for under said Act and
by said Resolution No. 08-010; and WHEREAS, said report was duly made and filed with the Clerk of said City, whereupon said Clerk presented it to the City Council for its consideration;
and WHEREAS, said Council thereupon duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and found that it contained all the matters and things called for by the provisions of
said Act and said Resolution No. 08-010, including (1) plans and specification of the existing improvements and the proposed new improvements; (2) estimate of costs; (3) diagram of the
District; and (4) an assessment according to benefits; all of which were done in the form and manner required by said Act; and WHEREAS, said Council found that said report and each and
every part thereof was sufficient in every particular and determined that it should stand as the report for all subsequent proceedings under said Act, whereupon said Council pursuant
to the requirements of said Act, appointed Wednesday, the 18th day of June, 2008, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. of said day in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,
California, as the time and place for hearing protests in relation to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing,
or both, thereof, for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, and directing said Clerk to give notice of said hearing as required by said Act; and WHEREAS, it appears that notices of said hearing were
duly and regularly published and posted in the time, form and manner required by said Act, as evidenced by the Affidavits and Certificates on file with said Clerk, and that all notices
and ballots required by Article XIIID, Section 4(c) and (d) of the California Constitution, were mailed to all property owners of record subject to the assessment at least 45 days prior
to the date of the public hearing on the proposed assessment or increase, as evidenced by the Affidavit and Certificates on file with the City Clerk, whereupon said hearing was duly
and regularly held at the time and place stated in said notice; and 141
2 WHEREAS, persons interested, objecting to or in favor of, said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district,
or any zones therein, or to the proposed assessment or diagram or to the Engineer's estimate of costs thereof, and all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard,
and all matters and things pertaining to the levy and collection of the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard
and considered by said Council; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows: 1. That the public interest, convenience and necessity require and said Council
does hereby order the levy and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, more particularly described in said Engineer's Report and made a part hereof by reference thereto. 2. That the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
LLA-1 and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, are situate in Saratoga, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by
a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and any zone thereof and the general location of said District. 3. That the plans and specifications for the existing
improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof contained in said report, be, and they hereby are, finally adopted
and approved. 4. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in
connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally adopted and approved. 5. That the public interest and convenience require, and said Council does hereby
order the improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Engineer's Report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
6. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 08-010, and also the boundaries of any zones therein and
the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which it applies,
each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 142
3 7. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits
to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in said
report be, and the same hereby is, finally approved and confirmed. 8. That said Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 be, and the same hereby is, finally adopted and approved as
a whole. 9. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of Santa Clara County the said assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof,
as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and the date thereof. 10. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the
improvements and the final adoption and approval of the Engineer's Report as a whole, and of the the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the
assessment, as contained in said Report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said Report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified,
revised or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order heretofore duly adopted or made by this Council. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Saratoga, California, at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor
City of Saratoga ATTEST: _________________________________ Ann Sullivan, CMC Acting City Clerk 143
April 11, 2008 SUBJECT: Horseshoe Drive Area Frontage Landscape Maintenance Services Dear Horseshoe Drive Area Property Owner, In 1999 the 52 homeowners in your greater Horseshoe Drive
area initiated and funded, the landscaping project fronting your homes. This neighborhood driven effort allows the City to provide the Horseshoe Drive area with additional services to
keep your community well maintained. As part of the initial agreement the City of Saratoga was chosen to maintain this frontage landscaping. The Cost of maintaining this area is paid
for by the 52 homeowners in your annual property tax assessment via the “Horseshoe Landscaping Assessment District (Zone 31)”. This same mechanism is used in all of the Landscape and
Lighting Assessment District Zones administered by the City for the benefit of homeowners. The annual per parcel maintenance cost, charged to your property tax bill, covers the cost
of the monthly maintenance contract, the cost of water and power for irrigation systems, plant replacement, and a share of certain related City administrative costs. Essentially, it
keeps the Horseshoe Drive entrance to your neighborhood beautiful. Currently, the operating cost to administer and maintain your neighborhood landscaping exceeds the maximum allowed
assessment. The assessment is currently at $98.50 per parcel per year. Unfortunately, the City can no longer provide adequate maintenance of the project at this level of funding, and
must ask you to vote on raising your yearly assessment from the current rate to $175.00, equivalent to about $6.40 per month to continue providing high quality services. In addition,
the proposed increase includes an annual plant replacement fund that will cover the cost of replacing plants when they have reached the end of their lifecycle. Replacement plants are
essential to maintaining project design integrity, without which the project would revert to pre-landscaping status in appearance. The cost increases affecting your neighborhood are
not unique in the City. They are impacting all of the Landscape Zones. For your information, the number of homes in each of the Landscape Assessment Zones in the City range from 9 to
698 and the yearly assessments range from $59 per year to $773 per year per parcel. Every 144
Landscape Zone has varying proportions of maintenance costs versus number of parcels to which total costs have to be allocated. At the end of April, the City will be mailing each property
owner in your neighborhood an official notice of the proposed assessment increase and a ballot asking you whether or not you want the City of Saratoga, through its Landscaping & Lighting
Assessment District, to continue providing for the maintenance of the frontage landscaping to the Horseshoe Drive area through a private contractor at the current level of maintenance
at an increased cost. It will ask you to approve a maximum annual assessment of $175 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008, along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years.
Any increase in the assessment above this level will require further approval by property owners. Because each property owner’s assessment would be the same, each property owner’s everyone’s
vote will be weighted equally. Thus, the results of the balloting will be determined by by a simple majority of those voting. If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment
proposal exceeds the number of votes received in support thereof, the City will be legally obligated to abandon this proposal. In that event, the City would be unable to continue providing
for the maintenance of the landscaping at the current level. Instead, the level of maintenance would be reduced to match the available revenue. Whatever your opinion, please be sure
to vote when you receive your ballot. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue that directly affects your property. If you have any questions about this letter, please
call me directly at (408) 868-1241. Sincerely, John Cherbone Public Works Director 145
April 30, 2008 SUBJECT: Horseshoe Drive Area Frontage Landscape Maintenance Services Dear Horseshoe Drive Area Property Owner, In early April, the City mailed an informational letter
to each property owner in your neighborhood regarding a proposed assessment increase for maintaining the frontage landscaping to the Horseshoe Drive area (please see attached letter
dated April 11). Additionally, the letter indicated that a ballot would be mailed to you at the end of April to enable you to vote on the matter. Please find attached a ballot asking
you whether or not you want the City of Saratoga, through its Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District, to continue providing for the maintenance of the frontage landscaping to the
Horseshoe Drive area through a private contractor at the current level of maintenance at an increased cost. The ballot asks you to vote on the approval of a maximum annual assessment
of $175 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008, along with a 5% maximum adjustment in subsequent years. Any increase in the assessment above this level will require further approval
by property owners. Because each property owner’s assessment would be the same, each property owner’s everyone’s vote will be weighted equally. Thus, the results of the balloting will
be determined by a simple majority of those voting. If the number of votes received in opposition to the assessment proposal exceeds the number of votes received in support thereof,
the City will be legally obligated to abandon this proposal. In that event, the City would be unable to continue providing for the maintenance of the landscaping at the current level.
Instead, the level of maintenance would be reduced to match the available revenue. Whatever your opinion, please be sure to vote when you receive your ballot. You can return your ballot
to the City Clerk at any time up until the closing of the Public Hearing on June 18, 2008. 146
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue that directly affects your property. If you have any questions about this letter, please call me directly at (408) 868-1241.
Sincerely, John Cherbone Public Works Director 147
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 ENGINEER'S REPORT on the Levy of an Assessment for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year April 2008 JOHN H. HEINDEL -CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
ENGINEER OF WORK 148
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Assessment & Cost Summary 1-3 Rules for Spreading Assessment 4-5 Description of Improvements 6-8 Cost Detail 9-13 Assessment Roll Assessment Diagram Certificates
149
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 A S S E S S M E N T for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 ______________________________________ WHEREAS, on ______________ , 2008, the City
Council of the City of Saratoga, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 08-010 describing improvements and directing
preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 2008-2009, more particularly therein described, and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 08-010 directed the Engineer of Work to prepare
and file a report presenting plans and specifications for the proposed improvements, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the assessment district, and an assessment of the estimated costs
of the improvements upon all assessable lots or parcels of land within the assessment district, to which Resolution reference is hereby made for further particulars, NOW, THEREFORE,
I, John H. Heindel, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion
of the estimated cost of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the
Fiscal Year 2008-2009: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUMMARY* ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Wages & benefits $ 14,345 Attorney 500 Assessment engineer 8,500 Other 300 $ 23,645 OPERATIONS Wages & benefits
$ 65,826 Contract Services 99,500 Repair services 275 Maintenance services 94,983 Irrigation water 39,625 Electric power 78,580 378,789 INDIRECT COSTS 40,263 Total costs $442,697 Previous
year carryover (185,208) 150
Estimated property tax revenue (160,596) Net cost $ 96,893 Carryover not recovered (9,775) Carryover not reimbursed 199,237 Assessment $ 286,355 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONE* As Preliminarily
Approved As Confirmed Zone No. Total Per Parcel Total Per Parcel 1 $ 3,166 109.18 $ $ 2 6,828 80.32 3 17,134 97.36 4 -0-0.00 5 -0-0.00 6 7,801 121.90 7A -0-0.00 7B -0-0.00 9 12,750 265.62
10 2,586 287.34 11 20,048 80.20 12 3,639 404.34 15 5,218 127.26 16 8,055 146.46 17 17,706 88.52 22 51,307 59.46 24 -0-N/A 25 7,940 529.34 26 72,727 773.70 27 6,859 221.26 28 9,432 589.50
29 9,453 154.96 31 9,090 174.80 32 11,421 6.12** 33 3,195 159.74 Total $286,355 $ * See Cost Detail herein for breakdown ** Plus $11.42 per front foot -2-151
And I do hereby assess and apportion said portion of the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto,
upon the several lots or parcels of land liable therefor and benefited thereby, and hereinafter numbered to correspond with the numbers upon the attached diagram, upon each, severally
and respectively, in proportion to the benefits to be received by such property, respectively, from the construction and installation of the improvements, and from the maintenance and
servicing thereof, and more particularly set forth in the Assessment Roll hereto attached and by this reference made a part hereof. As required by said Act, a diagram is hereto attached
showing the assessment district, and also the boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots or parcels of land within said assessment district, as the same existed at the time of
the passage of said Resolution No. 08-010. The diagram and assessment numbers appearing in the Assessment Roll herein under the column headed "A.P.N." are the diagram numbers appearing
on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property. I hereby place in the Assessment Roll, opposite the number of each lot or parcel
of land assessed, the amount assessed thereon. Each lot or parcel of land is described in said Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the
County of Santa Clara for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009, and includes all of such parcel. Respectfully submitted, Dated: _____________________, 2008 ______________________________ John H.
Heindel, RCE 13319 Engineer of Work -3-152
RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT The amounts to be assessed against the assessable lots or parcels of land to pay the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance and
servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, shall be based upon the estimated benefits to be derived by the various lots or parcels of land within the assessment
district. The assessment for administrative costs shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located in the assessment district. The assessment for cost of improvements,
including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zones 1 through 7B, 9 through 12, 15 through 17, 22, 25 through 29, 31, and 33, as described in Resolution No. 08-010,
shall be spread equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located within each said respective zone of the assessment district. The assessment for cost of improvements, including
the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zone 24, as described in Resolution No. 08-010, shall be spread as follows: Costs related to street lights and street trees shall be spread
to all the lots or parcels of land located within said zone, proportional to usable parcel area. Costs related to the Village Parking District (VPD) parking lots shall be spread to all
the lots or parcels of land in commercial use located within said zone, proportional to the number of parking spaces existing in the VPD parking lots that are assigned to each parcel
within said zone, rounded to the nearest one tenth (0.1) of a parking space. Spaces shall be assigned by adding the total number of spaces in the VPD parking lots and the total private
spaces existing on assessable parcels, distributing this sum proportionally by weighted building area, and deducting the number of private spaces, if any, from the resulting number for
each parcel. Weighted building area shall be defined as actual building area multiplied by a factor dependent on parcel use, as follows: Retail = 1.0; office/service = 0.5; restaurant
= 2.0. The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof, in Zone 32, as described in Resolution No. 08-010, shall be spread proportionally to
the frontage on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road of each of the lots or parcels of land located and benefited within Zone 32. Zones 0, 8, 13, 14, 18 through 21, 23, and 30 have been either detached
or merged with other zones. A portion of Zone 4 was redesignated Zone 26 in 1997. Notwithstanding the above, the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for each parcel in Zones
2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 29 shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 1 attached hereto; the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 for each parcel in Zones 1, 9, 12,
17, 27, and 28, shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 2 attached hereto; the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 for each parcel in Zone 32 shall not exceed the amount
indicated in Table 3 attached hereto; and the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 for each parcel in Zones 31 and 33 shall not not exceed the amount indicated in Table 4 attached
hereto. In subsequent years, the maximum assessment for each parcel shall be the amount calculated by multiplying its maximum assessment for the previous year by 1.05. -4-153
TABLE 1 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR ZONE 1999-2000 2008-2009 2 $ 52.50 $ 81.44 3 $ 63.00 $ 97.73 6 $ 78.75 $122.17 11 $ 52.50 $ 81.44 16 $ 94.50 $146.60 22 $ 52.50 $
81.44 25 $341.25 $529.39 26 $498.75 $773.72 29 $100.00 $155.13 TABLE 2 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR ZONE 2000-2001 2008-2009 1 $ 75.00 $110.81 9 $180.00 $265.94 12 $275.00
$406.30 17 $ 60.00 $ 88.65 27 $150.00 $221.62 28 $400.00 $590.98 TABLE 3 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS – ZONE 32 FRONT FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR A. P. N. FEET 2004-2005 2008-2009 366-12-054 110
$ 1,052.16 $ 1,278.91 366-12-065 118 $ 1,125.66 $ 1,368.25 366-12-066 160 $ 1,511.48 $ 1,837.21 366-22-023 149 $ 1,410.44 $ 1,714.40 386-30-035 106 $ 1,015.42 $ 1,234.25 386-30-036 -0-$
41.66 $ 50.64 386-30-037 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94 386-30-038 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94 386-30-039 100 $ 960.30 $ 1,167.25 386-52-032 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10 386-52-033 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10 993 TABLE
4 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FISCAL YEAR ZONE 2008-2009 31 $175.00 33 $160.00 -5-154
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other
ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals,
ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts,
switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof; providing
for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings,
rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements;
and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. This work specially benefits the parcels assessed therefor since 1) the work is adjacent to the neighborhoods
within which said parcels are located, and results in a) helping to identify, distinguish and enhance these neighborhoods, including the entrances thereto; b) helping to improve the
quality of life in these neighborhoods by reducing the potential for graffiti, eliminating dust and litter, providing sound attenuation, eliminating the potential for blight, and providing
added security and safety through lighting and an added City presence; and 2) in the absence of this assessment district, the work and improvements would not be otherwise accomplished
by the City. Benefits Provided within Each Zone: Zone 1 (Manor Drive Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance of the Manor Drive median and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Road
frontage along Tract 3822. Zone 2 (Fredericksburg Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777, 4041 and 4042. Zone 3 (Greenbriar
Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tracts 4628, 4725 and 4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court. Zone 4
(Quito Lighting District) -Provides for streetlighting and landscape maintenance in the El Quito Park residential neighborhood: Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 7833, and 8700. Zone 5 (Azule
Lighting District) -Provides for streetlighting in the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485, 787, 1111, and 1800. Zone 6 (Sarahills Lighting District) -Provides
for streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood: Tracts 3392 and 3439. Zone 7 (Village Lighting District) -Provides for streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods
surrounding Saratoga Village, and in Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace, Mary Springer #1 and #2, McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams,
and Tracts 270, 336, 416, 2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419, and 6731, and Saratoga Village. -6-155
Zone 9 (McCartysville Landscape District) -Provides for Landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 5944. Zone 10 (Tricia Woods Landscape District) -Provides
for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tract 7495. (Maintenance and water shared with Zone 27). Zone 11 (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) -Provides
for landscape maintenance of the Via Monte entrances to all or a portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 3036, and 4344. Zone 12 (Leutar Court Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance
of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996. Zone 15 (Bonnet Way Landscape District) -Provides for monthly landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way: Tract 5462. Zone 16 (Beauchamps Landscape
District) -Provides for landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the Beauchamps subdivision: Tract 7763. Zone 17 (Sunland Park Landscape District) -Provides for landscape
maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of Tracts 976 and 977. Zone 22 (Prides Crossing Landscape District) -Provides for periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between
the Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue, and along Cox Avenue between the Route 85 overcrossing andSaratoga Creek. Includes all properties bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and
Saratoga Creek with the exception of the Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493, 1644, 1695, 1727, 1938, and 1996). Zone 24 (Village Commercial Landscape District) -Provides for routine
maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1-4 and Big Basin Way landscaping. Zone 25 (Saratoga Legends Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road frontage of, and pedestrian pathways within, Tract 8896. Zone 26 (Bellgrove Landscape and Lighting District) -Provides for common area landscape maintenance and lighting associated
with Tract 8700. Zone 27 (Cunningham Place/Glasgow Court Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage of Tracts 6199 and 7928. (Maintenance
and water shared with Zone 10). Zone 28 (Kerwin Ranch Landscape District) -Provides for landscape maintenance along the Fruitvale Avenue and Saratoga Avenue frontages of Tracts 8559
and 8560. Zone 29 (Tollgate Landscape and Lighting District) -Provides for maintenance of the common area landscape and lighting improvements along Tollgate Road at the entrance to Tracts
3946 and 5001. -7-156
Zone 31 (Horseshoe Drive Landscape and Lighting District) -Provides for landscape maintenance along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road frontage of Tract 247. Zone 32 (Gateway Landscape and
Lighting District) -Provides for maintenance of frontage landscaping along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road between Prospect Road and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Zone 33 (Carnelian Glen
Landscape and Lighting District) – Provides for maintenance of landscaping along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road frontage of APNs 397-21-031 and 397-37-015. -8-157
COST DETAIL Zone Number 1 2 3 4 5 Administration $ 178 $ 521 $ 1,078 $ 4,276 $ 735 Operations Wages $ 589 $ 1,728 $ 3,579 $ $ Contract Services 2,800 2,300 14,700 Repairs Maintenance
1,920 1,590 4,788 19,500 Water 300 250 1,250 200 Electric ______ ______ ______ 17,600 3,500 $ 5,609 $ 5,868 $ 24,317 $ 37,300 $ 3,500 Indirect Costs 579 639 2,539 4,158 424 Total Costs
$ 6,366 $ 7,028 $ 27,934 $ 45,734 $ 4,659 Carryover (2,800) 500 (6,000) (17,057) (105,000) Property Tax (3,200) (700) (4,800) (46,000) (23,700) Net cost $ 366 $ 6,828 $ 17,134 $(17,323)
$(124,041) C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. 2,800 ______ _ ____ 17,323 124,041 Net assess. $ 3,166 $ 6,828 $ 17,134 $ -0-$ -0-No. of Parcels 29 85 176 698 120 Assmt./Pcl. $ 109.18
$ 80.32 $ 97.36 $ -0-$ -0--9-158
COST DETAIL Zone Number 6 7A 7B 9 10 Administration $ 392 $ 2,978 $ 1,802 $ 294 $ 55 Operations Wages $ $ 5,289 $ $ 976 $ 183 Contract Services 2,700 9,450 Repairs Maintenance 5,000
2,580 475 Water 1,500 500 Electric 4,000 35,000 ______ 200 30 $ 6,700 $ 45,289 $ -0-$ 14,706 $ 1,188 Indirect Costs 709 4,826 180 1,500 125 Total Costs $ 7,801 $ 53,093 $ 1,982 $ 16,500
$ 1,368 Carryover (1,500) (31,009) (5,500) 1,468 Property Tax _______ (52,414) (1,982) _______ _______ Net cost $ 6,301 $ (30,330) $ -0-$ 11,000 $ 2,836 C'over not recov. (250) C'over
not reimb. 1,500 30,330 1,750 _______ Net assess. $ 7,801 $ -0-$ -0-$ 12,750 $ 2,586 No. of Parcels 64 486 294 48 9 Assmt./Pcl. $ 121.90 $ -0-$ -0-$ 265.62 $ 287.34 -10-159
COST DETAIL Zone Number 11 12 15 16 17 Administration $ 1,532 $ 55 $ 251 $ 337 $ 1,225 Operations Wages $ 5,083 $ 183 $ 834 $ 1,118 $ 4,066 Contract Services 16,000 1,700 575 5,225 Repairs
Maintenance 1,020 1,020 1,530 1,020 4,080 Water 500 350 1,100 650 1,500 Electric _______ _______ _______ 500 _______ $ 22,603 $ 3,253 $ 3,464 $ 3,863 $ 14,871 Indirect Costs 2,413 331
371 420 1,610 Total Costs $ 26,548 $ 3,639 $ 4,086 $ 4,620 $ 17,706 Carryover (9,500) (1,650) 1,932 3,435 (3,411) Property Tax ______ _______ _______ ______ ______ Net cost $ 17,048
$ 1,989 $ 6,018 $ 8,055 $ 14,295 C'over not recov. (800) C'over not reimb. 3,000 1.650 _______ _______ 3,411 Net assess. $ 20,048 $ 3,639 $ 5,218 $ 8,055 $ 17,706 No. of Parcels 250
9 41 55 200 Assmt./Pcl. $ 80.20 $404.34 $ 127.26 $ 146.46 $ 88.52 -11-160
COST DETAIL Zone Number 22 24 25 26 27 Administration $ 5,288 $ 809 $ 92 $ 576 $ 190 Operations Wages $ 17,546 $ 18,553 $ 305 $ 1,911 $ 630 Contract Services 25,000 2,900 6,275 2,100
Repairs 275 Maintenance 6,000 3,060 23,820 1,740 Water 1,200 3,000 2,250 16,000 1,500 Electric 700 ______ 100 15,000 75 $ 50,446 $ 24,453 $ 11,990 $ 57,006 $ 6,045 Indirect Costs 5,573
2,526 1,208 5,758 624 Total Costs $ 61,307 $ 27,788 $ 13,290 $ 63,340 $ 6,859 Carryover (15,800) (1,282) (7,300) 9,387 (3,767) Property Tax _______ (27,800) _______ _______ _______ Net
cost $ 45,507 $ (1,294) $ 5,990 $ 72,727 $ 3,092 C'over not recov. C'over not reimb. 5,800 1,294 1,950 _______ 3,767 Net assess. $ 51,307 $ -0-$ 7,940 $ 72,727 $ 6,859 No. of Parcels
863 132 15 94 31 Assmt./Pcl. $ 59.46 $ -0-$ 529.34 $773.70 $ 221.26 -12-161
COST DETAIL Zone Number 28 29 31 32 33 . Administration $ 98 $ 374 $ 319 $ 67 $ 123 Operations Wages $ 325 $ 1,240 $ 1,057 $ 224 $ 407 Contract Services 1,975 3,800 1,000 1,000 Repairs
Maintenance 4,080 1,080 3,840 5,440 1,400 Water 2,000 500 1,400 2,700 975 Electric 75 1,600 100 100 _______ $ 8,455 $ 8,220 $ 7,397 $ 9,464 $ 2,782 Indirect Costs 856 859 772 973 290
Total Costs $ 9,409 $ 9,453 $ 8,488 $ 10,504 $ 3,195 Carryover 23 (621) 9,327 917 Property Tax _______ _______ ______ _______ ______ Net cost $ 9,432 $ 8,832 $ 17,815 $ 11,421 $ 3,195
C'over not recov. (8,725) C'over not reimb. 621 _______ ______ Net assess. $ 9,432 $ 9,453 $ 9,090 $ 11,421 $ 3,195 No. of Parcels 16 61 52 11 20 No. of Front Feet 993 Assmt./Pcl. $
589.50 $ 154.96 $ 174.80 $ 6.12 $ 159.74 Assmt./front foot $ 11.42 -13-162
I, Cathleen Boyer, the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily
Approved", with the diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on _____________________________, 2008. ______________________________ Cathleen Boyer I, John H. Heindel, the Engineer
of Work for the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved", have been recomputed
in accordance with the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga as expressed by Resolution No. 08-010, duly adopted by said City Council on __________________, 2008, said recomputed
assessments being the amounts set forth in the column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed"; provided, however, if the column headed "Assessments as Finally Confirmed" is blank,
the figures in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved" were confirmed without change. Dated _____________________, 2008 ______________________________ John H. Heindel,
RCE 13319 I, Cathleen Boyer, the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga, hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, in the amounts set forth in the Column headed "Assessments as Finally
Confirmed" (unless said column is blank, in which event the amounts in the column headed "Assessments as Preliminarily Approved" apply), with the diagram thereto attached, was approved
and confirmed by the City Council of said City of Saratoga on ____________________, 2008. ______________________________ Cathleen Boyer The Assessment and Assessment Diagram were filed
in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Santa Clara, California, on ________________________, 2008. ______________________________ County Auditor 163
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1 A S S E S S M E N T for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 ______________________________________ WHEREAS, on ______________ , 2008, the City
Council of the City of Saratoga, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 08-010 describing improvements and directing
preparation of the Engineer's Report for Fiscal year 2008-2009, more particularly therein described, and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 08-010 directed the Engineer of Work to prepare
and file a report presenting plans and specifications for the proposed improvements, an estimate of costs, a diagram of the assessment district, and an assessment of the estimated costs
of the improvements upon all assessable lots or parcels of land within the assessment district, to which Resolution reference is hereby made for further particulars, NOW, THEREFORE,
I, John H. Heindel, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of said City of Saratoga, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion
of the estimated cost of said improvements, including the maintenance and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the
Fiscal Year 2008-2009: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SUMMARY* ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Wages & benefits $ 14,345 Attorney 500 Assessment engineer 8,500 Other 300 $ 23,645 OPERATIONS Wages & benefits
$ 65,826 Contract Services 98,500 Repair services 275 Maintenance services 92,593 Irrigation water 39,625 Electric power 78,580 375,399 INDIRECT COSTS 39,924 Total costs $438,968 Previous
year carryover (185,208) 164
Estimated property tax revenue (160,596) Net cost $ 93,164 Carryover not recovered (9,775) Carryover not reimbursed 199,237 Assessment $ 282,626 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT BY ZONE* As Preliminarily
Approved As Confirmed Zone No. Total Per Parcel Total Per Parcel 1 $ 3,166 109.18 $ $ 2 6,828 80.32 3 17,134 97.36 4 -0-0.00 5 -0-0.00 6 7,801 121.90 7A -0-0.00 7B -0-0.00 9 12,750 265.62
10 2,586 287.34 11 20,048 80.20 12 3,639 404.34 15 5,218 127.26 16 8,055 146.46 17 17,706 88.52 22 51,307 59.46 24 -0-N/A 25 7,940 529.34 26 72,727 773.70 27 6,859 221.26 28 9,432 589.50
29 9,453 154.96 31 5,361 103.10 32 11,421 6.12** 33 3,195 159.74 Total $282,626 $ * See Cost Detail herein for breakdown ** Plus $11.42 per front foot -2-165
TABLE 1 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR ZONE 1999-2000 2008-2009 2 $ 52.50 $ 81.44 3 $ 63.00 $ 97.73 6 $ 78.75 $122.17 11 $ 52.50 $ 81.44 16 $ 94.50 $146.60 22 $ 52.50 $
81.44 25 $341.25 $529.39 26 $498.75 $773.72 29 $100.00 $155.13 TABLE 2 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR ZONE 2000-2001 2008-2009 1 $ 75.00 $110.81 9 $180.00 $265.94 12 $275.00
$406.30 17 $ 60.00 $ 88.65 27 $150.00 $221.62 28 $400.00 $590.98 31 $70.00 $103.43 TABLE 3 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS – ZONE 32 FRONT FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR A. P. N. FEET 2004-2005 2008-2009
366-12-054 110 $ 1,052.16 $ 1,278.91 366-12-065 118 $ 1,125.66 $ 1,368.25 366-12-066 160 $ 1,511.48 $ 1,837.21 366-22-023 149 $ 1,410.44 $ 1,714.40 386-30-035 106 $ 1,015.42 $ 1,234.25
386-30-036 -0-$ 41.66 $ 50.64 386-30-037 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94 386-30-038 50 $ 500.98 $ 608.94 386-30-039 100 $ 960.30 $ 1,167.25 386-52-032 75 $ 730.64 $ 888.10 386-52-033 75 $ 730.64
$ 888.10 993 TABLE 4 -MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FISCAL YEAR ZONE 2008-2009 33 $160.00 -5-166
COST DETAIL Zone Number 28 29 31 32 33 . Administration $ 98 $ 374 $ 319 $ 67 $ 123 Operations Wages $ 325 $ 1,240 $ 1,057 $ 224 $ 407 Contract Services 1,975 3,800 1,000 Repairs Maintenance
4,080 1,080 1,450 5,440 1,400 Water 2,000 500 1,400 2,700 975 Electric 75 1,600 100 100 _______ $ 8,455 $ 8,220 $ 4,007 $ 9,464 $ 2,782 Indirect Costs 856 859 433 973 290 Total Costs
$ 9,409 $ 9,453 $ 4,759 $ 10,504 $ 3,195 Carryover 23 (621) 9,327 917 Property Tax _______ _______ ______ _______ ______ Net cost $ 9,432 $ 8,832 $ 14,086 $ 11,421 $ 3,195 C'over not
recov. (8,725) C'over not reimb. 621 _______ ______ Net assess. $ 9,432 $ 9,453 $ 5,361 $ 11,421 $ 3,195 No. of Parcels 16 61 52 11 20 No. of Front Feet 993 Assmt./Pcl. $ 589.50 $ 154.96
$ 103.10 $ 6.12 $ 159.74 Assmt./front foot $ 11.42 -13-167
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative
Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: 2008 Summer Issue of The Saratogan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: After discontinuing publication
of The Saratogan in 2004, the City of Saratoga began reissuing the quarterly publication in February 2008. The spring issue was mailed to residents in May 2008. The summer issue is scheduled
to be released in July 2008. The newsletter is used as a tool to improve communications with residents and ensure the public has access to important information. In the past it has been
used to conduct public surveys and call attention to City services. The spring issue highlighted the City’s commitment to be better, not bigger. Article topics included the budget, paperless
City Council meetings, the North Campus, and 2008 Council priorities, including civic participation, environmental sustainability, and financial security. Feature articles focused on
each of these themes were placed on the first and second page of the newsletter. The third and fourth pages were dedicated to supplementary articles highlighting important information
for residents. Staff has started to develop article topics for the summer 2008 issue. The stories are centered on the proposed theme, “Acting now for the future”. Below is a preliminary
list of feature and supplementary articles. Feature Articles: • CERT training • City’s green building policy and residential building checklist • Recreation surveys • Saratoga Library’s
Monday hours • Defensible fire space Page 1 of 2 168
Page 2 of 2 Supplementary Articles: • Preventing West Nile Virus • Development of youth assets through recreational programs • Saratoga trails • SASCC update • Travel safety • West Valley
Clean Water Program cartoon To ensure The Saratogan meets the expectations of the City Council, staff is seeking input and suggestions for the summer issue. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES
OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff will move forward without Council input on the theme, article topics, or other aspects of the summer issue of The Saratogan. ALTERNATIVE
ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: The Saratogan Spring 2008 issue
169
Saratogan The CI TY o f SA R ATOGA CA L I F ORNI A 1956 Spring 2008 The Value of Being Better, not Bigger When the first settlers arrived in this area in the 1800’s they faced a remote
wilderness. People relied upon their imagination, resourcefulness and ingenuity to move beyond the hardships and carve out a life in this rugged area. When the City government was being
formed in 1956, residents retained a desire for self-sufficiency. Since 1956, there has been a continued focus on delivery of high quality, essential city services that has assured Saratoga’s
self-reliance. Although much as changed, Saratoga is still a place that attracts resourceful, forward-thinking people who understand the value of being better, not bigger. The City Council,
your elected representatives, and City staff work together as a team to efficiently provide essential services, reduce waste, invest in the future, and capitalize on assets—large and
small. Focusing on essentials: The City’s commitment to maintaining basic City services at the highest level is reflected in the City’s Operating Budget. Learn more about the budget
process on page 2. Reducing waste: As we all become aware of global warming and our impact on the planet, the City is turning toward more efficient use of resources—as one small example,
paper supplies. Read more in the next article. Investing in the future: The Council recently decided to invest in the North Campus to make improvements that will increase uses at the
facility without Saratoga Going Paperless Adopting environmentally sustainable practices can often be simple and inexpensive. Going paperless is one of the easiest ways to conserve resources.
In September 2007, Saratoga City Council started holding paperless Council Meetings and the benefits are already clear! Holding paperless City Council Meetings has saved: • 100,000 pages
in copies • 200 reams of paper • $640 in paper costs • 56 staff hours spent copying Calabazas Creek Picnic Area straining the City’s budget. To learn more about how the City is maximizing
the use of the North Campus, turn to page 2. Capitalizing on assets: Easily accessible open space is prized in the community, yet it presents a challenge as demand for development increases.
Consequently, the City has taken care to maximize available open space by developing pocket parks and maintaining trail easements on the property of other public agencies located in
Saratoga. As an example, the recently opened Calabazas Creek Picnic Area is a Santa Clara Valley Water District easement improved and maintained by the City. Saratoga Recognized as Tree
City USA Tree City USA is a nationwide program that recognizes cities throughout the United States for making a special commitment to urban forests. In April 2008, the City was formally
recognized as a Tree City USA and celebrated the award with an Arbor Day tree planting in El Quito Park. The Skillet Lickers kicked off the event with songs about Saratoga and its trees,
followed by a poetry reading by Willys Peck and the planting of a 24-inch box tree donated by Saratoga Rotary. Betty Peck ended the ceremony with a tree blessing. 170
Saratoga Balancing the Budget Spring is in full bloom and that means the end of the City’s fiscal year is quickly approaching. Each year, California cities are required by state law
to adopt a budget and develop a financial plan for the year ahead. The initial phases of the budget process typically begin in January, with final adoption of the budget in June before
the start of the new fiscal year on July 1st. The proposed budget is presented to the Council in a public hearing, where it is reviewed and revised by the Council. The public also has
the opportunity to recommend changes. The revised budget is then brought back to the City Council for final approval in June. Important Dates for FY 2008/09 Budget: • May 21, 2008: Public
Hearing on FY 2008/09 Proposed Budget • June 4, 2008: Adoption of FY 2008/09 Budget • June 30, 2008: End of FY 2007/08 The budget is divided into the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) Budget. The greatest source of revenue comes from property tax allocations; over 30% of the Operating Budget’s revenues comes from property taxes. Operating Budget Expenditures:
• City Council support • Code compliance • Maintenance of City facilities, parks, trails, open space, & streets • Planning services & zoning regulations • Police patrols & emergency
response (including 9-1-1 calls and burglary alarms) • Recreational classes • Traffic management The CIP Budget is the financial plan for special projects, acquisitions, or improvements.
It is based on a five-year CIP plan. The City has been proactive in securing over $7.6 million in grants to supplement City funding of the CIP Budget. Projects Funded in the FY 2007/08
CIP Budget: • Fellowship Hall Renovations, to be completed Fall 2008 • Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase 1, started Winter 2008 • Saratoga-Sunnyvale Street Resurfacing, to be completed
Spring 2008 • Village Façade Improvement Program, ongoing • Village Pedestrian Safety Improvements, underway • West Valley College sports field, to be completed Fall 2008 For more information
about the City’s budget, visit www.saratoga.ca.us. North Campus Taking Shape Much has changed at the North Campus since the beginning of the year. Here’s a look at what has happened
this year. January 2008: • Public invited to Visioning Meeting to discuss North Campus options • Options include proposal from Alan & Lisa Beck to replace Sanctuary & Education buildings
with child development center & gymnasium March 2008: • City celebrates Fellowship Hall Groundbreaking & renovations started • Council recognizes contributions of Saratoga-Monte Sereno
Community Foundation & House Family Foundation for Fellowship Hall • Renovations to Fellowship Hall expected to be done by end of the year April 2008: • Becks withdraw proposal • Council
approves plans to demolish the front 2 buildings—Education & Sanctuary building • Work to be done by end of the year Renovations to Fellowship Hall and demolition of the unusable buildings
at the North Campus will make the site a more versatile facility for future community use and recreational programs. To rent a building at the North Campus, contact Nina Walker in the
Recreation & Facilities Department by calling (408) 868-1252.
Fellowship Hall at the North Campus. Renovations to include fully accessible bathrooms, new windows, kitchen, and hardwood floor. Saratoga Taiko at Fellowship Hall Groundbreaking 171
Driving with Both Hands: New Cell Phone Laws Starting July 1, 2008, Senate Bills 1613 and 33 will go into effect. These new laws regulate use of wireless telephones while driving and
will require drivers age 18 and up to use “hands-free devices” while driving and will prohibit drivers younger than 18 from using cell phones. Before local law enforcement starts enforcing
these new laws, take the time to learn how these new laws will affect you. To find out more, visit www.dmv. ca.gov. • Officers will have the authority to issue tickets immediately on
July 1, 2008. • All drivers will be prohibited from using a handheld wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. Motorists 18 and over may use a “hands-free device”. • Drivers
under the age of 18 may NOT use a wireless telephone or hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle. • The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for each offence thereafter.
With the addition of penalty assessments, the fines can be more than triple the base fine amount. • This law only applies to the person driving a motor vehicle, not passengers. • The
new law does not prohibit dialing, but drivers are strongly urged not to dial while driving. • The law allows a driver to use a handheld wireless telephone to make emergency calls. Electronic
and Universal Waste Looking to get rid of any of these items? • Computer keyboards, mice, monitors, & printers, & external hard drives • DVD & VCR players • Electrical switches & relays
• Fluorescent tubes & bulbs • Household batteries • Laptop computers • Mercury thermostats • Non-empty aerosol cans • Pilot light sensors • Televisions • Used Motor oil & oil filters
• Water based paints Call West Valley Collection & Recycling at (408) 283-9250 today to schedule a free drop off for these items Tuesday through Thursday, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Updating Saratoga’s Housing Element Every five years, State law requires California cities to update the Housing Element—a portion of the General Plan developed to address housing needs.
The update to the Housing Element must be adopted by the Council prior to June 30, 2009. The Housing Element: • Quantifies existing and projected housing needs; • Establishes goals,
policies, objectives and programs for preserving, improving and developing housing to meet the needs of all economic sectors; and • Identifies how the City will provide its “fair share”
of regional housing. In the Bay Area, housing needs are determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG studies regional housing needs and each city is allocated a
target for new housing units based on income. For 2007 – 2012, ABAG’s draft assessment allocates a goal of 292 new housing units to Saratoga. In response to the housing allocations,
the City provides a site inventory and analysis identifying sites suitable for residential development. This allows the City to compare housing allocations with the sites available for
development and determine if the identified sites have the capacity to meet housing targets established for for each income level. Special attention is paid to adequately providing for
affordable housing units. Each year the City submits statistics to the State documenting our progress in meeting housing allocation targets as required by the State. Here’s a look at
1999-2006: Target Saratoga’s Achievement Total New Housing Units 539 624 Very-low Income Units 75 60 Low Income Units 36 1 Moderate Income Units 108 108 The City Council recently approved
a contract with RBF Consulting to prepare the City’s Housing Element update. RBF Consulting will be holding several public meetings and there will be several opportunities for public
involvement. The first public hearing to gather community input will be on June 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the North Campus, located at 19848 Prospect Road, Saratoga. 172
Postal Customer Local PRSRT STD U.S. Postage PAID Saratoga, CA Permit No. 136 ECRWSS The Saratogan 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 CITY o f SARATOGA C A L IFORNIA 1956 Directory
City Hall (408) 868-1200 Building Permits (408) 868-1240 Business Licenses (408) 868-1260 City Clerk (408) 868-1269 City Manager (408) 868-1216 Code Enforcement (408) 868-1214 Commission
Recruitments (408) 868-1269 Employment Opportunities (408) 868-1252 Facility Rentals (408) 868-1259 Garbage & Recycling (408) 868-1269 Park Maintenance (408) 868-1245 Park Reservations
(408) 868-1248 Recreation (408) 868-1249 Senior Center (408) 868-1257 Sheriff’s Office West Valley Division (408) 868-6600 Storm Drains (408) 868-1245 Street Maintenance (408) 868-1245
Tree Removal Permits (408) 868-1276 Volunteer Opportunities (408) 868-1216 Contact the Editor The Saratogan is published quarterly by the City of Saratoga to report on community issues
and events. Community members are welcome to send questions, comments, and story ideas! Crystal Morrow Editor, The Saratogan 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone: (408) 868-1275
Fax: (408) 867-8559 cmorrow@saratoga.ca.us Saratoga’s Annual Cleanup Coming Soon! West Valley Collection & Recycling (WVCR) collecting unlimited number of items at your curb for free!
Cleanups will take place between July and September and will be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Two weeks before your clean up date, WVCR will send a notice and exact details
about acceptable clean up item. To prepare for your cleanup date, hold a garage sale! Reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and donate unsold garage sale items to a charitable
organization for a tax deduction! For more information about the Annual Cleanup, visit www.westvalleyrecycles.com or call WVCR at (408) 289-9250. Friendly Bugs and Green Gardens If you
use pesticides in your lawn and garden, your yard may not be the healthy green oasis that you have in mind. Instead of pesticides, try using “beneficial bugs” that eat insect pests.
Ladybugs, Lacewings, and other gardenfriendly bugs are great partners in sustainable gardening. Be sure to check your shelves for unsafe pesticides that contain DIAZINON or CHLORPYRIFOS.
These products have been taken off the market and should be properly disposed of by dropping them off at the County’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) site. You can make an appointment
to drop of pesticides or other dangerous products by calling (408) 299-7300. To learn more about beneficial bugs, visit www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/NE/index.html. Photos courtesy of University
of California. Below: lacewing. Right: ladybug larvae. 173
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative
Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Facility Naming Application for Saratoga Community Center RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: On April
30, 2008, the City of Saratoga received a facility naming application from the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani proposing to name the Saratoga Community Center the Joan Pisani Community
Center. The City’s policy on naming Saratoga facilities and parks requires that all applications are sent to the appropriate City Commission to provide the Council with a recommended
action. Once the application has been reviewed by a Commission, policy requires the final decision and staff direction on the naming proposal to be made by the City Council. The application
submitted by the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission during their meeting on May 13, 2008. During the meeting, the Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the naming application. For facilities to be named after a current or former employee, the policy requires that three of the following criteria are met: -Made
contributions over and above the normal duties required by his/her job; -Had a positive impact on the past and future development of programs or facilities in the City of Saratoga; -Made
significant volunteer contributions to the community outside the scope of his/her job; -Had exceptionally long tenure with the City of Saratoga (i.e. over 25 years); -Significant public
support for a memorial to the employee on the occasion of his/her death or retirement. The Committee to Honor Joan Pisani has stated in their application that their proposal meets all
of the mandatory criteria and has provided an explanation in Attachment B. During the June 18, 2008 City Council Meeting, Thomas Soukup, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission,
has been asked to present the Commission’s recommendation to Page 1 of 2 174
Page 2 of 2 approve the facility naming application submitted by the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani. Additionally, Paul Conrado, on behalf of the Committee to Honor Joan Pisani, will
be reviewing the application and will be available to answer Council questions regarding the proposal. FISCAL IMPACTS: There are no direct fiscal impacts, as applicants are required
to cover the cost of new signage according to the City’s policy on facility naming. Exceptions can be made in the case of economic hardship and if City funding is available to cover
the expense. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Facility
naming application from Committee to Honor Joan Pisani Attachment B: Facility naming application supplemental information (spiral bound document) Attachment C: City’s policy on facility
naming 175
176
177
178
179
180
181
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone, PW Director John Cherbone,
PW Director SUBJECT: Saratoga Village Parking and Valet Service Report RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept report and provide direction to staff regarding Saratoga Village Parking and Valet
Service. REPORT SUMMARY: The report is divided into two parts, the first being a survey of parking demand in the Village and the second being the evaluation of valet service in the Village.
Village Parking Survey Background The adequacy of parking in the Village has been an ongoing issue of interest to merchants, property owners, patrons, and policy makers since the City
was incorporated. Over time the City created four parking districts in order to increase parking capacity in the Village. The parking districts were financed and built by assessing property
owners who directly benefited from the proposed district. Once a parking district was established the City took over ownership and maintenance responsibility, thus creating the public
parking capacity that currently exists in the Village. In addition to the four Saratoga Village Parking District Lots, the City also manages on street parking along Big Basin Way, 3rd
Street, 4th Street, and 5th Street commonly used by patrons. Discussion At the November 7, 2007 City Council Meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive parking study
in the Village including Village Parking Districts and on-street parking. 182
Occupancy and duration surveys were performed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and compiled in a Memorandum dated June 11, 2008 (Attachment 1). Village Parking Survey Recommendation Summary
Parking Districts: • Post 3 hour parking limits in Village Parking Districts 1, 2, & 4. • Post 3 hour parking limits in Village Parking District 3 except for 70 parking spaces with small
demand. • Post 70 spaces with 8 hour parking limits in Village Parking District 3 and mark them with an “E” to direct employees to appropriate parking spaces that have small demand.
On-Street Parking (Motor Vehicle Resolutions Required): • Reduce length of the loading zone beginning furthest west in front of the Plumed Horse restaurant by the standard length of
one parking space and convert the space to 2 hourparking. • Change 15 min parking limit located in front of The French Tailor (14577 Big Basin Way) from 9:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. to 9:00
A.M. – 6:00 P.M. • Change 15 min parking limit located in front of De Mario restaurant (14444 Big Basin Way) to 2 hour parking. • Change loading zone located in front of the School Wear
store (14527 Big Basin Way) to 2 hour parking. Village Valet Service Background: In 1998, the City adopted Article 4-80 to the City Code regulating Valet Service (Attachment 2). This
Article regulates Valet Parking Services in the City by requiring a vendor to hold a City permit, pay a $300 permit fee, and submit liability insurance. The Article also allows for an
evaluation of valet parking services operating in the City and review of the Valet Parking Service Ordinance (Attachment 2). Discussion: Since adoption of the Valet Parking Service Ordinance
two Village restaurants, the La Fondue restaurant (previously Viaggios restaurant) and the Plumed Horse restaurant have offered valet services to their patrons. The City Traffic Engineer
recently conducted an analysis of the two valet services operating in the Village and reported them to be operating adequately (Attachment 3). 183
Village Valet Service Recommendation Summary: • Direct staff to work with two restaurants to ensure their valet service permit information is current. • Amend Valet Parking Service Ordinance
per City Council direction. FISCAL IMPACTS: Staff time and material costs for new signs and paint. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Depends on City Council direction.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff will follow-up on Village parking issues based on City Council direction. Ordinance Amendments and/or
Motor Vehicle Resolutions will be submitted to City Council at a future date. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notices were handed out to merchants in the Village and mailed
to property owners (Attachment 4). ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2008 Village Parking Survey. 2. Valet Parking Service Ordinance. 3. Village Valet Service Evaluation. 4. Notice. 184
160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: June 11, 2008 To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director
From: Sohrab Rashid/Franziska Holtzman Subject: 2008 Village Parking Survey in Saratoga, California 1025-446-1 In November 2007 and May 2008, Fehr & Peers completed a comprehensive parking
survey of the Village area in Saratoga, California. The Village area comprises the City of Saratoga’s downtown and is located on Big Basin Way extending from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
to 6th Street. The Village includes four designated Parking Districts (1, 2, 3, and 4) located behind Village businesses, as well as, on-street parking along Big Basin Way, and other
private lots serving individual businesses or centers. Parking Districts 1 and 3 are surface parking lots located behind the business on the north side of Big Basin Way, while the surface
parking lots in Parking Districts 2 and 4 are located behind businesses on the south side of Big Basin Way. Figure 1 shows the Village area and the location of the Parking Districts.
This study included both parking occupancy and duration surveys in all four parking districts and on-street parking spaces at half-hour intervals from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm on one weekday
and one Saturday. In addition to the number of occupied parking spaces, Fehr & Peers evaluated parking duration by collecting the last four digits of each parked vehicle’s license plate.
The purpose of these surveys was twofold: a. To evaluate parking supply to determine if it is sufficient to accommodate the existing demand b. To evaluate the duration that vehicles
are parked to determine if current time limits are appropriate based on existing demand. This memorandum summarizes our findings in three sections. First, findings from Parking Districts
2 and 4 are discussed, followed by a section describing the findings for Parking Districts 1 and 3. On street-parking is evaluated in the third section. This memorandum concludes with
a summary summary of the findings presented in this memo. PARKING EVALUATION FOR PARKING DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 Fehr & Peers completed occupancy and duration surveys in Districts 2 and 4
on Thursday, November 15, 2007, and Saturday, November 17, 2007. Our findings are presented below. Existing Parking Supply Parking Districts 2 and 4 are located south of Big Basin Way,
behind the businesses located between 3rd and 5th Streets. Parking District 2 (west of 4th Street) has a total of 57 public parking spaces, in addition to 16 private valet parking spaces
for the La Fondue restaurant, while Parking District 4 (east of 4th Street) includes 61 public parking spaces. Both districts have spaces with different posted time limits. Two-hour
and four-hour parking restrictions are posted on some spaces, while others are not time-restricted at all. Table 1 summarizes the number and type of spaces available in Parking Districts
2 and 4. 185
186
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 3 of 15 TABLE 1 PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY FOR PARKING DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 IN THE VILLAGE OF SARATOGA Parking District 2-Hour Parking Limit 9am to 5pm 2-Hour
Parking Limit (4pm to 12am) 4-Hour Parking Limit (4pm to 12am) Private Valet Parking Handicap Parking No Parking Restriction Total Parking Supply 2 32 0 0 16 1 24 73 4 0 35 19 0 2 5
61 Total 32 35 19 16 3 29 134 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007. District 2 and 4 Parking Occupancy As shown on Figure 2, Parking Districts 2 and 4 are on average about 85 percent to 90 percent
occupied for most of the late afternoon and evening. The peak parking demand occurred on Thursday at 7:30 pm with nearly 100 percent of the parking spaces occupied (128 out 134). Other
than this time period the parking demand on Saturday typically exceeded the Thursday parking demand. In the evening after 8:30 pm, the parking demand dropped off quickly on Thursday,
while the Saturday demand had a more gradual decline. For the 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm time period, the average parking occupancy was 81 percent on Thursday and 87 percent on Saturday. These
parking occupancies show similar trends to data collected in the Village in July of 2002. The 2002 data showed that Parking Districts 2 and 4 were between 60 percent and 100 percent
occupied from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Figure 3 shows the occupancy by individual districts. District 2 was approximately 83 percent occupied on average on Thursday and Saturday, and District
4 was approximately 87 percent occupied. The data for District 2 includes the La Fondue valet parking lot in the occupancy rate. Without the valet lot, District 2 was approximately 96
percent occupied. La Fondue opens for dinner at 5:00 pm and their valet parking lot was approximately 50% to 60% occupied on average between 5:00 pm and 10:00 pm on Thursday and Saturday.
In summary, both parking Districts 2 and 4 are near capacity on Thursday and Saturday evenings. Parking occupancy is slightly higher on Saturday than on Thursday, and District 2 (excluding
the valet parking lot) has a higher occupancy rate than District 4. 187
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 4 of 15 Figure 2: Parking Occupancy – Parking Districts 2 & 4 by Day of Week 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00
17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 Time Period Percent of Spaces Occupied Thursday Saturday Figure 3: Average Daily Parking Occupancy for Parking Districts 2
& 4 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 Time Period Occupied Parking Spaces District 2 (no LF) Average
Daily District 2 Average Daily District 4 Average Daily 188
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 5 of 15 District 2 and 4 Parking Duration In addition to parking occupancy rates, data was collected on the duration that vehicles parked in each space
in both districts. In those parking spaces that do have parking restrictions (2-hour or 4-hour), nearly 10 percent of all parked vehicles exceeded the designated parking time on both
Thursday and Saturday. The percent of parking violations was fairly even for both Districts 2 and 4. However it should be noted that Parking District 2 has less restrictive limits than
District 4 for the data collection time period between 3:00 pm and 10:00 pm.1 During the survey period, approximately 300 and 330 different vehicles parked in the two districts on Thursday
and Saturday, respectively. Of the total parked vehicles, approximately 35 percent (or 100 vehicles) parked for at least three hours on both Thursday and Saturday. Nearly 20 percent
parked for at least five hours on Thursday and Saturday, for a total of approximately 60 vehicles each day. Similarly, approximately six percent parked for at least seven hours on Thursday
and nine percent on Saturday. This translates to 18 vehicles on Thursday and 29 vehicles on Saturday that parked for at least seven hours. Those vehicles that parked for at least seven
hours are likely owned by employees that work at the retail and restaurant locations on Big Basin Way. Table 2 summarizes the average duration by parking restriction zone. For all parking
spaces, the average parking duration was approximately 3.6 hours and 3.4 hours for Thursday and Saturday, respectively. In the 2-hour parking limit zones the average parking duration
exceed the posted limit by at least one hour on both days. The average parking duration for the 4-hour zones was within the posted limit. TABLE 2 AVERAGE PARKING DURATION BY ZONE FOR
DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 Parking Zone Thursday Saturday 2-hour 3.1 3.0 4-hour 3.4 3.8 No Limit 4.4 5.0 Valet Parking 2.9 2.6 All Parking Spaces 3.6 3.4 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007. Summary Conclusions
for Parking Districts 2 and 4 Based on the observed parking demand, the parking supply in Parking Districts 2 and 4, with the exception of the valet parking lot, is near capacity during
the evening peak hours from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The average parking occupancy for both parking districts is approximately 3.5 hours. This indicates that the 2-hour parking restriction
from 4:00 pm to 12:00 am is not being enforced regularly and demand is for a period of approximately three hours. 1 Data was collected between 3:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Parking District
2 has 2-hour time restrictions between 9:00am and 5:00 pm, while Parking District has 2-and 4-hour parking restrictions between 4:00 pm and 12:00 am. 189
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 6 of 15 To increase the available supply and turnover, all spaces could be posted with a three-hour limit at all times of the day. This would force employees
to park in a different lot (likely District 3) and make at least 16 spaces available in both lots. The three-hour limit would also accommodate the typical time a costumer spends in the
Village as evidenced by the surveys. The City has the opportunity to lease 22 spaces in two privately owned lots located south Big Basin Way off of 3rd Street to increase the supply
for District 2. Because Districts 2 and 4 have high occupancy rates, the addition of these parking spaces would help to address the high peak parking demand in the immediate vicinity
of 4th Street/Big Basin Way. If the spaces are leased by the City, they should be posted with the three-hour limit to accommodate the average parking duration, and would increase the
District 2/4 supply by 16 percent. To ensure compliance with the limits and provide reasonable parking turnover, periodic enforcement will be required. PARKING EVALUATION FOR PARKING
DISTRICTS 1 AND 3 Fehr & Peers completed occupancy and duration surveys in Parking Districts 1 and 3 on Thursday, May 1, 2008, and Saturday, May 3, 2008. Existing Parking Supply Parking
Districts 1 and 3 are located north of Big Basin Way, behind the businesses located between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and 5th Street. Parking District 1 (located between 5th Street and
east of 4th Street) has a total of 127 public parking spaces, with an additional 41 private parking spaces for The Inn at Saratoga. Parking District 3 (east of 4th Street to Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road) has 219 public parking spaces. Parking District 1 does not have any parking restrictions, while Parking District 3 has parking spaces with varied posted time limits. Some spaces
are posted with 2-hour limits and a few are restricted to 15 minutes, while others are not time restricted at all. Table 3 summarizes the number and type of parking spaces available
in each district. TABLE 4 PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY FOR DISTRICTS 1 AND 3 Parking District 2-Hour Parking Limit 15-Minute Parking Limit Private Parking Handicap Parking No Parking Restriction
Total Parking Supply 1 0 0 41 8 119 168 3 91 4 0 7 117 219 Total 91 4 41 15 236 387 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008. District 1 and 3 Parking Occupancy As shown in Figure 4, Parking Districts
1 and 3 are about 40 percent to 50 percent occupied on average for most of the late afternoon and evening. The peak parking demand occurred on Thursday at 3:00 pm with nearly 60 percent
of the parking spaces occupied (232 out 387). Thursday typically exceeded the Saturday parking demand from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. In the evening after 6:30 pm the Saturday demand was almost
always higher than the Thursday parking demand. From 3:00 pm to 6:30 pm, both days showed a steady decline in demand, while a 190
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 7 of 15 secondary peak occurred on Saturday between 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm. For the 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm time period, the average parking occupancy was 44
percent on Thursday and 43 percent on Saturday. Figure 5 shows the occupancy by individual districts. District 1 was approximately 44 percent occupied on average on Thursday and Saturday,
and the average occupancy in District 3 was approximately 43 percent on these days. The data for District 1 includes The Inn at Saratoga parking lot in the occupancy rate summary. Without
the private parking lot, District 1 was approximately 80 percent occupied from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, with a significant drop in occupancy after 5:00 pm. Figure 4: Parking Occupancy – Parking
Districts 1 & 3 by Day of Week 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 Time Period Percent
of Spaces Occupied Thursday Saturday In summary, parking demand in District 1 (excluding the private parking lot) varied between 78 and 92 percent of capacity on Thursday and Saturday
from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, while the parking demand in District 3 was consistently below half of its capacity for the entire survey period. Occupancy was slightly higher on Thursday prior
to approximately 6:30 pm but this trend is reversed after 6:30 pm with an increase attributed to demand caused by weekend evening dining. Parking District 1 (both including and excluding
the private parking lot) has a higher occupancy rate than District 3 until late at night. The maximum desirable parking occupancy level in most lots is 85 to 90 percent so that drivers
do not spend an inordinate amount of time searching for a parking space when a lot is close to fully occupied. 191
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 8 of 15 Figure 5: Average Daily Parking Occupancy for Districts 1 and 3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30
18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 Time Period Occupied Parking Spaces District 1 Average Daily District 1 w/o Private Parking District 3 Average Daily District 1
and 3 Parking Duration In addition to parking occupancy rates, data was collected on the duration that vehicles parked in each space in both districts. In those parking spaces that do
have parking restrictions, nearly 15 percent of all parked vehicles exceeded the designated parking time on both Thursday and Saturday. As noted previously, District 1 has no spaces
with time restrictions. This data excluded the four spaces with the 15-minute limit due to limitations of the surveyed time-interval of 30 minutes. During the survey period, approximately
460 and 470 different vehicles parked in the two districts on Thursday and Saturday, respectively. Of Of the total parked vehicles, approximately 25 percent (or 116 vehicles) parked
for at least three hours on both Thursday and Saturday for each of the districts. Nearly 10 percent or 50 vehicles parked for at least five hours on each day surveyed.
Similarly, approximately five percent parked for at least seven hours on Thursday and seven percent on Saturday. This translates to 23 vehicles on Thursday and 33 vehicles on Saturday
that parked for at least seven hours. Those vehicles that parked for at least seven hours are likely owned by employees that work for the businesses within the Village. Table 5 summarizes
the average duration by posted time limit. For all parking spaces, the average parking duration was approximately 3.1 hours for both Thursday and Saturday. In the 2-hour parking limit
spaces, the average parking duration exceed the posted limit by almost one hour on both days. The average parking duration for the 15-minute zones was not included due to the limitation
of 30-minute data collection periods. 192
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 9 of 15 TABLE 5 AVERAGE PARKING DURATION BY ZONE FOR DISTRICTS 1 AND 3 Parking Zone Thursday Saturday 2-hour 2.7 3.4 No Limit 3.2 3.1 Private Parking
4.4 3.1 All Parking Spaces 3.1 3.1 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008. Summary Conclusions for Parking Districts 1 and 3 Based on the observed parking demand, Parking District 1 (excluding the
private parking lot for The Inn at Saratoga hotel) had an average parking demand of 80 percent of its capacity during the afternoon peak hours from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Occupancy in District
3 was consistently below 50 percent throughout the study period. The average parking duration for both parking districts was approximately 3.1 hours. This indicates that the 2-hour parking
restriction is not being enforced regularly and actual demand is for a period of approximately three hours. As recommended above all spaces in District 1 and 3 could be posted with a
three-hour limit at all times to accommodate the typical parking duration. The greater parking demand for Districts 2 and 4 as compared to Districts 1 and 3 indicates that parking in
the even numbered lots is more desirable to patrons. Since more than half of the parking supply in District 3 is available (approximately 110 available spaces) and with District 2 and
District 4 near capacity during the surveyed period, District 3 could be used for designated employee parking in the Village with longer time limits (e.g., up to 8 hours). For all four
districts combined, approximately 40 to 60 of vehicles were observed parking for seven hours or more. Allowing for a ten percent fluctuation in daily parking demand, 70 parking spaces
in District 3 could be designated for employee parking with a posted time limit of 8 hours or more. These could be marked with an “E” to direct employees to the appropriate parking spaces.
However, without a permitting process, visitors to the Village could park in these spaces as well. This will free up some spaces within Districts 2 and 4 for more short-term customer
parking. The remaining spaces in District 3 could be posted with a three-hour time limit. ON-STREET PARKING EVALUATION Fehr & Peers completed occupancy and duration surveys for on-street
parking spaces in the Village area. The surveys were conducted on Thursday, May 29, 2008, and Saturday, May 31, 2008. Existing Parking Supply On-street parking is located on both sides
of Big Basin Way between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and 6th Street, as well as on one or both sides of 3rd, 4th and 5th Streets. A total of 124 on-street spaces and 8 loading zone spaces
are available in the Village. Most spaces are posted with 2-hour limits and a few are restricted to 15 minutes. Table 6 summarizes the number and type of parking spaces available on
Big Basin Way and Figure 6 illustrates the Village’s on-street parking inventory. 193
6th St. 5th St. 4th St. 3rd St. Saratoga Los Gatos Rd. SR 9SR Big Basin Way 9 1 12 5 4 9 7 2 3 6 6 4 4 4 1 11 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 7 2 3 3 3 Loading zone 9 am -6pm
9 am -10 pm except Sundays 9 am -10 pm except Sundays No parking loading zone 9 am-6 pm Passenger load zone Mon-Sat 6 pm -12 am 9 am -6pm 9 am -6pm 9 am -10 pm 9 am -6 pm except Sundays
& Holidays 9 am -6pm June 2008 1025-446\Phase 1 Saratoga Village Parking FIGURE 1 SARATOGA VILLAGE (BIG BASIN WAY SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 9) ON-STREET PARKING INVENTORY NOT TO SCALE N LEGEND:
= 2-hour Parking = 15-min. Parking = Loading Zone 2 = Number of Parking Spaces 194
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 11 of 15 TABLE 6 PARKING SUPPLY SUMMARY FOR ON-STREET PARKING 2-Hour Parking Limit 15-Minute Parking Limit Loading Zones Total Parking Supply 115 9 8
132 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008. Parking Occupancy As shown in Figure 7, on-street parking is about 80 percent occupied on average for most of late afternoon and evening. The peak parking
demand occurred on Saturday at 7:30 pm with nearly 90 percent of the parking spaces occupied (118 out of 132). Saturday typically exceeded the Thursday demand from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
In the evening after 8:00 pm, the Thursday demand was higher than the Saturday parking demand. Both days showed a similar pattern, where the peak occurred on Saturday between 7:30 pm
to 8:00 pm. For the 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm time period, the average occupancy was 72 and 76 percent on Thursday and Saturday, respectively. Figure 7: Parking Occupancy – On-Street Parking
by Day of Week 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 Time Period Percent of Spaces Occupied
Thur On-Street Parking Sat On-Street Parking Figure 8 shows the occupancy both with and without the on-street loading zones. Approximately 75 percent of spaces were occupied on average
on Thursday and Saturday with loading zones included, and the average occupancy without the zones was approximately 80 percent. Both scenarios showed the peak demand occurring between
5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 195
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 12 of 15 Figure 8: Average Daily On-Street Parking Occupancy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30
19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 Time Period Occupied Parking Spaces On-Street Average Daily On-Street Average Daily w/o Loading Space In summary, on-street parking demand (excluding
the loading zone) varied between 76 and 78 percent of capacity on Thursday and Saturday from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm, while the parking demand for both situations consistently stayed above
60 percent of its capacity for the entire survey period. Occupancy was higher on Saturday prior to approximately 8:00 pm but this trend is reversed after 8:00 pm. This increase is attributed
to demand caused by weekend dining and shopping from afternoon to early evening. On-street parking (both including and excluding the loading zones) had a relatively high occupancy rate
through out the survey period exhibiting the desirability of spaces located closest to the entrance of most businesses. As noted previously, the maximum desirable parking occupancy level
in most lots is 85 to 90 percent so that drivers do not spend an inordinate amount of time searching for a parking space when on-street parking is close to fully occupied. On-street
Parking Duration In addition to parking occupancy rates, data was collected on the duration that vehicles parked in each space in both districts. As noted previously, on-street parking
in the Village includes posted 2-hour and 15-minute limits. This data excluded the nine spaces with the 15-minute limit due to limitations of the surveyed time-interval of 30 minutes.
During the survey period, approximately 85 and 88 different vehicles parked on the street on Thursday and Saturday, respectively. Of the total parked vehicles, approximately 19 percent
(or 16 vehicles) parked for at least three hours on Thursday and 11 percent (or 9 vehicles) on Saturday. Nearly five percent on Thursday and two percent on Saturday parked for at least
five five hours. Similarly, approximately one percent parked for at least seven hours on Thursday and 196
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 13 of 15 Saturday. This translates to one vehicle on both days that parked for at least seven hours, which is likely owned by an employee that works
for the businesses within the Village. Table 5 summarizes the average duration by posted time limit. For all parking spaces, the average parking duration was approximately 2 hours for
both Thursday and Saturday. In the 2-hour limit spaces, the average duration exceeded the posted limit by 0.1 hour on Thursday but was within the limit on Saturday. The loading zone
parking duration was approximately 1.3 hours. The average parking duration for the 15-minute zones was not included due to the limitation of 30-minute data collection periods. TABLE
7 AVERAGE PARKING DURATION BY PARKING ZONE Parking Zone Thursday Saturday 2-hour 2.1 1.8 Loading Zone 1.4 1.2 All Parking Spaces 2.1 1.8 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008. Evaluation of On-street
Designations As indicated above in Table 6, the majority of the on-street parking spaces have 2-hour time restrictions, while nine spaces have 15-minute time restrictions, and another
eight spaces are designated loading spaces. Between one and two of the 15-minute parking spaces are located on each block and are located in front of businesses that generally have high-turnover
rates (such as coffee shops and dry cleaners). As noted above, the overall on-street parking demand is nearly 80 percent and provides some capacity to allow drivers to find parking.
Base on the observed parking demand and the location of the 15-minute parking spaces in front of high-turnover businesses, the number and location of the 15-minute parking spaces are
generally adequate to meet the Village’s parking demand. One of the 15-minute parking spaces is located in front of the De Mario restaurant. Based on discussion of City staff with restaurants
owner this space could be converted to a 2-hour space, since the restaurant is generally a sit-down restaurant rather than a take-out facility. As shown on Figure 6 the 15-minute parking
limit is posted from either 9:00 am to 6:00 pm or 9:00 am to 10:00 pm. The 9:00 am to 6:00 pm restrictions are located east of 3rd Street in front of a clothing alterations store and
in front of the De Mario restaurant. The alterations store is generally closed by 6:00 pm; and therefore the duration of the 15-minute time restrictions is appropriate for this locations.
As noted in the paragraph above the restaurant is a sit-down facility and does not have a high-turn over rate. This space could be converted to a 2-hour space. The 15-minute parking
spaces are located west of 3rd Street and are posted from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm. The 15-minute parking spaces between 3rd Street and 4th Street are located in front of multiple restaurants
and a coffee shop, which both have a high-turnover potential for take-out food and beverages. Both the restaurants and coffee shop are open until 9:00pm or later; therefore the duration
of the 15-minute time restriction is considered appropriate for these locations. Lastly, a group of three 15-minute parking spaces is located north of 5th Street in front of tailoring
business and coffee shop. Though these businesses have high turnover rates during the daytime, they close for business in the early evening. Thus, we recommend that 15-minute parking
restriction at this location be changed to 9:00 am to 6:00pm to reflect the lower demand 197
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 14 of 15 for high turnover parking spaces. After 6 pm, these spaces would allow parking for up to 2 hours consistent with the rest of Big Basin Way.
The loading spaces are generally grouped in two spaces to allow adequate parking length for trucks making deliveries to Village businesses. The exception is the four-space loading area
in front of the Plumed Horse restaurant. Though, the Plumed Horse has a relatively high demand for the loading zone the demand could be met with three spaces; and therefore it is recommended
that the loading space furthest to the west be converted to 2-hour parking. Fehr & Peers prepared a separate memo to the City of Saratoga dated June 10, 2008, that addresses the demand
for the loading area in front of the Plumed Horse in more detail. In terms of location, the groups of two to four loading spaces are evenly distributed on Big Basin Way and are provide
sufficient loading capacity for Village businesses. Fehr & Peers does not recommend any modifications to the existing location of the loading areas. City staff has discussed the potential
of converting some of the 15-minute and loading spaces to 2-hour parking with business owners in the Village. Based on these conversations the 15-minute parking space in front of the
De Mario restaurant and the two-space loading area located on the north eastern corner of Big Basin Way and 4th Street could be converted. These modifications would convert three spaces
to 2-hour parking. Summary Conclusions for On-Street Parking Based on the observed parking demand, on-street parking (excluding the loading zone spaces) had an average parking demand
of 85 percent of its capacity during the evening peak hours from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Occupancy was consistently above 50 percent throughout the study period. The average parking duration
for both parking districts was approximately 2.0 hours. This indicates that the 2-hour parking restriction meets the actual demand with the exception of a few vehicles. This approach
could be maintained until parking demand increases occupancy to close to 90 percent in the future. At that time, time limits could be adjusted to increase turnover or employee parking
could be relocated to another lot. SUMMARY OF THE 2008 VILLAGE PARKING SURVEY The surveys show that the Village’s parking demand ranges anywhere from 40 percent to close to 100 percent
depending on the location of the parking spaces. The on-street parking occupancy was approximately 80 percent on weekday and Saturday evenings. Parking spaces located closer to the Big
Basin Way/4th Street intersection are the most desirable and have higher parking demand rates than those located east of 3rd Street. The highest occupancy rates are in Districts 2 and
4, while District 1 spaces are less attractive due to the additional walking distance and steep grade to get to businesses on Big Basin Way. Overall, most vehicles in the off-street
lots park for an average of three hours, while the on-street duration is two hours consistent with the posted limits. Parking duration studies showed that some employees are parking
in the highest demand areas and are able to due to infrequent enforcement of time limits. Accordingly, we recommend that spaces with 8-hour time limits be designated for employees in
District 3, which currently has a substantial parking surplus. The walking distance for employees from the middle of District 3 to 4th Street is roughly 1,000 feet, which is not an unreasonable
distance to be traversed as part of a commute trip. While some locational parking deficiencies do occur at peak times within the Village, the overall parking supply is generally sufficient
to meet the area’s parking demand. 198
John Cherbone June 11, 2008 Page 15 of 15 In addition, the time restrictions on three spaces with 15-minute limits could be reduced to allow 2-hour parking after 6 pm to increase the
on-street supply. Overall, however, the on-street supply includes 2-hour parking and we do not recommend any changes at this time. 199
4-80.010 Definition of “valet parking service.” As used in this Article, the term “valet parking service” means the business of using the city streets for the purposes of loading and
unloading passengers to and from vehicles and for the parking of those vehicles. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.020 Definition of “valet parking loading zone.” As used in this Article,
the term “valet parking loading zone” means a public place along side the curb of the street or elsewhere, designated by the City as a valet parking/loading zone and reserved exclusively
for the use of valet parking service and persons using such service. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.030 Definition of “City Manager.” As used in this Article, the term “City Manager”
means the City Manager or his designee. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.040 Operation allowed only in valet parking loading zone. A valet parking service shall only be operated in
connection with a designated valet parking loading zone. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.050 Permit required. (a) No person shall engage in the business of operating a valet parking
service in the City without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this Article. (b) Any person desiring to operate a valet parking service for which a permit is required under the provisions
of this Article shall also apply for and obtain a business license pursuant to Article 4-05 of this Chapter and pay the license fee specified in Section 4-05.100. No such business license
shall be issued unless and until the applicant has first obtained a valid permit under this Article. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.060 Application for permit; fee. (a) Any person
desiring to obtain a permit shall make application therefor to the City Manager, which application shall contain the following information: (1) The name, age, business address and residence
of the applicant if a natural person; if a corporation, its name, date and place of incorporation, address of its principal office, and the names of its principal officers together with
their respective addresses; if a partnership, association or other unincorporated entity, the names of the partners or persons comprising the association or company, with the place of
business and residence of each. (2) The experience of the applicant in the provision of valet parking service and whether or not any such similar permit, or license held by the applicant
or any of the principals of the applicant has ever been revoked, and if so, the circumstances of such revocation. 200
(3) The uniform or insignia to be used to designate the employees of the applicant. (4) The street number and location of the place or places desired by the applicant as valet parking
loading zones. (5) Whether the applicant or any of its principal officers or any of its employees have ever been convicted of a felony, or the violation of any narcotic or other penal
law involving moral turpitude. (6) Such further information as the City Manager may require. (b) The application shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established
from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.070 Receipt and determination by City Manager. (a) Upon receipt of the completed application
and other documents and the fee as required in Section 4-80.060, the City Manager shall conduct such investigation as he deems appropriate to determine whether a permit should be issued.
(b) In making his determinations, the City Manager shall take into consideration the number of valet parking services already in operation, the number of valet parking loading zones
already designated, and whether existing services and zones are adequate to meet the public need, the probable effect of increased service on local traffic conditions, and the character,
experience and responsibility of the applicant. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.080 Liability insurance. (a) No permit shall be issued or continued in operation, and no person shall
operate any valet parking service in the City unless and until there is in full force and effect a motor vehicle liability insurance policy or policies insuring such owner and covering
each employee thereof, and unless and until such owner shall file with the City Clerk a written certificate or certificates of insurance showing that such policy or policies are in full
force and effect and that an endorsement has been issued to each such policy or policies therein cited that the same shall not be canceled and no reduction in the amount of coverage
shall be made except upon thirty days' prior written notice to the City. Such policies shall insure the owner and any other person loading/unloading and/or driving or parking a vehicle
in the course of operating the valet parking service, against loss from the liability imposed on any of them by law for injury to, or death of, any person or damage to property, arising
from or growing out of the operation of such service, with coverage limits of not less than one million dollars in public liability coverage for death or injury in any one occurrence,
and property damage coverage of not less than one hundred thousand dollars in such amount as approved by the City Manager. (b) In addition to the insurance required under subsection
(a) of this Section, the owner shall also furnish to the City, at his own cost and expense, a policy or policies of liability and other insurance coverage as may be required under the
applicable insurance standards of the City for consultants or contractors. Such policy or policies shall be maintained maintained in full force and effect in accordance with said insurance
standards during the entire term of the permit. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 201
4-80.090 Qualifications of parking valets; permits. (a) It is unlawful for any person to act as a valet for a valet parking service in the City unless he fulfills the following requirements:
(1) Holds a current, active (not suspended or revoked) motor vehicle operator's license from the State; (2) Is at least eighteen years of age. (b) It shall be the obligation of the owner
or permit holder to engage only such parking valets as fulfilling the above requirements. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.100 Transferability of permits. No permit, issued pursuant
to this Article, shall be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred, and any attempted sale, assignment or transfer shall invalidate the permit. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.110
Authority of City to designate street parking locations and times. (a) The City reserves the right to determine and designate appropriate street locations and times for the operation
valet parking services. (b) Once the City has determined and designated appropriate street locations and times for the operating of valet parking services, the service shall be limited
to parking or loading vehicles only at those street locations and time. (c) The City may add, modify or eliminate street locations and times authorized for the operating of valet parking
services, at any time, for any reason. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.120 Suspension or revocation of permit. (a) Any valet parking service permit issued under this Article may
be suspended or revoked by the City Manager for any reason that would justify a refusal to issue the permit originally, or by reason of any failure by the permittee to comply with the
provisions of this Article, or any other provision of this Code, or any condition of such permit. City Manager or his designee be granted a hearing upon the merits of the suspension
or revocation. If after such hearing the permit is ordered suspended or revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to City Council. (b) The holder of a valet parking
service permit shall be given prompt notice of the intention to suspend or revoke his permit. Such notice shall fix a time and place, not less than five nor more than thirty days after
service thereof, at which the holder of the permit may appear before the City Manager or his designee and be granted a hearing upon the merits of the suspension or revocation. If after
such hearing the permit is ordered suspended or revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to the City Council. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.130 Appeals to
City Council. 202
Any decisions rendered pursuant to this Article with respect to the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of a permit, or the conditions thereof, may be appealed to the City Council
by the applicant or permittee in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 2-05.030 of this Code. (Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.140 Violation of Article; penalties. The
violation of any provision contained in this Article, or the violation of any condition of a permit issued hereunder, is declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor and
a public nuisance, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Chapter 3 of this Code. The enforcement of this Article pursuant to Chapter 3 shall be in addition to any proceedings conducted
under Section 4-80.120 for revocation or suspension of the permit or any proceedings under Article 4-05 of this Chapter to revoke a business license by reason of the same violation.
(Ord. 71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 4-80.150 Annual review. Commencing in June 1999, and in June of every year thereafter, the provisions of this Article shall be reviewed and a separate
report made to the City Council by the City Manager at a public hearing, setting forth an analysis of the effectiveness of the valet parking service operations, including whether the
public convenience and necessity require the continuation of the valet parking service operations and/or whether the provisions of this Article should be modified or repealed. (Ord.
71-176 § 1 (part), 1998) 203
MEMORANDUM Date: June 11, 2008 To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director From: Sohrab Rashid/Franziska Holtzman Subject: Village Valet Service Evaluation 1025-446-1 In June 2008, Fehr
& Peers completed a qualitative evaluation of the privately operated valet parking for the La Fondue and Plumed Horse restaurants located near the 4th Street/Big Basin Way intersection
in the Village area of Saratoga, California. The purpose of this evaluation was two-fold: a. To determine the impact of the privately operated valet parking service on the public parking
supply. b. To evaluate whether the City should consider implementing a public valet parking service for the entire Village area in Saratoga. This memorandum summarizes our findings and
recommendations. EXISTING OPERATIONS OF VALET PARKING Currently the La Fondue and Plumed Horse restaurants each privately operate valet parking at their facilities. Both restaurants
charge a fee for the valet parking service (approximately $5 to $10) and the service is limited to restaurant customers. La Fondue is located on the southwest corner of 4th Street/Big
Basin Way intersection and uses three on-street parking spaces on the west side of 4th Street as a staging area for its valet parking service. The three spaces are designated for passenger
loading/unloading only. Vehicles are parked in the privately owned parking lot behind the restaurant that includes 16 parking spaces. Based on parking occupancy surveys conducted by
Fehr & Peers in November 2007, the parking lot is on average 50 percent occupied during business hours. The Plumed Horse is located on the north side of Big Basin Way just west of the
4th Street on the north side of Big Basin Way and uses four on-street parking spaces located in front of the building on Big Basin Way as a passenger loading area for its valet service.
The spaces are located within a designated commercial loading zone enforced between 9 am and 6pm. The Plumed Horse does not have a separate private lot for valet parking. Vehicles are
generally parked in public parking spaces in Parking Districts 1 and 3 (located behind businesses on the north side of Big Basin Way) or in parking spaces available on Big Basin Way.
During our observations, one or two of the four loading spaces in front of the Plumed Horse were used for valet parking; thus reducing the loading area to two or three spaces. Field
observations were conducted at both locations between the hours of 5:30 pm and 7:30 pm on Thursday, June 5, 2008, and Saturday, June 7, 2008. At both facilities, a maximum of two vehicles
were observed using the valet parking service areas at one time. Based on these observations, the loading areas for both valet service areas could be reduced by one parking space. This
would create two additional on-street parking spaces in areas of the Village where customers prefer to park due to its proximity to many restaurants and other destinations. At 160 West
Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com 204
minimum, we recommend that the valet parking area at the Plumed Horse be reduced to three parking spaces since the additional space is not needed for valet service and could be converted
to a full-time public space. In November 2007 and May 2008, Fehr and Peers conducted parking occupancy surveys for the four public parking districts and on-street parking
in the Village area of Saratoga. The Parking Districts provide surface parking behind businesses on both sides of Big Basin Way. The surveys showed that Parking District 1 and 3 on
the north side of Big Basin Way are generally 50 percent occupied, while District 2 and 4 on the south side of Big Basin Way are near capacity from 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Based on the
observed parking demands in District 1 and 3, parking from the Plumed Horse’s valet service does not have a substantial negative impact on the availability of public spaces in these
Parking Districts. The occupancy surveys showed that on-street parking spaces are highly desirable to Village customers, especially during the evening hours; therefore the Plumed Horse
does affect the availability of on-street parking spaces during peak times. The Plumed Horse valet service should be discouraged from using on-street parking spaces for its service and
should only park valet service vehicles in available spaces in District 1 and 3. This operation would make more on-street parking available for all Village customers and would provide
additional supply for patrons parked for shorter periods of time (i.e., less than 2 hours). It should be noted that most Plumed Horse valet service vehicles were observed parking in
Districts 1 and 3. Because the La Fondue restaurant has its own private lot to park customer vehicles, its operations do not impact the public parking supply or traffic operations in
its current configuration on 4th Street. At one point, the valet service was located on the south side of Big Basin Way west of 4th Street. This alternative location is not recommended
since most drivers approach from the east (i.e., Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) and most vehicles would have to turn around west of 4th Street to access the curb adjacent to the restaurant.
Given the road width of Big Basin Way and the commercial area, U-turns are infeasible and illegal, and limited local street circulation makes turning around difficult. VILLAGE-WIDE VALET
PARKING SERVICE This section of the memo evaluates whether the City of Saratoga should consider implementing a Village-wide public valet parking service. The Village area extends over
five blocks along Big Basin Way from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to 6th Street. Ideally, valet passenger loading areas would need to be located on each block for the public valet service
to be successful. Providing a valet service area at one centralized location (for example in the middle of the Village at 3rd Street) would not likely be used by many customers. Valet
parking is primarily instituted for two reasons: 1) the service provides a convenience for patrons and if customers have to walk too far from their final destination to reach the valet
service they will likely try and find their own parking space; and/or 2) the parking supply is severely limited and the supply must be maximized by parking vehicles very close together
in nonstandard configurations. The current valet operations in the Village are generally operated for convenience in part due to the fact that the most desirable off-street lots in Districts
2 and 4 are near or at capacity at peak times. While spaces are available in District 1, some are located up to 450 feet from Big Basin Way and require a walk up 4th Street which is
built at a substantial grade. Also, valet parking service in the east area of the Village would be less attractive given the surplus of available parking in District 3 and its relatively
easy access to Big Basin Way (compared to District 1). 2 205
3 La Fondue is a popular restaurant with a seating capacity of 145 people and is generally at capacity during dinner hours. As noted above, the parking occupancy data collected in November
2007 showed that approximately eight of its 16 valet parking spaces were occupied during the evening hours. Field observations in May and June of 2008 confirmed these previous findings.
The occupancy surveys and field observations confirm show that most La Fondue customers prefer to find parking on their own in lieu of using the restaurant’s valet service even with
the relatively high demand for adjacent spaces on the street and in Districts 2 and 4. This illustrates that demand would not likely support a village-wide valet service. Additional
studies are required to ascertain the specific costs of providing village-wide valet service at several locations through the village. Costs would include labor for valet personnel,
management expenses, and insurance among others. Given the current fiscal situation for the City, this service would likely require funding through a business improvement district (BID)
or some other organization. In addition, this service would eliminate the use of at least two on-street parking spaces at each valet location during peak demand times. Based on the data
collected at the La Fondue restaurant, most customers prefer not to pay for valet parking and park their own vehicles. Thus, we do not recommend implementation of village-wide valet
parking service at this time, but do recommend its consideration should the available parking supply be reduced in the future. 206
207
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F.
Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM PROCEDURES RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff as to whether the City should:
1. Maintain the existing CDBG procedures or elect to have a study session prior to the formal meeting. 2. Modify the existing CDBG application form used by applicants for City CDBG funding.
3. Have the Community Grant Program follow a parallel process consistent with the CDBG program application, noticing, and meeting schedule. 4. Allow the CDBG applications to take priority
over the Community Grant Programs REPORT SUMMARY: The City Council has requested the review of the Community Development Block Grant procedures and the Community Grant Program procedures.
Since both are similar in nature and no formal procedures have been addressed for the Community Grant Program this has been combined into one staff report to review the two processes.
DISCUSSION: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Each year the City Council reviews requests for CDBG grant funding based on applications from various organizations. Traditionally,
the Councilmember assigned to the County HCD Policy Committee reviews the applications to make recommendations for Council action. In recent years, the Council has seen an increase in
the number of organizations requesting funding while disbursements from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have decreased. In the past, the job of the Council Liaison
has been very standardized with the funds equaling the requests. Since there have been fewer funds and more requests the task of making a recommendation to the Council from the Council
Liaison has become more difficult. One of the suggestions to assist with this is to have a Study Session with the entire City Council prior to the formal public hearing at which allocation
allocation decisions are made. This would provide opportunity for review of the applications prior to making a decision to allocate the funding. Another Page 1 of 3 208
suggestion has been to revise the CDBG application summary to include questions that are oftentimes asked of applicants particularly those that pertain to Saratoga residents (see attached
original and proposed applications). Community Grant Program Traditionally the City of Saratoga has provided Community Grants to non profit organizations funded by the end of year surplus
funds or the Council contingency funds. Due to the state of flux with the economy over the last ten years the City Council has not developed a set funding mechanism or general policy
for this purpose. At the budget hearing May 21, 2008, the City Council decided to add an amount of funds equal to the CDBG public services amount for funding the Community Grant Program
and to augment the CDBG program. The City Council also decided to allocate these funds at the same meeting as the CDBG hearing (which is held in March of each year). Staff recommends
implementing this direction by holding the CDBG hearing first as a separate agenda item and then the Community Grant Program item as a separate matter to be heard immediately after the
CDBG agenda item. In the past the Community Grant Program has not been widely advertised. The Council may consider having the same noticing process and time line as the CDBG process.
It is important to note that some community groups may not be able to apply for CDBG funds due to being a private club or entity, but would be able to apply for the Community Grant Program.
The two processes could be completely separate but on the same time line. The Council could direct staff to allow the CDBG applications to have priority over the Community Grant Program
applications and to roll over to the Community Grant Program when their funding is not met through the CDBG process. Current CDBG process The current process for the CDBG grants begins
with the advertising in the Saratoga News in January, and sending copies of the application with a reminder to applicants who applied the pervious year. In February all of the applications
applications are due. After all of the applications are collected the City Council Liaison to the CDBG meets with staff to go over the applications and make a recommendation to the City
Council for the March City Council meeting where the final distribution of the CDBG funds is decided upon. FISCAL IMPACTS: The funds for the CDBG and Community Grant Programs would be
included in the following year’s budget. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Continue to review applications consistent with the current procedure.
Page 2 of 3 209
Page 3 of 3 FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will make adjustments to application forms and schedule a study session for Council review prior to presenting the topics during public hearing. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The agenda for this meeting was property posted on June 12, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Current Application Summary Attachment B – Alternative Application
Summary 210
ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 APPLICATION SUMMARY Name and Address of Applicant Organization: Name of Project: Please
complete questions 1-8 for ALL projects: 1. Total amount of CDBG funds requested and percentage of total cost:_________________________ _______________________________________________________________
________________. 2. Total project cost (all sources):________________________________________________________. 3. Number of paid staff for CDBG funded project: ______________________________________
___. 4. Number of volunteer staff for CDBG funded project: ______________________________________. 5. Percent of budget for administration (of project): _________________________________________.
6. Anticipated cost per housing unit or per client: ___________________________________________. 7. Amount of CDBG funds requested last year: _____________________________________________.
8. Amount of CDBG funds received last year: ______________________________________________. For Category I project only (acquisition or new construction): 9. Number of affordable units*
in project: _________________________________________________. 10. Anticipated date of occupancy: _______________________________________________________. *Units affordable to very low
income and low income individuals or families paying no more than 30% of household income. 211
ATTACHMENT B CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 APPLICATION SUMMARY Name and Address of Applicant Organization: Name of Project: Please
complete below questions for ALL projects: 1. What services does your organization provide? 2. Total amount of CDBG funds requested and percentage of total cost:_________________________
2. Total project cost (all sources):________________________________________________________. 3. Number of paid staff for CDBG funded project: __________________________________________.
4. Number of volunteer staff for CDBG funded project: ______________________________________. 5. Percent of budget for administration (of project): _________________________________________.
6. Anticipated cost per housing unit or per client: ___________________________________________. 7. Amount of CDBG funds requested last year: _____________________________________________.
8. Amount of CDBG funds received last year: ______________________________________________. 9. Number of Saratoga residents served by your organization: 10. Number of residents outside
of Saratoga served by your organization: 11. Do Saratoga residents get priority of service? 12. If no priority, would Saratoga residents be turned away (not served) if the City was not
able to pay for the service? 13. Other organizations and amounts that you have obtained funding from: 14. What is the total leveraging of money donated? For Category I project only (acquisition
or new construction): 15. Number of affordable units* in project: _________________________________________________. 16. Anticipated date of occupancy: _______________________________________________
_______. *Units affordable to very low income and low income individuals or families paying no more than 30% of household income. 212
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F.
Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Review the possible formation of a CH-2 District Review Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following: 1. Type
of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission) 2. Confirm participants REPORT SUMMARY: At the May 13th joint City Council meeting with the Planning Commission the Council heard from
residents attending the meeting concerns about the how the zoning in the Village is split between CH-1 and CH-2. During this discussion the City Council and Planning Commission expressed
interest in forming a committee to investigate the issues related to the two zoning districts. Council Member King and Planning Commissioner Hlava volunteered to be on the committee.
The Council requested that staff agendize the formation of a CH-2 District Review Committee for formal discussion at a City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: Currently the first two thirds
of the Village from Blaney Plaza to approximately 5th Street is zoned CH-1 with the remainder zoned CH-2. Some of the difference between the two districts is that the CH-2 District only
allows a height up to 26 feet, requires a 15 foot front setback, and only allows a site covered by structures up to sixty percent. The CH-1 District allows a 35 foot height limit, requires
no front setback, and allows eighty percent coverage. The difference may be limiting new development in the CH-2 District and not consistent with the streetscape of the rest of Big Basin
Way. The committee could be charged with reviewing the two districts and make a recommendation to the City Council on their findings. There are several options available for structuring
a committee, or as an alternative a commission: 1. As an ad hoc committee. This would consist of two Council members. They would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report
back. Their Their meetings would be informal and would not require public notice. Following their final report to the City Page 1 of 3 213
Council the ad hoc would cease operations. 2. As Council-Planning Commission advisory committee. This would consist of one Council member and one Planning Commissioners. Like the ad
hoc, the committee would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back to the Council. These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and procedures in
accordance with the Brown Act. Following their final report to the City Council the committee would cease operations. 3. As a community advisory committee. A community advisory committee
would include any number of Saratoga residents as determined by the Council and could include Council members and Planning Commissioners if desired. The committee would investigate issues
as directed by the Council and report back to the Council. Alternatively they could report to the Community Development Director who is responsible for economic development issues (this
would be similar to the Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee that advises the Public Works Director). The Committee could be for a limited term (e.g., until
it makes its final report to Council) or operate on a long term basis. 4. As a Commission. A Commission would be a standing body created to provide advice to the City Council on an ongoing
basis. It would be structured similar to other City Commissions such as the Historic Preservation Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission. These meetings would be formal and would
require public notice and procedures in accordance with the Brown Act. FISCAL IMPACTS: The formation of an ad hoc committee would require minimal staff time and would not require any
formal noticing of the meetings. Staff would attend the meetings in an advisory capacity. Work generated from the ad hoc committee would be implemented as part of the staff work program.
An advisory committee or commission would require additional staff time to comply with Brown Act requirements and to provide the level of support that Council directs staff to provide
to the Committee or Commission. Depending on the types of projects pursued by the committee or commission it may be possible to have work performed by volunteers. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT
FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: There would be no Committee or Commission to review the CH-2 zoning District and the possible impacts it may have on development in the Village. ALTERNATIVE
ACTION: Discussed above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed. Page 2 of 3 214
Page 3 of 3 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. CH-1 and CH-2 District requirements 215
15-19.050 C-H district regulations. (a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed
in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts: (1) professional, administrative and medical offices and financial institutions, when located either above the street level or at the street level if
separated from the street frontage by a retail establishment; and (2) personal service businesses that are above street level, and personal service businesses that are at street level
but do not have primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line. (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) of this Article,
the following conditional uses may also be allowed in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter: (1) Professional, administrative
and medical offices and financial institutions, when located at street level and having street frontage. (2) Theaters. (3) Religious and charitable institutions. (4) Mixed-use development
conforming to the design standards found in Article 15-58. (5) Personal service businesses at the street level that have primary access from Big Basin Way or across the front lot line.
(c) Site area. The minimum net site area in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Net Site Area CH-1 5,000 sq. ft. CH-2 7,500 sq. ft. (d) Site frontage, width and depth. The
minimum site frontage, width and depth in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Frontage Width Depth CH-1 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. CH-2 50 ft. 50 ft. 100 ft. (e) Coverage; pedestrian
open space. (1) In the CH-1 district, the maximum net site area covered by structures shall be eighty percent, except that up to one hundred percent of the site may be covered by structures
if, for any structure coverage in excess of eighty percent, an equivalent area on the site is devoted to pedestrian open space. (2) In the CH-2 district, the maximum net site site area
covered by structures shall be sixty percent. In addition, an area equivalent to not less than twenty percent of the net site area shall be devoted to pedestrian open space. All or any
portion of the required front setback area may be used for pedestrian open space. (3) The term “pedestrian open space,” as used in subsections (e)(1) and (2) of this Section, means common
areas open to the public where pedestrians may walk or gather, such as plazas and arcades, which are designed to be visible and accessible to pedestrians on streets, sidewalks and parking
facilities adjacent to the site. (f) Front setback area. No front setback area shall be required in the CH-1 district. The 216
minimum front setback area of any lot in the CH-2 district shall be fifteen feet. (g) Side setback area. No side setback area shall be required in either the CH-1 or CH-2 district. (h)
Rear setback area. No rear setback area shall be required in the CH-1 district. No rear setback area shall be required for any lot in the CH-2 district having a rear lot line that abuts
a public right-of-way, public parking district, Saratoga Creek, or the CH-1 district. Where the rear lot line of any lot in the CH-2 district abuts an A, R-1, HR, or RM district, the
minimum rear setback area shall be thirty feet, plus one foot for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion of a structure within sixty feet of the rear lot line
for such setback area exceeds fourteen feet in height. (i) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in each C-H district shall be as follows: District Height CH-1 35
feet. No portion of a structure facing Big Basin Way shall exceed two stories, and no portion of a structure facing Saratoga Creek shall exceed three stories. CH-2 26 feet. No structure
shall exceed two stories. (j) Enclosure of uses. All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed structure, except for off-street parking
and loading, gasoline service stations, garden shops and outdoor dining. (k) Exceptions to standards for historic structures. The Planning Commission shall have authority to grant exceptions
to any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure which has been designated as a historic
landmark pursuant to Article 13-15 of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The exception will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and
(2) The application and the proposed exception have been reviewed and approved by the City’s Heritage Commission; and (3) The exception will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment
of other properties in the vicinity; and (4) The exception will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or the availability of on-street parking, and will
not create a hazard to the public safety. (Amended by Ord. 71-108 § 1, 1992; Ord. 71.113 (part), 1992; Ord. 230 § 2 (part), 2004; Ord. 236 § 2F, 2005; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
15-19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15-55.130 of this Chapter, any clinic operating no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and no later than 9:00
P.M., any establishment engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages and any restaurant, market or delicatessen which, as of September 6, 1989, was lawfully established and legally operating
as a permitted use, shall be exempted from the requirement for elimination after lapse of time pursuant to Section 15-65.110 of this Chapter and also exempted from the necessity to obtain
a use permit for continuation of such use, but in all other respects shall be regarded as a 217
nonconforming use. Any mini-storage facility lawfully operating pursuant to a use permit granted prior to September 6, 1989, may continue to operate pursuant to the terms and conditions
of such use permit. 218
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F.
Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Review the possible formation of a Village Economic Development Committee RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review report and direct Staff accordingly on the following:
1. Type of committee (Ad Hoc, Advisory, or Commission) 2. Participants REPORT SUMMARY: At the May 13th joint City Council meeting with the Planning Commission the Council discussed the
economic vitality of the City. During this discussion the City Council and Planning Commission felt that the primary need for economic development was in the Village. Vice Mayor Page
and Council Member Hunter along with Commissioners Rodgers and Nagpal volunteered to be on a committee to review the economic development in the Village. The Council requested that staff
agendize the formation of a Village Economic Development Committee for formal discussion at a City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: In order to build on the work of the recent Retail Site
Assessment Report the Council has asked to create some form of a Village Economic Development Committee. The committee could be charged with reviewing the information from this report
and prior reports and developing an Economic Development Plan that they could recommend to the City Council. There are several options available for structuring a committee, or as an
alternative a commission: 1. As an ad hoc committee. This would consist of two Council members. They would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back. Their meetings
would be informal and would not require public notice. Following their final report to the City Council the ad hoc would cease operations. 2. As Council-Planning Commission advisory
committee. This would consist of two Council members and two Planning Commissioners. Like the ad hoc, the committee would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back
to the Council. Page 1 of 2 219
Page 2 of 2 These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and procedures in accordance with the Brown Act. Following their final report to the City Council the committee
would cease operations. 3. As a community advisory committee. A community advisory committee would include any number of Saratoga residents as determined by the Council and could include
Council members and Planning Commissioners if desired. The committee would investigate issues as directed by the Council and report back to the Council. Alternatively they could report
to the Community Development Director who is responsible for economic development issues (this would be similar to the Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee that
advises the Public Works Director). The Committee could be for a limited term (e.g., until it makes its final report to Council) or operate on a long term basis. 4. As a Commission.
A Commission would be a standing body created to provide advice to the City Council on an ongoing basis. It would be structured similar to other City Commissions such as the Historic
Preservation Commission or Paks and Recreation Commission. These meetings would be formal and would require public notice and procedures in accordance with the Brown Act. FISCAL IMPACTS:
The formation of an ad hoc committee would require minimal staff time and would not require any formal noticing of the meetings. Staff would attend the meetings in an advisory capacity.
Work generated from the ad hoc committee would be implemented as part of the staff work program. An advisory committee or commission would require additional staff time to comply with
Brown Act requirements and to provide the level of support that Council directs staff to provide to the Committee or Commission. Depending on the types of projects pursued by the committee
or commission it may be possible to have work performed by volunteers. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: There would be no Committee or Commission to actively promote
Economic Development in the Village. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Discussed above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed. ADVERTISING,
NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: None 220
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 4, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Time Limits RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: At its May 7, 2008 meeting, the City Council briefly discussed the
issue of how to limit the duration of Council meetings. Council members noted that, as meetings extend late into the evening (past 11:00 p.m.) the public may be discouraged from attending
and participating, and, with the late hour and lack of public participation, Council members may not make the bestinformed policy decisions. Staff was directed to schedule the issue
for a subsequent Council meeting agenda and to seek input from neighboring jurisdictions to determine options for limiting the duration of Council meetings. Staff received the following
information: Jurisdiction Actions taken to limit duration of Council meetings Campbell ?? Meetings generally run from 7:00-9:00 p.m. ?? Study sessions are scheduled in order to prepare
the Council prior to the meetings. ?? Public comment is limited to three minutes per person (unless there are many speakers, in which case the time can be reduced) Campbell uses a “traffic
light” at the podium, which is visible throughout the Chamber. The light stays green for two minutes, then automatically changes color to yellow for one minute before turning red. Los
Altos ?? Public comment is limited to three minutes per person (unless there are many speakers, in which case the time can be reduced). ?? No new items are introduced after 11:00 unless
the Council votes to do so, at which time the Council can choose to continue items to the next meeting. ?? The City Manager, Mayor and City Clerk work together to try to create balanced
agendas. Page 1 of 3 221
Mountain View ?? Council meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. ?? Public comment is limited to three minutes per person ?? No new items are introduced after 10:00 p.m., unless an exception is
made by vote of the Council. Santa Clara ?? Public comment is limited to three minutes per person; if there are more than 10 speakers, the time is reduced to two minutes per person.
Digital timers and lights (green, yellow, red) are used to indicate time limits. ?? Proclamations are not presented at Council meetings (except in rare cases) ?? A “process chart” (Attachment
“A”) is prominently displayed in Council Chambers Sunnyvale ?? Public comment is limited to 15 minutes total (divided by # of speakers). This may be extended or continued after the General
Business portion of the meeting at the discretion of the Mayor. ?? Only Board/Commission Chairs convey official actions of their bodies (not other board/commission members). ?? No new
items are introduced after 11:30 p.m. unless agreed by a majority of members present. Consideration of each new item after 11:30 p.m. must be agreed upon by a majority. ?? In order to
introduce a new item after 12:30 a.m., a supermajority must agree to its consideration. ?? No new items may be introduced after 1:30 a.m. Page 2 of 3 222
Page 3 of 3 DISCUSSION: Procedural commonalities among the jurisdictions appear to be: 1. Limitation of public comment to three minutes per speaker unless there are a large number (10
or more) in which case the time is reduced to two minutes per speaker. 2. No new items are considered after a specified time (this varies by jurisdiction) unless a majority vote of the
Council approves adding an item(s). 3. Timers and/or lights are used to indicate speaker time limits. 4. The Mayor, City Manager and staff work to balance the number of items on each
agenda. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING
AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: N/A 223