HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �� S AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: JUNE 5, 1996 CITY MGR.:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: ,
SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1: Protest
Hearings, Final Approval of Engineer's Report, and
Confirmation of Assessments
At the close of the Public Hearing, assuming majority protests are
not received:
1. Move to adopt the Resolution Detaching Territory from the
Existing Assessment District LLA -1.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution Ordering the Improvements and
Confirming the Diagram and Assessments for the Existing Assessment
District LLA -1 for FY 96 -97.
At your meeting, you will conduct a public hearing (the Protest
Hearing) to receive and consider protests to the detachment and
reauthorization proposals in connection with the Landscaping &
Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 1996 -97. Although there
are two separate proposals to be considered, you will be conducting
only one Protest Hearing. At the close of the hearing however, any
protests which are filed will be tallied separately for each
proposal to determine whether a majority protest exists for either
of the proposed actions. A majority protest is deemed to exist if
protests are received from property owners who own property in
excess of 50% of the total area of property proposed for either
detachment, or assessment.
If a majority protest is not deemed to exist in either case, then
you may act on the resolutions before you which, if adopted, will
overrule any protests which are filed, grant final approval of the
Engineer's Report, and confirm the assessment diagrams and
assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. If a majority protest is
deemed to exist for either of the proposed actions, then you may
not act on the resolution for that particular proposal and the
proceedings for that proposal will be halted.
As a result of the bids received on Wednesday of this week for
monthly landscape maintenance services, it is evident that the
final recommended assessments for most, if not all, of the
landscaping zones will be reduced from the preliminarily approved
assessments. However, the final calculations will not be complete
until early next week so I will be unable to report the results to
you until your meeting. What I Can report at this time is that the
competitive bidding process has worked to reduce the monthly
landscape maintenance costs virtually across the board, including
those services for which the City contracts directly. Also, as of
May 31, the City has received no protests to next year's
preliminary assessments.
MEMMMI-Iii ! -
All of the direct, indirect and general government costs attributed
to the administration and operation of the Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District are recovered from the annual assessments.
Revenues and expenditures are programmed in the proposed budget in
Activity 39. The following summarizes the proposed financing of
the District for FY 96 -97 using the preliminarily approved
assessments:
Projected LLA -1 fund balance on 7 -1 -96
Proposed FY 96 -97 Revenues
Estimated property tax revenues
Proposed LLA -1 assessments
Total Revenues
Proposed FY 96 -97 Expenditures
Projected LLA -1 fund balance on 6 -30 -97
Projected carryovers to FY 97 -98
Surplus carryovers
Deficit carryovers
$ 149,265
$ 55,505
S 88,355
- $ 143,860
Net carryover -
$ 180,857
$ 112,268
$ 124,886
S 12,618
$ 112,268
The required legal notices have been published in the Saratoga
News.
This would depend on which Resolutions are not adopted. The final
Assessment Roll must be submitted to the County Auditor by August
10 for the assessments to be included on the FY 96 -97 property tax
roll.
The final Assessment Roll will be delivered to the County Auditor.
1. Resolution re: Detachment of territory.
2. Resolution re: Ordering improvements and confirming
diagram and assessments.
3. Preliminary assessment schedule for FY 96 -97.
4. Chart showing history of assessments.
5. Description of proposed activities in each Zone for FY 96 -97.
CITY OF SARATOGA
LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FY 96 -97
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4
ZONE 5
ZONE 6
ZONE 7A
ZONE 7B
# OF PARCELS
29
85
176
784
113
64
470
292
FACTOR
0.0080
0.0233
0.0483
0.2153
0.0310
0.0176
0.1290
0.0802
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$164.90
$483.33
$1,000.78
$2,031.25
$292.77
$165.82
$1,217.72
$756.54
Public Works Dir.
32.11
94.10
194.85
867.95
125.10
70.85
520.33
323.27
Parks Maint. Sup't.
89.77
263.11
544.78
Admin. Sec'y.
16.51
48.38
100.18
446.25
64.32
36.43
267.52
166.20
Sr. Clerk- Typist
26.52
77.74
160.97
717.05
103.35
58.53
429.87
267.07
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
3030 BENEFITS
$55.19
$161.75
$334.92
$609.85
$87.90
$49.78
$365.60
$227.14
Public Works Dir.
10.22
29.97
62.05
276.40
39.84
22.56
165.70
102.95
Parks Maint. Supt.
32.63
95.63
198.01
Admin. Sec'y.
4.46
13.07
27.06
120.55
17.38
9.84
72.27
44.90
Sr. Clerk- Typist
7.88
23.08
47.79
212.90
30.69
17.38
127.63
79.29
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$3.98
$11.67
$24.16
$107.63
$15.51
$8.79
$64.52
$40.09
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$46.18
$135.37
$280.29
$1,873.64
$179.96
$101.92
$748.49
$465.02
Engineer's Report
46.18
135.37
280.29
1,248.54
179.96
101.92
748.49
465.02
New Parcel Charge
625.10
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
$200.00
$366.30
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$2,310.00
$3,498.00
$2,442.00
5312 POSTAGE
5320 ADVERTISING
$9.56
$28.01
$57.99
$258.32
$37.23
$21.09
$154.86
$96.21
5351 WATER
$290.00
$120.00
$375.00
5352 POWER
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10,200.00
$2,100.00
$2,400.00
$5,820.00
$0.00
Controllers
Streetlights
10,200.00
2,100.00
2,400.00
5,820.00
8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$31.43
$92.13
$190.77
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Vehicles
31.43
92.13
190.77
Tools & Equipment
SUB -TOTAL
$2,911.24
$4,730.25
$5,072.20
$15,080.70
$2,713.37
$2,747.40
$8,371.19
$1,584.99
5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$436.69
$709.54
$760.83
$2,262.11
$407.01
$412.11
$1,255.68
$237.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$3,347.93
$5,439.79
$5,833.03
$17,342.81
$3,120.38
$3,159.51
$9,626.87
$1,822.74
( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
$1,395.00
$270.00
$1,950.00
$18,200.00
$6,220.00
$9,626.87
$6,373.13
( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 95 -96
$975.00
$1,785.00
($1,825.00)
$67,590.00
$18,365.00
$3,175.00
$30,407.99
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
$977.93
$3,384.79
$5,708.03
($68,447.19)
($21,464.62)
($15.49)
($0.00)
($34,958.38)
( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($1,368.75)
(+) CARRYOVER TO FY 97 -98
$68,447.19
$21,464.62
$15.49
$34,958.38
(_) NET TO ASSESS
$977.93
$3,384.79
$4,339.28
($0.00)
($0.00)
($0.00)
($0.00)
$0.00
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
$33.72
$39.82
$24.66
($0.00)
($0.00)
($0.00)
($0.00)
$0.00
C: \WK \LLA9697
CITY OF SARATOGA
' LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FY 96 -97
ZONE 9
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 16
ZONE 17
# OF PARCELS
48
9
250
9
20
41
55
200
FACTOR
0.0132
0.0025
0.0686
0.0025
0.0055
0.0113
0.0151
0.0549
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$272.94
$51.18
$1,421.56
$51.18
$113.72
$233.14
$312.74
$1,137.25
Public Works Dir.
53.14
9.96
276.77
9.96
22.14
45.39
60.89
221.42
Parks Maint. Sup't.
148.58
27.86
773.84
27.86
61.91
126.91
170.24
619.07
Admin. Sec'y.
27.32
5.12
142.30
5.12
11.38
23.34
31.31
113.84
Sr. Clerk- Typist
43.90
8.23
228.65
8.23
18.29
37.50
50.30
182.92
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint, Worker II
3030 BENEFITS
$91.34
$17.13
$475.73
$17.13
$38.06
$78.02
$104.66
$380.59
Public Works Dir.
16.92
3.17
88.14
3.17
7.05
14.45
19.39
70.51
Parks Maint. Sup't.
54.00
10.13
281.27
10.13
22.50
46.13
61.88
225.01
Admin. Sec'y.
7.38
1.38
38.44
1.38
3.08
6.30
8.46
30.75
Sr. Clerk- Typist
13.03
2.44
67.89
2.44
5.43
11.13
14.94
54.31
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$6.59
$1.24
$34.32
$1.24
$2.75
$5.63
$7.55
$27.46
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$76.44
$14.33
$398.13
$14.33
$31.85
$65.29
$87.59
$318.51
Engineer's Report
76.44
14.33
398.13
14.33
31.85
65.29
87.59
318.51
New Parcel Charge
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
$643.50
$198.00
$371.25
$435.60
$217.80
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$4,290.00
$1,113.82
$1,320.00
$1,584.00
$2,475.00
$2,904.00
$1,452.00
$3,300.00
5312 POSTAGE
5320 ADVERTISING
$15.82
$2.97
$82.37
$2.97
$6.59
$13.51
$18.12
$65.90
5351 WATER
$1,525.00
$700.00
$690.00
$275.00
$450.00
$575.00
$1,000.00
5352 POWER
$194.40
$43.80
$0.00
$0.00
$97.20
$0.00
$325.00
$97.20
Controllers
194.40
43.80
97.20
325.00
97.20
Streetlights
8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$52.03
$9.76
$270.97
$9.76
$21.68
$44.44
$59.61
$216.78
Vehicles
52.03
9.76
270.97
9.76
21.68
44.44
59.61
216.78
Tools & Equipment
SUB -TOTAL
$7,168.05
$1,954.21
$4,891.10
$1,955.59
$3,608.10
$4,354.63
$2,585.08
$6,543.68
5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$1,075.21
$293.13
$733.66
$293.34
$541.21
$653.19
$387.76
$981.55
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$8,243.26
$2,247.34
$5,624.76
$2,248.93
$4,149.31
$5,007.82
$2,972.84
$7,525.23
( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 95 -96
($3,575.00)
($5,555.00)
$3,280.00
($1,300.00)
$1,040.00
($3,770.00)
$1,300.00
($34,575.00)
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
$11,818.26
$7,802.34
$2,344.76
$3,548.93
$3,109.31
$8,777.82
$1,672.84
$42,100.23
( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($2.681.25)
($4,765.00)
($975.00)
($2,827.50)
( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 97 -98
(_) NET TO ASSESS
$9,137.01
$3,037.34
$2,344.76
$2,573.93
$3,109.31
$5,950.32
$1,672.84
$42,100.23
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
$190.35
$337.48
$9.38
$285.99
$155.47
$145.13
$30.42
$210.50
C: \WK\LLA9697
CITY OF SARATOGA
' LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FY 96 -97
ZONE 18
ZONE 22
ZONE 24
TOTAL
# OF PARCELS
11
862
124
3642
FACTOR
0.0030
0.2367
0.0340
1.0000
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$62.55
$4,901.54
$13,264.09
$27,935.00
Public Works Dir.
12.18
954.31
137.28
$4,032.00
Parks Maint. Sup't.
34.05
2,668.20
383.82
$5,940.00
Admin. Sec'y.
6.26
490.64
70.58
$2,073.00
Sr. Clerk- Typist
10.06
788.39
113.41
$3,331.00
Park Maint. Leadworker
6,669.00
$6,669.00
Park Maint. Worker II
5,890.00
$5,890.00
3030 BENEFITS
$20.93
$1,640.33
$5,560.96
$10,317.00
Public Works Dir.
3.88
303.90
43.72
$1,284.00
Parks Maint. Sup't.
12.38
969.81
139.51
$2,159.00
Admin. Sec'y.
1.69
132.54
19.07
$560.00
Sr. Clerk- Typist
2.99
234.08
33.67
$989.00
Park Maint. Leadworker
2,943.00
$2,943.00
Park Maint. Worker II
2,382.00
$2,382.00
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
$0.00
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$1.51
$118.34
$17.02
$500.00
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$17.52
$1,372.76
$230.72
$6,458.35
Engineer's Report
17.52
1,372.76
197.47
$5,800.00
New Parcel Charge
33.25
$658.35
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
$1,623.60
$7,500.00
$11,556,05
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$1,361.18
$10,824.00
$9,800.00
$48,674.00
5312 POSTAGE
5320 ADVERTISING
$3.62
$284.02
$40.86
$1,200.00
5351 WATER
$250.00
$775.00
$1,925.00
$8,950.00
5352 POWER
$53.40
$180.00
$14,497.20
$36,008.20
Controllers
53.40
180.00
97.20
$1,088.20
Streetlights
14,400.00
$34,920.00
8082 EQUIPMENT CHARGE
$11.92
$934.32
$3,722.40
$5,668.00
Vehicles
11.92
934.32
3,254.40
$5,200.00
Tools & Equipment
468.00
$468.00
SUB -TOTAL
$1,782.64
$22,653.92
$56,558.27
$157,266.60
5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$267.40
$3,398.09
$8,483.74
$23,589.99
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$2,050.04
$26,052.00
$65,042.01
$180,856.59
( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
$11,470.00
$55,505.00
( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 95 -96
$910.00
$17,465.00
$53,572.01
$149,265.00
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
$1,140.04
$8,587.00
($0.00)
($23,913.41)
( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($12,617.50)
( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 97 -98
$124,885.68
( =)NET TO ASSESS
$1,140.04
$8,587.00
($0.00)
$88,354.77
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
$103.64
$9.96
N/A
C AW MLA9697
SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
ANN U A L
ASS E S
S MEN
T S
ZONE
DATE
80 -81
81 -82
82 -83
83 -84
84 -85
85 -86
86 -87
87 -88
88 -89
89 -90
90 -91
91 -92
92 -93
93 -94
94 -95
95 -96
96 -97
CREATED
0 (7C)
4/16/80
$10201
-
$92.50
- --
$92.58
$56.80
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$21.02
$34.56
$35.38
$21.60
$21.66
$21.66
$14.64
$73.56
$49.72
$72.64
(1)
1
4/16/80
$34.26
$10.54
$0.00
$10.90
$6.80
$203.76
$207.82
$113.70
$113.54
$105.94
$95.12
$101.54
S62.20
$90.32
$77.68
$33.88
$33.72
2
4/16/80
$11.30
$5.62
$6.16
56.62
$7.86
$8.86
$35.14
$27.40
$29.66
$32.00
$34.62
$36.50
$5.98
$18.15
$118.68
$40.04
$39.82
3
4116/80
$4.76
$4.46
$0.00
$0.00
$4.20
$11.60
$8.70
$20.50
$23.06
$46.82
$13.14
$15.36
$25.80
$45.21
$25.26
$32.52
$24.66
4
4/16/80
$20.95
$18.54
$0.00
$2.06
$2.30
$5.86
$6.70
$2.26
$1.86
$1.86
$1.60
$2.10
$23.84
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
5
4/16/80
$23.52
$21.28
$2.12
$0.84
$1.24
$5.00
$6.56
$5.14
$4.98
$4.98
$6.24
$6.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
6
4/16180
$42.03
$36.68
$0.00
$15.68
$11.32
$14.78
$16.94
$10.54
$10.60
$10.60
$8.62
58.58
$0.00
$0.00
$25.40
$52.50
$0.00
7 (7R)
4/16/80
$10.41
$8.90
$6.66
55.78
$2.54
$2.50
$3.32
$3.14
$2.64
$2.64
$3.78
$4.26
$6.88
$0.00
$10.88
50.00
$0.00
8 (VPD #1)
4/16/80
$ 269.07
$48.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$213.80
5341.32
$330.36
$117.20
$0.00
$133.38
$0.00
$0.00
(1)
9
5/4/83
565.00
$84.86
$83.52
$90.82
587.40
$113.74
$157.20
$136.74
$144.82
$138.82
$161.30
$169.92
$201.02
$19035
10
4/18/84
$1,416.00
$0.00
$167.34
$186.26
$234.70
$435.80
$ 348.74
$385.38
$371.12
$328.17
$442.58
$337.98
$337.48
11
4/18/84
$14.32
$5.66
58.38
$7.70
58.04
$8.76
$9.58
$10.72
$11.32
$15.48
$19.02
$13.86
$9.38
12
4/17/85
$17200
$153.02
$154.16
$168.04
$188.04
$209.84
$22260
$24242
$203.01
$380.00
$307.22
$285.99
13
4/17/85
$18.00
$5.24
$3.04
$3.60
$3.60
$3.70
$3.16
$0.00
$0.00
$3.46
$11.24
(3)
14
4/17/85
$14210
$121.30
$107.04
$114.48
$15248
$137.56
.$148.72
$19274
$110.10
$264.58
$193.40
$155.47
15
4/17/85
$22200
$170.76
$87.44
$83.76
$126.18
$102.60
$100.72
$98.90
$227.39
$20204
$146.92
$145.13
16
4/16/86
$2,37444
$3.04
$3.22
$3.22
$59.88
$40.56
545.16
$42.58
$54.40
$40.80
$30.42
17
4/15/87
$10.00
$7.70
$7.70
$8.72
$8.66
$0.00
$5.06
$25.20
5213.18
$210.50
18
4/15/87
$50.00
$6.08
$135.18
$154.56
$164.94
588.10
$0.00
$0.00
$104.50
$103.64
19 (VPD #2)
4119/89
$1,851.00
$1,520.30
$5,243.00
$6,969.76 $13,620.00
(1)
20 (VPD #3)
4/19/89
$6,41200
$6,414.00
$14,09200
$18,770.62 $21,252.35
(1)
21 (VPD #4)
4/19/89
$0.00
$977.78
$2,933.00
$5,406.00 $14,385.56
(1)
22
4/17/91
$36.00
$0.00
$13.21
$22.58
$21.68
$9.96
23
5/1/91
$110.00
(2)
24
8/3/94
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to create Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92.
(3) - Zone to be dissolved in FY 96 -97.
C: \WKILLA- SUM.WK1
Supplement to Exhibit A
City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Benefits Provided Within Each Zone
Zone 1 - (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape
maintenance of the Manor Drive medians and Saratoga - Sunnyvale 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 Tract 4628, 4725 and
4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court.
Zone 4 - (Quito Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in
the E1 Quito Park residential neighborhoods; 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 Residential Lighting District) - Provides for
streetlighting in four. separate residential neighborhoods
surrounding 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.
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
Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zones 14 and 18.
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, 2844, 3036 and 4344.
1
Supplement to Exhibit A
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Benefits Provided Within Each Zone
Page 2
Zone 12 ( Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance of the Leutar Court frontage in Tract 6996.
Zone 13 - (Cabernet Landscape District) - Created to provide for
periodic landscape maintenance and improvements along the Obrad
Drive entrance and the San Palo Court border areas adjacent to
Tract 7655. To be detached in PY 96 -97.
Zone 14 - (Cunningham Place Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
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 18 - (Glasgow Court Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
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 and Saratoga 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 and Lighting District) -
Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4,
Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 5, 1996 CITY MGR. )m
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk
SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by
Removal of Hazardous Weeds and Brush
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution ordering abatement.
Report Summary:
The attached resolution represents the second step in the weed and
brush abatement process for this season. The County has sent the
owners of the parcels requiring weed and brush abatement notices
informing them that the weeds and brush must be abated, either by
the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that
they may present objections at tonight's public hearing.
Fiscal Impacts:
None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion of
fee charged.
Attachments:
Resolution.
(List of parcels requiring weed and brush abatement is available
at City Clerk's office.)
c 5/23/96
1996 BRUSH ABATEMENT PARCELS
Page 1
0
FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Sims
AM
OWNER ADDRESS
CITY
STATE SIP
21169 MARIA LN
366 -21 -003
KHAN SITARA A AND IMDAD H 21169 MARIA IN
SARATOGA
CA 95070.6532
15041 PARK DR
510-01 -005
LSIDORO MERNA L AND FRANK. W 15041 PARK DR
SARATOGA
CA 95070 -6421
19288 BAINTER AV
510 -24 -006
HWANG GEORGE F AND HELEN T 19288 BAINTER AV
LOS GATOS
CA 95030 -2902
x
w
v
U
rn
ti
M
00
m
ti
N
I
t
t
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 0 I�� AGENDA ITEM �8�"
MEETING DATE: June 5, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Renewal of the Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB939
(Integrated Solid Waste Management Act) Implementation
Fee
Recommended Motion(s):
Authorize the Mayor to execute the renewal of the Agency Agreement
for the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee on behalf of the City.
Report Summary:
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) grants
authority to a city, county or city and county to impose fees in
amounts sufficient to pay the costs of preparing, adapting and
implementing an Integrated Waste Management Plan. On June 2, 1992,
the County Board of Supervisors approved collection of the $1.00
per ton fee to be assessed on all wastes landfilled in the county.
The purpose of this fee is to assist jurisdictions in funding
programs associated with implementation of their Source Reduction,
Recycling (SRRE), and Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWE) of
the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The fee was
raised to $1.15 effective July 1, 1994. Agency agreements between
the County Board of Supervisors and each participating city were
executed for a two year term which expires on June 30, 1996.
Landfill tonnages have decreased since the $1.15 per ton fee was
adopted in June 1994. The Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara
County recommends reauthorization of the AB 939 Implementation Fee
for a third two -year term at a level of $1.30 per ton to maintain
the revenue stream ensuring adequate funding for ongoing AB 939 -
related programs. A copy of a report to County Executive
Wittenberg detailing the actions requested by the is enclosed as
Attachment I. The proceeds of the fee collected for the Countywide
Program will continue to be used for the preparation, adoption and
implementation of the Integrated Waste Management Plan collectively
referred to as AB 939 planning and implementation.
In order to insure uninterrupted collection of the fee, all 15
cities must approve the Agreement by June 30, 1996. The County
Board of Supervisors approved a resolution approving the continued
collection of the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee on May 21,
1996. To expedite the approval process, the Agreement is being
sent to cities for endorsement. A copy of the agreement if.
attached as item II.
K
Fiscal Impacts•
There are not negative impacts on the City's General Fund. The
fees will be collected and administered by the County Solid Waste
Management Program. Each jurisdiction will be reimbursed according
to the formula contained in the Agency Agreement (Attachment II,
"Exhibit B"). The revenue distribution formula for landfills used
by north county cities including the City of Saratoga (as a north
county city) has remained the same as it was in 1994. Saratoga's
share of the fee for FY 1995 was $19,949.93 (see attachment III).
As noted earlier in this report, revenues from the fee will be used
to fund AB 939 implementation and planning.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Posting of the agenda and a copy was sent to Margaret Rands,
Integrated Waste Management Program Manager at the County of Santa
Clara.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City of Saratoga would have to develop an alternative revenue
source to fund AB 939 implementation, the requirements of which the
City must legally comply. If Saratoga doesn't particpate, the City
of San Jose might activate a unilateral fee on wastes disposed at
landfills located in San Jose.
Follow Up Actions:
City Manager will forward two copies of the attached Agency
Agreement to the Mayor for signature and then forward to the County
for signature by the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors. The
Clerk of the Board will return a fully- executed copy of the
agreement to the City Clerk.
Attachments: I. Memo to County Executive Wittenburg Re:
Resolution Approving Continued Collection of
the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee
II. "First Amendment to Agreement " - Agency
Agreement for City Council approval
III. Spreadsheet of Saratoga's AB939 Quarterly
Claims
County of Santa Clara
Ern•ironmental Resources Agency
Integrated Write NIM109(•11 )rnt I'rogr:mi f-t()r;) 44 1 -1 198
11()IlUtio n 11rc\'entio1) Progran (408) -x-1.1 -1 1W-)
1 735 North Firsl Sirect. Suite 275
San Jose. California 951 1
F.•\\ (408) 441 -03(35
May 6,1996
TO
FROM
Prepared
Submitted
Richard Wittenberg, County Executive
l
Leode G. Franklin, Director
Environmental Resources Agency
r
Paula F. S oner
b
Mar aret. ands
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED COLLECTION OF THE
. COUNTYWIDE AB 939 IMPLEMENTATION FEE
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt the attached resolution approving:
• continued collection of a per -ton fee for a period of two years on solid
waste disposed of at landfills located within the county, which is
apportioned among all participating jurisdictions;
• raising the level of the fee from $1.15 to $1.30 per ton.
2. Authorize the Chair to execute an Amendment to the Agency Agreement for the
Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee with each participating city. (See
sample copy included as Attachment A).
iiOorct orsulx•rviscirs::mic ku•I M I l()II(h. I fl; I[ wi t. 0)iiZ:t!i•6..Ir.::. T. Lw:)Il Jr.. Ini:uux \1('K(-IUCI
Ccnutt� I:xc c.uti�'�': Itic'hrnt'cl
Countywide AB 939 Fee May 6,1996 Page 2
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The recommended action will have no negative impact on the General Fund.
The fee will continue to be administered by the County IWM Program, which is
funded by the Countywide Solid Waste Planning Fee. Interest accrued to the
General Fund will cover the indirect costs to the County related to the collection
and disbursement effort.
Staff estimates that approximately 1.31 million tons of waste will be landfilled in
FY97. The proposed fee would generate about S1,703,000 annually. Revenues to
the County for unincorporated area AB 939 implementation are estimated at
$75,000 per year. The balance, approximately $1,628,000, will be distributed to
Santa Clara County cities and towns. The revenue to the unincorporated area
was included in the FY97 Recommended Budget. Under State law, all proceeds
of the fee must be used for preparing, adopting and implementing the integrated
waste management plan.
CONTRACT HISTORY
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND /REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The County Integrated Waste Management Program collects two landfill tonnage
fees, the Countywide Solid Waste Planning Fee and the Countywide AB 939
Implementation Fee. Both fees are recommended for increase for FY97. These
fees have complementary, but not duplicative, purposes. The Countywide Solid
Waste Planning Fee, discussed in a separate transmittal, is expended only on
countywide planning and cooperative activities. The Countywide AB 939
Implementation Fee, the subject of this transmittal, is collected on behalf of the
jurisdictions of Santa Clara County and distributed to them for the purpose of
funding jurisdiction- specific programs required for meeting AB 939 requirements.
The Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee has been collected by the County
since 1992. The Fee is assessed on all wastes landfilled in the County. In 1994, the
Board of Supervisors approved collection of the fee for a second two -year term,
which ends June 30, 1996. In order to keep the Fee in effect during FY97 and FY98,
it must be reauthorized.
Agency Agreements between the Board and each participating city were executed,
and will expire on June 30, 1996 unless amended. The Solid Waste Commission
of Santa Clara County (SWC) recommends reauthorization of the Fee for a third
two -year term at a level of $1.30 per ton, to maintain the revenue stream in order
to ensure adequate funding for ongoing AB939- related programs.
Countywide AB 939 Fee, May 6,1996 Page 3
The Amendment makes three changes to the existing Agreement: raising the fee
amount to $1.30, as recommended by the Solid Waste Commission (SWC); a
revised distribution formula for jurisdictions using the Pacheco Pass landfill; and
a two -year term extension through FY98.
Countywide Issues and Implications
In the event that the countywide fee is not approved for FY97, the City of San Jose
would be likely to reactivate its own AB 939 fee, which was levied on wastes
disposed at landfills located in the City of San Jose. Revenues from such a fee
would benefit only San Jose residents. Prior to implementation of the
Countywide AB 939 Fee, San Jose levied a $0.25 per ton fee. When the
Countywide Fee was implemented, the San Jose City Council accepted city staff's
recommendation that the fee not sunset, but be set at $0 per ton. In the event a
countywide fee is not reauthorized, San Jose can reset the fee at any level and
begin collecting it. Other jurisdictions stroftgly object to paying an AB 939 fee
which does not benefit their residents. Elimination of the San Jose fee provided
part of the impetus for development of a countywide fee.
Unincorporated Area Issues and Implications
Unincorporated area solid waste administration became the responsibility of the
Integrated Waste Management Program in August 1990. Responsibility includes
rate setting, franchise management, and AB 939 planning and implementation.
This portion of the Program is funded by (a) a surcharge on unincorporated area
residential collection rates and (b) the County's portion of the Countywide AB 939
Fee.
New Fee Level
Landfill tonnages have decreased since the $1.15 per ton fee was adopted. In order
to keep revenues at FY95 levels, a fee increase is required. Staff estimates that a
fee of $1.30 per ton in FY97 would be sufficient to keep revenue at the FY95 level.
Actual revenue receipts may differ, depending upon the size of the FY97 waste
stream, and the amount of waste documented by each participating jurisdiction.
New Revenue Distribution Formula for South County Jurisdictions
The proposed Amendment to the Fee Agreement includes a new revenue
distribution' formula for users of the Pacheco Pass Landfill (the Cities of Gilroy
Morgan Hill and the adjacent unincorporated areas), which is based on quarterly
tonnage reports filed with Santa Clara County by South Valley Disposal and
Recycling. Previously, distribution was based upon a 1991 Waste Characterization
Study performed by Cal Recovery, Inc. The distribution formula for landfills
located in the North County Area has not changed.
Countywide AB 939 Fee May 6,1996 Paae 4
Approval by the Cities
Because the County will collect the fee on behalf of other jurisdictions, each
jurisdiction contracts with the County for the collection and distribution of the
fee. All fifteen cities must approve the First Amendment to the Agency
Agreement for a Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee by July 1, 1996. In the
event that one or more jurisdictions fails to approve, the fee will not be collected.
The first landfill billing under the amended Agreement will take place in October
1996, for the first quarter of FY97 (July through September). The first payments to
jurisdictions will be made in late December, 1996.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
1. Jurisdictions would have to develop an alternative revenue source to fund
AB 939 implementation.
2. Ratepayers from all jurisdictions whose waste is disposed at landfills located in
the City of San Jose could underwrite AB 939 implementation in that city,
because the San Jose fee could be reactivated.
3. Costs of AB 939 implementation in the unincorporated areas of the county
would be borne. solely by garbage collection and disposal ratepayers receiving.
services through County franchise agreements.
4. If alternative funding is not obtained, some jurisdictions may not be able to
comply with AB 939 requirements.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
1. The Clerk of the Board will forward approved copies of this transmittal and
resolution to the Environmental Resources Agency/ Integrated Waste
Management Program, and County Counsel.
2. Contracts approved by cities will be presented for signature by the Board Chair.
3. The reauthorized fee will take effect July 1, 1996, provided that all fifteen cities
approve the Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB 939 Fee.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COLLECTION OF
A COUNTYWIDE AB 939 IMPLEMENTATION FEE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41901, a city, county,
or city and county may impose fees in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of
preparing, adopting, and implementing an integrated waste management plan; and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County has
determined that a Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (Fee) of $1.30 per ton of
wastes disposed of at landfills located within the county should be collected to assist
in funding the costs of preparing, adopting and implementing the integrated waste
management plan in the fifteen cities and the unincorporated areas of the county;
and
WHEREAS, the County intends to enter into the agreement before the Board
of Supervisors on this date with all cities in the county;
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County has further
determined that the County should collect said Fee from each landfill in the county
on behalf of all fifteen cities and the unincorporated area within the county
(participating•jurisdictions), and distribute the Fee to said participating jurisdictions
according to formula;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 41901, each
participating jurisdiction must approve the collection of the Fee; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the Fee is a categorical exemption under Section 15308 and is a statutory
exemption under Section 15273 of CEQA;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The County of Santa Clara approves the collection of a fee of $1.30 per ton
on all wastes landfilled at permitted disposal sites .located within the county on
behalf of participating jurisdictions.
1
2. The Chairperson is authorized to execute the Agency Agreement for a
Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (Agreement) with each participating
jurisdiction.
3. The County shall bill the disposal site operators for the Fee and payment
shall be due to the County within 45 days of billing. If Fees are not paid within 45
days of the billing, additional charges shall be added as follows:
(a) a late processing fee of $150;
(b) a delinquent penalty of 1% per month shall be added if
balance is not paid within 60 days.
4. Upon collection, the Fee and accrued delinquent penalties, if any, shall be
distributed among participating jurisdictions according to the terms of the
Agreement.
5. This Fee will become effective July 1, 1996, provided that all fifteen. cities .
approve the Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee by
July 1, 1996.
6. In accordance with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors finds that the
adjustment of the Fee is necessary for meeting operating expenses and purchasing
materials and services. The adjustment of the Fee is a categorical exemption under
Section 15308 and a statutory exemption under 15273 of the State CEQA guidelines.
0)
I
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Santa Clara, State of California on by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors
NOES: Supervisors
ABSENT: Supervisors
Chairperson
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Phyllis Perez, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
1
C:V
rAJA
Kathy Kretchmer
Deputy County Counsel
3
Date
Date
S�--7 �q �
Date
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2' °`
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT.
June 5, 1996
City Clerk
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES
Recommended Motion:
Direct staff to review Conflict of Interest Codes.
Report summary:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR.
Government Code Section 87306.5 requires that the City Council direct the
City staff to review Conflict of Interest Codes by July 1 of even - numbered
years. Staff then has until October 1 to present a report on any changes
recommended.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Follow Up Actions:
Staff will present a report recommending changes in the Codes for the
September 18 City Council meeting.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City Council would be in technical non - compliance with Government Code
Section 87306.5.
Attachments:
None.
SARA-T7OGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: June'5, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT: Recreation Department
AGENDA ITEM q
APPROVAL
SUBJECT: Saratoga Rotary Club $3,700 Donation to the Recreation
Department of for New Tables and Chairs.
Recommended Motion:
Accept the $3,700 donation from the Rotary Club to the City.
Report Summary:
In March of this year, the Director of Recreation applied for a
Rotary Club grant to help offset the cost of new Community Center
tables and chairs. The application was approved and the check was
presented to staff at the Rotary Club's May 17th meeting.
Fiscal Impacts:
$3,700 toward the purchase of Community Center tables and chairs.
Follow Up Action:
After July 1, 1996, combine the donation with other funds and
purchase the new equipment for the Community Center.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. �- AGENDA
MEETING DATE: June 5, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE
ITEM SB 07
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR UTILITY BILLING AUDIT
SERVICES
Recommended Motion(s): Approve the selection of Tri -Stem,
Incorporated to provide utility billing audit services and
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Report Summary: Saratoga currently spends roughly $250,000 a year
for utilities. As a basic service city, with limited resources,
this cost must be actively controlled. This is particularly
important in light of the fact that the utility providers have a
dismal billing error rate record (stated to be as high as 600 on
telephone bills!) and the assertion by experts in the cost recovery
field of a 70o success rate in identifying and obtaining refunds
and /or cost reductions for their clients.
Although it is difficult to predict what, if any, error rate
Saratoga may have experienced, staff, nonetheless, believes it
prudent to review our utility bills further in order to determine
if errors had occurred and recoveries can be made from the utility
companies.
To that end, and after consultation with the League of California
Cities and a review of our solicitors files, staff identified and
reviewed proposals from three consultants that provide
comprehensive utility (gas, electric, water and telephone) audit
services designed to detect and correct billing errors. Those
firms were Tri -Stem, Audit Recovery Services /Utility Cost Control
Systems and Preferred Energy Services, Inc. These firms are
uniquely qualified to perform this work because they employ a
number of specialized and complex audit techniques, including
computerized modeling, equipment testing and physical observations,
to find errors.
The consultants are paid through a contingency fee arrangement only
in the event that billing errors are found and the City recovers
from the utility provider. Accordingly, not a single penny is
expended until the City receives a refund or is otherwise
compensated.
Following personal interviews and a review of proposals, staff
recommends Tri -Stem because of their favorable contingency fee
arrangement and responsiveness to staff's inquiries. Tri -Stem will
receive 49% of any recovery and will not share in future savings.
The other firms wanted a 50/50 split and a piece of future savings
for a period of at least two years.
As part of Council's implementing action, Council should authorize
the City Manager to execute an agreement with Tri -Stem.
Copies of proposals are available for review in the Finance
Director's office.
Fiscal Impacts: Unknown favorable impact. If significant cost
recoveries are obtained, the General Fund revenue budget may have
to be increased.
Follow Up Actions: Execute agreement with Tri -Stem.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
would not retain the services of a utility billing consultant which
will promote cost control.
Attachment
c: \execsumm \exsm0530.96
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Over the past 13 years, I've been surprised at how widespread
)vercharging by utility companies really is. A consumer can purchase a gallon of
;asoline or a pound of hamburger and have confidence that the pumps or scales
ised to measure their purchases have been examined and tested by a state
egulatory agency. Utility companies can guarantee no such assurances. Often
,overnment agencies that have the power to set utility rates fail to follow -up by
esting rate - application. The only organizations that might test the quality of
itility measurements are the utility companies themselves.
I must emphasize that it is not a practice of the utility industry to
overbill its customers, rather, the rate of error can be attributed to the lack of
:ompetition within the industry. While a supermarket selling a half -pound of
lamburger for the price of one pound would be driven out of business by
ompetitors who gave their customers what they paid for, utility companies, on
:he other hand, can continue to blindly overcharge their customers and stay in
business.
TriStem is dedicated to recovering overpayments from the utility
companies and correcting discrepancies and errors in utilities billing. The results
have been staggering. In one case, TriStem was able to recover more than $1
million for a Texas university in overcharges and, after correct billing procedures
were initiated in 1985, saved the university $50,000 per month in expenses.
Our client list includes several hotel chains, numerous Fortune 500
companies, county and municipal governments, over 200 hospitals nationwide,
over 20 universities, 50 school districts, five major insurance companies and
several major property management companies.
Utility operating expenses come directly from your bottom line, and
TriStem hopes that we can help your organization correct its utility bills and
recover refunds from overpayments. Unlike many utility auditing franchise
operations, TriStem has the experience and the staff to recover refunds and
credits. We've learned a lot about utility companies in the last 13
years, and we hope that we can put that knowledge to work for
you. Our bottom line is that TriStem will make sure
you're getting what you pay for.
Joe Seeber
President and Founder
TriStem, Inc.
44
OUR-.:CLIENTS.
«:Nlihly profissiorwl I'm very impressed by what
TriStem is= doing,, especially the fact that f no refuiul is
due, there's no fee for TriStem s seruices. 7n.our case, we
received'thousands,of dollars thanks to TriStem.
Marino. Bual, Accounting Manager, City of Portland, .Oregon
TriStem was very responsive to our expectations ai .
a client.' They handled all of the analysis, correspondence
and negotiations and landed us an electric utility refund
of $268,000. ii - :
Mike Ashctaft, City Auditor, City of Scottsdale, Arizona
Aetna Realty Investors Dallas County, Texas
Alpha Investments 7 DuPont Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Atlanta Memorial Hospital Evans Press
BdtwayDevelo'16ent. -Excell;Incorporated
Branala limited Exxon Company USA
Brnms.River Authority Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Co.
C.OM.B-& Company First City National. Bank
- Caribe General - Electric Foley's
" Hilton
Caribe :' Gulfco
Caterpillar Incorporated -HCA Valley Regional Medical Ctr..
Centre Development Honeywell"
City o' Big Spti ng, Texas Hyatt Regency Corporation
City of:Bossier Gty, Louisi= ' Ideal Company.
City, of Huntsville, Texas'.. ' Intafirst Bank '
City of Midland, Texas' ' Lamar University
City of Oklahoma City, OK ' Mirmer Management
City of Plano, Texas •'- Marriott Hotels
City of Pori Aithur; Texas 'MBank
City of Portland, Oregon Mobil Oil Corporation'
City of Scottsdale, Aritom North Texas Muuicipal'Water
City of Shreveport; Louisiana District .
City of Tulsa, Oklahoma Peer Services Incorporated' ,
City of Tyler, Texas' • . PlWlip's 66 Company.
Colorado- Fayetie,Medical Ctr. Pittsburgh.Medical Cenier',
'Comrnand-.Aire'Corporation': Pizza inn
Crown Plan .. Property ManagementSysteros =
Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind Recognition Equipment
Sam Houston State University
San Antonio ISD., ' . .
Sanger Harris.: .
Santa Rosa Medical Center
Schering- plough
Skyline Properties
Southwestern Typograpkucs Inc:
St Mary's Hospital
:Supreme Beef Processors `
dA
mow
V' 1'
TRiSTEM, INC.
The city of Tulsa, Oklahoma stood to save $358,603
after a TriStem audit found overcharges by the local electric
company based on an incorrect rate schedule and AT &T charges
for equipment that was no longer in use. ■ Sam Houston State
University is saving $115,000 per year after TriStem discovered
that the university had been overcharged by the electric company
since 1983. ■ The city of Scottsdale, Arizona recovered
$268,000 in electric overcharges after TriStem found an error rate
of 21 % in billings by the local power company. ■ While utility
companies do not purposely overcharge, misclassify or incorrectly
meter their clientele, these under - regulated and uncompetitive
organizations do make mistakes; mistakes that can propagate into
thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in
utility bills overpaid by consumers. And while most companies
have auditors that verify invoices for materials and supplies, they
do not have auditors that can effectively review and
recalculate utility bills. The fact is that most
organizations are unaware of just how much
they could be overpaying each month.
■ Why do conscientious, well- managed
companies insist on an itemized invoice for
$100 in office supplies but are willing to
accept one -line electric bills for tens, even
hundreds of thousands of dollars? The answer:
utility bills are difficult to read and difficult to
understand. An electric bill can be based on
15 or more different calculations, some of
which depend on information from prior bills
and differing electric rates. Further,
information necessary to perform an
intelligent audit will not appear on the
Electric Utility Billing Errors
Error Frequency Dollars Recovered
Wrong Rate 30 $303,500
Metering 228 320,500
Miscalculation 6 32,900
Double Billing 3 14,000
Total: 267 $670,900
The most frequent errors were metering errors. These .errors are a
combination of mechanical meter malfunctions and /or meter
reading errors. Many times it is impossible to determine if the
failure is mechanical or human in nature. Worst still is the fact that
meter reading errors are not self - correcting. A meter that is misread
can continue to show errors in future readings until corrected. In
either case, the result for the consumer is simply an incorrect utility
bill. ■ Although metering errors are the most frequent, the most
expensive errors result from use of incorrect rates. Utility vendors
seemingly have the most difficulty with
specialized rates and multiple rate groups,
Why do conscientious, well- appropriate not only to municipal
managed companies insist on an organizations, but also to hospitals,
industry, universities and hotels. ■ In
itemized invoice for $100 in office
supplies but are willing to accept
one -line electric bills for tens, even
hundreds of thousands of dollars? ) )
— Joe Seeber, President and Founder
bill. ■ Today companies can pay up to four or five separate
phone bills - local and long distance service, WATS lines, 800
numbers, bills for telephone equipment and extended phone
services; and telecommunications experts estimate that 40 -60% of
all telephone bills contain billing errors. Water and sewage services
are often incorrectly billed due to defective water meters, incorrect
rate classification and gross errors in the estimation of future
charges. But yet, companies continue to pay one -line invoices not
knowing whether they're being billed at the correct rates and for
actual services or not. TriStem conducted a three -year survey of
municipal electric accounts and found the results not only
distressing, but indicative of the utility industry.
years, TriStem, Inc
addition, we also have discovered that the
frequency and magnitude of incorrect
billings are not discriminate with respect to
the size of a community which a utility
company services. Billing errors occur in
large metropolitan areas as well as small
municipalities. We found that one -half of
the cities examined were due refunds,
averaging $13.00 per accounting month or
$33,520 per city. ■ Over the last 13
has recovered millions of dollars for its clients
in 45 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Canada through utility auditing
and analysis. We've helped national corporations, hospitals,
municipalities, universities, insurance companies, developers, state
agencies, manufacturers and others recover past losses and gain
future savings. TriStem not only has the experience and knowledge
to analyze and uncover utility billing errors, but also the ability to
work with other vendors and deliver clients' refunds, credits and
savings from telephone, electric, and virtually any provider of
products and/or services.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. � I AGENDA IrV
4a !�"2 ct o
MEETING DATE: 615/96 CITY MGR. m
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO APPLY FOR AB 434 FUNDS
(Sher -1991)
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Pass a resolution authorizing the City to apply for AB 434
funds from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) so that the City, ALTRANS and Saratoga schools may
implement a Rideshare and Trip Reduction Program for K -12
schools.
SUMMARY: A resolution is needed in order to authorize the
City to apply for AB 434 funds from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD). If AB 434 funds are obtained,
the City along with ALTRANS, A Transportation Management
Authority, would implement a Trip Reduction Pilot Program for
K -12 schools within Saratoga. This pilot program would serve
as a model for transportation control measures to reduce
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to and from primary
and secondary schools. The extent of its social benefit would
reach beyond the boundaries of the Saratoga Community by
serving as an example to surrounding communities of what could
be achieved in this unexplored field.
In 1994 the City Council discussed on several occasions, the issue
of additional funding for crossing guards. On all of these
occasions, the council upheld their earlier decision that funding
for crossing guards would depend upon schools and district
participation in a carpooling program.
In October of 1994 the current Council reaffirmed the previous
Council's position regarding the establishment of a carpooling
program and crossing guards. This position supports the idea that
there would be no future funding for crossing guards unless the
school districts participated in a car pooling plan. The school
districts and two private schools were all to be involved in this
program.
In order to start the development of this car pooling plan for
local schools, City staff initially met with ALTRANS, A
Transportation Management Association, in order to establish some
transportation control measures to reduce vehicles trips and
vehicle miles traveled to and from primary and secondary schools
within Saratoga.
Staff decided to work with ALTRANS because it currently serves the
community colleges and universities of Santa Clara County. Through
transportation planning services and community outreach, ALTRANS
advocates alternatives to the single occupant vehicle for
educational institutions, employers and residents of Santa Clara
Valley. Since colleges were their area of expertise, staff felt
that their experience with students would be appropriate for the
proposed project.
ALTRANS developed the Saratoga K -12 Trip Reduction Pilot Program
(TRP) for the pupils /parents and employees of K -12 schools and
their surrounding neighborhoods located in the cities of Saratoga
and Cupertino. The program implements automobile trip reduction
measures by encouraging participation and involvement in the
alternative transportation modes such as carpool, transit, bicycle
commuting, walking and educates parents and students about safety
and environmental degradation.
In addition to developing the K -12 TRP and exploring possible
funding sources, the City along with ALTRANS and local school
representatives formed a Transportation Management Association
(TMA). The TMA met on a monthly basis prior to this past fiscal
year discussing the various aspects associated with a program such
as this. Yet, last fiscal year, the TMA decided that the project
could not proceed any further without fiscal support and that it
would be better to break for at least the summer months, if not for
longer, so that ALTRANS could concentrate on securing funds for the
K -12 program. Securing funds has taken longer than expected
because locating appropriate funding sources has proven to be
difficult.
In February 1996, the City of Saratoga sponsored the K -12 TRP pilot
project through the 1996 -97 cycle of the Transportation Funds For
Clean Air (TFCA) 40% (funds for Santa Clara County only), also
known as AB 434 Funds and the grant application was submitted to
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency /Congestion Management
Program (SCVTA /CMP). In April, after going through the scoring
process by different committees at the SCVTA /CMP, our K -12 TRP was
initially funded but later, it was placed behind the SCVTA's San
Jose Arena Shuttle Project by four - tenths of a point, just below
the funding line. Apparently this change was due to a mathematical
error in the scoring calculations.
After learning about the scoring decision, City staff and ALTRANS
staff attended SCVTA /CMP Technical Advisory Committee on April 11
to share concerns. Also, on April 18, a letter from the City
Manager was presented to the Transportation Planning Committee,
2
requesting an explanation regarding the outcome and suggesting
possible solutions in order to fund the project.
Finally, the solution that was agreed upon would be that the city
would submit a grant application as part of the 1996 -96 TFCA 60%
cycle (funds for the entire Bay Area). Representatives from SCVTA
have stated that if the K -12 project is not successful in securing
funds from this regional source, SCVTA would use funding from
reverted funds under the 40% source of TFCA or fund the project
through other means.
Fiscal Impacts•
None
Advertising Noticing and Public Contact:
A copy of the resolution will be attached to the application
submitted to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for AB
4343 funds.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The City will not be eligible for the AB 434 funds available
through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Follow Up Actions:
If funding is received, city staff will execute an agreement with
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Attachments:
1. Copy of the proposed resolution
2. Copy of the proposal submitted to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Agency /Congestion Management Program (SCVTA /CMP) for
funding cycle (40 %). (The proposal being submitted to BAAQMD is not
yet completed).
3
o�
�O
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ann Marie Burner
Paui E. Jacobs
February 28, 1996 Gillian Moran
Karen Fucker
Donald L. Wolfe
Walter C. Streeter, Senior Planner
Transportation Agency
Congestion Management Program
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134 -1906
Dear Mr. Streeter:
The City of Saratoga is pleased to sponsor the ALTRANS Organization
in its application for Transportation Funds for Clean Air (400).
The City of Saratoga fully supports the implementation of a K -12
Trip Reduction Program (TRP) in our community.
At the request of the City Council, staff members initially met
with ALTRANS in the hopes of developing some transportation control
measures to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to and
from primary and secondary schools. Most of the schools do not
have school buses, so a large number of students are dependent upon
private automobiles to meet their transportation needs. Therefore,
traffic congestion at streets and roadways near the schools are
common during peak commute hours.
The City chose to work with ALTRANS because they specialize in
providing trip reduction programs and alternative transportation
information services to primarily students.
The proposed K -12 program is an important focus because if we are
able to educate individuals from an early age there will be a
greater willingness on their part to accept and use alternative
transportation when they reach the legal driving age. A unique
aspect of the proposed K -12 program is that it would not simply
educate students as to the need and importance of using alternative
transportation but also, through ALTRANS, the program would provide
these students and their parents with options, information and the
necessary tools to make the transition happen.
We feel that this pilot program could become a model to other
cities within Santa Clara County on how to make great improvements
at the K -12 level in the area of trip and smog reduction.
We believe that the activities and methods outlined in the proposal
will effectively mitigate vehicle trips to our schools and better
manage our transportation demands. With your assistance, we can
achieve the activities outlined in the accompanied proposal.
At time when the requirements for trip reduction programs have been
scaled back and have become more voluntary than mandatory, it is
important to support agencies like ALTRANS whose focus is to
promote trip reduction and better air quality.
Sincerely,
e-. ) Ozil
Harry . Peacock
City Manager, City of Saratoga
Application for Funds - 1996 -97
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
Program Manager Funds (40 %)
Section 1 - Identification:
Agency:
Address:
Contact:
Phone:
FAX:
Project Name:
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Irene Jacobs, Administrative Analyst
(408) 867 -3438 ext. 215
(408) 741 -1132
Saratoga K -12 Trip Reduction Pilot Program
Section 2 - Funding Request:
Sponsors can request funding for up to 3 years. Local matching funds are not required,
but credit will be given for local matching funds in the scoring process.
1996 -97
1997 -98
1998 -99
TFCA
I Local
TFCA
I Local
TFCA
I Local
$150,000
$46,000
$150,000
$ 32,000
$
$
6!w
Section 3 - Project Narrative:
On an separate sheet, please address the following questions as completely as possible:
1. Please provide a general overview /description of the project.
2. Where will the project be located/implemented?
3. How and to what extent will the project improve air quality?
4. How and to what extent will the project reduce traffic congestion?
5. How and to what extent will the project reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled?
Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips?
6. Does the project address more than one eligible project category? How?
7. Who will benefit from the project and how widespread do you expect the
benefits to be? How many county residents will benefit from the project?
What specific communities /groups will benefit (i.e. business, employers,
bicyclists, pedestrians, the elderly, commuters, etc.)?
8. How cost - effective is the project?
Page I of 2 2/14/96
9. Has your agency implemented a project similar to the proposed project in the
past? If so, briefly describe your experience (did the project meet
expectations, did it stay within budget, etc.).
10. How and to what extent does the project encourage a shift away from Single
Occupant Vehicles to shared -ride or non - motorized modes of transportation
(including telecommuting)?
11. Will this project provide other benefits that are not covered by the questions
above (for example, reduces road water runoff)? If so, please describe those
benefits in detail.
Section 4 Multi -Agen ytPublic- Private Partnerships
❑ This project is being sponsored and implemented by a single agency.
❑ This project involves cooperation between public agencies. Please list below
each agency involved in the project and describe in detail the level of
involvement (financial, in -kind) of each agency.
® This project involves cooperation between public agencies and private entities.
Please list below each agency /entity involved in the project and describe in
detail the level of involvement (financial, in -kind) of each agency /entity.
See Proposal -
Section 5 - Certification
I am authorized by my agency to apply for these funds on its behalf. I understand that, if
the project is funded, my agency will enter into an agreement with the program manager
(SCCTA) to implement the project within budget, on schedule, and to provide the
necessary record- k_=AiQg for audit purposes.
Signed: e, Title, Date
Harry itf. Peacock, City Manager
March 1, 1996
Page 2 of 2 2114/96
Saratoga/Cupertino K -12 Trip Reduction Pilot Program
Proposal
March 1, 1996
Prepared by: Eyedin Zonobi,
Project Manager
ALTRANS Organization
(408) 741 -2682
Fax (408) 867 -2522
Section 3 - Project Narrative
Table Of Contents
Question1 ............................................................................ ..............................1
A. Introduction ...................................................... ..............................1
Al. ALTRANS Mission Statement and Background ...................1
B. Problem Statement .............................................. ..............................2
C. Needs Assessment ............................................... ..............................3
D. Program Objective ............................................. ..............................4
E. Methods .............................................................. ..............................5
F. Evaluation ........................................................... ..............................7
G. Future Funding ................................................... ..............................8
H. Budget ................................................................ ..............................9
H1Budget Summary .................................... .............................10
H2Budget Detail ......................................... .............................11
Question2,3,4,5 .................................................................. .............................12
Question6,7 ........................................................................ .............................13
Question8,9,10,11 .............................................................. .............................14
APPENDIX1 .................................................. ............................... Figures
APPENDIX 2 ... ............................... Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
APPENDIX3 ................................................. ............................... Site Maps
APPENDIX 4 ........................................ ............................... Support Letters
ii
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Section 3 - Project Narrative:
1. Please provide a general overview /description of the project.
A. Introduction
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
According to Dr. John R. Holmes, California Air Resources Board, "...In California
the number of students enrolled in primary and secondary schools exceed five million,
and more than two million students are enrolled in universities and community
colleges. Student enrollments are expected to grow by more than 30% by the year
2000.... The potential for reducing student related vehicle emissions with land use
strategies or TCMs at community college, elementary or secondary school sites is
largely untested. As a result, the connections among student travel patterns, TCMs,
land use patterns, and air emissions are neither well understood nor reliably
quantified." TCM refers to Transportation Control Measure.
On any given weekday, about 350,000 students arrive to the Santa Clara County K -12
schools, colleges and universities. Although these commuters represent a substantial
number of single occupant vehicle trips and single purpose trips, the schools have
historically been overlooked and under - represented compared to the large employers
in the Santa Clara County.
Al. ALTRANS Mission Statement and Background
ALTRANS (Alternative Transportation Services) is a Transportation Management
Association (TMA), currently serving the community colleges and universities of
Santa Clara county.
Through transportation planning services and community outreach, ALTRANS
advocates alternatives to the single occupant vehicle for educational institutions,
employers, seniors and residents of the Santa Clara Valley. ALTRANS Trip
Reduction Program directly impacts the community and the environment by:
1. Mitigating traffic congestion
2. Conserving natural resources and energy
3. Minimizing the risk of vehicle collisions
4. Improving air quality
To date, ALTRANS has been able to:
• successfully reduce 2,000 single occupant vehicles from our streets and roadways,
• develop and promote the Transit Access Program (TAP) at San Jose State
University (SJSU),
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
• establish Alternative Transportation Information centers at six community college
campuses and SJSU,
• create a successful internship program where the students of Environmental
Studies and Urban & Regional Planning Departments at SJSU can receive
academic credit for assisting with ALTRANS' projects and trip reduction
programs,
• acquire 16 bicycle lockers for San Jose City College,
• develop an expansion plan to the community, which has been awarded a grant
from the Petroleum Violations Escrow Account.
Currently, ALTRANS employs ten staff members and four interns. As part of our
expansion plan, ALTRANS will provide the same services to all colleges and K -12
schools in the South Bay. By Fall of 1996, we plan to integrate the colleges and K -12
trip reduction services. This will allow us to understand and quantify the effectiveness
of our programs on student travel patterns.
B. Problem Statement
The City of Saratoga is approximately 12 square miles and has about 28,000 residents.
The City also has 17,600 students (Spring 1996 enrollment) of which, 6,705 attend
nine K -12 schools belonging to five school districts and two private schools, and
10,895 are enrolled at West Valley Community College. The city is experiencing heavy
traffic congestion due to the student related trips at these schools and their near -by
roads. Most of the K -12 schools do not have school buses; therefore, a large number
of students are dependent on private automobiles to meet their transportation needs.
Every weekday long lines of cars are formed by the parent drivers delivering their kids
to school in the morning and collecting them in the afternoon, mostly one student at a
time. These auto trips fill the already congested streets to capacity and delay the flow
of traffic considerably, contributing to more congestion, increasing risk of collisions,
regional air and noise pollution and other negative environmental effects.
In addition, three schools in Cupertino, which are located two blocks from each other
(Kennedy Jr. High School and Lincoln Elementary of the Cupertino Union and Monta
Vista High School of Fremont Union ), with the total attendance of 3,511 students are
experiencing similar problems.
The City of Saratoga, its schools and Cupertino Union School District are seeking
alternative transportation measures for the K -12 students in order to reduce the
student related trips, and have requested ALTRANS Organization to implement a trip
reduction program.
K42 TRP Pilot Proposal
C. Needs Assessment
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
According to the traffic count at major roads and intersections completed in Sep. 1994
by the City of Saratoga, there is a significant increase in traffic volume near all schools
just before and after school hours. The morning traffic at Saratoga High School with
the student population of 997 located on the South side of Herriman Avenue is a
good indicator of this fact.
From 7:30 to 7:45 AM, 278 vehicles from the intersection of Herriman & Saratoga -
Sunnyvale Road on the West side, and 253 vehicles from the intersection of Herriman
& Saratoga Ave. on the East side (total of 531 cars) entered Herriman Ave. bound for
the Saratoga High School. See Figures -1 & 2, Appendix 1. Hence the above figures
yield that well over half of the students are driving or being driven to Saratoga High
School.
In addition, the result of a preliminary traffic survey conducted in Nov. 1994 by
ALTRANS show that 479 cars arrived at Redwood Middle School, and 371 arrived at
Argonaut K -5 School between 7:15 - 8:30 AM to drop off students. As shown in
Table -1, 67.7% and 69.4% students of the total student population at Argonaut and
Redwood are driven to and from school every weekday. The table also shows that
major source of traffic at these schools are due to the vehicles dropping off one
student per vehicle. Well over half of the student population is driven to school one at
a time at both of these schools.
T -Ll- 1. - ..n..1— — Il--f —A DaA ... nnA
Based on this survey, we extrapolated the number of students dropped off at other
schools which is shown in Table -2. Prospect High School has school busing available
for 40% of the students, which we have taken into account. Also Marshall Lane has
school buses available for students and we have not included their student population
in the calculations.
Total cars
1994
%
School
one student
2+ students
arriving at
Enrollment
students
per car
per car
school
dropped
Off
Argonaut
1 293
78
371
548
67.7%
Redwood
1 356
123
479
690
69.4%
Based on this survey, we extrapolated the number of students dropped off at other
schools which is shown in Table -2. Prospect High School has school busing available
for 40% of the students, which we have taken into account. Also Marshall Lane has
school buses available for students and we have not included their student population
in the calculations.
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Table -2: Estimated Number of Cars Arriving at Other Schools
Assuming 65 %n of students are given rides to and from schools:
School Name
1994
Enrollment
Total cars
arriving at
schools
Prospect
865
562
Blue Hills
501
326
Christa McAuliffe
392
255
Kennedy Jr. High
897
583
Lincoln
678
441
Monta Vista High
1,775
1,154
Saratoga High
997
648
Argonaut
548
356
Foothill
387
252
Redwood
690
449
Saratoga
329
214
Sacred Heart
280
182
St. Andrews
434 1
282
Total
8,77 1
5,703
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
Hence, we have an estimated total of 5,703 cars making daily trips to those schools.
By reducing the number of cars by 10% each year per school, we will have reduced
student related trips by approximately 570 cars from these cities in one year.
Eliminating auto -trips by 20% in two years will result in the reduction of
approximately 1,141 cars in just two cities. This number reflects our estimate;
however, at some schools, according to the school officials, up to 90% of the student
population is dropped off and picked up by parents. Therefore, the actual number
may be higher.
The problem of traffic congestion caused by student related trips is not unique to
Saratoga and Cupertino; other cities are also experiencing such problems. Traffic
congestion not only causes unsafe conditions for students who drive, walk or ride bike
to school, but air, water, and noise pollution as well. The solution developed for
Saratoga and Cupertino will provide a foundation for solving the same problem in
other cities. Congestion can be reduced and bay area air quality can be improved if
other bay area cities were also to implement alternative transportation measures for
their schools.
A Program Objective
Reduce the current student related trips to at least seven Saratoga K -12 schools and
three Cupertino schools by approximately 20% (about 2,000 auto trips) in two years.
4
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
E. Methods
Various organizations such as Atmospheric Options at SJSU/Environmental
Resources Center, RIDES For Bay Area Commuters, Community Focus, National
Traffic Safety Institute, AMC Media Corporation, The Practical Bike, American Lung
Association, Santa Clara County Transportation Agency and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District have expressed their interest in supporting this project. We may
employ their services to meet our objectives. This project will be staffed with three
paid positions: one K -12 TRP Manager, one Administrator and one TRP Coordinator; the
staff members will be assisted by trained volunteer interns, school officials and older students.
With the cooperation of the cities of Saratoga, Cupertino and Their K -12 schools the
ALTRANS staff and supporting organizations will implement the following methods
where -ever applicable in order to achieve our objectives:
El. Establish and maintain a Transportation Management Association (TMA).
This phase of the program has already been developed by ALTRANS and since the
program's inception, we have had five successful meetings. The K -12 TMA
consists of representatives from school districts and their respective schools, City
of Saratoga, City of Cupertino, youth organizations and ALTRANS. The TMA
will continue to meet on a quarterly basis in order to evaluate the activities and
accomplishments of the TRP and provide feedback on all stages of TRP strategies,
develop special projects and explore funding sources. The representatives will
assist in the alternative transportation presentations, resources and information
exchange at the PTA meetings and classrooms. Through the PTA meetings, we
will distribute Alternative Commute Information to parents. The information will
pertain to carpool, transit and bicycle, wa.lking/roller- blading programs.
Formation of the TMA will incorporate schools and the cities; it will organize and
execute educational programs to reduce automobile traffic to schools. It will
develop a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) of membership and
participation among the representatives. See MOU, Appendix 2.
E2. Develop ALTRANS Information Centers.
The ALTRANS Information centers as part of the existing reception areas or
counters located at each school will provide a point of contact where parents and
students can receive personalized assistance with alternative modes of
transportation. The information centers will be staffed by ALTRANS employees
and volunteer interns, trained school officials and older students. They will contain
registration and participation procedures, carpool and bicycling information, transit
schedules /maps, safety and regulations literature and alternative transportation
promotional material.
5
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
E3. Develop a Carpool Program.
ALTRANS will develop a carpool program in which, a designated parent or a
student driver, on a rotational basis, will collect kids living in the same
neighborhood and transport them to the local school and back to their homes..
One or more of the following methods will be used to implement the program:
Saratoga and Cupertino will be divided into several zones according to the
geographical locations of the schools. Students in each zone will be matched to
share ride with a parent or student driver.
Carpool match lists will be generated from the trailing 4 digits in Saratoga and
Cupertino zip codes.
Carpool match lists will be generated by RIDES For Bay Area Commuters.
ALTRANS and/or RIDES for Bay Area Commuters will maintain and manage a
carpool information system.
E4. Develop a Bicycle Buddy Program.
ALTRANS will develop neighborhood biking groups. We will encourage students
to commute by bicycle in groups and educate them about the bike routes. Bicycle
regulations, and safety concerns from sources such as: "From A to Z by Bike ", by
AMC Media Corporation, "Bicycle Driver's Handbook ", by National Traffic
Safety Institute, "Street Skills For Cyclists ", by The Practical Bike, and "Bicycle
Safety Videos ", by Jeanne Lepage, UCSC will be presented and distributed in
classroom presentations and PTA meetings. Also ALTRANS will work with
school officials to expand bicycle storage facilities at school sites.
E5. Develop Walking and Roller - blading Groups.
In recent years, roller - blading have gained great popularity among kids.
ALTRANS will identify preferred pedestrian routes to schools, form roller -
blading groups and encourage students to use this activity as a short distant
commute mode in conformance with the school regulations. Also ALTRANS will
develop neighborhood walking groups with a parent or an older student guide on a
rotational basis. Walking to school or home in groups can be fun and a socializing
event. Walking is a good exercise for both grown -ups and children. We will
educate students about pedestrian rights and safety.
E6. Encourage Transit Ridership.
ALTRANS will identify bus lines to each school for students and parents, promote
transit ridership, distribute transit schedules and maps, and educate parents and
students about the transit system. We will also compile a list of transit needs,
explore service enhancements and make necessary recommendations to the
Transportation Agency.
6
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
E7. Develop and implement special projects. This phase of our methods may require
separate funding.
ALTRANS and the K -12 TMA will continue to develop special projects such as
clean fuel shuttle bus services, bicycle storage facilities, internal carpool programs,
etc. ALTRANS has already explored the possibility of implementing two multi-
school clean fuel bus services from Saratoga and Cupertino neighborhoods to
schools. These shuttle services will serve several schools simultaneously. They will
be routed in a way that, students will be collected from convenient regional corner
locations and transported to schools located at close proximity of each other. The
buses may be contracted to operate few hours in the mornings and afternoons.
E8. Develop an overall campaign.
A Campaign, similar to the successful recycling campaign, will be directed towards
students and parents, addressing the increasing problems of traffic congestion,
collision and adverse impact of automobile source emissions on the air quality and
the environment. Exposing the students to the environmental issues at an early age
will encourage them to be more environmentally conscious and prepare them to
make environmentally sound decisions in the future. The campaign will also
include the use of a wide array of flyers, posters and banners at school sites.
E9. Develop incentive programs to facilitate participation in TRP.
ALTRANS will implement the following incentive programs:
Environmental Award Certificates, and Gift Give -Away. The Environmental
Award Certificates will be given to families and students for participating in
the TRP. Each month, we will choose the group of the month and the student
of the month for carpooling, bicycling, walking/roller- blading, and transit
ridership. A copy of the award certificate will be posted in the classrooms.
Their names (and possibly photos) will be printed in the school news - letters.
Gifts will be distributed at the school events. As part of the TRP campaign,
ALTRANS will reach local merchants to sponsor school events in exchange
for promoting their businesses. The names of all students and families
participating in the TRP will be entered for the gift give -away. Items such as
bicycles, helmets, bus passes, books, CDs, movie passes, fast food certificates,
school supplies, etc. will be raffled off at these events.
F. Evaluation
In order to evaluate the success and effectiveness of this pilot program, we will
maintain and compile information on the following:
Transportation surveys.
Transportation surveys will be either administered at the school sites or sent to
parents before and after the implementation of the program. The response to
7
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
our surveys will help us determine the exact figures for student related auto -
trips, the number of those who are already using alternative modes of
commuting and the percentage of parents willing to consider alternative modes
of transportation.
• Number of carpool, bike and transit ridership, walking/roller - blading groups
formed.
After the implementation of TRP we will determine the number of students that
ride bikes, walk/roller- blade, or carpool. An increase in the above activities
will demonstrate our first step towards success.
• Traffic counts at schools.
Traffic counts will be performed at each of the school sites at the end of the
school year. The success will be measured by a decrease in the traffic volume
at those schools.
• Input From TMA Representatives.
Throughout the program the TMA representatives will monitor and report of
any change in their schools' student travel patterns.
• Number of alternative commute trips planned, documented, and followed up.
• Number of alternative transportation materials, such as schedules, maps, flyers,
etc. disseminated.
G. Future Funding
This project is a pilot program, and the funds requested in this proposal are viewed
as "seed money ". Additional funding will be necessary for the continuation of the
program.
As ALTRANS is expanding to the communities in Santa Clara Valley and
developing other trip reduction programs, K -12 and those projects will be
incorporated into the ALTRANS' overall transportation demand management
program. ALTRANS will continue to secure funding internally and through
federal, state, foundations and corporate funding sources.
8
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
H. BUDGET
Hl. Budget Summary:
REQUESTED FUNDS
First Year Second Year
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
IN -KIND CONTRIBUTIONS/MATCHING FUNDS
First Year Second Year
Total Cost 1 $149,971.20 1 $149,780.26 1 $45,838.00 $31,788.00
I. Personnel
A. Salaries
$98,491.20
$103,415.76
$28,608.00
$28,608.00
B. Fringe Benefits
$27,090.00
$28,444.50
$14,050.00
C. Contract Services
$15,800.00
1 $9,500.00
$780.00
$780.00
II. Non - Personnel
A. S ace & Utilities Costs
$28,608.00
$28,608.00
B. Office Equipment
$14,050.00
C. Consumable Supplies
$3,900.00
$3,900.00
$780.00
$780.00
D. Other Costs
$4,690.00
$4,520.00
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
9
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
H2. Budget Detail:
I. Personnel
A _ Salarlpc f-M increase /wear)
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
REQUESTED FUNDS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS/MATCHING FUNDS
First Year Second Year First Year Second Year
(l) K -12 TRP Manager, 40 hours /week
@ $3 500.00 /month
$42,000.00
$44,100.00
(1) TRP Coordinator , 40 hours /week
$23,328.00
$23,328.00
@ $2 850.00 /month
$34,200.00
$35,910.00
(1) Administrator, 24 hours /week
1
$5,280.00
$5,280.00
@ $1,857.60 /month
$22,291.20
1 $23,405.76
B. Fringe Benefits
25% of Salary for full -time staff $19,050.00 1 $20,002.50
C. Contract Services
Research, TMA and proposal development by
ALTRANS $6,300.00
Survey Processing Costs:
10,000 surveys/year @ 95 Cents/survey $9,500.00 $9,500.00
II. Non - Personnel
A_ Snare C_nctc
Office & Counter Rent:
{(1) 1200 sq.ft office + 20 sq. ft. counters x (12
sites)) @ $1.35 /s q. ft. /month x 12 months
$23,328.00
$23,328.00
Office Utilities: {(1) office @ $200/month + (12
Sites ) @ $20 /month x 12 months
1
$5,280.00
$5,280.00
10
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/11/96
REQUESTED FUNDS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS/MATCHING FUNDS
First Year Second Year First Year Second Year
B. Office Eauinment
To be used by staff at ALTRANS headquarter
Computer + Software
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
$7,000,00
Printer
$4,520.00
$4,520.00
$1,900.00
$180.00
Scanner
$1,100.00
$2,400.00
Copy Machine
$3,500.00
Fax Machine
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
1
$550.00
C. Consumable Supplies
Promotional Materials:
Banners & Posters for 12 Sites
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
60 Reams of Paper/year
$4,520.00
$4,520.00
$180.00
$180.00
Reproduction Costs:
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
10,000 surveys /year + 10,000 newsletters x 2
times/ ear @ 5 Centskopy
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
1
Desk top supplies for 3 staff @ $200 /each/ e
1 $600.001
$600.00
D. Other Costs
Postage:
Bulk Rate Establishment Fee
$170.00
10,000 pieces x 2 times /year @ bulk rate 22.6
Cents/ piece
$4,520.00
$4,520.00
Telephone:
(4) Instruments @ $50.00 /each /month x 12 months
$2,400.00
$2,400.00
11
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
2. Where will the project be located/implemented?
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
The project will be implemented in the K -12 schools located in the cities of Saratoga
and Cupertino as shown in Table -3 below. Also see Site Maps in Appendix 3.
T.h1P -I Qrhnnls nnrl Rrhnnl T)istrictc located in Sarato8a and Cunertino
Total: 9,824 9,496 10,216
3. How and to what extent will the project will improve air quality?
4. How and to what extent will the project reduce traffic congestion?
5. How and to what extent will the project reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled? Single
Occupant Vehicle trips?
Our objective is to reduce approximately 2,000 vehicle trips to K -12 schools in two
years. This will include single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips made by the high school
students and other trips made by the parents or other drivers who are driving students
to schools one student at a time.
The one way distance traveled by the elementary school lids varies from few blocks to
1.5 miles; middle school kids 2 to 3 miles and high school students 3 to 4 miles. We
have taken an average one way distance of 2.5 miles and based on our projections of
SOVs, vehicle trips reductions, and the TRP parameters below and using the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) emission factors, the following tables
provide answers to the above questions due to the project's function and activities at
the end of the pilot phase:
Number of SOVs and vehicle trips per day = 2,000
Average round -trip miles of commute = 5
Number of days per year of commute = 180
Number of years = 2
12
1994
1995
1996
School Districts
School Name
Grade
Enrollment
Enrollment
Enrollment
Clty
Campbell Union
Marshall Lane
K -5
474
500
510
Saratoga
Campbell Union
Prospect High
9 -12
1,442
1,079
1,472
Saratoga
High
Cupertino Union
Blue Hills
K -6
501
480
476
Saratoga
Christa McAuliffe
K -6
392
360
421
Saratoga
Kennedy Jr. High
7,8
897
894
966
Cupertino
Lincoln
K -6
678
679
685
'Cupertino
Fremont Union
Monta Vista High
9 -12
1,775
1,760
1,860
Cupertino
High
LG- Saratoga ft.
Saratoga High
9 -12
997
1,000
1,000
Saratoga
Union High
Saratoga Union
Argonaut
K -5
548
570
563
Saratoga
Foothill
K -5
387
392
447
Saratoga
Redwood
6 -8
690
720
729
Saratoga
Saratoga
K -5
329
325
341
Saratoga
Private Schools
Sacred Heart
K -8
280
287
297
Saratoga
St. Andrews
K -8
434
450
449
Saratoga
Total: 9,824 9,496 10,216
3. How and to what extent will the project will improve air quality?
4. How and to what extent will the project reduce traffic congestion?
5. How and to what extent will the project reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled? Single
Occupant Vehicle trips?
Our objective is to reduce approximately 2,000 vehicle trips to K -12 schools in two
years. This will include single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips made by the high school
students and other trips made by the parents or other drivers who are driving students
to schools one student at a time.
The one way distance traveled by the elementary school lids varies from few blocks to
1.5 miles; middle school kids 2 to 3 miles and high school students 3 to 4 miles. We
have taken an average one way distance of 2.5 miles and based on our projections of
SOVs, vehicle trips reductions, and the TRP parameters below and using the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) emission factors, the following tables
provide answers to the above questions due to the project's function and activities at
the end of the pilot phase:
Number of SOVs and vehicle trips per day = 2,000
Average round -trip miles of commute = 5
Number of days per year of commute = 180
Number of years = 2
12
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
Vehicle Related Reductions
Number of SOVs
2,000 vehicles
Vehicle miles traveled
3,600,000 miles
vehicle collisions (In'ury &Fatality)
4
Pnlintank Reduction
Hydrocarbons
143,784
pounds
Carbon Monoxide
92,038 pounds
14
Nitrogen Oxide
8,626 pounds
Particular Matter (PM10)
22,730
pounds
Total
1 267,178P
ounds
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
6. Does the project address more than one eligible project category? How?
The project addresses two BAAQMD Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
categories:
CATEGORIES
TCM #
1. implementation/enforcement of local ridesharing and trip
1, 2, 10, 13,
reduction ordinance and program
14
5. implementation or rail -bus integration and regional transit
13
informations stem
7. Who will benefit from the project and how widespread do you expect the
benefits to be? How many county residents will benefit from the project? What
specific communities/groups will benefit (i.e. business, employers, bicyclists,
pedestrians, the elderly, commuters, etc.)?
In addition to its direct benefits to 10,216 students in 14 K -12 schools in Saratoga
and Cupertino, this program will benefit approximately 28,000 Saratoga and 3,500
Cupertino residents, businesses, community colleges and cities in the surrounding
community. Also, the program will be beneficial to agencies such as the Santa Clara
County Transportation Agency, RIDES For Bay Area Commuters and other
organizations providing alternative transportation services.
13
K -12 TRP Pilot Proposal
S. How cost effective is the project?
Eyedin Zonobi,
ALTRANS
3/1/96
The cost to reduce pollutants, vehicles and related factors, energy and fuel are as
follows:
Cost ner Pound Reduction of Pollutants
rnct ner Vehicle Related Reductions
vvSOVs and Vehicle Trips
$150 per vehicle
Vehicle Miles Traveled
8.3 Cents per mile
Vehicle Collisions (In 'ury &Fatality)
$75,000 per collision
ramervation Cost
Energy
1.4 Cents per Million of BTU
Fuel
$1.83 per Gallon
9. Has your agency implemented a project similar to the proposed project in the
past? H so, briefly describe your experience (did the project meet expectations,
did it stay within budget, etc.)
A1Trans organization has been able to implement trip reduction programs in each of
our six member colleges in Santa Clara county and SJSU. A1Trans TRP has
successfully met its objectives of reducing 2,000 documented SOVs within the 2.5
year allocated time and budget.
10. How and to what extent does the project encourage a shift away from Single
Occupant Vehicles to shared -ride or non - motorized modes of transportation
including telecommuting?
See Project Narrative, section E. Methods.
11. Will this project provide other benefits that are not covered by the questions
above (for example, reduces road water runoff? If so, please describe those
benefits in detail.
The following table illustrates some of the additional benefits of the project based on
our two -year projections:
rnncarvatinn
............ .
Energy
20.9 billions of BTU
Fuel
163,636 Gallons
Fuel Savings to Consumer
$204,545
14
APPENDIX 1
Figures
[PEDS 1 0
0
0
0
[PEDS 1 0
SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE
1
I$]
J
N
W--J-E
S
0 [PEDS 1
190
283 0
r- 1563
0 1 1450 1 113
SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE
93
HERRIMAN --sr
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
PAGE: 1
Site Code :
4AM
Rju�e-
FILE: 4AM
N-s Street:
SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE
E-W Street:
HERRIMAN
DATE: 9/22/
Weather
Movements by: Primary
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS
FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM -
9:00 AM
DIRECTION
START
PEAK HR
........... VOLUMES ...........
...... PERCENTS .......
FROM
PEAK HOUR
FACTOR
PEDS Right Thru Left
Total
PEDS Right
Thru
Left '
North
7:30 AM
0.85
0 0 455 165
620
- 0
73
27
East
7:30 AM
0.86
0 190 0 93
283
- 67
0
33
South
7 :45 AM
0.95
1 102 1474 0
1576
- 6
94
0
West
7:45 AM
0.00
0 0 0 0
0
- 0
0
0
Entire Intersection
North
7:30 AM
0.85
0 0 455 165
620
- 0
73
27
East
0.86
0 190 0 93
283
- 67
0
33
South
0.94
3 113 1450 0
1563
- 7
93
0
West
0.00
0 0 0 0
0
- 0
0
0
[PEDS 1 0
0
0
0
[PEDS 1 0
SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE
1
I$]
J
N
W--J-E
S
0 [PEDS 1
190
283 0
r- 1563
0 1 1450 1 113
SARATOGA /SUNNYVALE
93
HERRIMAN --sr
Site Code : 9AM
N-S Street: SARATOGA
E-W Street: HERRIMAN
Weather :
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE
Fywe - 2
Movements by: Primary
PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM
DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........... VOLUMES ........... ...... PERCENTS .......
FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR PEDS Right Thru Left Total PEDS Right Thru Left
North
East
South
West
North
East
South
West
7:45 AM
0.91
0.
206
323
0
529
39
61
0
7:45 AM
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
7:30 AM
0.93
19
0
478
33
511
- 0
94
6
7:30 AM
0.75
3
27
0
177
204
- 13
0
87
Entire Intersection
7:30 AM 0.89 0 220 297 0 517 - 43 57 0
0.00 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 a 0
0.93 19 0 478 33 511 - 0 94 6
0.75 3 27 0 177 204 - 13 0 87
HERRIMAN
324
SARATOGA
M
F 511-7
33 478 0
0
0
PAGE.- - 1
FILE: 9AM
DATE: 9/21/94
19 [PEDS
APPENDIX 2
(MOU)
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU)
Between School Districts City Of Saratoga and AlTrans Organization
Representatives of Saratoga/Cupertino K -12 Schools, the City of Saratoga, and the AlTrans Organization
agree to work on alternative transportation projects as consortium members of the AlTrans -
Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Trip Reduction Program (TRP).
It is our collective intention to use this partnership as a trip reduction service provider in order to share
alternative transportation information, ideas, and resources as our schools work together to reduce vehicle
trips which will mitigate traffic congestion and vehicle collisions, improve regional air quality, and
conserve petroleum resources.
Furthermore, each of our respective TMA members agree to participate in the AlTrans-Transportation
Management Association meetings on a quarterly basis. Participation in these quarterly meetings will
focus on the following program elements:
Evaluate the activities and accomplishments of the TRP and prioritize special projects.
Assist in establishing information centers at each school along with securing cooperation among
school administrators and school staff.
Act as a positive lobbying force in order to improve transit, car pool, cycling, and pedestrian
modes to schools.
Assist in securing additional grants and funding sources for special projects and AlTrans-
TMA/TRP.
Entered into this formal agreement are the undersigned for membership and participation in the AlTrans-
Transportation Management Association and Trip Reduction Program on January 18, 1995:
'at 0-1?
_J6, 01
Harry acock. City Manager, City Of Saratoga
Mary E ar e , Superintendent, Saratoga Union School District
Patricia A. Lamson, Supi ntendent, Cupertino Union School District
The AlTrans-TMA provides referral services in alternative commute modes for students and employees of K -12 schools, and do not
certify the character of participants. Participants are advised to screen referrals to their personal satisfaction. The AlTrans-TMA and
its members are not liable for any accidents and/or harm that might occur to any Participant at any time. The AlTrans -TMA, however,
does within the lawful limits of Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, reserve the right to refuse services to anyone.
APPENDIX 3
Site Maps
I oralDGE W ., I Y---
OLPM
t tasnnon►ot: _.
t MW(Ri DI
s ®DI FALL DD
I tnclwntt no
/ IMMY IMOU Dt
"ITENICK OR
1 WWMW00I DI OUS to am DICY
FOR
12 [ICLL pt
D 4DDDttDDD DDJ'nr.
MAP or
SARATOGA
RLL�L III LM/IYY
WAt Cr/i
1. Saratoga Village
2. Neale's Hollow
3. Argonaut Shopping Center
Saratoga Oaks
4. Aznle Shopping Center
Saratoga
Coun#7j Club
(408) 253 -0340
21990 Prospect Road
Saratoga, 'California 95070
S. Saratoga Center
6. Oak Creek Shopping Center
7. Blue Hills Shopping Center
S. Park Saratoga Shopping Center
THE INN AT SARATOGA
Saratoga's finest... Located it, the western
foothills of the Santa Clara Ulllev, awau hr/n
the Imstle of big city hotels, -1 npeslting
experience ntoaits the pleasures of business
erecutires and disc iiiiinating individuals.
30645 fourth Street
Saratoga. California 9500
(408)86'•5020
9. West Gate Corners
10. Big Tree Shopping Center
11. Quito Village Shopping Ce
Pacific Western Bari
14401 Big Basin Way Norma l
Saratoga, California 95070 Assistant Vice Presr
(4081244 -1700 Va
WNVO
e
1
or.
m
r
ti
13
I# la,
R Psl
y q L
1rEar wL►
a aar
rll I.wu d
rr
U1. w
L cW" Sw" a
a wr U" a —a-
Lei
w
4
a A ,w "Cl.
............aa
A`
E
7. Etter So" CL
a Gsplr Sorts" 0.
CL
}
�
;:
9 w
,,-01.
eoenaao
Ml V
fig �
p.
O V far
a
—
_ . _ __ _.
�[ u
1•-.
-- HOME
s
M
ROAD
�,aS� Gam•
�
Mta�rfAo
�S
� c
n A.a
Nara/ aCUt70E
_
couwa
scawot
it
J ,
or Oa�. M Plreadoln 3—: ° ° c� c, en es ` ienO *
va � Drive
r q In u `9 + �+ • 1 �� lB pE o C Or. P E- 1 a. t a Flair
8 11_ can= STEVENS CREEK ._ ... S
FO �� an aaasa10 P& d
an %a.,� pq > 811 A
;+rte :� � r afield Drive m
q v IL
i��i- xWa € Sunrise • ps °�
;pftw— Pa r _ Rodrt uea Ava Rodrl ue
OI we �a f •rr;rppato J1111 an ` Shell Dr. T
n v ( of AAM4 o a St. Ga q. z r
o m /� p ,`� Tda q. m c N lei �
f°_ Q 7 `` a o ro° p G E COLLEW EM ega tan— � '`0 Cheryl. t ra Avs
w 9 lit p o
arawrEVOU r ar+ M o Ct q Erin Mh• C
rants O ih G rA .• i j`"
o ES •
° ` E`
�r ° 8 f fly 60 r, 4s x S011in er t
8 nn is rt rl - �� d Fpe
? Sha Ira m =aar a• oar �` JoIIPnn =� p B
Dumas .... �.+
,JE kh j 1"s d Q mml An►.ra..44.
�•I � �� � Clt � �:a,PAaa Dalafa
a atherwoo d Or. v7 rn
ti a i' •Q 17i � Q ..
Pl.
kill, del
p c v
' a 1 n
A" a st•
a � kill, del
» la c
Kral PI S ulrewood ar
�' i 'a oTe race ° c11. a g `� j �° ��$ ° D � Golden Q a
1 pr f'
t I� is / g`aciaaoE _ ..s BI I ; oa Ava
E_Y. /
1 $1-cj FAS
. �. ..- � .
•.
/�oP y,. - aR WippalOr° _ _ Lille �FY+,F�
: . Baaano = , �'�o. GGYWiaMaWW ro Q
;
SL g a $�`�1iii 4'� alll Oalll Dr
G Dr. t7 a 0
3 2 3 a 70 Oren eBloasom A
Ct. t 1 d 0 tl 11 t2 Pe Ch Bloatom pl t agar '
4;i Orman W it q. sa ♦ 5 an oa
Yq LL
r ewca tl WI ower
P um 9b s ` M� W !
CL
Ch. rr i Jf
Df.
12 11 p
FIMMONT OLDER ppn E a°
�e
pu O e E
�
<. i Rot E
3 PROSPECT r.s
OPEN SPACE PILES i y l+Y tF r,,,,, I :` .. °c) `- ' E ROAD z •.
klaado a �. •� ;
....N L111Mr 0. ..........M CwP 0........' ...Cal crMwr as .......Ea aar_1 p .........We aLr 0. ............ M N •l• R H
.....Ca Carr Or. ......... N Cep /w..... rg�. W 0a aa, aL.... ......N'. p A. aei6.. IL ...A 41 0 -01. ............N ..
......A•1
R......... C0 HOW
Crrw•0 0. NV pMR...........E� � aaww n 11+6 M..1.. .........................1V CdEpw CL .........W. . . N N
:.....la Cln.a +a. w A}. Gp
...:.. ..H CMrnw/r.......G� _wr A Iw•a . IY. iri "p�af!aa
:WO Db- A-
CeAr0..........A4 C ........04M rWA..q........ _.N CIra .... .N
eea�lrr 0............so fts" 0. .......... ..1........
lAall•. pt..........Or f4.rk ...........H awl, ......�,..aa
Llama SawF......C, ryuw 0............W aw.. •r.0[:u J.Ca
&I. wp .............M H.rl.�.........COa Oca•c 0..... ..M
Ea•c.'A...........M IL1eA wA ...........M Orww041,�rIf
E,1.r0............ E1 rrLw...........J.w ��rarwr. LA .i...xaa
Ealar 0. I ......oaa p.a.•.a ae .....:..Aa M. LA,.......:+
,. faMl 3aMaa
L cW" Sw" a
a wr U" a —a-
tti..
4. Nu song CL
01............04
a A ,w "Cl.
............aa
a nee aorlr.p a
E
7. Etter So" CL
a Gsplr Sorts" 0.
w,........!
a FN cm a epn.p CL
•r G1.........
,a &A" BOA" CL
,,-01.
410 L
......�ra CMne�r
11. E.wlrrp Gray CL
,a Yarrrip ep"cl.
(
,a s"" as "Ci
1•-.
Iaamrrlr am" CL G
E_Y. /
1 $1-cj FAS
. �. ..- � .
•.
/�oP y,. - aR WippalOr° _ _ Lille �FY+,F�
: . Baaano = , �'�o. GGYWiaMaWW ro Q
;
SL g a $�`�1iii 4'� alll Oalll Dr
G Dr. t7 a 0
3 2 3 a 70 Oren eBloasom A
Ct. t 1 d 0 tl 11 t2 Pe Ch Bloatom pl t agar '
4;i Orman W it q. sa ♦ 5 an oa
Yq LL
r ewca tl WI ower
P um 9b s ` M� W !
CL
Ch. rr i Jf
Df.
12 11 p
FIMMONT OLDER ppn E a°
�e
pu O e E
�
<. i Rot E
3 PROSPECT r.s
OPEN SPACE PILES i y l+Y tF r,,,,, I :` .. °c) `- ' E ROAD z •.
klaado a �. •� ;
....N L111Mr 0. ..........M CwP 0........' ...Cal crMwr as .......Ea aar_1 p .........We aLr 0. ............ M N •l• R H
.....Ca Carr Or. ......... N Cep /w..... rg�. W 0a aa, aL.... ......N'. p A. aei6.. IL ...A 41 0 -01. ............N ..
......A•1
R......... C0 HOW
Crrw•0 0. NV pMR...........E� � aaww n 11+6 M..1.. .........................1V CdEpw CL .........W. . . N N
:.....la Cln.a +a. w A}. Gp
...:.. ..H CMrnw/r.......G� _wr A Iw•a . IY. iri "p�af!aa
:WO Db- A-
CeAr0..........A4 C ........04M rWA..q........ _.N CIra .... .N
eea�lrr 0............so fts" 0. .......... ..1........
lAall•. pt..........Or f4.rk ...........H awl, ......�,..aa
Llama SawF......C, ryuw 0............W aw.. •r.0[:u J.Ca
&I. wp .............M H.rl.�.........COa Oca•c 0..... ..M
Ea•c.'A...........M IL1eA wA ...........M Orww041,�rIf
E,1.r0............ E1 rrLw...........J.w ��rarwr. LA .i...xaa
Ealar 0. I ......oaa p.a.•.a ae .....:..Aa M. LA,.......:+
3—
tti..
01............04
Crwar EL .
............aa
CwW VWft f
DIc....r a......
w,........!
U U.Miwrr COL
•r G1.........
Cal"M
,,-01.
410 L
......�ra CMne�r
E_Y. /
1 $1-cj FAS
. �. ..- � .
•.
/�oP y,. - aR WippalOr° _ _ Lille �FY+,F�
: . Baaano = , �'�o. GGYWiaMaWW ro Q
;
SL g a $�`�1iii 4'� alll Oalll Dr
G Dr. t7 a 0
3 2 3 a 70 Oren eBloasom A
Ct. t 1 d 0 tl 11 t2 Pe Ch Bloatom pl t agar '
4;i Orman W it q. sa ♦ 5 an oa
Yq LL
r ewca tl WI ower
P um 9b s ` M� W !
CL
Ch. rr i Jf
Df.
12 11 p
FIMMONT OLDER ppn E a°
�e
pu O e E
�
<. i Rot E
3 PROSPECT r.s
OPEN SPACE PILES i y l+Y tF r,,,,, I :` .. °c) `- ' E ROAD z •.
klaado a �. •� ;
....N L111Mr 0. ..........M CwP 0........' ...Cal crMwr as .......Ea aar_1 p .........We aLr 0. ............ M N •l• R H
.....Ca Carr Or. ......... N Cep /w..... rg�. W 0a aa, aL.... ......N'. p A. aei6.. IL ...A 41 0 -01. ............N ..
......A•1
R......... C0 HOW
Crrw•0 0. NV pMR...........E� � aaww n 11+6 M..1.. .........................1V CdEpw CL .........W. . . N N
:.....la Cln.a +a. w A}. Gp
...:.. ..H CMrnw/r.......G� _wr A Iw•a . IY. iri "p�af!aa
:WO Db- A-
CeAr0..........A4 C ........04M rWA..q........ _.N CIra .... .N
eea�lrr 0............so fts" 0. .......... ..1........
lAall•. pt..........Or f4.rk ...........H awl, ......�,..aa
Llama SawF......C, ryuw 0............W aw.. •r.0[:u J.Ca
&I. wp .............M H.rl.�.........COa Oca•c 0..... ..M
Ea•c.'A...........M IL1eA wA ...........M Orww041,�rIf
E,1.r0............ E1 rrLw...........J.w ��rarwr. LA .i...xaa
Ealar 0. I ......oaa p.a.•.a ae .....:..Aa M. LA,.......:+
APPENDIX 4
Support Letters
Mary E. Gardner, Superintendent - Saratoga Union School District
Charles E. Corr, Director, Business Services - Cupertino Union School District
Chancellor Rose Tseng - Mission/West Valley Community College District
Lucy Wurtz, Policy Manager - Santa Clara County Transportation Agency
Superintendent Patricia A. Lamsc-
Board of Education Debbie Byron
Michael S. Chary
Steven C. Cheii
Sandra L. James
Cupert ino Union School District Emily Lee Kelley
10301 Vista Drive • Cupertino. CA 95014 -2091 • (408) 252 -3000 • Fax (408) 255-44!C
February 16, 1996
Mr. Walter C. Streeter, Senior Planner
Transportation Agency
Congestion Management Program
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134 -1906
Dear Mr. Streeter,
This is a letter of support for the work of the ALTRANS organization.
The Cupertino Union School District became aware of ALTRANS through its involvement with
schools located within the boundaries of the City of Saratoga. Two of our schools are located in
Saratoga.
ALTRANS has demonstrated an ability to help reduce the number of daily trips into a site. This is
important to us because of the increased daily congestion at elementary and junior high school sites
as parents deliver their children to and from school. We hope that with the assistance of
ALTRANS we will be able to help parents find alternative safe means of getting their children to
school.
S'
'Charles E. Corr, Director
Business Services
d
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
14000 Fruitvale Avenue / Saratoga, California 95070 -5698 / (408) 741-2011
ROSE TSENG, Ph.D.
. -Chancellor
February 20, 1996
Mr. Walter C. Streeter, Senior Planner
Transportation Agency
Congestion Management Program
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134 -1906
Dear Mr. Streeter:
Please accept this support letter on behalf of the A1Trans Organization as they
expand into the trip reduction arena of our local K -12 school districts.
As the Chancellor of the West Valley- Mission Community College District, I have
personally witnessed the alternative transportation programs that A1Trans has been
able to complete for our students and employees within our seven college campus
consortium. As the leader in the college program, West Valley - Mission College
recognizes the need and natural progression into our local K -12 schools through the
A1Trans - Transportation Management Association.
I recommend funding the A1Trans Organization so they can continue providing our
college campuses with a much needed Alternative Transportation Program while
including the newly formed K -12 school trip reduction program for our City
(Saratoga) and the neighboring City of Cupertino.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or our Director of Grants and Development, Dr.
Fred Prochaska at (408) 741 -2095.
Thank you for your, time and consideration concerning this support letter.
Sincerely,
Rose Tseng, Ph.D.
Chancellor
c. -Dr. Fred Prochaska - Director of Grants and Development, West Valley College
Mr. Harry Peacock - City Manager, City of Saratoga
Mr. Eyedin Zonobi - Project Manager, A1Trans Organization
Board of Trustees
MS. MAXINE SANDERS, President • MR. ARNE LUNDE, Vice President • MS. JOY ATKINS • MS. KARIN DOWDY
MS. NANCY RUCKER • MR. BRIAN SLOAN • MR. PHIL STOKES • MR. WILLIE BROWN, JR., Student Trustee Mission College
MR. GREG HOOBLER, Student Trustee West Valley College
leae. Santa Clara • West Vallev Colleqe
Transportation Agency
Santa Clara County Bus, light Roil, Congestion Management
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134.1906
Mr. Harry Peacock
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Peacock:
January 23, 1995
I am writing to recommend A1Trans's proposal for forming a K -12 Transportation
Management Association and implementing a K -12 Trip Reduction Program for
the Saratoga school district.
According to its proposal, A1Trans will develop a comprehensive Trip Reduction
Program for the school district, including the following elements: carpools,
transit, walking, and bicycle groups. Through implementation of its Trip
Reduction Program, A1Trans hopes to reduce vehicle trips to Saratoga schools by
approximately 30% over the next three years.
The AlTrans organization has proven successful at reaching the large, and
previously untapped, student population in Santa Clara County. One example of
this is A1Trans's recent successful launch of a Transit Access Program at San Jose
State University. The Transit Access Program is a prepaid fee arrangement with
the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency that allows San Jose State students
to use their student identification cards for unlimited access to public transit in the
county. A1Trans helped to negotiate the fee agreement with the Transportation
Agency, and then worked with the Associated Students of San Jose State on the
campus -wide campaign last year to approve raising student fees to fund the
program. The Transit Access Program has been a success, and other colleges in
the county have shown an interest in starting similar programs.
I know Steve.Blaylock, the Executive Director of A1Trans, through his former
membership on the CMA's Commuter Network Council, and his continued
participation in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Community Focus
program. I have had an opportunity to work with Steve, and can recommend him
to you without reservation as a person of enthusiasm and proven ability.
Sincerely,.
hu V.
V. Wu z
CMP Manager of Policy
Congestion Management Program: 101 Metro Drive, Suite 248, San Jose. California 95110 PHONE: 408.453.4030 FAX: 408.453.4145
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z- IF AGENDA
MEETING DATE: June 5, 1996 CITY
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development tm,/
SUBJECT: Requests to realign existing General Plan designation and
Zoning District boundaries to match the proposed realigned parcel
boundaries at 13570 Pierce Road. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located
within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B (40,500 sq.ft.)
within an R -1- 40,000 District. GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 (Applicant,
Binkley).
Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council take the
following actions:
1. Concur with Staff's decision that this project is subject to
the provisions of Measure G;
2. Accept the applicant's request that the City Council proceed
with the public hearing to consider the applications prior to
the General Plan Amendment being scheduled for an election;
3. Adopt the Negative Declaration for the project finding that no
significant, adverse environmental impacts will be created by
the project;
4. Uphold the Planning Commission recommendations to approve the
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests;
Report Summary: On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission approved 6 -0
a Lot Line Adjustment to "move" an existing lot line between two
existing lots of record thereby creating a larger (i.e. conforming) lot
on one parcel while maintaining above standard square footage on the
second parcel. The first parcel, although substandard, has been
determined to be a legal lot of record containing 19,602 sq.ft. By
moving the existing lot line, the expanded lot will contain 40, 510
sq.ft. which exceeds the minimum 40,000 sq.ft. requirement of the zone.
Because the General Plan and Zoning boundaries currently exist along the
current common lot line, they must also be moved to coincide with the
new lot line. Not moving the General Plan and Zoning lines would create
a lot containing two different General Plan land use designations and
zoning districts resulting in two sets of development regulations.
General Plan Amendments and Zoning District changes can be accomplished
only through the public hearing process and cannot be approved
administratively. Attachment #6 to this report is a letter (dated June
9, 1995) to Mr. Binkley explaining the requirement for the public
hearings. Mr. Binkley filed for the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change on February 12, 1996.
GPA 96 -001 & AZO 96 -001; Binkley
City Council, June 5, 1996
Page 2
Responses to Mr. Binkley's Letter, dated May 29, 1996 (see Attachment
#1): The following are responses to Mr. Binkley's challenge to his
project being subject to the provisions of Measure G. In the opening
paragraph of his letter, Mr. Binkley states "...that this means that our
lot line adjustment will have to be placed upon the ballot and approved
by the voters." This is not a correct statement. This lot line
adjustment can, and has been approved by the Planning Commission, the
recording of which is contingent upon approval of the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change. Only the General Plan Amendment would have
to be approved by the voters.
1. Measure G states that "All lands designated 'Hillside Conservation
Single - Family'... shall remain so designated until December 31,
2025, unless said land is redesignated to another general plan land
use category by vote of the people...." Measure G does not contain
exceptions such as maintaining current numbers of dwelling units,
etc.
2. Mr. Binkley states that the General Plan map does not accurately
reflect his property designation and that the change is "simply"
(staff emphasis) a correction to the map. While the General Plan
and Zoning maps differ slightly, this is not atypical, especially
given the variety of mapping techniques used throughout the years.
In this case, specifically, the lot line adjustment goes beyond a
slight correction - it expands area significantly. Therefore,
public hearings are required.
3. The City Council has discussed the "intent of Measure G" versus
actual language contained in the Initiative. The language as
quoted in item #1 above is very clear in that the designation
cannot be changed without a vote of the people, irrespective of the
intent of the proponents or the voters.
Environmental Determination: An environmental initial study and
Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the
terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
finding that this project will not create any significant, adverse
environmental impacts.
Fiscal Impacts: None.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Notices were mailed to
property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property and a notice was
published in the Saratoga News.
Follow Up Actions: If the City Council takes action on the request, the
applicant must decide if the project will be placed on the next possible
election ballot.
GPA 96 -001 &
City Council,
Page 3
Attachments:
AZO 96 -001; Binkley
June 5, 1996
1. Letter from G.R. Binkley, dated May 29, 1996.
2. Planning Commission Resolution (March 27, 1996) recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 96 -001.
3. Planning Commission Resolution (March 27, 1996) recommending
approval of Zone Change 96 -001.
4. Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 27, 1996.
5. Staff Report, dated March 27, 1996.
6. Staff Letter, dated June 9, 1995.
7. Letter from G.R. Binkley, dated June 7, 1995.
8. Letter from G.R. Binkley, dated May 26, 1995.
9. Staff Letter, dated April 20, 1995.
T. C. Binkley Family Trust
21055 Sarahills Drive
Saratoga, CA 95129
May 29, 1996
VIA FAX 741 -1132
Honorable City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council members:
We received a telephone call today advising that city staff feels
that our lot line adjustment (which for technical reasons requires
AZO96 -001, a zoning boundary change, and GPA96 -001, a general plan
amendment) is subject to Measure G. With this interpretation, we
are told that this means that our lot line adjustment will have to
be placed upon the ballot and approved by the voters.
We disagree with this interpretation, and wish to challenge it at
this time. We are challenging the interpretation for the
following reasons:
1. Both parcels are presently zoned residential and our proposed
adjustment of the lot line between them does not change the
number of dwellings that can be constructed on either parcel.
2. The general plan boundary presently does not agree with the
zoning map boundary in the vicinity of the lot line that we are
adjusting. Our action will correct the city's official maps by
aligning these boundaries. In addition, our action is bringing
a non - conforming lot into conformance with the existing zoning.
It therefore appears that some aspects of our action could be
interpreted as ministerial for city purposes.
3. All Measure G proponents with whom we have discussed this
matter have indicated that it was not the intent of the measure
to apply to situations such as ours.
Since we have paid the city fees and received planning commission
approval, we also wish to proceed with the scheduled hearing.
Sincerely,
T.C. Binkley Family Trust
(Thad W. Larry, and G. Robert Binkley)
by
G.R. Binkley, Tru 6-ee
GRB /yl
RESOLUTION NO. GPA -96 -001
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA.RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
Binkley; 13570 Pierce Rd.
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment
in order to realign a boundary between a Residential- Hillside
Conservation designation and a Hillside -Very Low Density designa-
tion to be consistent with the realigned property line for that
portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 503 -14 -044 (Parcel A) and 503-
14 -022 (Parcel B) per Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment on March 27, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment
to reclassify a portion of Parcel A and Parcel B per Exhibit "A" by
making the following findings:
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies
and objectives of the City's General Plan and Area B Plan
Guidelines; and
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the existing land
use designations and development patterns in the vicinity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, this 27th day of March, 1996 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick & Pierce
NOES: None
ABSENT: Siegfried —�
C n, Planning Commission
A TEST:
A.� �� a4�1.
Secreta y to the Planning Commission
ORDINANCE NO. AZO -96 -001
ORDINANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENT TO ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY
Hinkley; 13570 Pierce Rd.
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a Zoning District
amendment in order to realign a boundary between. a Hillside
Residential District and an R -1- 40,000 District to be consistent
with the realigned property line for that portion of Assessor
Parcel Numbers 503 -14 -044 (Parcel A) and 503 -14 -022 (Parcel B) per
Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment on March 27, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the
City of Saratoga recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning
District boundary per Exhibit "A ", by making the following
findings:
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the
goals, policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and
Area B Plan Guidelines; and
• The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the
existing zoning districts and development in the vicinity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis-
sion, this 27th day of March, 1996 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick &Pierce
NOES: None
ABSENT: Siegfried ^7 '
Cha an Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretaky to the anning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSluA MINUTES
MARCH 27, 1996
PAGE - 3 -
to an existing 3,388 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
The subject property is 44,330 sq. ft. in area and is located within the R- 1- 40,000
zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Scott Cunningham, project designer, informed the Commission that he tried to address all
the design handout criteria. He felt that the house was close to non - visible and that the
design meets his clients' needs.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 7:45 P.M.
Chairman Murakami stated that he reviewed the second story segment as mentioned in the
staff report. After review of the text contained in the analysis, his concerns were answered.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
DR -96 -004 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH
COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
4. LL-95 -002, GPA- 96-001 & AZO -96 -001- BI9KLEY;13570 PIERCE RD.; Request
for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between
two legal lots of record. The application also includes requests to realign existing
General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned
parcel boundaries. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located within a Hillside Residential
District and Parcel B (40,500 sq. ft.) within an R -1- 40,000 District.
An environmental Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant
to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the lot line
adjustment would be contingent upon the City Council's approval of the General Plan and
zoning amendments.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if a building site would be established for parcel B? Planner
Walgren responded that a building site would not be established as part of this approval but
that staff requested that the applicant show that there is a reasonable building site for parcel
B. The setback envelopes are being shown on the plan so that when the lot is developed,
it is known what the required setbacks would be.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that a home would need to be designed
to be located within the setback lines.
PLANNING COMMIS61JN MINUTES
MARCH 27, 1996
PAGE - 4 -
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the creation of odd shaped lots
and the problems that they could create in the future.
Commissioner Asfour asked if staff was satisfied with the building site? Planner Walgren
responded that the building site was the most feasible building site available given the
current configuration of parcel B. The building envelope, as shown, is based on today's
setback requirements. Should the lot not be developed for several years, the building site
would be subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time of development, as well as
review by the City's geologist and arborist.
Commissioner Abshire asked if the home could be built on the land that is being added?
Planner Walgren indicated that the home would be located on the western most 10,000
square feet of the lot which is currently a knoll with several trees on it, noting that it was
gaining a flat terraced area along the hillside.
Commissioner Patrick asked the City Attorney if this zoning and General Plan amendments
would be affected by Measure G? City Attorney Riback responded that this proposed
general plan amendment was the type of amendment that would be subject to Measure G.
He indicated that Measure G would go into affect 10 days following City Council's
declaration of the vote, sometime in late April or early May.
Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his understanding that Measure G would only apply
if there was an increase in density. He noted that this application was not increasing in
density. City Attorney Riback stated that this amendment would be subject to Measure G
because there would be a change in the General Plan land use designation from the
Residential Hillside conservation to Residential, Very Low Density, an intensification in
land use.
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Bob Binkley, applicant, informed the Commission that he was in charge of administrating
his father's estate. The lot line, as it exists today, does not encompass the pattern for the
lot and he felt that it was appropriate to adjust the lot to conform to current zoning
standards. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He stated that he also
understood the effect of Measure G on his application.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 7:55 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION
CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
PLANNING COMMISSIL A MINUTES
MARCH 27, 1996
PAGE - 5 -
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.
LL -95 -002 CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH
COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT.
5. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA-
SUNNYVALERD.;Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two
parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single- family lots. The existing residence,
pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac
would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. -
there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The
proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to
4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500
zoning district.
An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been
prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it could not
take formal action on the application this evening as the project requires an extended review
period to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This application has been scheduled to allow
the Commission to review the comments as outlined in the staff report, take public
testimony and requested that the Commission include any additional comments that it may
have. The comments received this evening would be addressed at the next available
meeting. He identified the following issues: 1) The circulation plan tends to isolate the 15
new homes from the existing neighborhood. 2) It is recommended that the pedestrian
connection be either widened or shortened or both without affecting either of the adjoining
lots in order to avoid a long, narrow tunnel affect. 3) It is recommended that construction
be limited to single story homes of not more than 22 feet in height. 4) The perimeter
landscaping has been found to be suitable for this portion of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with
the recommendation that the applicant provide a more residential wall plan similar to the
Saratoga Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Avenue (the use of redwood and used brick columns
versus a solid brick wall). 5) Staff also recommends that the developer be required to build
a simple post and roof type of bus stop shelter to be maintained by the City in the future.
He indicated that the wall plans submitted to the Commission this evening were submitted
early this week as an amendment to the original wall plan. He informed the Commission
that the original wall plan was proposed to be solid brick which included an arched - entryway
over the new court. The new wall plan proposes to use an alternating brick and stucco
design, eliminating the arched entryway.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she read the letter from the superintendent of the
elementary school. She asked if there was a conflict between the hazardous substance report
that came from the County and that of the soil sample? Planner Walgren responded that
a conflict did not exist, noting that the County Environmental Health Department was
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001
Application No. /Location: 13570 Pierce Road
Applicant/ Owner: BINKLEY
Staff Planner: James Wal gr en , AIC P
Date: March 27, 1996
APN: 503 -14 -022 & 044
Director Approval: J(�
1 �3 5 / U Fierce Kd.
File No. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001; 13570 Pierce Rd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed:
3/21/95
Application complete:
2/12/96
Notice published:
2/28/96
Mailing completed:
2/29/96
Posting completed: -
2/22/96
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing
parcel boundary between two legal lots of record located off Pierce
Rd. and Sara Hills Rd. The application includes a request to
realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District
boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. Parcel A is
designated as Residential - Hillside Conservation and is located
within a Hillside Residential District. Parcel B is designated as
Residential -Very Low Density and is in an R -1- 40,000 District.
An environmental Negative Declaration have been prepared for this
project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conditionally approve the Lot Line Adjustment request and recommend
approval of the environmental Negative Declaration and General Plan
and Zoning District boundary amendments to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolutions LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001
3. Environmental Negative Declaration
4. Map, Exhibit "A"
File No. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001; 13570 Pierce Rd.
ZONING•
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION•
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE:
EXISTING NET
PARCEL SIZES•
PROPOSED NET
PARCEL SIZES•
MINIMUM PARCEL
SIZE REQUIREMENTS:
PROJECT DISCUSSION:
Lot Line Adjustment:
STAFF ANALYSIS
PARCEL A PARCEL B
Hillside Residential R -1- 40,000
Residential - Hillside Residential -Very
Conservation Low Density
300 280
9 acres 19,602 sq. ft.
(.45 acres)
8.44 acres 40,510 sq. ft.
(.93 acre)
3.8 acres 40,000 sq. ft.
(.92 acres)
The applicant is proposing a Lot Line Adjustment to realign an
existing parcel boundary. The City's Consulting Surveyor has
performed a parcel title research on the two properties and has
determined that they are two legal lots of record, allowing for
this Lot Line Adjustment to occur.
The Lot Line Adjustment conforms with both the Subdivision Map Act
and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The State Subdivision Map
Act states that local agencies shall limit their review and
approval of Lot Line Adjustments to "a determination of whether or
not the parcels resulting from the Lot Line Adjustment will conform
to local zoning and building ordinances ".
The proposed land transfer conforms to all applicable Zoning
Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum lot size, frontage,
width and depth. Though Parcel B does not currently meet any of
these minimum standards, the Lot Line Adjustment will bring it into
conformance with current Zoning Ordinance requirements for the R -1-
40,000 district. The Lot Line Adjustment does therefor conform.
with Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements.
File No. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001; 13570 Pierce Rd.
General Plan and Zoning District Boundary Changes:
The boundary between the Residential- Hillside Conservation and the
Residential -Very Low Density General Plan designations, and the
corresponding Hillside Residential and R -1- 40,000 Zoning District
designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant is
proposing to realign this boundary to match the reconfigured
parcels.
The realigned boundary does not
densities or development potential
can currently be developed on each o f
residence would be permitted on each
(The maximum allowable floor area for
7,570 sq. ft. to 7,470 sq. ft. and the
for Parcel B would increase from 3,88 0
a result of the realignment.) Staff
the proposed designation realignment
consistency with property lines.
effect permitted residential
one single family residence
the two lots, and only one
lot after the readjustment.
Parcel A would decrease from
maximum allowable floor area
sq. ft. to 4,362 sq. ft. as
is recommending approval of
in order to maintain mapping
Environmental Determination:
The General Plan and Zoning District boundary amendments are
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff finds
that the proposed realignment will not increase development
potential of the two parcels. To the contrary, the realignment
will provide a more suitable building site for Parcel B than
currently exists. Therefor, it is staff's determination that the
proposed realignment of the existing General Plan and Zoning
District boundary will have no environmental impact and that a
Negative Declaration should be adopted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conditionally approve the Lot Line Adjustment request and recommend
approval of the environmental Negative Declaration and General Plan
and Zoning District boundary amendments to the City Council.
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 - BINKLEY
13570 PIERCE RD.
The undersigned, Director of Community Development of the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has
determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063
through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative
Code, and Resolution 653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the
City's independent judgment, that the following described project
will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on
the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing
parcel boundary between two existing hillside parcels of record
located off Pierce Rd. and Sara Hills Rd. The application includes
a request to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning
District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. The
boundary between the Residential -Very Low Density and the Residen-
tial- Hillside Conservation General Plan designations, and the
corresponding R -1- 40,000 and Hillside Residential Zoning District
designations, follow the existing lot line. The applicant is
proposing to realign this boundary to match the reconfigured
parcels per Exhibit "A ".
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Thad C. Binkley Trust
7246 Sharon Dr., Suite J
San Jose, CA 95129
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
It is staff's determination that the proposed realignment of the
existing General Plan and Zoning District boundary will have no
environmental impact. The realigned boundary does not increase any
development potential for either parcel.
Executed at Saratoga, California this. day of ,
1996.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
toil
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
June 9 , 1995 Ann Marie Burger
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Karen Tucker
Mr. G. Robert Binkley, trustee Donald L. Wolfe
Thad C. Binkley Trust
7246 Sharon Drive, Suite J
San Jose, CA 95129
Subject: LL -95 -002 (Sarahills Drive)
Dear Mr. Binkley:.
This is in response to your letter dated June 7, 1995, and our
telephone conversation of June 8, 1995.
I have reviewed your Lot Line Adjustment application and your
response to the requirement of a General Plan Amendment and a Zone
Change. It is my determination that both a General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change is required for the following reasons:
Zone Change: Whenever a zoning boundary line is moved, a Zone
Change is required. That is, the current zoning line cannot
be moved to reflect the "reconfigured" lot line that would be
created without changing the current zoning to reflect the new
lot area.
General Plan Amendment: California State Law requires that
all zoning be consistent with the General Plan. That is, if
the zone change is approved, the newly zoned area must be
consistent in land use category, density, development
alternatives, etc. In this case, the Planning Commission has
the discretion to determine if the "reconfigured" lot should
remain in the lower density hillside designation or changed to
reflect the higher density residential designation. This
discretionary decision by the Planning Commission must be made
as a result of the General Plan Amendment request.
Per Section 15- 90.010 of the Saratoga Municipal Code, any
administrative decision by a staff member may be appealed to the
Planning Commission for review. The appeal must be made within ten
(10) days from the date of the decision. In this case, the ten
Printed on recycled paper.
Mr. G. Robert Binkley
June 9, 1995
Page 2
(10) day appeal period would expire on June 19, 1995- There is a
$200 appeal filing fee.
Please contact the City Clerk if you wish to appeal this
administrative decision.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Curt s
Community Development Director
Thad C. Binkley Trust
7246 Sharon Drive Suite J
San Jose CA 95129
Phone (408) 257 -9252
June 7, 1995
VIA PAX 741 -0940
Mr. Paul L. Curtis
Community Development Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RECEIVED
JUN 91995
PLANNING DEPT.
Re: LL -95 -002, Proposed lot line adjustment on Sarahills Dr.
Dear Mr. Curtis,
Harry Peacock advised me this AM that my letter to the City
Council has been routed to you for a response. I feel that
the situation at hand needs an explanation.
My father, Thad C. Binkley died and I am trying to settle his
estate. We (his three sons) would like to keep the land in
the family, if possible. We are not developers.
In order to do this, I need to "clean up" some things that my
father should have done years ago. One is an old gasoline
tank spill which is another story, and has bled us of our
financial resources. The other is this Sarahills lot which I
think you will agree needs to be brought into conformance
with the other Sarahills lots.
We all feel the City should welcome our efforts to clean
these things up. I know the neighbors will welcome any
improvement to the lot, which is a real eyesore. I know this
because I am one of those neighbors.
For these reasons, as well as the reasons in my other letter,
I hope that you will help us expedite the lot line adjustment
process, and that you will consider reducing the $5000 fee.
Thank You for your consideration.
nc ely
obert Binkley, t ustee
Thad C. Binkley Tru
Linda and Bob Binkley
21055 Sarahills Drive
Saratoga CA 95070
Phone (408) 257 -9252
May 26, 1995
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: LL -95 -002
Honorable Members of the City Council:
� (F' - - �_-' ' �" -,
RECEIVED
MAY 3 01995
PLANNING DEPT.
We are writing you this letter in order to ask you for interpretation of the intent of
your ordinance as it may relate to our application.
In summary, our family acquired two parcels, of land located off Pierce Road in
Saratoga, one in the 1940's and the other in the early 1960's. One of the parcels
is approximately 9 acres and is zoned NHR, and the other is a parcel of irregular
shape 0.45 acres in size and is zoned R -1- 40,000. Both parcels are presently held
by our family trust. Since the smaller parcel was apparently created as a remnant
parcel during the subdivision of Sarahills by the previous owner, without the
appropriate procedures of subdivision, we obtained a Certificate of Compliance to
legalize the process.
The smaller - irregular parcel has an existing relatively flat building site. However,
the building site extends past the existing boundary line onto the larger parcel. To
consolidate this area as one building site, we applied for a lot line adjustment. We
would like to point out that this adjustment will not result in more building sites. It
may actually reduce the potential number of building sites on the larger parcel.
Recently, we received a letter from the Planning Department (see enclosed) stating
under item #1 that we must apply for rezoning and a general plan amendment.
We do understand that the boundary between these parcels constitutes a
boundary between different zoning districts. What we fail to understand is why
the boundaries cannot be adjusted in the same manner as the lot line. This is not
rezoning and this does not require a change in the General Plan, since neither the
use, nor the intensity of use, is being changed. The boundaries of various land
use as shown on the general plan are not accurate boundaries, and their intent, in
our opinion, is to follow the actual parcel boundaries.
We feel that we are being asked to go through a process which has been designed
for other purposes, such as changes in land use, or changes in allowable densities.
None of these apply to our case. The requested fee alone is in excess of $5,000.
We believe that this is not reasonable.
We would appreciate your looking at our situation and advising us how to
proceed. Thank you for considering this matter.
Si
G. Robert Binkley , Trustee
Binkley Family T st
cc: Westfall Engineers
enclosure
_I
k.
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Ann Mane Burger
Willem Kohler
Victor Monia
April 20, 1995 Karen Tucker
Thad C. Binkley Trust
7246 Sharon Drive, Suite J
San Jose, CA 95129
Re: LL -95 -002;
Dear Mr. Binkley:
13570 Pierce Road
.=L;i=f W 6---
'PR 2
I have reviewed your request for Lot Line Adjustment approval at
the subject property and have found that additional information is
required to continue my review. Therefore, the application has
been deemed incomplete at this time. Please submit the following
information for further consideration:
1. The lot line adjustment will involve the relocation of a
boundary line over two (2) different Zone Districts and
General Plan designations (i.e. R -1- 40,000 & Hillside
Residential /Residential Very Low Density & Residential
Hillside Conservation) . In order to process this request, the
City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will need to be
amended. Please fill out the enclosed applications and return
them to my attention.
The City Council has determined that the fees for each
application is $2,530. Therefore, a $5,060 fee will be
required upon submittal of both applications.
2. The technical information on the Tentative Map indicates that
the proposed area for Parcel B would be .88 acres or 38,333
square feet. The minimum lot size required for the zoning
district for which I assume you are proposing'to amend is
40,000 square feet. Therefore, the site area should be
increased to be consistent with the minimum standards
prescribed for the R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
3. Are the lot sizes for Parcels A and B determined to be gross
or net site calculations? If they are determined to be only
gross, please submit the net site areas as well.
Printed on recycled paper.
File No. LL -95 -002; 13570 Pierce Road
4. Page 5 of the title report for Parcel A is not entirely
legible. Please submit a new page.
5. Two (2) weeks prior to the meeting date, please submit 13
reduced sets of the map (11" X 17 11) .
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above
information, please feel free to contact me at 867 -3438 ext. 230.
Sincerely,
PLC l
PAUL KERN AN
Assistant Planner