HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-2012 Council Retreat Agenda Packet
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
JANUARY 26, 2012
9:00 A.M.
SARATOGA PROSPECT CENTER - GRACE BUILDING
19848 PROSPECT ROAD, SARATOGA
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 9:00 A.M.
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
(Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was property posted on January 19,
2012)
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 non 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.
AGENDA TOPICS
1. 9:00 a.m. Ice Breaker
Light Breakfast & Coffee
Monica LaBossiere
2. 9:30 a.m. Community Development Department Work Plan James Lindsay
11:00 a.m. BREAK
3. 11:15 a.m. City of Saratoga Strategic Plan Mary Furey
12:00 p.m. WORKING LUNCH
Continue City of Saratoga Strategic Plan
4. 1:15 p.m. Social Media Policy Crystal Morrow
Richard Taylor
5. 1:45 p.m. Senior Services Michael Taylor
2:45 p.m. BREAK
6. 3:00 p.m. Mid-Year Budget & Forecast Mary Furey
7. 3:30 p.m. Environmental Sustainability Kimberly Thomas
8. 4:00 p.m. Retreat Wrap Up Mayor Chuck Page
Dave Anderson
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to
the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk
at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City
Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at
www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made
available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City
Council.
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting
will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA title II]
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Crystal Morrow, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the
meeting of the City Council was posted and available for public review on January 19, 2012, at the City
of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at
www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 19th day of January 2012 at Saratoga, California.
Crystal Morrow
City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: CDD Staff DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: Draft 2012 Planning Commission Work Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the draft work plan and provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
During the December 6, 2011 Planning Commission Retreat the Commission prioritized the
following tasks they would like to complete in 2012:
1. Develop a wireless telecommunications ordinance
2. Review the City’s Green Building Regulations in relation to the current California Green
Building Code
3. Review the height limit in the C-V Zoning District along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
4. Review the definition of building height
DISCUSSION:
Wireless Ordinance
The Planning Commission identified the following objectives they would like addressed in a new
wireless ordinance:
• Findings for Approval
• Location
• Height
• Materials
• Technology Improvements
• Peer Review (coverage requirement & correct technology)
• Radio Frequency Emission Reviews
• Technology Options
• Community Values
Staff briefly reviewed wireless ordinances of nearby cities including Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Los
Altos, Campbell, Cupertino, and Los Altos Hills. These ordinances have very similar objectives
which strive to provide a comprehensive set of standards for the development, location, and
installation of personal wireless services and facilities to reduce their aesthetic impact. Operation
and maintenance standards are also established in some ordinances to regulate the ongoing
maintenance of the wireless facilities after construction.
It is common for other cities to approve wireless facilities with a Conditional Use Permit. The
following are example findings:
¾ The project is necessary to provide essential city services;
¾ The proposed project attains the objects of the general plan and the telecommunication
policy;
¾ The proposed project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity;
¾ The site is physically suited for the project, and design and location alternatives have been
determined to be infeasible.
The City of Saratoga currently uses the same design review process and findings to review wireless
facilities as is used for new commercial buildings. A priority of the Planning Commission in
developing a wireless ordinance is to create a set of findings that are more applicable to wireless
facilities.
Green Building Regulations
The City Council adopted a Green Building Ordinance in 2009 to increase the integration of green
building practices for all new residential, commercial and public buildings throughout the City. The
current minimum green buildings standards are:
o New single-family and multiple-family dwellings - 50 points under the GreenPoint rating
system.
o Commercial, mixed-use, and community facility buildings - 15% more energy efficient
than required by Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
o Public buildings that are less than five thousand square feet in size - 15% more energy
efficient than required by Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
o Public buildings that are five thousand square feet in size, or larger - LEED certified at a
minimum silver level.
The State of California included green building measures as part of the 2010 State Building Code
update. Compliance with these standards assures that new residential construction earns at least 50
points per the GreenPoint rating system. Therefore the City’s requirements for new residential
dwellings does not exceed the current minimum requirements under the State Code. New
commercial, mixed-use, and community facility buildings in the City will continue to exceed the
minimum requirements of the State energy code by 15%. The Planning Commission could consider
updates to the minimum number of GreenPoints for new residential dwellings or a % energy
efficiency increase over minimum State requirements to further increase green building practices in
residential construction.
Commercial Visitor (C-V) Zoning District Height Limit
The C-V Zoning District is located along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and is often referred to as the
Gateway. Those guidelines are known as the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway Design Guidelines
and a set of design guidelines were adopted by the City Council in 2003 for this area.
CV
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ro
a
d
CV CV
The building height limits of all commercial districts are governed by the zoning ordinance. The
Gateway Guidelines do not contain height regulations or height guidelines. The table below
illustrates the building height limits in the City’s commercial zoning districts.
The Planning Commission would like to review the 20 foot building height limit’s impact on
attracting new commercial developments to this area.
Building Height Definition
The current definition of building height in the zoning ordinance is:
"Height of building" means the vertical distance from the average of the
highest and lowest point of the lot at the building's edge, measured from
natural grade, of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the topmost
point of the roof excluding appurtenances, unless otherwise specified in this
Chapter. The Community Development Director, through the use of the best
available information, such as tract grading plans, vegetation, and
neighborhood topography or existing grades, shall determine natural grade.
The illustration below shows how the definition is applied to determine building height on a sloping
lot:
Top of roof - 670 feet above sea level
25 feet 40 feet
660 feet – highest grade
645 feet – average grade
630 feet – lowest grade
In the example above the highest point of natural grade at the buildings edge is 660 feet above sea
level. The lowest point of natural grade at the buildings edge is 630 feet. Pursuant to the definition
of height, the average natural grade would be 645 feet and the height of the building measured at that
point is 25 feet. Thought the building appears short on one side of the property (10 feet) and appears
much taller on the other side of the property (40 feet).
The Planning Commission would like to review the visual impacts of “stair-stepping” buildings
down a sloping lot and compare the visual impacts along the creekside in the Village and in the
hillsides. Stair-stepping down a slope allows buildings to technically meet the required height limit
where certain portions of the building can appear taller than the height requirement.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: James Lindsay DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: CUP Reimbursement Program & Continuing Jurisdiction for CUPs
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Provide direction to staff on the amount of funding for the CUP Reimbursement Program
next fiscal year if it will continue beyond June 30, 2012.
2. Provide direction to staff on the proactive use of the CUP continuing jurisdiction
provisions to assist existing businesses.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The cost and processing time to obtain or amend a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is a common
concern from prospective and existing businesses owners in the City. In 2009, the City Council
helped address these concerns by creating the streamlined Administrative CUP process and by
providing $25,000 in funding for the CUP Reimbursement Incentive Program. Since July 2009,
seven Administrative CUPs have been granted, and funding for the Incentive Program has
assisted six businesses to date. St. Stan’s Brewery withdrew their project and therefore $4,700
remains in the program which is due to expire on June 30, 2012.
Address Business Name Business Type Fees
Refunded
Remaining
Balance
$25,000
14482 Big Basin Yolatea Yogurt Shop $3,400 $21,600
14598 Big Basin Big Basin Vineyards Wine Tasting $3,400 $18,200
20490 Big Basin Belltower Bistro Bakery $3,400 $14,800
Blaney Plaza Farmer's Market Outdoor Market $4,400 $10,400
14598 Big Basin Martella Wines Wine Tasting $3,400 $7,000
14572 Big Basin Vine Life Wine Sales $2,300 $4,700
The specific uses eligible under the Program are listed below:
• Family style restaurant that serves breakfast, lunch, and dinner
• Bakery
• Grocery store
• Wine tasting
• Ice cream or yogurt store
• Arts & craft instruction activities including but not limited to art lessons or martial arts
instruction
• Undesignated – Allows for a business that is consistent with the Council’s efforts to
revitalize a commercial area that does not fit the above use types. The business would
need to come before the City Council prior to submitting for a CUP for the incentive
recommendation.
The CUP continuing jurisdiction provisions are contained within City Code Section 15-55.100.
This provision allows either the Planning Commission or Community Development Director to
independently review an existing CUP under certain conditions (e.g. preserving a substantial
right of the applicant). This independent review does not require the submittal of an application
or payment of fees to amend a CUP
DISCUSSION:
CUP Reimbursement Program
The CUP Reimbursement Incentive Program has provided financial assistance to certain
business during this significant downturn in the economy. The local economy is slowly
improving which is evident by the two new commercial developments proposed in the Village.
Staff would like to receive direction from the City Council at the retreat if there is a desire to
continue the Program in FY 12-13 so we can account for the costs in the draft budget.
Continuing Jurisdiction
The proactive use of the CUP continuing jurisdiction provisions could be utilized in-lieu of (or in
addition to) the CUP Reimbursement Program by providing a no-application fee process to
amend existing CUPs under certain conditions. The Director or Planning Commission could use
this provision to proactively modify a CUP or groups of CUPs within a business segment to
ensure operating conditions are applied equally across all permits and make any necessary
updates to their conditions of approval. An example of how this could be applied is to normalize
the hours of operation for the four wine tasting rooms approved over the past nine years.
Uncorked was issued the first CUP in 2003 and was conditioned to close at 10:00 PM, Cinnabar
followed in 2006 and conditioned to close at 11:00 PM on Friday and Saturdays, Big Basin
Vineyards was conditioned in 2010 to close at 7:00 PM, and the fourth tasting room approved in
2011 (to be located in the same building as Big Basin but not yet open) has no limit on their
hours of operation.
Staff has met with the operators of the three existing tasting rooms and all are in agreement that
the operating hours and other conditions should be equalized across all four permits. Since all
four locations are less than 4,000 square feet the Community Development Director could call up
the four CUPs for review and modification under the Administrative Use Permit process. There
would be no charge for this review.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: CDD Staff DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Code Updates
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review report and provide direction to staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On an annual basis staff identifies specific city code sections that could be made to increase clarity,
remove inconsistences, or to address specific issues related to consistency with State laws or City
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed modifications to the zoning ordinance are as follows:
OUTDOOR MUSIC in C-H Section 15-19.050(j) – Add acoustic music to the list of
activities that can occur outside a business in the C-H District.
CORNER LOT 15-06.420(b) -Revise the definition of “Corner Lot”. The current definition
is confusing.
FENCES 15-06.670- Remove fences from the definition of “structure”
FENCES 15-29.010(a) - Change the text to indicate that a building permit shall be required
for solid fences exceeding six feet in height so as to conform to the building code.
R-1 DISTRICTS 15-12.100(c) - Change “quasi-public facilities (QPF) to Community
Facilities (CFS). The term Quasi Public Facility was removed from the GP LU Element and
was replaced with CFS.
APPEALS 15-90.050 - Correct the ten day appeal time limit to 15 days so as to be consistent
with other sections of the code.
MISC REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 15-80.030(d)(1) - State that an enclosed
accessory structure, with a use permit, can be located six feet from a rear property line and
the “side property line” when located within a rear setback area.
MISC REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 15-80.030(d)(2) - State that structures for the
keeping of animals can be located six feet from a rear property line and the “side property
line” when located within a rear setback area.
Proposed modifications to the tree regulations are as follows:
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS FOR PROTECTED TREES 15-45.080 – Include protected
trees in the findings for design review and update the referenced code sections
STREET TREE AUTHORITY 15-50.040- Revise to include all City maintained trees and
clarify City responsibilities. Outline a schedule of inspections of City owned trees to
determine maintenance priorities.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, AICP DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: Council Policy regarding Community Grant Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review report and provide direction to staff.
DISCUSSION:
CDBG Program Changes: Over the past two years, staff has advised the City Council that
administration of the Community Development Block Grant program would be changing. These
changes have taken effect for fiscal year 2012 and beyond. The County of Santa Clara has
consolidated the Urban County CDBG grant process into a single online application funding and
administration process. In the past, the City of Saratoga held public hearings to recommend
which projects should get funded. However, under the new process, both Cities and public
services providers must now apply directly to the County for funds. While the cities are
guaranteed capital funding under the current JPA, public service providers (e.g., SASCC) must
now compete on a competitive basis with other public service providers across the County.
Saratoga Community Grant Program: On May 1, 2008, the City Council established a policy
to match the City’s portion of CDBG public service funds with City Council contingency funds.
However, because the City will no longer receive CDBG public service funding, there is no
amount by which to base the City’s Community Grant program funding level. Given these
changes, the City Council should revise Council policy regarding the Community Grant
Program. The Council could:
1) Fund the Community Grant Program at last year’s level ($28,348);
2) Fund the Community Grant Program at the estimated level that would have occurred this
year if the CDBG program had no changes (approximately $26,500);
3) Temporarily suspend the Community Grant Program; or
4) Discontinue the Community Grant Program.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Strategic Planning
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept Strategic Planning presentation and engage in objective/strategy development exercise.
REPORT SUMMARY:
More and more, government organizations are utilizing ‘Strategic Planning’ as a best management
practice in the effort to determine and bring commitment to an organization’s direction and priorities. By
articulating and documenting the organization’s goals and objectives, priorities are established allowing
efforts to be aligned, resources to be used efficiently, and decision-making to be simplified. Strategic
Plans in substance provide succinct communication of Council’s direction to staff and the community, as
well as establishing continuity of direction through years of evolving Councils.
Simply put, strategic planning acts as a road map; it takes us from our goals (starting point), establishes
specific short and long objectives to be achieved, successively identifying the ‘how-to’ methods, also
known as strategies, to get there (destination).
Therefore, the development of a strategic plan requires that we:
• Identify the organization’s overall goals
• Establish specific objectives (both short and long term) to achieve these goals
• Formulate the strategies to realize these objectives
At an internal level, the strategic plan document will include strategy implementation methods and the
policies, practices, and procedures which support the implementation of the strategy. The intention for
the retreat however, is to take a broader, tactical view by focusing on the three higher levels of the plan.
The Council Retreat presentation will cover several aspects of Strategic Plan Development: 1) in order to
bring everyone to the same starting point, we will review what a strategic plan is (and isn’t); 2) explain
how Saratoga’s Strategic Plan is structured for development purposes; 3) review the collective Council’s
(past and present) goals and objectives that we operate under today, and; 4) undertake an exercise to
begin the development of additional short and long term objectives for integration into the City’s
Strategic Plan.
At this time, it is anticipated Council will review and provide direction for the Strategic Plan each year at
the annual Council Retreat to keep it current and effective. After staff updates the plan with Council’s
input from this year’s retreat, it will be “refined and beautified” into a presentation document that will be:
posted on the City’s website; incorporated into the Council Candidate orientation process; and included in
the Annual Operating and Capital Budget document.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Incorporate Council’s input into the City’s Strategic Plan
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda item and
was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the
agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the
Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
To be provided at the Council Retreat.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Social Media Policy
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
The term “social media” refers to the web-based and mobile technologies that allow for
interactive dialogue, collaboration, and sharing. Samples of social media sites include Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube. In recent years, use of social media sites has grown dramatically and an
increasing number of Americans use social media sites as their primary method for obtaining
information and communicating with others.
With the widespread use of social media sites, many cities have started to take advantage of
these sites to increase communications with their communities. A number of cities have used
sites like Twitter and Facebook for a variety of purposes, including civic engagement,
emergency notifications, and economic development.
The City Attorney has advised staff that a policy regulating City social media sites should be
developed if the City would like to use social media sites. This policy, attached for Council
consideration, outlines how City social media sites may be used and how they will be
maintained.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft Social Media Policy
1
SUBJECT: Social Media Policy
I. Introduction
Many residents obtain information and communicate with one another through social
media. Consequently, government organizations are finding that social media has
become a useful tool for relaying information and communicating with the public.
II. Purpose
This policy has been established to provide internal and external standards of use for
social media sites that are created for City purposes. Social media includes, but is not
limited to, internet-based websites that allow two-way communication between the
City and the public, such as social networking websites (e.g. Facebook or Twitter),
media sharing websites (e.g. YouTube or Flickr), blogs (e.g. WordPress), and wikis
(i.e. Wikipedia). A social media site is created for City purposes when an account is
established on a social media website in accordance with this policy. The City has an
overriding interest and expectation in protecting the information posted on its social
media sites and the content that is attributed to the City and its officials.
III. Policy
A. Creating and Maintaining City of Saratoga Social Media Sites
1. City of Saratoga social media sites may be used as a supplement to the
City of Saratoga website for:
a. Marketing/promotional purposes
b. Community engagement purposes
c. Communicating important City information quickly to a broad
audience
2. The City of Saratoga website will remain the City government’s primary
and predominant internet presence.
3. Each City of Saratoga account established on a social media website must
be approved by the City Manager or his/her designee.
a. For each City of Saratoga social media account, the following
information will provided to the City Clerk within one business
day of opening the account and shall be updated within one day of
making any changes to the account or account management
responsibilities:
i. Account name and login information;
ii. Date established;
iii. Purpose of account;
iv. Employee primarily responsible for site management and
maintenance; and
2
v. Date account closed.
b. Department directors shall provide direction to department
employees regarding the amount of time spent reviewing and/or
participating in the City’s social media sites.
c. Any use of social media sites not related to an employee’s job
duties is subject to the City of Saratoga Electronic
Communications Resources Policy.
4. Each City of Saratoga social media site shall be regularly monitored by the
employee designated as the site manager for site management and
maintenance to ensure comments and postings on the City’s social media
sites are in compliance with this policy.
5. The City shall respond to all requests for City documents in accordance
with the California Public Records Act.
6. In the event that a site receives a posting or other information of relevance
to another City department, the employee primarily responsible for the site
will promptly notify the other department of the fact.
7. City of Saratoga social media sites shall be periodically reviewed by the
City Manager or his/her designee for compliance with this policy.
8. City of Saratoga social media posts shall be topic specific. Whenever
possible, features on social media sites that allow for discussion on
unrestricted topics shall be disabled. For example, the ability to post on the
“Wall” of a City of Saratoga Facebook site will be disabled. Only
designated department employee(s) shall make posts.
9. Whenever possible, information posted on City of Saratoga social media
sites shall also be available on the City’s website.
10. Whenever possible, postings on City of Saratoga social media sites shall
contain links to the City website to provide the public with access to more
in-depth information, forms, documents, or online services.
11. All City of Saratoga social media sites shall have City of Saratoga contact
information and a link to site use policies prominently displayed.
12. The City may cancel or otherwise terminate any City of Saratoga social
media site at any time, provided, however, that records of the site shall be
maintained in accordance with the records retention program following
cancellation or termination.
B. Policies and Laws Applicable to City of Saratoga Social Media Sites
1. All content posted to City of Saratoga social media sites shall comply with
the City’s Website Policy.
2. All content on City of Saratoga social media sites is subject to the
California Public Records Act and subject to public disclosure.
3
3. All content on City of Saratoga social media sites is subject to the City’s
Records Retention Policy. Records must be maintained for at least two
years or a longer retention period, as indicated in the City’s Records
Retention Policy, in a format that preserves the integrity of the record and
is readily accessible.
4. Use of City of Saratoga social media sites by members of the City
Council, City Commission, and other committees is subject to the Ralph
M. Brown Act (California’s open meeting law) shall comply with the City
Council Electronic Communications Policy.
5. All content on City of Saratoga social media sites should comply with the
City of Saratoga Code of Ethics and Values. City employees and officials
who are using City social media sites are expected to represent themselves
and the City in a way that is consistent with this policy.
6. City of Saratoga social media sites shall not be used to directly further any
political campaign or ballot measure.
C. Acceptable Use of City of Saratoga Social Media Sites
1. Users of City of Saratoga social media sites should be aware that the
purpose of these sites is to communicate with the public and promote
services offered by the City.
2. The following forms of content shall not be allowed on City of Saratoga
social media sites:
a. Comments not topically related to the particular site;
b. Comments not topically related to the content being commented
upon;
c. Profane language or content;
d. Content that promotes, fosters, or perpetuates discrimination on the
basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status,
status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or
mental disability, or sexual orientation;
e. Sexual content or links to sexual content;
f. Solicitations of commerce;
g. Conduct or encouragement of illegal activity;
h. Personal information provided to the City by a private individual,
with the reasonable expectation that the information will remain
confidential;
i. Information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of
the public or public systems;
4
j. Content that violates intellectual property rights or other legal
ownership interest of any other party, including but not limited to
copyright, trade secrets, trademarks, and publicity rights; and
k. Content directly in support of, or in opposition to, any political
campaigns or ballot measures.
3. The City reserves the right to restrict or remove any content that the City
reasonably determined is or may be in violation of this policy or any
applicable laws. Moreover, the City reserves the right to ban users who
consistently violate this policy.
4. If a City of Saratoga social media site allows public comments, it will only
allow comments that are topically related to the particular social media
site and thus within the purpose of the limited public forum established by
that site, with the exception of the prohibited content listed above.
5. All City of Saratoga social media sites that allow public comment shall
contain the following notice: “All postings are subject to disclosure in
accordance with the California Public Records Act. The views of the
individuals posting comments on this site do not necessarily represent the
views of the City.”
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Recreation and Facilities CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Michael Taylor DIRECTOR: Michael Taylor
Recreation & Facilities Director
SUBJECT: Informational Status Update of Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Since 1981, the City of Saratoga has had an agreement with the Saratoga Area Senior
Coordinating Council (SASCC) for use of the Senior Center. The current agreement was
executed in March 2009, and expires in June 2013. SASCC operates two distinct services, Adult
Day Care and Senior Activities, with a total combined budget of $425,300 in revenues and
$452,900 in expenses. Historically, the City has provided funding for the non-profit organization
through in-kind services, community grants, and allocation of Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG). Income is also realized through program fees and charges, memberships, and
fundraisers. According to the Agreement, SASCC and the City Council will meet to determine
the need for increased oversight and management in the event SASCC’s net assets fall below
$920,000. The SASCC endowment has a current balance of ~$624,853.
DISCUSSION:
In response to the loss of the CDBG funding in 2012 and the dire nature of the operating budget,
the SASCC Board held a retreat on December 20th to discuss the future of the organization. A
number of options were discussed, including strategies for increasing revenues, reducing
expenses, and an elimination of services. No consensus was achieved and another meeting is
planned for January 24th to continue the discussion. The necessity of SASCC to present a plan to
balance the operating budget and to prioritize their services to seniors is a critical conversation.
Mark Chapman, Chair of the SASCC Board, Finance Officer, Steve Wong, and Executive
Director, Susan Huff, and other SASCC Board members plan to attend the Council retreat.
A joint meeting between SASCC and the Council is scheduled for March 21st.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
OPTIONS / ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Undertake Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library
each Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - SASCC Budget Options presented at December 20th Board of Directors meeting
B – SASCC Organizational Options presented at December 20th Board of Directors meeting
20
1
2
-
1
3
O
P
T
I
O
N
S
AC
C
SC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
le
a
v
e
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
in
c
r
A
C
C
f
e
e
s
in
c
r
A
C
C
f
e
e
s
cl
o
s
e
A
C
C
cl
o
s
e
A
C
C
C
i
t
y
#4
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
r
e
v
s
SC
s
a
m
e
SC
t
o
C
i
t
y
SC
e
x
p
a
n
d
s
SC
t
o
R
T
t
a
k
e
s
a
l
l
SC Clubhouse
SO
U
R
C
E
S
O
F
I
N
C
O
M
E
*
Go
v
t
G
r
a
n
t
s
cd
b
g
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
28
,
5
5
0
.
cd
b
g
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
4,
0
0
0
.
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
21
,
0
00
2
1
,
0
0
0
21
,0
0
0
21
,
0
0
0
21
,
0
0
0
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
G
r
a
n
t
18
,
0
00
1
8
,
0
0
0
18
,0
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
Co
r
p
/
G
r
o
u
p
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
St
A
n
d
r
e
w
s
4,
2
0
0
4,
20
0
4
,
2
0
0
4,
2
0
0
BA
P
1,
0
0
0
19
,
0
00
2
0
,
00
0
2
0
,0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
1
9
,
0
0
0
19
,
0
0
0
Me
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Do
r
o
t
h
y
f
u
n
d
2,
0
0
0
1,
5
00
3
,
50
0
3,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0
1,
5
0
0
1,
5
0
0
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
1,
0
0
0
3,
5
00
4
,
50
0
4,
5
0
0
1,
0
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,500
An
n
u
a
l
A
p
p
e
a
l
8,
0
0
0
8,
0
00
1
6
,
00
0
1
6
,0
0
0
16
,
0
0
0
16
,
0
0
0
16
,
0
0
0
16,000
Me
m
b
e
r
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
25
,
0
0
0
.
AC
C
F
e
e
s
16
2
,
0
0
0
16
2
, 00
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
SC
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
F
e
e
s
23
,
5
00
2
3
,
5
0
0
23
,5
0
0
23
,
5
0
0
23
,
5
0
0
23,500
Fu
n
d
R
a
i
s
i
n
g
15
,
5
0
0
17
,
5
00
3
3
,
00
0
3
3
,0
0
0
15
,
5
0
0
17
,
5
0
0
17
,
5
0
0
17,500
Me
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
We
d
L
u
n
c
h
5
,
2
0
0
f
r
o
m
A
C
C
14
,
4
00
1
4
,
4
0
0
14
,4
0
0
9,
2
0
0
9,
2
0
0
SC
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
7,
7
00
7
,
7
0
0
7,
7
0
0
7,
7
0
0
7,
7
0
0
Ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
22
,
4
00
2
2
,
4
0
0
22
,4
0
0
22
,
4
0
0
22
,
4
0
0
Da
n
c
e
7,
8
00
7
,
8
0
0
7,
8
0
0
7,
8
0
0
7,
8
0
0
So
c
i
a
l
E
v
e
n
t
s
5,
7
50
5
,
7
5
0
5,
7
5
0
5,
7
5
0
5,
7
5
0
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
4,
0
0
0
4,
00
0
4
,
0
0
0
4,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
25
5
,
2
5
0
17
0
,
0
50
3
6
7
,
75
0
40
5
,7
5
0
24
3
,
7
0
0
17
2
,
8
5
0
17
2
,
8
5
0
60,500
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
R
e
v
s
A
C
C
&
S
C
42
5
,
3
0
0
CO
S
T
S
BA
P
50
0
5
00
1
,
00
0
1,
0
0
0
50
0
1
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Do
r
o
t
h
y
f
e
e
s
/
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
4,
0
0
0
1,
5
00
5
,
50
0
5,
5
0
0
2,
0
0
0
1,
5
0
0
1,
5
0
0
Me
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
1,
0
0
0
1,
00
0
1
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Bi
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
p
p
e
a
l
1,
5
0
0
2,
0
00
3
,
50
0
3,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,500
..
,
Of
f
i
c
e
2 ,25
0
2 ,
4
25
0
4 ,25
0
2 ,25
0
2 ,00
0
2 ,00
0
2 ,000
Fu
n
d
r
a
i
s
i
n
g
2,
6
0
0
3,
3
50
5
,
95
0
5,
9
5
0
2,
6
0
0
3,
3
5
0
3,
3
5
0
3,350
Me
m
b
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
We
d
L
u
n
c
h
5,
0
0
0
8,
0
00
1
3
,
0
0
0
13
,0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
SC
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
3,
5
00
3
,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
3,
5
0
0
Ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
11
,
2
00
1
1
,
2
0
0
11
,2
0
0
11
,
2
0
0
11
,
2
0
0
Da
n
c
e
4,
0
50
4
,
0
5
0
4,
0
5
0
4,
0
5
0
4,
0
5
0
So
c
i
a
l
E
v
e
n
t
s
25
0
2,
7
00
2
,
9
5
0
2,
9
5
0
2,
9
5
0
2,
9
5
0
Al
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
AC
C
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
/
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
C
o
s
t
s
1,
5
5
0
1,
55
0
1
,
5
5
0
1,
5
5
0
AC
C
F
o
o
d
,
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
1
2
,
7
5
0
14
,
7
5
0
14
,
75
0
1
4
,
7
5
0
12
,
7
5
0
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
7,
1
5
5
7,
1
56
1
4
,
31
1
1
4
,3
1
1
7,
1
5
5
7,
1
5
6
7,
1
5
6
7,156
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
80
0
1,
0
00
1
,
80
0
1,
8
0
0
80
0
1
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
1,000
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
(
A
C
C
A
C
t
h
i
s
y
e
a
r
)
30
0
1,
6
10
1
,
91
0
1,
9
1
0
30
0
1
,
6
1
0
1,
6
1
0
1,610
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
4,
0
0
0
5
25
4
,
52
5
4,
5
2
5
4,
0
0
0
52
5
52
5
525
Ou
t
l
o
o
k
p
o
s
t
,
p
r
i
n
t
,
e
d
i
t
40
0
4,
5
00
4
,
90
0
4,
9
0
0
2
,
5
0
0
4,
5
0
0
Vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
80
0
8
00
1
,
60
0
1,
6
0
0
80
0
80
0
80
0
800
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Su
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
&
D
u
e
s
40
0
2
00
60
0
60
0
40
0
20
0
20
0
200
Au
d
i
t
5,
0
0
0
5,
0
00
1
0
,
00
0
1
0
,0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
5,000
Ba
n
k
f
e
e
s
50
6
50
70
0
70
0
10
0
65
0
65
0
650
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
90
0
90
0
9
0
0
90
0
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
17
5
17
5
1
7
5
17
5
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
pp
li
e
s
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
2 ,25
0
2 ,0
00
0 00
4
,
25
0
4
,25
0
2 ,25
0
2 ,00
0
2 ,00
0
2 ,000
Po
s
t
a
g
e
50
0
6
00
1
,
10
0
1,
1
0
0
50
0
60
0
60
0
600
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
50
0
2
00
70
0
70
0
50
0
20
0
20
0
200
Al
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
30
0
6
00
90
0
90
0
30
0
60
0
60
0
600
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
D
e
t
a
i
l
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
45
,
8
5
0
42
,
0
00
8
7
,
85
0
8
7
,8
5
0
45
,
8
5
0
45
,
0
0
0
45
,
0
0
0
45,000
ED
36
,
7
5
0
36
,
7
50
7
3
,
5
0
0
73
,
5
0
0
AC
C
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
le
a
d
34
,
0
0
0
34
,
00
0
3
4
,
0
0
0
34
,
0
0
0
1
27
,
0
0
0
27
,
0
0
0
2
18
,
0
0
0
18
,
00
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
18
,
0
0
0
3
So
c
i
a
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
6,
0
0
0
Ad
m
i
n
13
,
0
0
0
13
,
2
00
2
6
,
20
0
2
6
,2
0
0
28
,
0
0
0
28
,
0
0
0
28
,
0
0
0
28,000
Tr
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
5,
0
0
0
5,
5
00
1
0
,
5
0
0
10
,
5
0
0
Ch
e
f
(
s
p
e
v
e
n
t
s
o
n
l
y
)
1,
2
00
1
,
2
0
0
1,
2
0
0
1,
2
0
0
1,
2
0
0
Re
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
15
,
0
00
1
5
,
0
0
0
15
,0
0
0
15
,
0
0
0
Di
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
1,
5
00
1
,
5
0
0
1,
5
0
0
1,
5
0
0
1,
5
0
0
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
2,
5
00
2
,
5
0
0
2,
5
0
0
2,
5
0
0
2,
5
0
0
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
T
a
x
e
s
16
,
8
2
0
11
,
4
95
2
8
,
31
5
2
8
,3
1
5
16
,
8
2
0
11
,
4
9
5
11
,
4
9
5
6,570
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
10
0
1
00
20
0
20
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
100
He
a
l
t
h
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
5,
4
0
0
5,
4
00
1
0
,
80
0
1
0
,8
0
0
5,
4
0
0
5,
4
0
0
5,
4
0
0
5,400
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
25
6
,
6
0
0
19
6
,
2
86
4
5
2
,
88
6
42
5
,8
8
6
20
3
,
7
5
0
17
4
,
0
8
6
15
4
,
5
8
6
112,261
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
s
A
C
C
&
SC
:
4
5
2
,
8
8
6
NE
T
(2
7
,
5
8
6
)
(8
5
,
13
6
)
(2
0
,1
3
6
)
39
,
9
5
0
(1
,
2
3
6
)
1
8
,
2
6
4
(51,761)
,
Al
l
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
C
i
t
y
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
a
l
i
t
y
i
s
t
h
a
t
o
u
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
s
u
p
f
o
r
r
e
n
e
w
a
l
*1
S
a
m
e
a
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
,
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
s
h
o
w
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
*3
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
o
c
i
a
l
w
o
r
k
e
r
a
t
4
h
r
s
/
w
e
e
k
*4
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
r
e
v
s
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
f
u
n
d
r
a
i
s
i
n
g
,
f
e
e
s
e
t
c
SASC ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS
1. Keep the same. Increase Revenues
A. Grant writers
B. Continue working to make Wednesday lunch profitable
C. Research new programs and services
D. Increase BAP and other services
E. Continue to increase membership recruitment
F. Re-set fees in SC where possible
G. Continue to develop fund raising activities
H. Increase outreach to increase ACC counts
I. VA approval (Jan. 2012)
2. Raise ACC fees to $75/60 flat. Maintain minimum census of 12/day (60/wk)
Keep SC the same with oversight through SASCC
Positives
Can maintain NP status
Can utilize crossover staffing for ACC from SC
Continue to write grants to fill deficits
More conducive to break-even
Challenges/Changes
Must maintain minimum ACC census
Have on-call staffing plan for ACC census increases
Reduce ACC staff by 1 FTE; overflow covered by existing SC staff
3. Same scenario for ACC but:
Move SC operation entirely to City, no oversight from SASCC
Positives
Eliminate all SC staff except Admin.
Potentially increase space availability for ACC for expansion, ie Fireside
Challenges/Changes
ACC absorbs all financial responsibilities: payroll, AR/AP, fundraising
Needs to increase census and create additional revenue sources
ACC Manager oversees all operations
Hire .375 social worker
Admin minimum of .75FTE Utilize outside payroll service
SC loses “club” “senior community”
Loss of outlet for frail seniors who will lose age-appropriate classes
4. Close ACC
SC expands to clubhouse concept. SASCC is delivery agent
Positives
Expand SC space into ACC
Challenges/Changes
Lose all ACC staff
Must find alternative services for ACC clients
Need stable support from City
City no longer has service for the frail elderly living at home with help
Maintain SC staffing but must recruit more volunteers
Increase fundraising
5. Close ACC
SC goes under Rec. Track but maintains SASCC oversight
Positives
RT will track class attendance, create rosters, track space useage, access
online registration
Eliminate all ACC staff
Eliminate Reception
Maintain membership requirement and allow discounts
Challenges/Changes
still requires some cash handling...through Rec? Cost?
Decreases the special care and sense of belonging to a “club” or
“community”. Less likely to drop in and hang out, because staff less often
available.
May increase use by self-sufficient seniors and decrease use by more
fragile seniors. May decrease visibility if all seniors now enter
the Recreation Dept side of the building in order to sign up or sign in for
classes/meetings.
Loss of SASCC income to pay Dept of Recreation for signup service.
Unclear if signups would increase or decrease to compensate for the
Recreation Dept charges.
Fund raising ability decreased due to less staff to do it. Need to
compensate by more volunteers fund raising.
Different fees for Saratogans and non-Saratogans.
Senior/non-Senior fees.
SASCC Membership/non-membership fees.
Do monies from all seniors who sign up go to SASCC or only from specific
designated classes??
Decrease portion or all of Reception Desk time, portion of Administrative
Assist time, and portion of Bookkeeper time.
6. City takes all.
ACC closed
Senior Center programs absorbed by Recreation
Positives
Recreation already has staff and systems in place to continue some
existing programs, add others
Recreation now has increased space and opportunity
Recreation may potentially have endowment
Challenges/changes
Nonprofit status dissolved and assets moved to City or:
Merged with another organization (ie Live Oak)
Site managed by another nonprofit
Site managed by a for profit
Assets transferred to another NP at different location
Loss of all SC and ACC staff
Loss of special place, clubhouse, socialization for Saratoga seniors
Loss of ACC and respite care in Saratoga
What happens to senior memberships
Different fees for Saratogans and non-Saratogans.
Senior/non-Senior fees.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2012 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey
SUBJECT: Mid-Year Budget Update and Five Year Forecast
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept Mid-Year Budget Status Update and Five Year Forecast presentation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Each year, a mid-year budget status update report is brought to the City Council meeting following the
Council’s January retreat. The mid-year report will provide you with a status update for the FY 2011/12
revenue and expenditure budget in relation to expected year-end actuals, and a resolution to adopt any
needed budget adjustments.
This presentation provides you with a preview of the General Plan’s mid-year status. Additionally, from
the starting point of this year’s revenue and expenditure projections, we have prepared a five-year
forecast for a longer term view of the City’s financial position. The current budget year and five year
forecast worksheet will be distributed to Council for review at the retreat.
The forecast projections incorporate the City’s recent salary and benefit changes, currently budgeted
employee levels, and any known General Fund revenue or expenditure impacts occurring in the future.
Revenue and expenditure trends are based on historical data, economic reports, development information,
and current service levels.
Council’s review of the five-year forecast is designed to illuminate the General Fund’s estimated funding
sources and uses under the operational structure and level of services as provided in the current year’s
budget. The five-year forecast is not a projection of where we will actually be in five years’ time; rather
it is a static projection of current operations under anticipated revenue and expenditure trends. The intent
is to provide us with a forewarning of the City’s financial direction, and an understanding of the severity
of changes needed in the future.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Prepare Mid-Year Budget Report for City Council Meeting
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda item and
was included in the packet made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the
agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the
Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
To be provided at the Council Retreat.
CITY OF SARATOGA
DATE: December 1, 2011
TO: Dave Anderson, City Manager
FROM: Kimberly S. Thomas, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Mountain View-
MTEP Exchange Participant - Assistant to City Manager/Special Projects
Manager, City of Saratoga
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY/CLIMATE ACTION UPDATE
REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In advance of the Council Retreat, a goal was set to complete a targeted review and
summary of the City’s environmental initiatives. This report provides a summary
report on the status of Saratoga’s overarching environmental efforts. It follows on
the work accomplished in 2009 and 2010. Specifically, it builds off the ICLEI
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the City’s municipal facilities and related
research by staff and volunteers, which provided the groundwork for framing
realistic municipal greenhouse gas emission goals. The report clarifies the
requirements of core laws and highlights all that has been accomplished to date in
Saratoga with an emphasis on resource efficiencies that also help the environment
and have cost-savings over time. In summary, the report presents: (1) background
through a discussion of the required versus voluntary actions on GHG reduction,
(2) best practice recommendations, (3) Saratoga actions to date and prospective
resource savings, and (4) options for future consideration.
INTRODUCTION
Many cities in California are taking steps to be more sustainable by undertaking initiatives to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These formalized plans with specific targets for
reduction are called Climate Action Plan (or CAP’s). Climate Action Plans often address issues
of energy use, renewable energy, waste reduction, and water conservation in addition to
transportation and land use. Despite many challenges of the recessionary economy, cities are
striving to do what they can to contribute to the betterment of the environment. The Saratoga
City Council and City staff have been committed to implementing resource efficiencies that also
help the environment as a matter of professional responsibility. While it is not currently a major
City Council goal to develop a CAP, the City has committed to implementing proactive
measures in support of environmental sustainability.
As a residential municipality with well-informed residents and businesses who have already
proactively recognized and responded to containing the potentially disruptive effects of climate
change—Saratoga has taken action. Though the Saratoga community footprint of just over
30,000 residents, just over 12 square miles, employing just over 50 City workers is relatively
1
2
small in the State, the City recognizes that local governments play a leading role in both
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the potential impacts of climate change. In its
municipal operations, the City has taken proactive measures such as increasing energy efficiency
in facilities and vehicle fleets, utilizing renewable energy sources, encouraging sustainable
purchasing, waste reduction, and generally supporting alternative modes of transportation for
employees, where feasible. The City also provides environmental sustainability information to
its residents to further goals of limiting undue impacts of climate change through its
communications products (website, newsletters, etc.)
The benefits of these measures may include lower energy bills, improved air quality, and more
efficient government operations over time. Moreover, the City has begun its efforts to address
the causes and effects of climate change with the assistance of the lead agencies and partners in
the region such as, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Silicon Valley Climate
Protection Partnership, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Sustainable Silicon Valley, local
governments in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties and ICLEI-Local Governments
for Sustainability-USA.
Scope and Methodology
This summary report on the status of Saratoga’s overarching environmental efforts incorporates
interdepartmental environmental sustainability project input and use of the League of California
Cites and Air Resources Board sources in its analysis. It builds on the ICLEI Gas Emissions
Inventory (See Attachment 1), which analyzed GHG generated from sources over which the City
has direct operational control. The ICLEI Gas Emissions Inventory was an important first step
in the City of Saratoga’s climate protection development process as it helped to establish: (1) a
baseline emissions inventory against which to measure future progress, and (2) it provided an
understanding of the scale of emissions from the various sources within government operations.
These reports provide the groundwork for future consideration of municipal greenhouse gas
emission goals as directed by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
California Climate Change Regulations – AB 32
California passed AB 32 the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” establishing a
program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve comprehensive reductions in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. AB 32 requires the State to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 gave the California Air Resources Board (ARB) the
authority to monitor and regulate sources of greenhouse gases in order to reach this goal.
Specifically, “the ARB was given the authority to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and
light trucks by adopting regulations making the connection between land use development
patterns, proximity to transit, vehicles miles traveled, and GHG emissions. (LCC Overview of
SB 375 and Metropolitan Planning Organizations, http://www.cacities.org/resource_files).
It also required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to regularly inventory emissions at
the state level and to create a plan for reducing these emissions. The bill authorized ARB to
adopt and enforce regulations targeted at greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the public and
private sectors. The resulting AB 32 Scoping Plan was adopted by ARB in December 2008
3
(with subsequent and on-going follow-up rulings). These actions include direct regulations,
alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions,
and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. AB 32 also authorizes the Air
Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by sources of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions to support the administration costs of implementing AB 32. The AB 32 Cost
of Implementation Fee Regulation (Regulation) was adopted pursuant to Health and Safety
Code Section 38597 (www.arb.ca.gov).
AB 32 Scoping Plan established a number of measures that the State anticipated taking to meet
the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets from cap-and-trade program to energy efficiency
programs. AB 32 Scoping Plan “encourages” local governments to adopt a GHG emissions
reduction goal consistent with the State’s overall goal of reducing Statewide emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 (an approximate 15% reduction from today’s levels). However, since 1990 data
on may not be available, ARB suggested that local governments set their targets based on
today’s levels, using the most current and best available GHG emissions data for their
jurisdictions. Saratoga’s ICLEI Gas Emissions Inventory suggested a baseline year of 2005. The
ARB offered, “early adoption goals for local governments” to encourage early action “give
credit to entities that reduce GHG emissions before the full ARB program is in place.”
(www.arb.ca.gov). Governments will only be responsible to report emissions resulting from
municipal operations.
Required Actions versus Voluntary Actions – AB 32 and SB 375
Local government requirements will be clarified upon full implementation of the AB 32 program
in 2012. Currently, businesses and facilities such as natural resource and utility-related
providers are subject to the ARB regulations and are required to report, as applicable: gallons of
transportation fuels supplied or imported, therms of natural gas delivered to end users (excluding
electricity generating facilities) from natural gas utilities and intrastate pipelines, therms received
from interstate pipelines, megawatt hours delivered to the California transmission and
distribution system, and emissions and fuels data. All required data and information must be
reported using ARB’s online “Mandatory Reporting Tool” (www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-
rep/ghg-tool.htm).
In addition to private industry reporting, the State must rely on local agencies and their exclusive
authority over planning/permitting processes, local ordinances, public outreach and education
efforts to realize the goals (Seven Things City Attorneys Should Know About Developments in
State Law Related to Climate Change,” http://www.cacities.org/index). Therefore, there is a
strong expectation that these goals will eventually be passed down to cities as formal regulations.
Cities anticipate reporting requirements for the areas of local control such as energy use,
renewable energy, waste reduction, and water conservation and transportation and land use. If
required, Saratoga will want to have the ability to meet any applicable regulations. By way of
example, perhaps this can be likened AB 939. In 1989, this legislation established guidelines to
direct attention reduce waste. Cities and counties were required to meet diversion goals of 25%
by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Incentive programs and disposal reporting systems were
established and cities and counties began to address their waste problems and report to the State.
Of greatest impact to local governments at this time, related integral legislation, SB 375 Land
Use and Transportation Planning, makes changes to transportation planning law due to its impact
4
on GHG, as well as to the housing element law and to CEQA. The legislation is based upon the
premise that “it will be necessary to achieve significant additional greenhouse gas reductions
from changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Without improved land use and
transportation policy, the State will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 uses
regional transportation plans developed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to guide
land use and transportation policy (http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/staffreport_sb375080910.pdf).
Under the new laws, ARB has developed GHG emissions reductions targets for each region
covered by a metropolitan planning organization. Each metropolitan planning organization (the
MPO disperses Federal and State funds for region‐wide transportation basis) is required to adopt
a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS), which seeks to achieve those targets wherein cities
have direct control. Streamlined CEQA processing is provided for development projects
approved by cities and counties that are consistent with the SCS. The Council of Government’s
(COG) regional housing allocation plan must be consistent with the SCS. Consistency between
city and county General Plans and the SCS is not required (LCC Overview of SB 375 and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, http://www.cacities.org/resource_files ).
In California, there are 17 metropolitan planning organizations covering 37 counties representing
97.7% of the statewide population. The Saratoga region is covered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), comprised of the the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties
that are also working with ABAG and BAQMD (LCC Overview of SB 375 and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, http://www.cacities.org/index). The regional targets are set forth as
follows:
ARB REGIONAL REDUCTION TARGETS* 2020 2035
MTC-ABAG (Bay Area) Targets 7% 15%
(*Source: LCC Land Use, Planning, and Air Resource Board Regional Targets
http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zone=locc§ion=util&sub_sec=util_sitesearch
&app=search and http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/staffreport_sb375080910.pdf )
MTC has concluded that their recommended targets might be achieved through a more focused
growth strategy and greater reliance on road pricing and other strategies than is reflected in their
current plan. Concerning land use, MTC’s current plan builds on its regional “Blueprint
Program” (known as Focus). For transportation, the Saratoga region’s current plan reflects
investments of more than 80 percent of revenues into maintaining and operating the region’s
existing transportation network that is one of the more innovative in the State for public transit
http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/staffreport_sb375080910.pdf_. Participation in regional planning
efforts and ensuring land-use and transportation plans and decisions conform to sustainable
communities strategies, per SB 375 is an effective strategy. However, there has been debate
over the targets and mandates that may come from this regional approach. Cities have concerns
about the distinct differences between communities’ needs and resources, while understanding
there are also benefits to be gained from working together such as combined resources or
tracking/reporting mechanisms (this is exemplified by a regional CAP Template effort by San
Mateo County that Santa Clara County may tie into).
5
BEST PRACTICES
The best practices that are being employed by local cities to combat climate change vary. Some
communities, such as San José, Palo Alto and Mountain View, have taken a comprehensive
approach and developed CAP’s and/or updated General Plans in accordance with SB 375. Other
communities are taking a collaborative approach. For example, Cupertino partnered with San
Mateo in developing a CAP Template. Most communities are collaborating regionally and
striving to develop programs to maximize their return on investment while reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Some of the proactive efforts are being guided by the ARB recommendations to
cities, as noted below. The ARB encourages these “early adoption” measures be taken and
reductions “can be considered for credit against AB 32 obligations once the full program is in
place.” http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/staffreport_sb375080910.pdf_
ARB RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR EARLY ADOPTION BY CITIES*
Measure Local Government (LG) Actions
Local
Government
Actions
• Set local GHG reduction goals by partnering with special districts
that provide services within jurisdictions
• Develop Climate Action Plans, or other comprehensive approach to
reduce GHG emissions
• Adopt Best Practices
Energy
Efficiency
• Increase Utility Energy Efficiency Programs (either as municipal
owners or partnership with local utilities) – New targets would be
set for statewide energy demand reductions. These reductions could
be achieved through enhancements to existing programs such as
increased incentives.
• Reduce energy consumption and install solar water heating systems
within LG owned/operated facilities and operations
Renewable
Portfolio
Standard
• Achieve 33% renewables portfolio standard for LG owned utility
(i.e., 33% of energy generation must come from renewable energy
sources)
Green
Buildings
• Facilitate green building construction, renovation, operation and
maintenance of green buildings at LG owned/operated facilities
• Implement the State adopted green building code (effective 2010)
and provide training to local architects, engineers and developers
• Site buildings close to public transportation and services, and
providing amenities that encourage walking and cycling, offer
further GHG reducing potential
Recycling and
Waste
• Adopt Zero Waste and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
policies
• Increase diversion from landfills (commercial recycling and
compost/purchase of compost)
• Control landfill methane emissions (for jurisdictions that
own/operate landfill)
6
High GWP
Gases
• Minimize/eliminate motor vehicle A/C refrigerant leakage through
proper maintenance in fleet vehicles
• Ensure proper handling/disposal of waste refrigeration units
(through solid waste hauler)
Sustainable
Forests
• Encourage land-use decisions that conserve forest lands
Water • Improve municipal water system energy efficiency/usage
• Increase water recycling
• Reuse urban runoff
Land-
Use/Planning
• Participate in regional planning efforts and ensure land-
use/transportation plans and decisions conform with sustainable
communities strategies (SB 375)
• Incorporate GHG reduction measures in General Plan, including
funding and promotion of local transit systems, bike/walk
infrastructure, local parking policies, car sharing, etc.
Transportation • Promote employee transit incentive programs, including, telework,
carpooling, and parking cash-out policies
• Promote public education to reduce vehicle travel
Vehicle
Efficiency
• Fleet purchase/retrofits like the Hybridization of vehicles – fleet
vehicles, transit buses
• Fleet maintenance - properly inflate tires
Local Government Influence on Community Activities*
Measure Local Government Role
Energy
Efficiency
• Promotion of following programs within the jurisdiction: Reduction
in energy consumption (32,000Gwh and 800 million therms
statewide) - Installation of solar water heating systems in
homes/businesses (incentives for 200,000 statewide) - Incentives for
building owners and developers to participate in “Million Solar
Roofs” project for solar-electrical systems
• Reductions have potential to deliver significant economic benefits
Green
Buildings
• Promote (local government - “LG” to lead by example) by requiring
all new LG buildings to exceed existing energy standards and meet
nationally recognized building sustainability standards, such as
LEED Gold standards.
Sustainable
Forests/Urban
• Promote urban parks and forestry projects (shading/energy co-
benefits)
• Promote public investment to purchase and preserve forests and
woodlands
Agriculture • Promote/encourage manure digester systems at large dairies within
jurisdiction
*Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localaction/meetings/030909/lg_ghg_reduction_action
SARATOGA ACTIONS TO DATE
7
As noted, though not mandated by ARB yet, Saratoga has proactively employed a number of the
“voluntary early actions” as recommended. Many of these actions will reduce energy use, water
use, and limit waste. As a result, the City can expect to save resources and reduce emissions
over time, thereby realizing both financial and environmental benefits. Measures such as
retrofitting existing public buildings with green technologies, and renewable energy can result in
direct cost savings that may be quantified for tracking and reporting purposes as required. Other
measures such as public outreach and community information program efforts can help foster
environmentally conscious actions by employees, residents, and businesses in Saratoga. The
charts below highlight measures implemented by the City in accordance with ARB’s
recommendations.
ARB RECOMMENDED LOCAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES THAT ARE
REFLECTED IN SARATOGA:
Local
Government (LG)
Actions Measure
Saratoga Proactive Actions Resource Savings
Overall Local
Government
Actions
• Signatory to the U.S. Conference of
Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement
• Signatory to Bay Area Climate Change
Compact
• Established a Green Purchasing /
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
policy
• Participated in Energy Upgrade California
• Participation in Energy Watch
Benchmarking and related staff training
• “Go Green Saratoga” pages on the City’s
website and have include various
newsletter articles
• Paperless Agenda processes
• Staff outreach and education – using
reusable materials (reusable mugs and
utensils instead of paper or plastic cups),
turning off lights, avoiding unnecessary
printing and limiting undue travel.
• Simple steps such as using tap water at
public meetings instead of plastic bottled
The City has not addressed
ARB’s recommendations
to set a specific local GHG
reduction goal and develop
a Climate Action Plan.
However, the measures and
best practices outlined are
expected to reduce GHG
emissions and demonstrate
the City’s commitment to
reducing GHG. These
actions have the potential
to deliver economic and
environmental benefits
over time.
8
water.
Energy Efficiency • Working with PG&E, the City retrofitted
exit lights, and replaced lighting ballasts
and light bulbs with more energy efficient
models
• Converted all traffic lights to LED, as
well as City facility “exit” signs.
• Evaluating the feasibility of converting
tree lights in the Village to LED
• Energy-Star appliances and
environmentally friendly appliances are
being use wherever possible as appliances
are replaced.
• 9/80 employment schedule helps to
conserve energy, reduce water use and
reduce vehicle-miles traveled by City
employees
• Upgrade 15 of 45 HVAC systems and
controls resulting in (~30% energy saving
on those new units)
• Roofing improvements—cool roofs have
been installed
• Replacement of windows at City Hall and
window coverings at Prospect Center
• Working with paint vendors and
contractors to use paints with low Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) to limit
emissions
• Establishing a photovoltaic system on a
City building roof in the near future
• Using more recycled content and
environmentally friendly chemicals and
paper products City-wide
• Replaced copiers using “environmentally
friendly” criteria
These actions will result in
reduced energy
consumption by City
owned/operated facilities
and operations resulting in
cost savings and economic
benefits. For example,
utility costs have decreased
by an average of $20k or
more per year, since 2005.
9
• Plans to install electric vehicles charging
stations in City
Green Buildings • Distributing Green Building checklists at
planning/building counters
• Building new trails, bike lanes to
encourage environmentally friendly
means of transportation
• Achieving Green Business Certification
Most of Saratoga
residential builders of new
and improvement projects
are on par or exceed green
building construction
standards. All Civic Center
buildings are close to and
most are centrally located
to limit transportation
impacts. The City has also
led by example building
sustainability standards and
is designated a Green
Business.
Recycling and
Waste
• Funding a Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Program
• New and more efficient Waste
Management Franchise Agreement
• Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Program
• Paperless Agendas
• Established at Green Purchasing /
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
policy
The new Waste
Management Franchise
Agreement is resulting in
over 60 percent waste
diversion rate. Decreases
in waste will continue to
bring savings over time.
Sustainable
Forests
• Tree, landscaping, plantings
• Tree City USA
• Green friendly landscaping and gardening
emphasis
• Heritage Orchard Preservation
• Parks Division reevaluating landscape
surfaces to promote low maintenance
• Installing weather-station (“smart
Through its arborist, the
City promotes the
investment and
preservation of trees
throughout the community.
A “Tree City USA” the
City encourages land-use
decisions that trees and
focuses on water re-use
and green landscaping.
The automated irrigation
alone is expected to result
in a 30% savings in water
10
irrigation controls” irrigation controllers
on City medians, parks and property
• Micro-spray sprinklers installed at the
Orchard
• Integrated Pest Management Program,
providing for reduction or elimination of
chemicals to the maximum extent
practicable
use.
Water • Use of well water, sprinkler nozzle
replacement and low-flow water fixtures
• Installing weather-station (“smart
irrigation controls” irrigation controllers
on City medians, parks and property
• Micro-spray sprinklers installed at the
Orchard
• Participate in the West Valley Clean
Water Program, which helps Saratoga
comply and report on activities required
by Saratoga’s regional water permit
provisions.
• The West Valley Clean Water Program
also provides education and outreach to
the community on water related activities
and responds to violations involving
dumping and storm water complaints, and
educates Saratoga’s staff regarding storm
water regulations.
• The City holds two community creek
clean-ups each year
• Inspects building sites for erosion control
and runoff prevention
• Inspects City facilities for compliance
with storm water runoff prevention
• Provide outreach material for the
community on water conservation, pest
These actions improve
water quality, decrease
usage (in some cases
dramatically), and limits
urban runoff and debris.
Water costs have decreased
every year for the City.
11
management, hazardous waste disposal
and project BMP’s to conform to state
storm water regulations.
Land-
Use/Planning
• City Code - 17-05.010 – Chapters and
Sections of the City of Saratoga
Municipal Code that Relate to
Sustainability
• “Residential Design Handbook” includes
policies and techniques to “integrate
structures with the environment” and to
“design for energy efficiency”
• City Ordinance allows only one wood-
burning fireplace
• Conditions for projects concerning pest
reduction, drought tolerant plants, and
storm water–related requirements are
enforced
• Offers the lowest-cost for permits for
solar panels in Santa Clara County
• Distributing “Green Building Checklist”
at planning/building counters
• Building new trails, bike lanes to
encourage environmentally friendly
means of transportation (limited transit)
Most residential projects in
the City already exceed
environmental guidelines
and larger development
projects would generally
have an EIR as part of the
project to conform to
sustainable communities
strategies (per SB 375).
The City does monitor
regional planning efforts to
ensure compliance with
land-use/transportation
plans and decisions.
Vehicle Efficiency • City fleet currently includes Natural Gas-
fueled vehicles and two hybrid vehicles
• Regularly replaces older City vehicles
with new models to bring the City’s fleet
up to date with better fuel-efficient
vehicles
• Fleet maintenance is routinely performed
and on schedule
Fuel savings result over
time.
OPTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
12
The objective of this update was to summarize and update the proactive work accomplished
toward environmental sustainability in Saratoga. This report builds off the City’s ICLEI
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory that was a first step in addressing greenhouse gas
emissions that affect climate change. While the City has taken proactive steps to reduce,
greenhouse gas emissions through its actions, it has not taken additional steps toward
environmental sustainability. Thus, the following are additional potential measures for the City
to consider implementing:
• The City could pursue a five element process s advanced by ICLEI with the following
steps: (1) Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast; (2) formally adopt an
emissions reduction target for the forecast year; (3) Develop a local climate action plan
(CAP) (4) Implement the climate action plan or CAP, and (5) Monitor progress and
report result.
o However, this needs to be considered on balance as most residential projects in
the City already exceed environmental guidelines and most proposed
development projects have an EIR as part of the project to conform with
sustainable communities strategies (per SB 375) there is less potential savings for
Saratoga to contract for the development of a full CAP or update of the General
Plan.
o One cost-efficient option may be to pursue use of the partnership that may be
authorized for Santa Clara County to partner on a CAP Template effort begun by
San Mateo County. This template tool offers staff simple tracking software and a
full report template for cities. This CAP template should include municipal and
community inventory tracking and reporting options that will comply with ARB,
as well as show costs and benefit analyses.
• Other measures Saratoga could undertake to promote sustainability, include, but are not
limited to:
o Create a Sustainability “Vision” for outreach and communication purposes
o Develop environmental sustainability indicators Prepare a community-wide GHG
inventory
o Promote enhanced communications for the community as part of Saratoga's “Go
Green” efforts
o Continue to look at provider rebates and other other grant programs
o Establish a volunteer Environmental Sustainability Intern Program to work on
these efforts
o Pursue residential solar power financing via City loans paid through property
assessments
o Increase Council’s Community Grant Program with an emphasis on
environmentally focused programs
o Other green initiatives such as single-use bags or polystyrene bans, compost uses,
LEED certifications or checklists
REFERENCES / RESOURCE SAMPLES
13
− Enabling legislation - AB 32 SB 375 www.leginfo.ca.gov\
− http://baclimate.org/
− http://greenvision.sanjoseca.gov/
− http://jointventure.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=46
− http://oag.ca.gov/
− http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/implementation/implementation.htm
− http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/final_supplement_to_sp_fed.pdf
− http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
− http://www.baaqmd.gov/
− http://www.calepa.ca.gov/
− http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
− http://www.iclei.org/
− http://www.jointventure.org/
− http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/21/3992504/california-board-approves-
cap.html#ixzz1f2m86KYB
− http://www.sfenvironment.org/
− LCC Land Us, Planning, and Air Resource Board Regional Targets-Bill Higgins and LCC
Overview of SB 375 and Metropolitan Planning Organizations-Betsy Strauss
− League of California Cities (LCC) on-line database.
− Best practices, sample plans, and metrics (ICLEI, ILG, LCC, ICMA, HCD, Santa Clara
County, City of San Jose, et al).
− City reports and policy samples, et al., from the City of Cupertino, Town of Los Gatos, City
of Berkeley, City of San Jose, City of Menlo Park, and the City of Santa Clara
− “U.S. Cities Get Serious About Sustainability” Steve Attinger, Environmental Sustainability
Coordinator for the City of Mountain View.
− Major utility providers including Chevron have offered their “knowledge networks” at
www.knowledgesharingnetwork.net/cities
14