Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDArr- 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL ( a �� SJ- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2—_/+o AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 CITY MGR. , ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: 1996/97 & 1997/98 BUDGET Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolutions adopting the 1996/97 & 1997/98 Budget. Report Summary: Background- On May 17, 1996, the City Manager forwarded to the City Council the final draft budget for the fiscal years 1996/97 & 1997/98 for consideration. On June 5, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing for purposes of reviewing the proposed budget and to allow for the presentation of testimony on the subject. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the matter was continued to June 19, 1996 for final consideration. Since that time, staff has revised the proposed budget to reflect changes made up to the June 5, 1996 Council Meeting. Those changes have been enumerated in a cover letter sent with the revised budget materials. The affect of the revisions was to improve the fund balances of the General Fund by $31 thousand and the other funds by $142 thousand over the two year budget period. Discussion- On June 19, 1996, City Council will continue the public hearing on the proposed budget. At the conclusion of the hearing, five resolutions are to be considered in order to implement the 1996/97 & 1997/98 Budget. The resolutions requiring passage and adoption are: 1) Resolution Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Years 1996/97 & 1997/98 Making Appropriations and Authorizing Carry -Overs Thereto and Expenditures Therefrom, 2) Resolution Establishing the 1996/97 Fiscal Year Appropriation (Gann) Limit, 3) Resolution Adding to Salary Classes and Permanent Position Classifications, 4) Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service for Fiscal Year 1996/97 and 5) Resolution Establishing a Schedule of Fees. The fifth resolution, which establishes a schedule of fees, has been prepared to add new fees to implement Measure G - General Plan Election Costs and to update existing Public Works engineering fees to recover the direct and indirect costs of providing the services, i.e. full cost recovery. The non - personnel related resolutions are attached. The personnel resolutions are included in a companion report. 1 Fiscal Impacts: Approval of the resolutions sets forth the revenue and appropriation budget for fiscal years 1996/97 and 1997/98. Fiscal impacts are reflected in the resolutions and budget. Follow Up Actions: Upon adoption, the budget will be revised to reflect "approved" status. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Not applicable Attachments c: \execsumm \exsm06I9.96 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2--73q AGENDA ITEM IL MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 CITY MANAGER ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: Joint Powers Authority Agreement for Saratoga to Participate in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program for Federal Fiscal Years 1997 -99 RECOMMENDED MOTIONS(S): 1. Approve Resolution authorizing execution of Joint Powers Agreement for Saratoga to continue participation in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program covering Federal fiscal years 1997 -99. 2. Authorize KOarager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. REPORT SUMMARY: The purpose of the JPA is to enable small cities (population less than 50, 000) and the County of Santa Clara to apply as an urban county to receive Community Development Block Grant funds under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Saratoga has participated as a member of the urban county since the program's inception in 1975. The JPA Agreement establishes respective rights and obligations of the contracting parties to the funds. The minor modifications which have been made to the prior years agreement are not additional requirements, but clarify policies already implied in the language of the original JPA. FISCAL IMPACTS: Saratoga will receive annual allocations of CDBG funds based on a distribution formula agreed upon by the participating agencies. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of Agenda. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON THE RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Due to the small population of Saratoga, the City would be ineligible to apply directly for CDBG funds, and would therefore be precluded from participating in the annual grant allocation process. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Forward the executed documents to the County of Santa Clara. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Authorizing Execution of the JPA 2. Joint Powers Agreement Motion and Vote: JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE OR TO ASSIST IN THE UNDERTAKING OF ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES PURSUANT TO TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED, FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997 -1999 This agreement is entered into by and between the County of Santa Clara and City of Saratnga relating to essential community development and housing assistance activities funded by the Federal government. RECITALS a. That Congress has enacted the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; b. That Title I of the Act provides for a new program of Community Development Block Grants; C. That Title I of the Act makes entitlement grants available to cities with a population of 50,000 or more persons and to counties that qualify as an Urban County; d. That City is not eligible to apply directly for entitlement funds under the Act but may, by entering into a cooperation agreement with County, qualify County as an Urban County applicant and can thereby receive such funds; e. That the parties hereto wish to enter into this agreement to enable the County of Santa Clara to apply for and receive entitlement funds as an Urban County and to establish the respective right and obligations of the contracting parties to such funds. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Authorities. This agreement is made pursuant to Section 6500 and following of the California Government Code and constitutes an exercise of powers common to both City and County, each being empowered to carry out the purposes of the grant in their mti 'n jurisdictions. This agreement is further made pursuant to the Housing and Community 1 Development Act of 1974, as amended. All provisions contained in this agreement that refer to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, which provides for the distribution of CDBG funds, shall also refer to the HONME Program under Title II (tne Home Investment Partnerships Act) of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended. 2. Definitions. The definitions below are intended to assist the parties in making this agreement. For purposes of simplicity and clearer understanding, some of the definitions belm - have been shortened or rephrased from those set forth in the Act and Regulations thereunder. In the event of any conflict between the definitions in this agreement and those set forth in the Act and Regulations, the latter shall govern. a. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93 -383, as amended. b. "Applicant" is the County of Santa Clara applying as an Urban County. C. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; particular reference is made to those regulations found in 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 570 (containing the general regulations of Community Development Block Grants) and Part 58 (containing the regulations on the Federal Environmental Review Procedures). d. "County" means the County of Santa Clara. e. "City" means the city or town that is a party to this agreement; such city or town may be referred to as a "Non- entitlement City ", that is, a city which cannot directly apply for or receive funds through cooperation agreements with the County. f. "Urban County" means a county that is (1) in a metropolitan area; (2) authorized under state law to undertake essential community development and housing assistance activities within its unincorporated areas, and (3) has a population of 200,000 or more within its unincorporated areas and units of. general local government (cities) within the county with which it has made cooperation agreements to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities. 2 g. "Urban County Staff" means those HCD staff persons of the County and cities participating in the Urban County HCD Program. h. "Application" means the application for a grant to be submitted by the County, as an Urban County, for entitlement funds under Title I of the Act. "HUD" is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "HCD" is Housing and Community. Development, the Urban County's program to address housing and community development needs of lower income persons in Santa Clara County. k. "CDBG" is Community Development Block Grant, a federal program administered by HUD which provides funding to eligible entitlement cities and urban counties to address housing and community development needs of lower income persons. "Grant" is the CDBG funds allocated by HUD to Santa Clara County as the legal recipient of the Community Development Block Grant for the Urban County. M. "HCD Council Committee" is an advisory committee established by the Board of Supervisors to advise the Board of Supervisors on CDBG and HOME funding activities. Its adopted role is the policy recommending body to the Board of Supervisors on the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the CDBG and HOME funded projects of the HCD Program and the development of a comprehensive coordinated housing and community development plan, as well as recommending the provision of loans and grants to agencies or non - profit organizations. n. "The HCD Citizen's Advisory Committee" is an advisory committee of the CDBG and HOME funded HCD Program established by the Board of Supervisors on the recommendation of the HCD Council Committee. Its adopted role is the. policy recommending body to the HCD Council Committee on the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the CDBG and HOME funded projects of the HCD Program, and the development of a comprehensive coordinated housing and community development plan, as well as recommending loans and grants for seiected projects. 3 o. "Board of Supervisors" is the legal recipient of the Community Development Block Grant from HUD and is legally responsible for the administration of the Urban County HCD Program for Santa Clara County. P. "Citizen Participation Plan" is the plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors which outlines the opportunities and process for citizen input on matters dealing with the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the Urban County HCD projects. q. "Project Proposals" are requests for an allocation of CDBG or HOivIE funds submitted by eligible applicants to implement specific eligible CDBG or HOME activities, as defined by HUD. "Consolidated Plan" describes the housing conditions and goals to meet the housing needs of lower income persons, and identifies specific housing actions to be taken by the Urban County to fulfill its housing needs. The Consolidated Plan also series as a guide for HUD in the distribution of assisted housing resources to communities. 3. Purpose of Agreement. This agreement is being made to meet the requirements and purposes of the Act and Regulations with respect to the application for an entitlement grant under Title I of the Act and to establish the respective rights of the parties to such grant. The purpose of this agreement shall be accomplished in the manner hereinafter set forth. 4. Cooperation Agreement. The parties hereto agree to undertake or to assist in the undertaking of essential activities as defined in the Act and Regulations thereunder for the term of this agreement. More specifically, the parties hereto agree to cooperate to undertake, or to assist in the undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. City and County will take all actions within their po «ver to assure compliance with the Urban County's certification required by Section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws and requirements of the application and grant. P52 City and County agree, pursuant to CFR 570.501(b) that cities are subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the execution of a written agreement as set forth in 24 CFR 507.503. City understands and agrees that should it fail to comply with such requirements or with the terms of this agreement, that funds which may be allocated to City during the effective dates of this agreement may be terminated, or reduced or otherwise limited in accordance with the Act and Regulations. All units of general local government participating in this agreement understand and agree that they may not apply for grants under the Small Cities or State CDBG Programs from appropriations for fiscal years during the period in which they are participating in the Urban County's CDBG Program; and All units of general local government (i.e. cities and the County) participating in this agreement understand and agree that they may not participate in a HOME consortium except through the Urban County; and All units of general local government participating in this agreement understand and agree that this agreement remains in effect until the CDBG and HOME funds and income received with respect to the three -year qualification period (and in any successive qualification periods under agreements that provide for automatic renewals) are expended and the funded activities completed, and that the County and participating units of general local government may not terminate or withdraw from this agreement while this agreement remains in effect, and All units of general local government participating in this agreement have adopted and are enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within their own jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non- violent civil rights demonstrations; and All units of general local government participating in this agreement have adopted and are enforcing a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil. rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. 5. Administration of Agreement. The officer and agents of both parties will cooperate in furnishing information and assistance necQssary for the preparation, completion and filing of the County's application with HUD in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Regulations. In accordance with such cooperation, the City shall annually furnish the County with the City's local plan and process for citizen participation in the development of the City's project proposals requested to be funded with Urban County CDBG funds. The City's local citizen participation commitments will be 5 incorporated into the official Urban County Citizen Participation Plan. The City shall, prior to the final project proposal submission deadline approved by the Board of Supervisors, submit project proposal requests for CDBG funding to the County in the format developed by the County. These project proposals will include a description of the project's activities, the Urban County's need the project is addressing, a detailed time schedule for the implementation of the project's activities, and other data items needed in the evaluation of the project proposal. These project proposals must be formally approved by the City council for transmittal to the County and be developed and reviewed during the local citizen participation process. The City shall submit to the County all necessary information required for the completion of a Consolidated Plan in the form required by HUD. This information will detail the City's commitments to providing housing assistance to low and very low income persons within the City. The local commitments to housing assistance by the cities will be incorporated into the Urban County's Consolidated Plan, which will be reviewed by HUD to determine the local commitments to address housing needs of low to very low income persons. Whereas the County shall not alter or amend the information furnished to County in compliance with the Act and Regulations and consistent with identified Urban County needs and priorities, the County shall have full authority and necessary control of the preparation and filing of the application and of other papers and documents in support thereof. 6. Term of Agreement. This agreement shall become effective upon execution by the governing bodies of County and of City and it shall remain in full force and effect until September 30, 1999. The County will submit to the City the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement to be signed by the City if it is to participate in the County program. If a City decides not to participate in the Urban County program by not signing a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Cooperation Agreement, it may not be eligible to receive Urban County entitlement CDBG funding for three successive program years commencing on October 1, 1997 and ending September 30, 1999. Upon qualifying, the County will remain an Urban County (including its unincorporated areas and the included units of general local government) for a period of three years. That is, during the three year qualification period no included units of general local government can be removed from the Urban County, nor can any additional units of general local government generally be included in the urban 6 County during that period. To assure that included units of general local government remain an effective part of the Urban County for the entire three year qualification period, this cooperation agreement between the Urban County and its included units of general local government covers three successive program years. 7. Project Proposals. Any and all project proposals for eligible HCD activities totally within the sphere of influence of a city must be submitted to the City and considered as a part of the Citv's project proposal development process. No project proposals may be submitted directly to the County by applicants other than cities for activities to be conducted totally within the sphere of influence of a city unless applicant has notified the Citv of their intentions in writing. Project proposals of a countywide nature may be submitted directly to the Count,. Cities shall have the right to review and comment on all project proposals for the funding of countywide HCD eligible activities. 8. Grant Disbursement. a. City understands and agrees that CDBG and HOME funds disbursed under this agreement are the obligation of County and that such obligation of the County is dependent upon the qualification of the County as an Urban County applicant and upon the availability of federal funds to implement Title I of the Act. Funds disbursed to the City will be expended on eligible activities and projects selected through a process developed jointly by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors and described in the adopted Urban County HCD Plan. The HCD Citizens Advisory Committee will give advice to the HCD Council Committee prior to HCD Council Committee actions. The HCD Plan includes a description of prioritized needs, strategies to address the needs, and a project funding submission and evaluation process. This process will be used to evaluate all project proposals according to their ability to address the adopted, prioritized needs and other criteria described in the adopted Urban County HCD Plan. Parties hereto agree that Urban County funding will be prohibited for activities in or in support of any participating City that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification. b. Housing has been identified as the highest priority need within the Urban County by the HCD Council Committee and the Board of 7 Supervisors; therefore, the City and the County agree that all funds allocated on a competitive basis will be utilized for housing activities as set forth below. Housing needs include but are not limited to housing rehabilitation, activities to increase the supply of new affordable housing, and housing- related services which increase the availability and /or affordability of new and existing housing. After the deadline for submission of project proposals, the Urban County staff, composed of members of the County and City HCD staffs, will evaluate the project proposals according to the approved criteria and make recommendations on projects to be funded. These recommendations will be reviewed by the HCD Citizens Advisory Committee, the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors. The HCD Citizens Advisory Committee will give its advice on projects to be funded to the HCD Council Committee prior to actions of the HCD Council Committee. The Urban County staff report and the HCD Council Committee recommendations will be reviewed at a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors. After public comment, should there be a difference between the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors on projects to be funded, the HCD Council Committee and the Board of Supervisors will hold a joint meeting to resolve the differences. The joint meeting will continue until mutual agreement is reached. Voting separately, when a majority of the HCD Council Committee and a majority of the Board of Supervisors vote to accept specific project proposals, mutual agreement is achieved. It is understood and agreed that as legal recipient of the grant, the Board of Supervisors must officially approve the mutually agreed upon project proposals to be included in the application in order to insure that the .program submitted to HUD is consistent with the County's adopted housing and community development plan. At that time, the City will know the number of projects approved and the estimated amount of CDBG funds it is to receive. Upon approval of the CDBG and HOME application and the release of funds by HUD, the City may begin implementation of approved activities. Information on the progress of approved activities will be submitted to the County on a quarterly basis during the program year the activities are being carried out. This information will be included in the Urban County's monitoring reports which are reviewed by HUD during the program year. Projects which fail to meet schedules according to the approved time schedule will be evaluated according to the process detailed in the approved Urban County CDBG and HONIE Reprogramming Guidelines. 8 9. Areas of Housing AuthorityOperation. Nothing herein shall affect the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to any agreement which the City may have with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. 10. Services Equipment and Property: Reimbursement. County shall provide or be primarily responsible for providing the services, equipment and other property necessary for the planning, preparation and filing of the CDBG application and for the administration of the grant funds subject to the right of the County to seek reimbursement for actual expenses and costs of furnishing such services, equipment and property. Subject to the provisions of the application or of the grant award made thereon, all property furnished by CountZ- as herein -above described shall belong to County during the term of this agreement and after its termination. At the termination of the CDBG program, all property and equipment acquired with CDBG funds will be subject to the requirements and conditions of OMB Circular A- 102 Attachment N, Property Management Standards. 11. Records. City and County shall maintain appropriate books, records, files, and accounts relating to the receipt and disbursement of the grant funds, including records in accordance with 24 CFR Sec 570.502 as they relate to the application, acceptance, and use of federal funds for this federally assisted program and any other records imposed by)County's contract with HUD. All such books, records, files and accounts shall be made available for inspection-at reasonable times and places by authorized representatives of City, County, and Department of Housing and Urban Development or any other person authorized by the Act or the Regulations. The Director of Finance of County shall receive and have custody of all funds until disbursal of such funds to be made in a manner designated by the County. County shall, by a date no later than 7 days after receipt of the current year funding money-, notify City of the manner of disbursal of such funds. 12. Certification. City shall furnish County with those assurances, a copy of which, marked Appendix A, is being attached hereto and made a part hereof. Such certifications to be furnished by City to County are necessary to enable County to make the required assurances in its application to HUD. M 13. Liability and Indemnification. It is expressly understood that, as the applicant to HUD, County must take the full responsibility and assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act and that HUD will look only to the County in this regard. However, County assumes no responsibility towards City for any failure to include City in the application as a result of City's failure to supply County with information necessary to prepare and file the application, or as a result of City's failure to supply County with such information, upon designated dates, or as a result of City's failure to comply with the Act and the Regulations. Unless the acts of County employees, officials, or their representatives are involved in the action or the County authorized the acts of the City, the City shall indemni and hold County harmless from any liability, loss or damage suffered as a result of claims, demands, costs or judgments against it arising out of the failure of City to conform to the requirements of the Act, Regulations, or other applicable laws; or arising out of City's failure to perform any of the obligations under the application; or arising out of anything done or omitted to be done by City under or in connection with the work done on any of City's projects. Unless the acts of City employees, officials, or their representatives are involved in the action or the City authorized the acts of the County, the County shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any liability; loss or damage suffered as a result of claims, demands, costs or judgments against it arising out of the failure of Count- to conform to the requirements of the Act, Regulations, or other applicable laws; or arising out of County's failure to perform any of the obligations under the application; or arising out of anything done or omitted to be done by County under or in connection with the work done on any of County's projects. o 14. Discretionary Actions. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the City from exercising its discretion on any legislative quasi - judicial and /or administrative matter (including but not limited to any action involving zoning of General Plan amendments). Nothing herein shall compel the City to take any action on any matter save and except as expressly required in this agreement. It is understood and agreed that the City does not by this agreement commit itself or delegate the exercise of any of its police powers in any matter whatsoever save and except as expressly set forth in this agreement. . 15. Timeliness. When any action is required hereunder upon request for action on a document or material furnished by the County to the City said request for action on a document. 10 or material shall be furnished at least 30 days prior to the date said action is required in order to allow sufficient time for the City to review and act on said document or material. Time is of the essence in this agreement. 16. Severability. Should any part, term, provision of this agreement be decided by the Courts to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California or any law of the United States, or should any part, term, or provision of this agreement be otherwise rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected thereby. 17. Section Headings. All section headings contained herein are for the convenience of reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this agreement. 18. Program Income. a. The City shall inform the County of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the City. b. Any such program income generated by the City must be either paid to the County or the City may retain the program income subject to requirements set forth in Santa Clara County Community Development Block Grant Program Reallocation Guidelines. C. Any program income the City is authorized to retain may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as may apply. d. The County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income, thereby requiring appropriate record keeping and reporting by the City as may be needed for this purpose. e. In the event of close -out or change in status of the City, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to close -out or change in status shall be paid to the County, with the exception of program income generated by an approved rehabilitation program and held in a revolving loan fund. Such revolving loan fund amounts shall be maintained and used for housing rehabilitation activities that meet all existing and subsequent HUD regulations and requirements. All 11 rehabilitation activities must benefit low and moderate income households. The purpose of this provision is to enable the City to continue a housing rehabilitation program in the event of close -out or a change in status of the City. Such program income shall not be used for any purpose other than housing rehabilitation for the benefit of -low and very low income households. On an annual basis the City shall submit to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors written certification that such program income shall be used for these established housing rehabilitation purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, parties hereto have executed this agreement on the dates set forth below. CITY /TOWN OF By: CHAIRPERSON City /Town Council Attest: By - City /Town Clerk Approved as to form and legality: By: C� City/ own Attorney Date: �/ 12 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA By: CHAIRPERSON Board of Supervisors Attest: Clerk, Board of Supervisors Approved as to form and legality: B y kAAA_ �, UVO Deputy County Counsel Appendix A COUNTY COUNSEL CERTIFICATION 1, The undersigned hereby certify that the terms and provisions of this agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. Ot7�A 5 -30 -96 Deputy County Counsel Date 13 r� SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2— '730q AGENDA ITEM -140e4AZ4 MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 If/ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development �" CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: SUBJECT: DR -96 -007 - Costa; 18928 Ten Acres Road Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Design Review request to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant 44,867 sq. ft. hillside parcel. Recommended Motion: Deny the appellants' request and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the Design Review application. Project Description: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant hillside parcel located at the southwest corner of Ten Acres Road and Emerald Hills Court. The site is characterized by a moderate east to northeast facing slope and the only significant vegetation on the site is in poor condition. Approximately 2,300 cubic yards of cut and 320 cubic yards of fill are proposed to accommodate construction of the home. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Summary of Planning Commission Action: The application was heard by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1996, and a Resolution of denial was adopted on May 8, 1996. As the attached minutes reflect, the Commission felt that the proposed residence had not been designed to follow the natural topography of the site. Although the Commission thought that the proposed architecture was appropriate for the neighborhood, they felt that the proposed earthwork was excessive and was not consistent with the City's Design Review policies. They commented that the home should be designed to "fit" the existing site conditions, rather than the lot being altered to "fit" the proposed home. Based on the proposal's consistency with other homes in the immediate area, staff originally recommended approval of the project. The attached DR -96 -007; COSTA Page Two staff report includes further analysis of the application. Since the applicants were unwilling to alter the design in order to address the Commission's concerns, the Planning Commission denied the request by a 6 -0 vote. Appeal: The Costas have stated in their grounds for appeal that the proposed residence has been situated on the lot to be unobtrusive and to blend harmoniously with the existing neighborhood. The Costas have prepared an alternative grading plan (marked Exhibit "B") to be reviewed by the Council which decreases the amount of cut required for the rear yard area by 400 cubic yards. This reduction has been achieved by moving the toe of the slope further to the east, fourteen feet closer to the proposed home. This alternative has not revised the location, elevation, or design of the proposed residence. The only modification is a reduction to the amount of cut required to create the rear yard area. Recommendation: At the April 24, 1996 public hearing, the Planning Commission gave careful consideration to the proposed project. Prior to the meeting date, they visited the Costa property to assess the existing site conditions and the subject proposal. Ultimately, they found that the necessary Design Review findings could not be made to approve the application and adopted the attached denial Resolution. Although the applicants have presented a modified grading plan, staff feels that it does not address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the "fit" of the home with the existing topography. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission's decision be upheld and that the appeal be denied without prejudice so that the applicants can submit a new design which follows the natural topography and requires significantly less grading. Public Notice: A public notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject parcel and published in the Saratoga News. Follow Up Actions: A Resolution will be prepared reflecting the City Council's action which will be placed on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting. Attachments: 1. Appeal letter 2. Planning Commission minutes dated April 24, 1996 3. Resolution DR -96 -007 4. Staff Report dated April 24, 1996 (with attachments) 5. Exhibit "A" - Proposed Plans 6. Exhibit "B" - Alternative Grading Plan �,-, _yL_ 607 964 Trophy Dr. Mountain View, CA 94040 May 21, 1996 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear City Council Members: We want to thank you for taking the time to review the information relating to our appeal regarding the Planning Commissions denial of our proposed building plan. For the last 10 years we have been interested in moving to Saratoga. We have continually looked for suitable land to purchase in order to build a home. Last year we purchased a lot that had great potential for the construction of our home. The lot is in a neighborhood of homes that are consistent with our taste in architecture and we contracted with the Dahlin Group (an award winning Architectural firm) to design the home, Doble & Sons (a contractor with building credentials in Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Alameda and San Mateo Counties, and Cary Parsons (a Landscape Architect with accomplishments such as designing Silver Creek Country Club) to put together a plan that would truly fit the surroundings of the Santa Cruz mountains and the City of Saratoga. It is our desire to create a "Park Like Setting" that will blend in and enhance the neighborhood. The grading we plan to do, achieves a gentle slope appearance, without large retaining walls, to give continuity of the land with the adjoining lots. Even though our grading is in excess of the hillside grading standards, the grading will bring the lot and its residence in concert with the neighborhood. If you observe the lot, you will see that the lot is a combination of flat and sloped. The grading will bring a natural transition of the two grades of the lot to bring it into total conformance to the neighborhood and adjoining lots. The home also has been designed with contours that blend with the surroundings, and will enhance the ecology of the lot. With respect to the Planning Commissions concern over the amount of grading we have asked for, we have done some redesign of the grading plan to reduce the grading by approximately 400 cu ft. We will submit the revised plan to planning upon approval of our appeal. Your individual packets reflect this redesign. We have worked very closely with Planning Staff and have made changes based on their input. We had also received approval from Staff on our design and were very disappointed that the Planning Commission did not concur. Staff clearly stated on page 000007 of Resolution No. D96 -007 that" the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application ". Staff appears to have the ability of visualizing the project at conclusion from plans submitted. Staff indicated that our property was not governed by the hillside grading restrictions, however, they applied this rule (see page 000005 of Resolution No. DR -96 -007) but allowed us to submit information relating to other properties in the neighborhood that would substantiate the amount of grading we were requesting. We submitted this information and staff approved the grading. (see attached property information from STAFF ANALYSIS, 3 pages) The Planning Commission denied our project based on the amount of grading we were requesting which in their opinion, we were modifying the site to fit the design. (see Item #2) 1 believe that if the plan is looked at more closely it will show that due to the shape of the lot, the grading will put the lot into conformance with the topography of the neighborhood. The home 14- 9 --007 has been situated on t lot to be very unobtrusive and to nd harmoniously with the landscape. We are not trying to fit the home to the lot, we are resigning a cohesive habitat between the residence and the land. In regards to tree removal, please refer to the Arboretists report (attached as An Analysis of the Health and Structure of the Trees on the Costa Property) regarding the removal of trees. The lot is virtually void of vegetation other than two Pine trees, which according to the report, are infested and need to be removed. Our landscape plan will restore the vegetation to a natural look with the inclusion of numerous trees, shrubs and other vegetation. We believe our plan will bring back the natural country look to this lot and once again offer a habitat to the animals of the area. We ask you to approve this design based on the facts presented and that the design and our intentions are to blend into the neighborhood and maintain the theme set forth by the , other home owners. Sincerely, Ed & Costa PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - 8, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE COMMISSION'S VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Chairwoman Kaplan thanked everyone for their efforts on this item. 5. DR -96 -007 - COSTA; 18928 TEN ACRES ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Greg Kwahara, project architect, indicated that grading would allow the home to appear more natural and softer without the use of a retaining wall. He thanked staff for its assistance. Commissioner Asfour expressed confusion regarding how the proposed design would work. It was indicated that if the house was stepped down, it would need a retaining wall to the rear. But that if the house was not terraced, a retaining wall would not be necessary. It was his opinion that the applicant was trying to fit the lot to the home instead of fitting the home to the lot. Mr. Kwahara indicated that the amount of cut could be reduced and that it could be softened with the use of landscaping. Paul Doble, general contractor, stated that grading can be reduced and still meet the City's requirement, but doing so would require the installation of a large, ugly retaining wall. He did not want to see a retaining wall built because it would not be attractive. It was his belief that this proposal would be a "win -win" situation. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that Commissioner Asfour was asking if it was possible to redesign the house, stepping it down to minimize grading. Commissioner Asfour stated that there were other issues other than meeting zoning requirements. Ed Costa, applicant, indicated that he chose a home design that he liked and then he searched for a lot in Saratoga that would fit the design. He felt that the plans would work well on this particular lot. He was looking for a lot that was aesthetically pleasing, having a park -like setting. In order to conform to any type of building on this particular lot, it was found that a certain amount a dirt would need to be removed. He indicated that he proposes to install a considerate amount of large trees, noting that the lot was currently PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - bare. He indicated that an alternative would be the use of retaining walls but that doing so would impose a large amount of concrete in the way of a retaining wall. He felt that his proposal would fit well within the community. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not support the use of retaining walls and that he was in support of a house that fits the lot, not creating a lot that fits the design. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that Commissioner Asfour's points were well taken. He indicated that he did not have an objection to the design of the home but that he was concerned that the lot was being modified to accommodate the home. Therefore, he could not support the request. . Commissioner Patrick stated -that she. could not support the massive earth movement. She felt that the home could be redesigned to fit the property or that the home could be re- sited. She did not feel that the topography was too strict that it makes redesign impossible. She indicated that she could not support the request as submitted. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that her concern was with upsetting, the hill and that she concurred with the comments as stated by her fellow Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST A VOTE OR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Mr. Costa indicated that he did not wish a continuance and requested that the Commission vote on this item this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION DR- 96-007 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ITS MAY 8, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -007 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Costa; 18928 Ten Acres Road WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet 2 inches on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant parcel; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 1996 at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, upon closing the public hearing at the April 24 meeting, the Planning Commission deliberated and moved to deny the request. The motion passed 6 -0 (Commissioners Asfour, Kaplan, Patrick, Murakami, Pierce, Siegfried FOR and Abshire ABSENT) to direct staff to prepare a Denial Resolution for adoption at the May 8, 1996 meeting based upon the following findings: -The natural landscape will not be preserved insofar as practicable as the proposed structure has not been designed to follow the natural contours of the site or to minimize tree and soil removal; grade changes have not been minimized and will not be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas, in that the applicant is proposing 2,620 cu. yds. of earthwork in order to fit a single level home designed for a single plane on a hillside lot. Neither the home nor the rear yard area has been stepped to follow the natural contours of the property. -The proposed structure will not conform to, each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section 15- 45.055, in that the proposed structure has not been designed to minimize changes to the natural topography of the subject site. The applicant is proposing 2,620 cu. yds. of grading in order to modify the site to fit the proposed design, rather than the residence being designed to fit the existing contours of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, DR -96 -007, application for Design Review approval, be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion; State of California, this 8th day of May, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce & Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Patrick Chairperson, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secre ary, Planning Commission REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. /Location: DR -96 -007; 18928 Ten Acres Road Applicant/ Owner: COSTA Staff Planner: Anne Dailey Date: April 24, 1996 APN: 397-03-081 Director Approval: 18928 Ten Acres Road • 2 Story Homes File No. DR -96 -007; 18928 Ten Acres Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY• Application filed: 02/02/96 Application complete: 04/03/96 Notice published: 04/10/96 Mailing completed: 04/11/96 Posting completed: 04/04/96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5, 676 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant 44,867 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposal includes a request for an exemption from the floor area reduction required for structures over 18 feet in height. Additionally, the proposal exceeds 1,000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. The property is located within the R =1- 40,000 zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Design Review request, with conditions, by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution DR -96 -007 3. Arborist Report dated 2/27/96 4. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. DR -96 -007; 18928 Ten Acres Road STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 40,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential PARCEL SIZE: 44,867 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 15. GRADING REQUIRED: Cut: 2,300 cu. yds. Max. Depth: 9 ft. Fill: 320 cu. yds. Max. Depth: 4.5 ft. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Tan colored stucco exterior with white trim, cast stone columns and balustrades, and a tile roof per the submitted material board. PROPOSAL LOT COVERAGE: 2801 (12,510 sq. ft.) HEIGHT: 24 ft. - 2 in. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Living Area: 4,808 sq. ft. Garage: 778 sq. ft. Covered Porch: 90 sa. ft. TOTAL: 5,676 sq. ft. CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE 300 (13,460 sq. ft.) 26 ft. *5,688 sq.ft. * With the 10.5. reduction required for a structure 25 feet in height, the allowable floor area would be 5,091 sq. ft. SETBACKS: Front: * *27 ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 70 ft. Rear: 20 ft. Right Side: 80 ft. Right Side: 25 ft. Left Side: 27 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. ** The front terrace is set back 27 ft. from the front property line. The terrace is allowed to extend up to four feet into a required setback. The setback of the actual residence is 33 ft. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Background: The subject property is lot #2 of Tract 7382, which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1982. A 5,422 sq. ft. two -story home was approved for the subject lot in December of 1989, but was never constructed. The property is a vacant hillside parcel which is located on the southwest corner,of Ten Acres Road and Emerald Hills Court. The site is characterized by a moderate File No. DR -96 -007; 18928 Ten Acres Road east to northeast facing slope and the only significant vegetation on the site is in poor condition. The subject lot is one of two vacant lots remaining within this subdivision. The other vacant parcel abuts this property directly to the south. The existing homes in the subdivision are similar in design, size and scale to the subject proposal. The applicant is proposing to access the site from Emerald Hills Court. The site development plan for this subdivision shows access from Ten Acres Road; however, the previously approved access,was from Emerald Hills Court and staff feels that this access is acceptable. DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS: The applicants are proposing to construct a 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence with a maximum height of 24' -211. The architecture exhibits a mediterranean feel, utilizing a stucco exterior with cast stone columns and balustrades and a rust colored barrel tile roof. The design incorporates architectural projections and varied roof lines which helps to reduce the mass of the structure. The application is in compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance with regard to maximum allowable floor area, lot coverage, building height and minimum required setbacks. The City Code does not allow fencing to exceed 3 feet in height within the required exterior side yard of a reversed corner lot. Staff has included a condition in the attached Resolution requiring that the wrought iron fence be revised in order to be consistent with this fencing regulation. In the City's earliest correspondence with the applicants, staff has emphasized a potential concern with the proposed design. The structure is proposed to be all one level and utilizes a single plane rather than a stepped or split level design. Staff has encouraged the applicant to revise the plans in order to better follow the natural contours of the existing topography; however, the applicant has chosen not to alter the proposed design. Grading: A large amount of grading is essential in order to "fit" the proposed residence onto the subject site. The applicants are also proposing a rear patio /lawn area which requires additional grading. The applicants revised the original grading plan in order to lower the house and decrease the proposed underfloor area. These changes allowed for a reduction to the amount of the proposed fill, but increased the amount of the proposed cut as the structure was lowered further into the hillside. The grading revisions have improved the placement of the building and decreased the building height, but have actually increased the total proposed earthwork. Approximately 320 cubic yards of fill and 2,300 cubic yards of cut are proposed to accommodate the construction of the proposed File No. DR -96 -007; 18928 Ten Acres Road residence. Although this property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district and is not governed by the hillside grading restrictions, it has been staff policy to apply the hillside district grading standards to all hillside lots. Section 15- 13.050 of the City Code limits combined cut and fill of any grading to 1,000 cubic yards unless the Planning Commission can find that additional grading is necessary to: 1. Allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and 2. Preserve the natural land forms and vegetation; and Promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and 4. Integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and S. Reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding areas. The proposed grading quanities are required to "fit" the proposed design with the subject site. However, the earthwork could easily be reduced if an alternate house design was proposed. The applicants have stressed that they do not want to change the design. They believe their proposal is consistent with other homes which have been built in the area and that the proposed grading quanities are similar to those which have been approved for surrounding properties. Staff agrees that the design is consistent with the style of the existing homes in this neighborhood and feels that the proposal will not adversely impact surrounding property owners. Vegetation and Landscapincr: The City Arborist has reviewed the proposed plans and has indicated that the only significant trees on the site, the two Monterey Pines, are in poor condition. Tree #1 is infested with turpentine beetles and tree #2 shows signs of western rust gall disease. The City Arborist has suggested that both trees be removed. When the Monterey Pines are removed from the site, the property will essentially be void of all significant vegetation. The applicants have submitted a preliminary landscape plan which shows several new trees and shrubs on the property. Although the exact species and sizes are not specified, the applicants have agreed to plant a minimum of ten 24" box size trees prior to final occupancy. Staff feels that the applicant should install landscaping within the rear yard area to provide a buffer between the adjacent property and to minimize the potential for soil erosion on the graded slope. File No. DR -96 -007; 18928 Ten Acres Road Floor Area Reduction Exception: The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the 1.5 percent floor area reduction required for each foot of maximum building height exceeding 18 feet. The Planning Commission has the authority to grant this exception if the Design Review findings can be made and there is a predominance of two -story structures in the neighborhood per Section 15.45.030 of the City Code. There are several two -story structures in the immediate neighborhood as shown by the two -story map on the report cover page. Staff believes that the Design Review findings can be made and recommends that this exception be granted. If the exception is not granted, the applicant would be required to reduce the maximum floor area from 5,676 sq. ft. to 5,091 sq. ft. Summary: Although the proposed residence may not be the best "fit" for the subject property, staff feels that the design will be compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review application. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application by adopting Resolution DR- 96 -007. BARRIE .D. C -ATE RECEIVED and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants MAR 71996 408 -353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 PLANNING DEPT. AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE TREES ON THE COSTA PROPERTY 18928 TEN ACRES ROAD SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Anne Dailey Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777.Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate February 27, 1996 • • �7 ICI I BARRIE D. C. ATE . and ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants 408 - 353 -1052 23535 Summit Road., Los Gatos, CA 95030 AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE TREES ON THE COSTA PROPERTY 18928 TEN ACRES ROAD SARATOGA Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to analyze the health, structure and usefulness of trees on the Costa property at 18928 Ten Acres Road in Saratoga and to comment on the expected effects of adjacent construction on those trees. Summary There are only two significant trees on the property, Monterey Pines #1 and 2 ( Pinus radiata). Those are both in such relatively poor condition that I would suggest they be removed. Other trees on the property which are large enough to be visible and meet the requirements of preservation by the City of Saratoga, include one multi-stem Black Walnut (Jugkm hindsii) near Ten Acres Road which is of little value because its canopy is entirely composed of stump sprouts from the base. This tree can be removed if desired. In any -case, no activity will be occurring near it. Other trees shown on the map are now dead and are irrelevant to this survey. Under-these. set of circumstances no trees would be left on the property. The two Monterey Pines which would be removed have a total value of $1,343. This is equivalent to one 36 inch box native tree. Respectfully submitted', �J VA Barrie D. Coate BDC:la Enclosures: Chart Map 1 BARRIE D. COATE & ASSOCIATES 3 2 2 turpentine beetle X sp. class (20 %) _ $3,565 X cond. (65 %) _ $2,317 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,159 Final Value western rust gall 19 20 20 4 3 3 X sp. class (20 %) _ $1,225 X cond. (30 %) _ $368 X loc. (50 %) _ $184 5 -gal = $36.00 Horticultural Consultants Flnal Value — -- - -__ -- _ -._ -- _ - -- X sp. class ( %) _ $ = C7 X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ Final Value X sp. class ( %) _ $ CC X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ >- 15 -gal = $120 Final Value -- —.- -__ -- X sp. class ( %) _ $ w pp Q X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ U Z Final Value _ L _ in "' p p w ¢ CC O = CC 24 "box = $420 36 "box = $1,320 (408)353 -1052 ai w ai ai Cc [C U w CC Z = p Z w- 1 -� ,. , p un -i ,� U w= in 1 " p V) p O pin F— ! W Z Q w Q Z w J a - O � a 48 "box = $5,000 52 "box = $7,000 w > �' p _ � w } O w U CC O w U to p cn Cr_ w v7 5 w --- C'3 (n u_ Q }> Q C9 Z 72 "box = $15,000 , c = M L J D C = m C _ m w0 °° Q = w a w Q Q w V Cr <n p tU 0 � 1—w 0>- II—Q 0w Ln Y Z p U w (¢ U wQ ww p c� aZ Q w Q cn p w cn p w 00 ww O w Z 'I Ke # Y Plant Name p g p p p iv a v7 F.-. w w O O O cc ? � w COMMENTS = I Winizi cc.cc V CC 13 1— h a p a ii-I U Z Z CC CC Cr- a Monterey Pine 29 1 Pinus radiata s . in 660 X $27 /sq. in = $17,825 Monterey Pine 17 2 sq. in 226.9 X $27 /sq. in = $6,125 3 Coast Redwood sq. in _ X $27 /sq. in = $ stein X $27 /sq. in = $ M. in X $27 /sq. in = $ sq. in X $27 /sq. in = $ i - I JOB TITLE: Costa Property, 18928 Ten Acres Road JOB #02 -96 -067 DATE: 2/27/96 29 E35 37 3 2 2 turpentine beetle X sp. class (20 %) _ $3,565 X cond. (65 %) _ $2,317 X loc. (50 %) _ $1,159 Final Value western rust gall 19 20 20 4 3 3 X sp. class (20 %) _ $1,225 X cond. (30 %) _ $368 X loc. (50 %) _ $184 Flnal Value — -- - -__ -- _ -._ -- _ - -- X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ Final Value X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ Final Value -- —.- -__ -- X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ X loc. ( %) _ $ Final Value X sp. class ( %) _ $ X cond. ( %) _ $ Page 1 of 1 1 = best, 5 = worst X loc. ( %) = $ Final Value SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM f MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 CITY MGR. �L ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of an Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Recommended Motionfs That Council approve the "Negative Declaration for the West Valley Cities Disposal Site ", and that Council authorize the City Manager to finalize negotiations and bring back a recommended contract for final approval by the City Council. Report Summary: Background Each of the West Valley cities has a 20 -year (1983 - 2003 ) disposal contract with Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company to landfill all municipal waste intended for disposal and collected by Green Valley Disposal. This disposal contract is not exclusive, in that the cities /town are not required to dispose of their refuse at Guadalupe Landfill. The amount of the disposal fee has a direct impact on refuse rates paid by residents and businesses in the four cities, and the cities agree that we should seek the most cost - effective services for ratepayers. The West Valley cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Campbell and Saratoga requested an alternate proposal for landfill services from Browning - Ferris Industries, which owns and operates Newby Island Landfill and from the City of Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station. We also received an unsolicited offer from Waste Management Inc. The contents of all of the proposals are confidential, with BFI's proposal offering potential for significant cost savings. Discussion Consultant assistance was needed in two areas. First, to evaluate the impact on refuse collection costs if waste is hauled to Newby Island Landfill, rather than Guadalupe Landfill as well as to advise on proposed contract terms. Second, the jurisdictions needed analysis of the potential impacts on the environment if a different landfill is used, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Page 2 Economic Impact of Using an Alternate Landfill: Last February, the cities /town evaluate the cost to haul refuse it is a longer distance from the Landfill. The study was recently concludes that the difference in Commercial Collection $0.93 Debris Box Collection $6.02 Residential Collection $1.49 approved hiring a consultant to to Newby Island Landfill, because West Valley cities than Guadalupe completed by Ecodata, Inc. and it refuse haul costs are as follows: added haul cost per ton added haul cost per ton reduced haul cost per ton Overall average, all sectors estimated $1.86 - $2.00 per ton added haul cost In addition, the cities asked Green Valley Disposal Company, which provides refuse collection and hauling services, to do their own independent haul cost estimate if refuse is taken to Newby Island instead of Guadalupe Landfill. Green Valley agreed to provide an estimate, and the results will be provided when they are submitted to the cities. Contract Terms: The draft BFI contract offers several major provisions not included in the Guadalupe contract, including an annual cost adjustment using a CPI, a "hold harmless" indemnification clause, contractor insurance requirements, a performance guaranty by the parent company, and improved provisions to ensure the cities' review and approval if the company is sold. Staff and attorneys from each jurisdiction have reviewed the contract proposed by BFI. The consultant from Ecodata Inc. has also advised the cities to ensure that the final contract offers the best possible terms for the West Valley cities. The BFI contract offers the West Valley jurisdictions an alternative disposal site, with the Guadalupe contract remaining intact. Similarly, selection of an alternate disposal site would not affect the refuse collection agreement with Green Valley Disposal Company. Selection of the actual disposal site would be an administrative determination. Environmental Assessment: In February 1996, the cities /town retained the consultant firm of David J. Powers and Associates to analyze the potential impacts of this project on the environment, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The scope of the project involved evaluating the environmental impacts of using Newby Island Landfill rather than Guadalupe Landfill, as the disposal site for some or all of the cities' waste. The cities are not Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Page 3 considering any change in the manner, frequency, or any other attribute of their current system for the collection of municipal waste. The consultant prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (Attachment A) and copies were distributed to various state and local agencies for their response. The only comment received on. the Initial Study and Negative Declaration was from the law firm of Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda, representing Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company (Attachment B). The letter raised questions about the potential project impacts on landfill capacity at both landfills, suggested that the analysis should identify the impacts of the entire waste haul distance rather than just from the increment of difference, and asked about the context of the increased fuel consumption. The consultant believes that none of the issues addressed lead to a different conclusion than that documented in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. Each of the items raised in the Matteoni letter is addressed by the consultant in Attachment C. Fiscal Impacts• Refer to "Economic Impact of Using an Alternate Landfill" in previous section. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The public was first apprised of the alternative landfill offers from BFI and the City of Sunnyvale last February. At that time, the cities /town were asked to allocate funds for the consultant work. In that report, staff indicated that they would contact Green Valley to obtain their estimated haul costs if waste was delivered to Newby Island Landfill. After the consultant completed the environmental assessment in May, the cities /town posted notices in the local papers advising residents of our intent to consider the project and the public's opportunity to comment on the project. In April and May, program staff forwarded a letter to Green Valley Disposal asking for their haul cost estimate to deliver waste to Newby Island Landfill, and to compare it to the haul cost estimates prepared by the cities' consultant. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Further action on seeking an alternate landfill site and a contract for such would be curtailed. Alternate Landfill Disposal Site Page 4 Follow Up Actions: The City Manager will file a notice of Determination with the County Clerk. In addition, the City Manager will continue to negotiate a contract on behalf of the City. Attachments: A. West Valley Cities Landfill Disposal Site Initial Study /Negative Declaration dated May 3, 1996 B. Norman E. Matteoni letter of June 4, 1996 re: Comments Concerning Proposed Negative Declaration for Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste at Newby Island Landfill C. Michael Yesney Response of June 7, 1996 to Letter on Negative Declaration and Supplement to the Initial Study /Negative Declaration for the West Valley Cities Disposal Site FROM City of Monte Sereno aijim 'Wm&da a W T L I BY FAX AND U - S . MAIL June 45F 1996 Ms. Anne Bybea city Cleric City of Campbell 70 forth First Street Campbell, CA 9500$ ATTACHMENT B RECEIVED JUN 0 4 1996 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Comments concerning Proposed Negative Declaration for Disposal of ?Municipal solid Waste at Newby Island Landfill Dear Madam Clerk: Kv4ACa", 1740 Tachm, w DWW Uk 230 Sa+Jwa. CA 95I10 0011441r1aOD PAX 4W 441.7#02 Nunnrn E. Manami n96r► Poky Sant Map* -.IULF NerAn P.kw M. O'Lorabn lwy G. TSW n"diry M. Mapped Rom C1. I IodOM our firm represents Cuadalupe Rubbish Disposal company which currently serves the West valley cities for disposal of umnicipal solid waste at the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill. We have reviewed the proposed negative declaration in this matter and have the following comments. BACROWUM Newby 3:81and Landfill is permitted under a solid waste facilities permit (No. 43-AN-003). This permit is undergoing a live year review, including a review of the capacity of the site. The capacity noted in the proposed negative declaration is from the County of Santa Clara =neeegrated solid Waste Management Plan, Summary Plan and Siting Element, November, 1995. This plan did not formally review capacity values for landfills in the County, but rather accepted the capacity number provided by the landfill operators. Newby Island Landfill also has been the subject of a revised contract between the City of San Jose and BFI, the operator of Newby Island; and no impact is noted from the reported extension of terius of this contract. JUN. 1:3. 1'570 10:07AM P 3 FROM City of Monte Sereno PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 6 -13 -1996 10 :54AM FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS 408 3760958 P.2 Ma. Anne Bybee June 4, 1.996 Page 2 The proposed negative declaration should address the capacity of the site based upon the most recent and accurate information imt&ad of simply questing the County Summary Plan. This information should be available from the city of San Jose and other contractors. Further, BPI should be able to provide appropriate documentation concerning meeting capacity needs of current contracts. spEctrxcs 1_ o e Mnt 21 ErUctsa on_ l.ancax -IJ 6 Lti?.@ or Cumul_atlye Imma=fi. The IS /ND identified that the project would increase the flow of waste going to Newby Island by 3.2% (i.e., 346 tons /day or 90.011 tons /year) would be added to the 3current waste load of about 2,700 tons /day). That is actually a 144 increase, but the Newby Island facility Jr, permitted for 3,260 per average operating day and not more than 4,000 tons on any one day (from the Permit). The addition of the waste from the four cities Will shorten the life of the landfill projected in Table 1 of the IS /ND as 28 years by a corresponding amount (i.e., gram 29 to 23 years). This will have an impact on the other cities and comuaunitiees who are using Newby Island as a disposal site, requiring those waste generators to look for an alternative site earlier than anticipated. If this happens, the earlier use of an alterna- tive site could result in longer hauls for those cities and communities. This issue was not addressed in the Is /ND. The transfer of the tour citiesO disposal site from Guadalupe Landfill to Newby Island would also reduce the waste going to Guadalupe which could then open an opportunity for other municipalities or other waste generator to haul to the Guadalupe site. Depending on where theme waste generators were located, they "freeing" of capacity at the Guadalupe ,site could have either a beneficial or an adverse impact on transportation, air quality and energy use. The wholes issue of the change in fill rate, landfill life and cumulative effects on landfill users was not explored in the Is /ND. 2. Into gl ate Analyzi cf Air. _Quality The IS /ND contains an analysis of the increased emissions from FROM City of Monte Sereno JUN. 13. 1996 10:08RM P 4 PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 Ks. Anne Bybee June 4, 1996 Page 3 the project (transfer of the =our cities haul :Ere= the increases in haul distance from the point of pick -up to Newby island Landfill compared to Guadalupe Landfill) . The increase in emissions from the increased haul component was compared to the 8AAQ= thresholds for criteria pollutants (p. 26) . This catalysis is incomplete according to the CXQA Guidelines, since, under gga Joaquin p& nzar /Wildlife--ft-some center V. 2Y (1994) 27 CA4th 713, 729 -734, 32 CR 704, in consideration of only the increase could be considered a "curtailed project description" or "truncated project concept." The IS /ND should alse have considered the total sir *=Lesions of the project resulting from the total transportation requirement for the haul of the four cities waste to Guadalupe Landfill vs. Nearby Island in relation to the SAAQMD significance thresholds, rather than just the inerearieD component caused by the relocation of haul. In other words, It the air emissions from the total haul are already significant according to the HAAQHD standard, then the increase in haul is, by definition, significant, since it boosts a level of emissions which was already significant before the increase. 3. cenalusion of Han-91 and Ernereo CTse 2mlaacts May Be UnjustiLied. The I9 /ND states that the proposed project would increase the haul distance from residential, commercial and debris box vehicles by a total of 3.061 miles per week yet concludes that this increase is not significant. This increase in haul distance is not put into perspective by being expressed as a fraction of total haul distance for the four eitiesl waste haul. Similarly, the I3 /ND states (p. 29) that the project would result in the consumption of 1.015 gallons of fuel per weak, but that this increase i!a not significant, ''ire the context of the overall fusl consumption associated with this solid waste syste=m" (p. 29) . Yet the total amount of fuel consumption associated with the solid haste syntam is not stated, so the proportion that the project increase represents cannot be computed. In addition, the increase in fuel oon- E 'd 696094E vor s> m o riand - nasdH` o Hodes HVSS : 01 9661 -E L -9 -FROM : City of Monte Sereno 6 -13 -1996 10:55AM • Ms. Anne Bybee JUN. 13. 1996 10:09RM P 5 PHONE NO. : 408 395 7653 FROM CAMPBELL PUBLIC WKS 408 3760958 June 4, 1996 Page 4 sumpt.ion could possibly be consid0r8d significant in the light of being in conflict with energy conservation objectives, and could be cornslaered to represent a nwnstelul, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energys according to CBQA, unless there is a clear, overriding benefit to changing the location of the landfill for these tour citiee (see Appendix F to CEQA Guidelines). Thln putative benefit is not made clear in "a Ib /ND. CONCLUnrom Therefore, the ink. ~ial study for the proposed negative declaration Is inadequate and additional information and /or preparation or a full Eili it necessary. Please provide any responses to comments or further information on this matter to Jim Lord, Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company, P.O. box 20957, San 3ose, CA 95160. Very urs, NOMMAN E. NFM:=d cc: Jim Lord 0 P. 4 Q ©d DAVID J. POWERS ATTACHMENT C pi, I June 7, 1996 MEMO TO: WEST VALLEY CITIES FROM: MICHELLE YESNEY DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES RE: RESPONSE TO LETTER ON NEGATIVE DECLARATION Attached please find my analysis of the issues raised in the letter from Matteoni, Saxe and Nanda, dated June 4, 1996. Please let me know if you have any questions, or require further clarification. I do not have a clean copy of the letter itself, but I suggest that you attach such a copy of the letter to this document and include it in your Initial Study file for the project. Please let me know if there is any additional assistance I can provide on this matter. c, Environmental Consultants & Planners 1885 The Alameda - Suite 204 - San Jose, CA 95126 - Tel: 408- 248 -3500 - Fax: 408- 248 -9641 yyj ��ss� sUMn4 a ?AYa wa V:7 SUPPLEMENT TO THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEST VALLEY CITIES DISPOSAL SITE A letter was received by the City Clerk of the City of Campbell, dated June 4, 1996, from the firm of Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda (attached). The letter asked certain questions about the analysis done for the above referenced Initial Study. Following are responses to and clarification of the issues raised in that letter. Item: Under "Background ", the letter points out that the landfill capacity numbers in the Initial Study were taken from the CoIWMP'. It also notes that the Newby Island landfill has been the subject of a contract amendment between Browning - Ferris Industries (BFI) and the City of San dose, which was not discussed. The letter suggests that the Initial Study should address the capacity of the site based upon the "most recent and accurate information ", and that this information should be available from BFI and /or the City of San rose. Response: The numbers in the Initial Study which were taken from the CoIWMP are the most recent and accurate information currently available about the estimated life expectancy (not landfill capacity) of all of the landfills in the County. It should be noted that the "capacity figures" listed in the Initial Study are only daily permitted "gate capacity" figures, or the maximum amount of waste which is allowed to be buried in the landfill on a daily basis. The latal lifetime "capacity" of a landfill is always subject to interpretation, and figures may vary based on a number of variables and/or assumptions. The five year review of Newby Island landfill referred to in the letter is just beginning. There is no updated Report of Disposal Site Information for Newby Island yet complete. It would be inappropriate to include speculative or hearsay information in this Initial Study that contradicted the CoIWMP, even if such information were available. With regard to the recent contract amendment between BFI and the City of San Jose, the amendment reduced the annual tonnage which San Jose was required to deliver or pay for at Newby Island, and extended the term of•the agreement by four years and nine months. Using the numbers contained in a staff report to the San Jose City Council dated November 21, 1995, the total capacity contractually allocated to the City of San Jose was reduced by the contract amendment by a total of between one and two million tons (actually between 1.16 and 2.01 million tons). That "capacity" could then be considered as available for sale to others. Other recent changes in that city's waste management system have allowed certain commercial waste generators to contract separately for waste collection and disposal. Waste that was being delivered to Newby Island under the City of San Jose's exclusive franchise is now being landfilled independently; probably at least some is going to Guadalupe Landfill. 'County Integrated Waste Management Plan Landfill life expectancy is a function of the amount of waste that is received, as well as the ultimate capacity allowed by the permit (in other words, how high the landfill mound can be built). Recent analyses done by the City of San Jose Local Enforcement Agency for the California Integrated Waste Management Board concluded that Newby Island is operating within the parameters of its operating permit? This means that the landfill receives less than 4,000 tons on any one day, and less than 3,260 tons per day on an annualized average. If the landfill receives close to their gate capacity, the lif4 expectancy of the landfill will be shorter. According to BFI, almost half of their incoming waste is non - contractual. This means that it comes from a variety of sources and is not a "secured" waste stream -- it could be redirected by the waste generators to another landfill at any time. If the incoming waste approaches the landfill's gate capacity, BFI themselves must redirect some of the non - contracted waste to another landfill. All of the most recent information available about waste management and waste disposal practices in the County indicate that available landfill capacity in the County is increasing beyond that anticipated by the CoIWMP, primarily as a result of waste diversion practices. The analysis in the Initial Study therefore reflects an appropriate conservative estimate of landfill life. Item: The first issue raised under "Specifics" states that no assessment of effects on landfill life or cumulative impacts was done. It is stated that the proposed project would shorten the landfill by exactly the percentage represented by the incoming tonnage. The specific concern is explained as a possibility that if the proposed project shortens the landfill life of Newby Island, this could result in longer hauls for cities and communities using Newby Island. In addition, a concern is expressed that the "freeing" of capacity at Guadalupe could result in otber generators using Guadalupe, having either beneficial or adverse impacts, which should be addressed in the Initial Study. Response: This comment invites inappropriate speculation about what might happen in the future (after Newby Island closes, 25 years from now) if the project is approved. What other jurisdictions or private waste generators might do that far into the future, given. the recent rate of change in the waste management industry and the current locally abundant landfill capacity, is not something that anyone can predict. Landfill life is generally a function of the amount and type of waste buried in the landfill, how the landfill is operated, how much cover material is used, what compaction is used to process the waste, and so on. Newby Island is currently operating at below their permitted gate capacity. If they receive an amount of waste which is closer to their gate capacity, they will reach the end of the landfill's life faster than would otherwise be the case. The West Valley Cities' waste stream does not include much industrial waste, making it significantly different than some of the more industrial communities in the County which already use Newby Island landfill. Exactly how that would affect landfill capacity differently than other waste delivered to Newby Island is not known. It would not be accurate to state that it would 7Conversation with Dennis Ferrier, City of San Jose LEA, June 7, 1996. � r ii,QFQfiZPfli� nil yNa 'InCgY � c 7,W)J 11hYa !,IJ iC:7 ixa AF -! 41or decrcase landfill capacity (and therefore landfill life) by exactly the average percentage that it increases the amount of waste coming through the landfill gate on a particular month. As is stated in the Initial Study (page 30), the proposed project would decrease the active life of the landfill at Newby Island and extend the life of the Guadalupe landfill. Guadalupe Landfill, on the other hand, is also operating at well below their permitted gate capacity (917 out of a permitted 3,510 tons per day). The other jurisdictions or waste generators referred to in the letter who might be encouraged to use Guadalupe if the West Valley Cities stopped, could actually deliver their waste there now. It would be inappropriate (and inaccurate) to identify a hypothetical change in other waste delivery patterns as being a result of the proposed project. Many of the requirements of the Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) were intended to encourage cities and counties to deal with waste management issues, especially disposal issues, on a regional basis. The CoIWMP and other planning documents which assign disposal capacity on a county-wide basis reinforce this policy. The Initial Study concludes that the proposed project will not change the amount of disposal capacity available to the region. There mgy be other incremental shifts of waste hauled to different landfills in the future. It is not possible to predict what those shifts might be. Item: The second issue raised under "Specifics" states that the Initial Study should have considered the air emissions from the project as being the air emissions from "the total transportation requirement for the haul of the four cities' waste to Guadalupe Landfill vs Newby Island" and compared those total emissions to the significance thresholds. The statement is made that "if the air emissions from the total haul are already significant according to the BAAQMD' standard, then the increase in haul is, by definition, significant...." The letter also refers to a particular court case (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v County of Stanislaus) as support for its position. Response: The air emissions analysis was a good faith effort on the part of the Lead Agencies to identify the additional increment of impact which might accrue from the project. The BAAQMD guidelines for air quality analyses actually allow the use of vehicle trips as a an alternate measure for determining whether or not the thresholds might be exceeded. Using that measure (2,000 trips per day) the project would not have had to prepare an air quality analysis. Since the BAAQMD guidelines did not anticipate such an atypical project as a change in a waste disposal site, additional analysis was considered appropriate to ensure that the change would not cause a significant deterioration in the regional air quality. Because regional air quality already does not meet current regulatory standards, BAAQMD established certain thresholds of significance. This was specifically done to avoid projects having to guess about what constituted a "significant" additional impact to the already existing air quality problems. The air quality emissions which 'Bay Area Au Quality Management District 3 ifi96��Z�0� ON X�'� 1nSSt' S�3MOJ Q1 AVQ 114 R� :7 1N,4 9 F -!. -Nor would-be generated if the proposed project were approved was found to be less than one -sixth of those thresholds. Another recent court case found that project impacts must make a "considerable" addition to cumulative impacts before a project warranted preparation of an EIR.' This reinforced existing CEQA Guidelines language which states that an EIR must be prepared if the projcct would have "cumulatively considerable" impacts, when considered in conjunction with past, current and probable future projects [§15065(c)]. The Initial Study concluded that the results of the proposed project would no constitute a considerable addition to the local or regional air quality nonattainment conditions. With regard to the statement in the letter that considering only the increased vehicle travel distances constitutes a "curtailed project description ", insisting that the four cities need to look at the total waste haul distance (which would result in a change in the project definition) seems to imply that the cities could choose not to continue to collect garbage. The Initial Study specifically states that there is no intention to change the garbage collection system (page 6) other than minor revisions (page 29). The CEQA Guidelines define "project" as the "whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimatoly "; it also states that project `refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term `project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." There is no intention here of curtailing the project by omitting or overlooking part of the result of this discretionary action, or of omitting or overlooking other discretionary approvals or other governmental agencies' approvals. The total project which is being considered for approval by the Lead Agencies is the change in disposal site from Guadalupe to Newby Island. There are no other discretionary actions known to the Lead Agencies to be necessary for this project to occur, and there are no other actions contemplated by the Lead Agencies themselves. The Initial Study identifies all of the changes in the physical environment which are considered likely to occur if this project is approved. The Lead Agencies do not agree that the-project should be redefined to include the entire waste collection system; that definition would mislead the public as to the action contemplated, and the analysis would not accurately evaluate the true impact of the proposed discretionary action. Item: The letter asks that the increased haul distance (3,061 miles per week) be compared to the total haul distance for the four cities' waste in order to'evaluate whether or not the increase is significance. The letter points out that the increased fuel consumption is also not compared to the total fuel consumption, which would allow the significance of the proportional increase to be evaluated. It is stated that the increased fuel consumption might be in conflict with energy conservation objectives and could be considered a "wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy" unless there is a "clear overriding benefit ". 4San Joaquin Raptor /Wildlife Rescue Center v County of Stanislaus, (1996) Fifth District Court of Appeal. This is a different San Joaquin Raptor decision than the one cited in the letter. 4 A 'J 1{q;gR 7,,gol ON Xyq 10CCV q gX30 N W4 U:7 1?4 gF -l. -Nor Response: The waste hauler was not required to provide information on the total miles traveled or the total fuel consumption for the four cities' total waste collection and hauling system. It is not possible, therefore, to compare the total system numbcrs. The conclusion of nonsignificanee in the Initial Study was based on the size of the increased mileage compared to the general size and scope of the overall system. The waste collection and hauling system provides services for four cities, and collects waste on a weekly basis from approximately 29,250 households, over 5,000 commercial bins (some accounts have more than one bin) and 126 debris boxes. In that context, the additional 33.3 miles per existing truck shift' per week was not considered to be a significant increase. The issue of whether or not the increased fuel consumption is wasteful and unnecessary must be decided by the four cities in the context of determining the most efficient overall design of their solid waste management system. Allocation of resources and the determination of what is or is not wasteful or unnecessary, including the selection of the appropriate disposal site, is a subjective judgment. The quotation in the letter cites Appendix P of the CEQA Guidelines, which are suggestions for how to write an energy analysis in an EIR. There is no requirement in CEQA for establishing an overriding benefit for a project evaluated in an Initial Study. The letter raises a number of questions regarding the analysis in the Initial Study. None of the questions raise issues not addressed in the Initial Study, nor is there any information provided which would conflict with the conclusions reached in the Negative Declaration. 5 truck shift was defined in the Initial Study as a truck and a driver working a full shift. L 'd 1 fi96P79- 0� 'ON 74 IOM � S� IMOd 91 AV0 WJ O� : Z IM 96 -G -Nn r .r rr SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 15- (1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-77 AGENDA ITEM is 0 1n MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: ?fA1j J,'. SUBJECT: Authorization to dispose of surplus property - Gannon scarifier /scraper attachment Recommended Motion(s): Move to declare the subject property as surplus and authorize its disposal by the City Manager. Report Summary: The Public Works Department has in its possession an accessory attachment to the tractor which can be used for scarifying and scraping operations. The asset was acquired in 1983 but has been used very little since. This is because it takes a significant effort to connect the attachment to the tractor. For those few times when scarifying or scraping needs to be performed, staff finds it easier and less expensive to either rent the proper equipment or contract for the service. Consequently, staff recommends disposing of the property in the manner prescribed by the Municipal Code, i.e. declaring the property to be surplus and authorizing its disposal by the Purchasing Officer (City Manager) through a negotiated sale to an interested party. However, before this can occur, the disposal of the property must first be authorized by the City Council since its value has been determined to be greater than $500. The specifics of the scraper attachment are as follows: Make: Gannon Type: Scarifier /Scraper attachment for Case 580D backhoe Model No.: H -420LR Serial No.: 83 Inventory ID No.: 0689 Acquisition Date: 1983 Estimated Value: $750 - $950 For additional information, please refer to the attached memorandum from the Street Maintenance Superintendent dated June 10. .N Fiscal Impacts• Proceeds from the sale of the scraper attachment, estimated to be $850, will be reflected in General Fund Revenues, Account 9820 (Sale of Property). Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. As indicated in the attached memo, the City's fleet auctioneers were contacted about disposing of the scraper attachment through an auction, but suggested that this would be difficult because of the uniqueness of the item. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The scraper attachment would not be declared as surplus property and would remain in the City's possession rarely, if ever, used again. Follow Up Actions: Staff will dispose of the scraper through a negotiated sale with an interested party. Attachments: 1. Memo from Street Maintenance Superintendent dated June 10, 1996. 2. Municipal Code Section 2- 45.170. MEMORANDUM DATE: June 10, 1996 TO: Larry Perlin FROM: Gary Enriquez SUBJECT: Surplus Scra r Attachment Sale We have one scraper attachment that was purchased over 10 years ago specifically for the grading of park lands. In that ten years, it has only been on the machine one time. To attach the scraper to the tractor, you must first remove the hoe attachment from the tractor by lowering the out - riggers, extending the hoe to a balance point, then unbolting the hoe attachment (which requires special tools) to free it from the tractor to allow room to accept the scraper attachment. We do not have the proper tools to accomplish this task. In the past we have required the services of a tractor equipment specialist for the removal and re- installation of the hoe attachment at a cost of $325.00 each. The scraper attachment has been appraised to have a value between $750.00 and $950.00 depending on the number of hydraulic hoses to be replaced. I also contacted First Capitol Auction as a possible means of disposal. First Capitol informed me it would be difficult to auction that piece of equipment in a timely manner due to the fact it is designed to fit a CASE 580D BACKHOE only, and unless you have an identical piece of equipment for the scraper to attach to, it may sit and never be sold. I was contacted by Tractor Equipment Sales in San Jose informing me a customer was in asking about purchasing a scraper for his recently purchased CASE 580D BACKHOE, The customer was informed by Tractor Equipment Sales that scrapers for his machine are no longer manufactured. However, The City of Saratoga has one that may fit your machine. I was contacted by a Mr. Sergio DeLeon who is interested in purchasing the surplus scraper and has made an offer to the city of $850.00. I am recommending we sell the surplus scraper to Mr. DeLeon for the price of the offer made. 1 2- 45.130 of bid opening until the contract has been awarded by the City Council. (d) Rejection of bids. If, in the opinion of the City Council, none of the bids is satisfactory, the Council may reject all bids and either purchase the supplies or services in the open market or readvertise for new bids. (e) Award of contract. Except as otherwise provided herein, a contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsi- ble bidder, taking into consideration the criteria listed in Section 245.090 of this Article. (f) Tie bids. If two or more bids received are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, and if a delay for readvertisement would not be in the public interest, the City Council may accept the bid it chooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders at the time of the bid opening. (g) Performance bond. The City Council may require that a performance bond be furnished before entering into a contract with a successful bidder. The form and amount of such bond shall be satisfactory to the Purchasing Officer and in compliance with the contract specifications. (h) Waiver of irregularities. The City Council may waive any minor irregularities in the bids, based upon a determination that the same have no material impact upon the bidding process or other bids submitted. (i) No bids. If no bids are received in response to the notice inviting bids, the City Council may proceed to purchase the supplies or services without further com- petitive bidding. 2- 45.140 Request for proposals. (a) The City Council may utilize the request for proposal method of purchasing supplies or services upon a determination that competitive bidding is not practical or advantageous to the City because: (1) Quality, capability, performance or qualification is overriding in relation to price; or (2) Delivery, installation, service, maintenance, reliabil- ity or replacement is overriding in relation to price; or (3) In the opinion of the City Council, the marketplace will respond better to a solicitation permitting a range of alternative proposals or evaluation and discussion of proposals before entering the contract. (b) Proposals shall be solicited in such manner as directed or approved by the City Council. The identity of persons responding to the request for proposals and the content of proposals submitted to the City may be kept confidential during the process of negotiation and until a contract is awarded. (c) The request for proposals shall state evaluation factors. Discussions may be conducted with responsible 26 offerors and revisions to proposals, based upon such dis- cussions, may be accepted. (d) The contract award shall be based upon the propos- al determined by the City Council to be most advantageous to the City, taking into consideration price and the evalu- ation factors set forth in the request for proposals. (e) The City Council may reject any and all proposals if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interests of the City. The Council may thereupon direct that proposals be solicited or utilize any other purchasing method set forth in this Article. 245.150 Inspection and testing. The Purchasing Officer shall inspect, or cause to be inspected, all deliveries of supplies or services to deter- mine their conformance to specifications set forth in the purchase order or contract. The Purchasing Officer shall have the authority to require any tests necessary to deter- mine quality and conformance with specifications. 2- 45.160 Joint purchase with other agencies. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, the Purchasing Officer may issue a joint purchase order together with any other city, county, or public agency in the State for the purchase of supplies or services, provided the specifications for such supplies or services have been approved by the Purchasing Officer if the cost thereof is less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars, or by the City Council if the cost thereof is Fifteen Thousand Dollars or more, and provided further that at least one of the other agencies has solicited or advertised for bids in a manner similar to the applicable procedures set forth in this Article. 245.170 Disposal of personal property. The Purchasing Officer shall have authority to dispose of personal property of the City which cannot be used by any department or has become obsolete or worn out. The disposition may be accomplished by negotiated sale, public auction, exchange or trade in for other supplies or, upon a determination by the Purchasing Officer that the property has no commercial value, by abandonment, destruction or donation to a public body or a nonprofit charitable or civic organization. The disposition of any property having a value of Five Hundred Dollars or more shall first be authorized by the City Council. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 21-735 MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 1996 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS F' AGENDA ITEM CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Award of construction contract for Community Center seismic upgrades Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to declare Saratoga Builders to be the lowest responsible bidder for the work. 2. Move to award a construction contract to Saratoga Builders for the work in the amount of $4,795. Report Summary: City staff has designed a seismic upgrade project for the Community Center multi - purpose room. The Mork involves permanently securing the roof diaphragm to the exterior masonry block walls to prevent separation and collapse during an earthquake. Staff believes this is an important project to pursue from a risk management standpoint because of the frequent use of the multi - purpose room by large groups, and because the room is designated as an emergency shelter during disasters such as earthquakes. Staff solicited bids from qualified contractors using the informal bidding procedures contained in Article 12 -15 of the Municipal Code. Three contractors responded with bids which are summarized as follows: Saratoga Builders (Saratoga) $ 4,795 Edmunds Construction (Saratoga) $ 6,510 Swenson & Associates (Campbell) $13,200 The low bidder, Saratoga Builders, has successfully worked for the City recently remodelling portions of the Community Center. As such, staff is confident that their bid is responsive to the City's solicitation and recommends that the City Council declare them to be the lowest responsible bidder for the work and award a construction contract to them in the amount of their bid. If approved by the City Council, the work should take no more than two weeks to complete and will be scheduled to occur later this summer during a window of time when the room is not heavily booked. Fiscal Impacts• The work will occur in FY 96 -97. In the proposed budget for FY 96- 97, there is $5,000 budgeted to maintain supplemental hazard insurance on the Community Center in Activity 83 (Fixed Asset Maintenance), Account 5340 (Insurance). By completing this work, the City would no longer be obligated to maintain such insurance. Therefore, it is proposed that the funding for the work come from the funds budgeted for the insurance premium. However to properly account for the expenditure, the $5,000 would be transferred to Activity 84 (Facility Maintenance), Account 4510 (Contract Services) . This change is reflected in the final budget for FY 96- 97 which you will adopt at your meeting. Likewise, the preliminary FY 97 -98 budget which you also will adopt has been modified to eliminate the $5,000 insurance premium in Activity 83, Account 5340. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The work would not be authorized and the FY 96 -97 and 97 -98 budgets would not be modified as described. Follow Up Actions: A standard construction contract will be signed with Saratoga Builders for the work. Attachments: 1. Proposals (3). ARA O , A BUILDERS (. 0 04 PROPOSAL MAHMOUD SANATKHANI CITY OF SARATOGA 12242 SARATOGA- SUNNYVAIIL RD. SAIZATOGA, GA 95070 -3080 FAX NO. (408) 996 -7287 License No. B- 679305 * ** *PROPOSAL * * ** commctrs.doc Date: April 30, 1996 Proposal Submitted To: Job Location Mahmoud Sanatkhani City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca 95070 - - -- SAME - - -- Age of Building - Phone # (408) 867 -3438 xt 228 We hereby submit specifications and estimate for a remodel of the Community Center. The plans consists of one 11 x 17 structural page and three pages of ICBO specifications. SCOPE OF WORK A. FOR JOISTS PERPENDICULAR TO CMU WALL (TOTAL OF 18): 1. INSTALL 2 X 6 D.F. #2 SISTER JOIST TO (E) RAFTER W / #10 GA X 3" SCREWS @ 6" O.C. STAGGERED AND GLUED AT TOP TO (E) PLYWOOD WITH 3M SCOTCH GRIP WOOD ADHESIVE. 2. INSTALL SIMPSON LTT20B TENSION TIES TO 2 X 6 JOIST USING #16D G.V. SINKERS. 3. INSTALL 3/4" ROUND ALLTHREAD USING HIT C -100 ADHESIVE INTO (E) CMU. 4. 2 X 6 SISTER JOISTS ARE TO BE INSTALLED 5' -0" O.C. +/- B. FOR JOISTS PARALLEL TO CMU WALL (TOTAL OF 24): 1. INSTALL 4 X SOLID BLOCKING UP TO 4 BAYS OUT USING 3M SCOTCH GRIP WOOD ADHESIVE ON TOP OF BLOCKS AND #16D G.V. SINKERS. 2. INSTALL SIMPSON LTT20B TENSION TIES TO BOTTOM OF BLOCKS AND JOIST USING #16D G.V. SINKERS. 3. INSTALL 3/4" ROUND ALLTHREAD USING HIT C -100 ADHESIVE INTO (E) CMU. C. FOR GLUE LAM BEAMS (TOTAL OF 6): I. INSTALL SIMPSON HD5A'S TO GLUE LAM BEAMS USING 3/4" BOLTS. 2. INSTALL SR"SON HD5A' S TO CMU USING 3/4 ROUND ALLTHREAD EPDXIED INTO CMU A MINIMUM OF 5" USING HIT C -100 ADHESIVE. NOTE: 1. ANY INSPECTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED ARE TO BE DONE DURING THE PROCESS OF INSTALLING THE ABOVE ITEMS. ENGINEER TO NOTIFY CONTRACTOR OF INSPECTIONS REQUIRED. 2. ALL WORK TO BE DONE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 3. ANCHORS MAY BE LESS THAN 3" FROM MORTAR JOINTS 4. CONTRACTOR WILL REPORT ANY `VOIDS' IN CMU CELLS. CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER WILL WORK OUT SOLUTION TOGETHER. MAY BE EXTRA CHARGE. PAGE 1 OF 4 SARATOGA BUILDERS / COMMUNITY CENTER We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with the stated specifications, for the sum of ** *$4,795.00 * ** THE SUM * *4,795 ** DOLLARS AND * *00 ** CENTS Payments to be made as follows: SEE "SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS" Allowances to be: NONE Note 1. Asbestos Information: Was your Building built prior to 1979 " Do you know of any asbestos within your Building ? If yes - explain Note 2. This proposal does not include any asbestos inspections, handling, removal or disposal of any kind. This will be charged as an ADW (Additional Work Authorization). Note 3. Any ideas or discussions that you may have had with the representative from Saratoga Builders will NOT be included in the scope of work to be done unless specifically mentioned in this proposal. PLEASE CHECK EACH ITEM OVER CAREFULLY TO MAKE SURE ALL WORK YOU REQUESTED IS INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL. Note 4. ALL WORK IS WARRANTEED UNLESS SPECIFIED FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF COMPLETION. ANY PROBLEMS MUST BE REPORTED TO US WITHIN THAT YEAR. NOT INCLUDED IN THIS WARRANTY IS NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR OF PRODUCTS AND /OR MATERIALS OR ANY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry all necessary insurance's. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. Saratoga Builders Owner Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within -10- days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL - The prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined in this proposal. NOTE: YOU MAY CANCEL THIS TRANSACTION, WITHOUT ANY PENALTY OR OBLIGATION, WITHIN THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DAY YOU SIGN THIS PROPOSAL (SEE 'NOTICE OF CANCELLATION'). Signature Date of Acceptance: Signature PAGE 2 OF 4 Edmunds Construction General Contractor LIC. #428663 May 16, 1996 Mahmoud Sanatkhani City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX: (408) 741 -0940 Prouosal for Seismic Retrofit City of Saratoga - Community Center Building Multi- Purpose Room This proposal includes all labor and material necessary to complete the construction as per Plans and Specifications and as described below. • All lumber to be Douglas Fir #2 or better. • 4x10 solid block at Detail #2 to hang below existing 2x10 and will not be ripped to be flush. • Contractor to broom clean site daily. • All construction related debris to be hauled away. • Chy of Saratoga to provide aceess through back door of Multi - Purpose room between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm for duration of project. Total Cost: S6,510.00 PROPOSAL EXCLUDES: Cost of permits, special inspections, repair of termite and/or dryrot damage, construction required due to special or unforeseen circumstances not reasonably expected by Contractor and/or City Engineer. P.O. Box 3546, Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 297 -5686 SWENSON & ASSOCIATES 470 VANDELL WAY, SUITE A CAMPBELL, CA 95008 May 13, 1996 TEL 408.866.7600 Mr. Mahmoud Sanatkhani FAx 408.866.7692 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue STATE LICENSE N0.493666 Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Seismic Retro -Fit of Multi- Purpose Room @ Saratoga Community Center Bldg. Construction Proposal Dear Mahmoud: We are pleased to submit for your consideration our proposal to perform the above referenced project per ledger sized drawing entitled Seismic Retro -Fit Multi- Purpose Rm. City of Saratoga Com. Center Bldg. and ICBO Evaluation Service Report No's. 2964 & 4016 issued on 5.13.96. We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment necessary to perform said work for the Lump Sum of $13,200. Thank you for the opportunity to quote this project. If you have any questions, please let us know. c Sin erely, n Van Warren Project Manager G E N E R A L E N G I N E E R I N G A N 0 8 U I L 0 1 N G C 0 N T R A C T 0 R SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. T `� AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 1996 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Award of contracts for Monthly Landscape Maintenance Services Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to declare Diablo Landscape, Inc. of San Jose to be a lowest responsible bidder and award a contract for monthly landscape maintenance services in various locations for a total of $2,215 per month. 2. Move to declare Commercial Environment Maintenance Co. of Santa Clara to be a lowest responsible bidder and award a contract for monthly landscape maintenance services in various locations for a total of $306 per month. Report Summar Sealed bids for monthly landscape maintenance services in various locations were solicited on May 8 and opened on May 29. The contracts anticipated to be let by the City include all of the landscape districts in the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, the Civic Center complex, and the medians and parkways along Saratoga Avenue in the vicinity of the Route 85 interchange between Ranfre Dr. and McFarland Ave. Five contractors submitted bids and a summary of the bids received is attached. Remarkably, the low bids reflect prices ranging from 7% to 80% below current contract rates. Needless to say, the competitive market forces worked exceedingly well in this instance to drive prices down. Diablo Landscape, Inc. of San Jose submitted the low bid for all but two of the bid items ( 8 & 9 ) . This is the same f irm which installed the landscaping at the Warner Hutton House and which is currently maintaining the landscaping at the Civic Center complex for $995 per month. As it turns out, their new rates for the Civic Center complex will be 15% below their current rates. As staff is satisfied with their current level of service, it is recommended that the Council declare Diablo Landscape, Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder for Bid Items 1 -7 & 10 -13 and award a contract for monthly landscape maintenance services at the corresponding locations for a total of $2,215 per month. Commercial Environment Maintenance Co. of Santa Clara submitted the low bids for Bid Items 8 & 9. Staff has carefully checked their bid and listed references and is confident that the bid is responsive to the City's solicitation for bids. Consequently, staff recommends that the Council declare Commercial Environment Maintenance Co. to be the lowest responsible bidder for Bid Items 8 & 9 and award a contract for monthly landscape maintenance services at the corresponding locations for a total of $306 per month. Assuming the Council concurs with the above recommendations, the new contracts will be conformed and executed in time for work to begin as of July 1. Fiscal Impacts• Sufficient funds for these contract maintenance services are programmed in the proposed FY 96 -97 budget in Activities 35 (Medians & Parkways), 36 (Parks & Open Space Maintenance), and 39 (LLA -1) , all in Account 4535 (Maintenance Services). This is summarized as follows: Bid Items Budget Acct. Monthly Budget Monthly Cost 1 - 11 3039 -4535 $3,240 $1,386 12 3036 -4535 $1,025 $ 850 13 3035 -4535 $ 600 $ 285 At your previous meeting, the Council approved the final FY 96 -97 Landscaping & Lighting assessments to reflect the lower monthly costs obtained through the bids. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. A Public Hearing was conducted at your previous meeting prior to adoption of the final LLA assessments. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Depends on Council's action. Either one or both of the contractors which submitted low bids would not be declared as the lowest responsible bidder(s) meaning their bid(s) would not be accepted and contracts would not be awarded. The Council may make findings to reject either or both of the low bids and award contracts to one or more other bidders, or reject all bids and direct staff to solicit new bids. The Council may also decide to extend the current landscape maintenance contracts for another year. Follow Up Actions: The contracts as recommended will be conformed and executed and Notices to Proceed will be issued as of July 1. Attachments: 1. Bid Summary. MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES BID SUMMARY Item # CEM Diablo Gachina Lone Star Mike's Gardn' g O1 162.50 35.00 150.00 250.00 265.00 02 246.50 75.00 245.00 200.00 395.00 03 172.00 150.00 225.00 375.00 195.00 04 302.25 75.00 385.00 250.00 475.00 05 349.00 150.00 319.00 250.00 410.00 06 93.00 75.00 130.00 250.00 85.00 07 111.60 75.00 115.00 200.00 120.00 08 204.00 210.00 210.00 300.00 345.00 09 102.00 150.00 191.00 250.00 185.00 10 263.50 150.00 321.00 300.00 665.00 11 762.50 295.00 584.00 550.00 765.00 12 925.50 850.00 1,169.00 2,100.00 1,185.00 13 525.50 285.00 534.00 450.00 985.00 BID PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF SARATOGA MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES BID SUMMARY ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION MONTHLY PRICE Monthly landscape maintenance services in Landscape Zone 1 - Manor Drive Monthly landscape maintenance services in 2. Landscape Zone 2 - Fredericksburg Monthly landscape maintenance services in 3. Landscape Zone 3 - Greenbriar Monthly landscape maintenance services in 4. Landscape Zone 9 - McCartysville Monthly landscape maintenance services in 5. Landscape Zone 10 - Tricia Woods, Landscape Zone 14 - Cunningham Place, and Landscape Zone 18 - Glasgow Court Monthly landscape maintenance services in 6. Landscape Zone 11 - Arroyo de Saratoga Monthly landscape maintenance services in 7. Landscape-Zone 12 - Leuter Court Monthly landscape maintenance services in 8. Landscape Zone 15 - Bonnet Way Monthly landscape maintenance services in 9. Landscape Zone 16 - Beauchamps Monthly landscape maintenance services in 10. Landscape Zone 17 - Sunland Park Monthly landscape maintenance services in 11. Landscape Zone 22 - Prides Crossing Monthly landscape maintenance services at 12. Saratoga Civic Center Monthly landscape maintenance of Saratoga 13. Avenue medians and parkways SUMMARY OF MONTHLY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COSTS * — Estimated monthly cost for FY 96 -97 Civic Center $995 $850 ($145) —15% Saratoga Ave. $565 $285 ($280) —50% Medians oj� $ CHANGE % CHANGE CURRENT FY 96 -97 FROM FROM ZONE COST COST FY 95 -96 FY 95 -96 1 $175 $35 ($140) —80% 2 $265 $75 ($190) —72% 3 $185 $150 ($35) —19% 9 $325 $75 ($250) —77% 10,14,18 $375 $150 ($225) —60% 11 $100 $75 ($25) —25% 12 $120 $75 ($45) —38% 15 $220 $204 ($16) —7% 16 $110 $102 ($8) —7% 17 $275* $150 ($125) —45% 22 $820 $295 ($525) —64% * — Estimated monthly cost for FY 96 -97 Civic Center $995 $850 ($145) —15% Saratoga Ave. $565 $285 ($280) —50% Medians oj� z-7 33 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ann Marie Burger Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran M E M O R A N D U M Karen Tucker Donald L. Wolfe TO: Saratoga City Council W FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: June 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Requests to Realign Existing General Plan and Zoning Boundaries (GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001) in conjunction with a Lot Line Adjustment; 13570 Pierce Road; Binkley, applicant. Background: On June 5, the City Council opened a public hearing to consider a Planning Commission recommendation regarding the above captioned application. Attached is the staff report presented at that meeting. Mr. Binkley challenged the staff determination that his project was subject to Measure G and, therefore, would require a vote of the people for approval. At the suggestion of Councilmember Moran, Mr. Binkley agreed to a 2 -week continuance to determine if he could expand the smaller parcel to at least 2 acres and meet the Hillside General Plan and Zoning standards thereby removing the applicability of Measure G to his project. On June 12, Mr. Binkley notified Planning Division staff that he was unable to expand the smaller parcel to the 2 acre minimum and maintain the integrity of the "family farm." Therefore, he was going to request that the City Council take action on his request as originally submitted and recommended by the Planning Commission. He was then prepared to place the item on the November ballot for consideration by the voters. Printed on recycled paper. City Council Meeting, June 19, 1996 GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001 13570 Pierce Road; Binkley, applicant Recommendation: 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; and 4. Uphold the Planning Commission recommendations to approve the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: Aajr-; MEETING DATE: June 5 1996 CITY MGR//I--- ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development 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 & AZO 96 -001; Binkley City Council, June 5, 1996 Page 3 Attachments: 1. Letter from G.R. Binkley, dated May 29, 1996. 2. Planning Commission Resolution (March 27, 1996) approval of General Plan Amendment 96 -001. 3. Planning Commission Resolution (March 27, 1996) approval of Zone Change 96 -001. recommending recommending 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. M ►1 Y. — a k7 — 7 b a r� � . a . • • — T. C. Hinkley 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. Hinkley Family Trust (Tha ., W. Larry, and G. Robert Binkley) by G.R. Binkley, Tru 6ee 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 Secretaly 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 Binkley; 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 ^� ' Cha an Planning Commission ATTEST: 7 Secretafy to the anning Commission PLANNING COMMISS1%,A 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- BW=Y;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 COMMISb�JN 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 COMMISSIUi•f 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 E-nvironmental 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 Walgren, AICP Date: March 27, 1996 APN: 503 -14 -022 & 044 Director Approval: 16 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 28% 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 effect permitted residential densities or development potential - can currently be developed on each of 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 3,880 a result of the realignment.) Staff the proposed designation realignment consistency with property lines. Environmental Determination: 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 Ln order to maintain mapping 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 - BINRLEY 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 09UT gel 0&m�&UQ)S& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (40S) 867-3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: June 9 , 1995 Ann Mane Burger Paul E. ✓acoos Grr.:,an Moran -,xen 7ucner Mr. G. Robert Binkley, trustee ^Ona;di. Woe 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 oaoer. 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 1 Thad C. Hinkley 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 DEpj 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: 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. G. Robert Bink Binkley Family cc: Westfall Engineers enclosure I 1CI Fs-, AT. RW m-T rj[, T (� u 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867-3438 COUNCII. MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Mane Burger Willem Kohler Victor Mona April 20, 1995 KarenTucxer APR 2_i Thad C. Binkley Trust 7246 Sharon Drive, Suite J San Jose, CA 95129 Re: LL -95 -002; 13570 Pierce Road Dear Mr. Hinkley: 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 "). If you have any questions or comments regarding the above information, please feel free to contact me at 867 -3438. ext..230. Sincerely, ILL PAUL KERM AN Assistant Planner SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2'�7 3J-4 AGENDA ITEM ' MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 CITY MGR. APPROVAL; ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager# ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Personnel Resolutions for Fiscal Year 1996/97: Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service; Resolution Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment Classifications --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Recommended Motion: 1. Approve Resolution No. Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service for Fiscal Year 1996/97. 2. Approve Resolution No. 85 -9. Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment Classifications. Summary 1. The Resolution authorizing permanent positions in the City service includes the change in the Recreation Director's position from .8FTE to .9FTE as well as the change in the position of the Facility Coordinator from a temporary part - time position (.5FTE) to a permanent .6FTE position. These changes were previously approved by Council and staff is utilizing the budget resolution process as the appropriate time to formalize adoption of these changes. Also included in the resolution is a part -time permanent position of Technology Coordinator (.5FTE) which is part of the proposed budget for 1996 -97. 2. The Resolution Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment Classifications establishes the position of Facility Coordinator as noted above and proposes the addition of the Technology Coordinator. Each of these positions' job descriptions follow Resolution No. 85 -9. . With respect to the establishment of salary range for the position of Facility Coordinator, the range was set according to the approved range spread that was previously approved by Council on March 20, 1996. Range 89 is most applicable though it starts slightly lower than Council stipulated. This range begins at 2709 /month. With respect to the Technology Coordinator, similar positions were checked against five cities and five private sector companies and the range that was most comparable for that position is range 114 (refer to attachment 3, "Non- Management Ranges, July 1, 1996) with a starting salary of $3,475 /month. Each of these positions will be pro- rated according to the FTE figure applicable to each. Fiscal Impacts• As noted previously, the costs for the increase in the Facility Coordinator from .5FTE to .6 FTE and the Recreation Director from .8FTE to .9FTE were previously approved by Council at their March Personnel Resolutions Page 2 20, 1996 meeting. The addition of the .5FTE Technology Coordinator is included as part of the proposed 96/97 budget. Attachments 1. Resolution No. , "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Amending Resolution No. 2663, as Amended, Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service for Fiscal Year 1996/97." 2. Resolution No. 85 -9. , "A Resolution Further Amending Resolution No. 85 -9, as Amended, Adding to Basic Salary Classes and Employment Position Classifications for the Employees of the City of Saratoga." Also, job descriptions for Technology Coordinator and Facility Coordinator. 3. Non - Management Ranges (July 1, 1996) SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. "? i AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 1996 CITY MGR./ ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: Pon, �d / SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase traffic signal controller and signal poles for Saratoga Ave. traffic signal, Capital Project No. 9605 Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to authorize the purchase of a traffic signal controller and cabinet from Peek Signal Control Co. of Dublin, CA in the amount of $5,070 plus sales tax. 2. Move to authorize the purchase of various traffic signal poles from Associated Lighting Representatives, Inc. of Oakland, CA in the amount of $7,470 plus sales tax. Report Summary: Quotations for the traffic signal controller unit and poles required for the Saratoga /Scotland traffic signal, Capital Project No. 9605, were solicited on May 30 and June 4 respectively and received on June 7 and 11. Staff is recommending the advance purchase of these items because of the long lead time required and to circumvent the typical 15% markup the electrical contractor who will install the signal would be expected to charge the City. Specifications for each package were prepared by the City's design consultant. Controller and Cabinet Unit: Two suppliers were sent Request for Quotations, both of whom responded with quotes as follows: Peek Signal Control Co. - $5,070 plus sales tax McCain Traffic Supply - $5,769 plus sales tax Peek Signal Control Co. is the City's current signal maintenance contractor, a leader in the industry, and a supplier of controllers on the Caltrans Qualified Products List, a requirement of the solicitation. Staff recommends approval to purchase the controller /cabinet unit from Peek for the quoted price. Signal Poles: Again, two suppliers were sent RFQ's, however only one response was received. The sole quote is from Associated Lighting Representatives, Inc. of Oakland, a major supplier of this equipment in the Bay area. Their quote is for $7,470 plus sales tax which, according to the City's design consultant, represents a fair price. Staff therefore recommends approval to purchase the signal poles from ALR for the quoted price. Assuming the Council approves the two purchases as recommended, Purchase Orders will be issued on June 20 to ensure fabrication and delivery of all the signal equipment in early August. Fiscal Impacts: Sufficient funds for both purchases exist in the proposed FY 96 -97 budget in Capital Project No. 9605. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The purchases would not be authorized. This will delay the completion of the signal installation beyond the start of the next school year. Follow Up Actions: Both Purchase Orders will be issued on June 20. Attachments: 1. Controller /Cabinet quotes (2). 2. RFQ for Controller /Cabinet. 3. Signal pole quote. 4. RFQ for signal poles. .! UIY CI ( 1770 17 • 1i'i A Peak Company Signal Control Company P.O. Box 2178 Dublin, CA 94568 Telephone: (510) 829 -5470 Facsimile: (510) 829 -4221 June 7, 1996 Mr. Larry Perlin Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga CA 95070 Dear Mr Perlin: ATTACHME10- r'. U1 SIGNAL °t CONTROL la s CO. I am pleased to submit a bid for a model 170 controller for the traffic signal at the intersection of, Saratoga Ave. and Scotland Drive. The bid is based on the Plans received from CCS planning and Eng- ineering Dated May 30, 1996 Controller Price .................................. ..............................$ 5,070.00 Complete per Section 86 -3 of the State of California Standard Specifications dated July 1992. Controller is listed on Cal -Trans QPL.. Prices include freight. Pr es are good for 60 days. Deli ery will be 45 to 60 days ARO. 'F�is s dp not include Taxes. Si ional Sales Controller Manufacturing Facility 2430 McGilchrlst Street, S.E. - Salem. Oregon 97302 - 5031371 -1032 TOTAL P.01 r 0,11.l,i ;)i i� McCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY May 31, 1996 Mr. Larry Perlin Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Saratoga/Scotland Signal Project Dear Mr. Perlin: Enclosed please find our quotation for above referenced project. Our estimated schedule for delivery of this equipment would be 45 - 60 days after receipt of order. As requested, the 170 controller and all auxiliary equipment to be furnished are on the current Caltrans Qualified Products List. yo should have any urt er questions please do not hesitate to contact me. r !*our t , Peter Kohl Sales Manager PK/dh encl. 2575 PIONEER AVENUE • VISTA, CAL- 92083 • (619) 727 -8100 • FAX (619) 727 -8184 McCAIN ��SRAFFIC SUPPLY Quote # 531 Estimator Agency City of Saratoga Job Name Saratoga Ave. & Scotland Drive Bid Date 5/31/96 Signal Prices include Vehicle & pedestrian Signals, PPB, Framework, & Thru Bolts. Other Items , If Bid, are Listed Separately. Bid Item Description 1 Lot price for controller as below: 1 332 CABINET 1 170E CONTROLLER 1 412C PROM MODULE FOR BITRAN 1 210 EDI MONITOR 2 204 FLASHER 3 242 ISOLATOR 4 430 F.T.R. 9 200 LOADSWITCH 8 222 EDI DETECTOR 1 4) ANCHOR BOLTS 1 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE 4 3/4"X1 8"X4" ANCHOR BOLTS If a Bitran software program is required please use a price of $475.00 REFERENCE TOTAL Delivery 45 - 60 days A.R.O. Prices firm for 30 days. Freight included. Add sales tax. Sale is subject to McCain Traffic Supply's standard terms and conditions. Peter Kohl Sales Manager Diane Hawkins 2575 PIONEER AVENUE ' VISTA, CA. 92083 - PH.(619)727 -8100 - FAX (619)727 -8184 Price $5,769.00 $5,769.00 A -rr,4 c H M F- QT Z CCS AXED 42080 Osgood Road, Suite 1 • Fremont, California 94539 � 510/656 -7091 • Fax 510/656 -3825 FAX TRANSMx'>C1'AL DATE: May 30, 1996 TOTAL PAGES: 5 (Including this transmittal sheet) TO: Vince Perez COPY TO: Larry Perlin Fn M/AGENCY: PEEK Traffic City of Saratoga FAX NUMBER: 510/829 -4221 408/741 -0940 FROM: Steve Fitzsimons CCS No.: 96031 COMPANY: CCS Planning do Engineering, Inc. PROJECT: Saratoga/Scotland Signal FAX NUMBER: (510) 656 -3825 Design (If you have any problems receiving please call 510/656 -7091) REMARKS: On behalf of the City of Saratoga, we request a price and schedule estimate from you to furnish a Model 170 Controller Assembly for a new traffic signal at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Scotland Drive in the City of Saratoga. A preliminary design is attached for your use as the basis for your estimate. SPECIFICATION: The Model 170 Controller Assembly shall conform to the provisions of Section 86 -3, Controller Assemblies, of the State of California Standard Specifications dated July 1992. A valid copy of a "certificate of compliance" from Caltrans will replace the testing requirement. The controller assembly shall be held at the point of manufacture for the City's contractor, who shall make arrangements for delivery of the assembly. BID PROCESS: If you are interested in submitting a bid, please submit a price, schedule for delivery, and estimate of shipping cost to the job site to: Larry Perlin Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX: (408) 741 -0940 FAX Transmittal May 30, 1996 Page 2 CCS by 3:00 p.m., Friday, June 7, 1996. FAX copies will be accepted as long as an original is received by Monday, June 10. The submittal should also indicate if the 170 controller and all auxiliary equipment to be furnished are on the current Caltrans Qualified Products List. The bid should be written on a page containing your company letterhead, with a authorized signature that is binding. A vendor will be selected based on price, delivery schedule, and Caltrans approval status. The selected vendor will be notified by the City and issued a Purchase Order. A-r-rAcflMF-MT 3 QUOTATION 4 JRWO611961 DATE: 06/11/96 PAGE 1 OF 1 •���- •�•�•��� -�c # �t• x• �- �• ���- ��- ��•�••x•�e�•�- •��•���••�� �• x•• x,• x• �•• x• �•• �• �• ��•• �* �- ��• �•�•x•a���a��•at•�•��- •��••��•x •�•x •���� ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REFS., INC PHONE: 510-63?-015S *� 7305-D C DGEWATER DRIVE FAX: 510- 638 -2903 #� * OAKLAND, CA 94E21 � y •�•K••k•�• # # # #�: �f••JE.�. #•K aF• Nr3F• DE• iF9F9E• iE# aF•1 F# •IF•1F••if•df- 9F #•�E•R•x•Di-•x # �• aE•1 Fa4. 9t• 9E�F# �F#• IE�(• �f• dFiF�c•• IF• If•• iF# �• it�t ••)(••iGiF9E••i(#•1!•7E *iF�F To: LARRY PE RL I N CITY OF 3Ai ;A T iJGA Project: SARATOGA SCOTLAND KERW I N MISCELLANEOUS Laid Date: 06/11/96 Architect-. Engineer; Remarks: - " - -- - .- -... -- - _..- _____--- . - - -_.- ,,,.. _________________________----_---_...______-+---------- Oty Type Mfg Description Price Extension Total ==== 17476.00 F. O. B. f"�:T �1L.L.CWE�D Terms: - NE:'T_SG - DAYS r -- _ _____ _____ ____ _- Lead time: 8 WKS Prices firm for entry by: 0711:16 Shipment by; 1210% Subject to manufacturer's published 'terms and conditions of sale. Quotation is void if changed. Assoc i led Li g"It ilg Rep. Inc. Per. SCOTLAND /KE.RWIN RANCH 2 VALM TYPE 0-129 GV POLE W /AROD,S' 1 VALM 26 -4 -70 W /40 -12S GV POLE W/ ARODS SF I VALM 26- -4 - -70 W/43-12S GV POLE W /ARODS SF` 1 L.Q'i - .. _• _ _ _ _ _ 6850.00 u@50. 00 SARATOGA & FQUITVALE 1 VALM TYPE 15 -15S GV S=OLE W /AROD ^u• 620.00 tG20.00 NOTE NOT REQUESTED ON LID is RE THE I 'P2 POST 95-00 EACH AND THE ID 10 IV WOULD DE 165-00 EACH IF NEEDED. NOTE: ABOVE PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE ANY SALES TAX. CUSTOMER TO UNLOAD POLES AT SITE Total ==== 17476.00 F. O. B. f"�:T �1L.L.CWE�D Terms: - NE:'T_SG - DAYS r -- _ _____ _____ ____ _- Lead time: 8 WKS Prices firm for entry by: 0711:16 Shipment by; 1210% Subject to manufacturer's published 'terms and conditions of sale. Quotation is void if changed. Assoc i led Li g"It ilg Rep. Inc. Per. A-rTAcqMFDJT 4 CCS W E D 42080 Osgood Road, Suite 1 • Fremont, California 94539 510/656 -7091 * Fax 510/656 -3825 FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 4, 1996 TOTAL PAGES: 5 (Including this transmittal sheet) TO: Jim W COPY TO: Larry Perlin FIRM/AGENCY: Associated Lighting City of Saratoga FAX NUMBER: 510/638 -2908 408/741 -0940 FROM: Steve Fitzsimons CCS No.: 96031 COMPANY: CCS Planning & Engineering, Inc. PROJECT: Saratoga/Scotland Signal Design FAX NUMBER: (510) 656 -3825 (If you have any problems receiving please call 510/656 -7091) REMARKS: On behalf of the City of Saratoga, we request a price and schedule estimate from you to furnish new signal poles for a new traffic signal at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue /Scotland Drive and a signal modification at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue /Fruitvale Avenue in the City of Saratoga. A preliminary design is attached for your use as the basis for your estimate. BID ITEMS: At the Saratoga/Scotland/Kerwin Ranch Court intersection: 2 -Type 15 with 12' Luminaire Arms 1 -Type 26 -4-70 with 40' Signal Mast Arm and 12' Luminaire Arm 1 -Type 26-4-70 with 45' Signal Mast Arm and 12' Luminaire Arm At the Saratoga/Fruitvale intersection: 1 -Type 15 with a 15' Luminaire Arm SPECIFICATION: The Standards. Steel Pedestals, and Posts shall conform to the provisions of Section 86 -2.04, Standards, Steel Pedestals and Posts, of the State of California Standard Specifications dated July 1992. C:TROJECT9MO MCOWM2.w60 FAX Transmittal June 4, 1996 Page 2 CC5 On Standard Plan ES-6L, in the Signal Arm Data table, dimension "L" for 40' -0" and 45' -0" mast arms is revised to read 13/4 inches. Sheet steel shall have a minimum yield of 48,000 psi. The standards shall be held at the point of manufacture for the City's contractor, who shall make arrangements for delivery. BID PROCESS: if you are interested in submitting a bid, please submit a price, schedule for delivery, and estimate of shipping cost to the job site to: Larry Perlin Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX: (408) 741 -0940 by 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 11, 1996. FAX copies will be accepted as long as an original is received by Wednesday, June 12, before 3:00 p.m. The bid should be written on a page containing your company letterhead, with a authorized signature that is binding. A vendor will be selected based on price and delivery schedule. The selected vendor will be notified by the City and issued a Purchase Order. C:APROJBCM96 ITONTRM2. W60 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. a"73-0 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM r CITY MANAGER ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: Eighth Amendment to Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System (CAL ID) Recommended Motion(s): Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. Report SummarX: The City of Saratoga, thirteen other cities, and the County have participated in the CAL ID Program since its inception in 1988. The program is routinely used to identify prints found at crime scenes, and may potentially determine the identity and prior arrest record of a suspect being booked into jail. It is the only available resource in Santa Clara County for law enforcement officials to obtain this type of information. The amendment extends the term of the original agreement through June 30, 1997, and includes the proposed operating budget and a list of cost allocations for each participating jurisdiction. Fiscal Impacts: The CAL ID Program costs are allocated based on the percentage share of population for each participating jurisdiction. Saratoga's share of 3.820, or $17,500, is included in the Police Services budget for fiscal year 1996 -97. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Posting of agenda. Conseauences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The Sheriff's Department will not have access to fingerprint information associated with Saratoga law enforcement activity, and the future of the countywide program will be jeopardized. Follow Up Actions: Execute and return the Agreement to the City Clerk at the City of San Jose. Attachment(s): 1. CAL ID Agreement SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 212- MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 AGENDA ITEM 57V C� CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT. City Manager's Office Jennifer Britton, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Renewal of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Agreement with Santa Clara County for FY 1996 -97 Recommended Motion(s): Authorize the City Manager to execute the annual renewal of the Agency Agreement for the Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program on behalf of the City. Approve the Agreement in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to provide service to approximately 538 Saratoga residents. Report Summary: The City of Saratoga currently participates in the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program which provides hazardous waste collection and disposal services and program publicity to residents of Santa Clara County. The Mobile Program operates weekend drop -off collection events on a monthly basis, providing year -round access to residents of cities and the unincorporated County. In addition, three permanent sites are scheduled to begin operation on July 3, 1996 to accommodate recyclable household hazardous waste. These wastes include latex paint, batteries, motor oil, oil filters, and antifreeze. The estimated costs are $100 per car for the Mobile Program, and $45 per car for the permanent locations. Nine mobile events are scheduled for 1996 -97, two of which are planned to be held at West Valley College (Attachment II). A total of 580 Saratoga households took part in the program in fiscal year 1995 -96 at a cost of approximately $60,000. A participation level of 538 is planned for 96 -97; in addition, the County will provide 42 additional participants at no cost for a potential participation level of 580. As was the case last year, the West Valley events continue to draw a high response from Saratoga residents. One slightly different provision in the contract for the coming year is that participation levels in mobile and BOP events will not be predetermined. Instead, the County's HHW phone staff will schedule residents after they have indicated the kind of wastes they have and recommend whether a BOP or mobile event is appropriate. A copy of the agreement is enclosed as Attachment I. Fiscal Impacts• The expenses for this mandated program are recovered through the rubbish bill surcharge for integrated solid waste management and offset by funds allocated to each jurisdiction from the California Used Oil Recycling Block Grants. Based on the average cost of $100 Household Hazardous Waste Agreement Page 2 per user for the mobile event, and $45 for the fixed sites, the contract limit is set at $60,000. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Posting of the agenda. A copy was also forwarded to the Program Manager at the County. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City would be out of compliance with State law governing disposal of hazardous waste (AB 939). Follow Up Actions: After signature by the Mayor a copy will be forwarded to the County for their records. Attachments: I. Second Amendment to Agency Agreement for Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program II. 1996 -97 Event Schedule SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM This is the second amendment to that certain agreement between the .(City) and County of Santa Clara (County) entitled AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM, effective on July 1, 1994 with the first amendment effective on July 1, 1995. The parties agree that: 1. Section 3. New Program Services, A. Permanent Centers for Recyclable Hazardous Waste (Centers) - is amended in full to read: The County shall conduct drop -off operations at the three Centers. The Centers will accept recyclable hazardous waste including motor oil, latex paint, batteries, antifreeze, and oil filters. The Centers will operate a reuse program, offering useable materials to the public at no charge. The "Hotline" will be utilized to schedule appointments for participation at the Centers. The County shall obtain all necessary permits and licenses required for the Centers and shall provide or contract for services, equipment, and supplies to properly receive, package, label, haul, recycle and dispose of wastes collected at the Centers. Operating costs for the three Centers will be tracked separately from costs of the Mobile Events. The cost for each participating jurisdiction will be determined by multiplying the per - vehicle cost for the Centers by the number of vehicles attributable to the participating jurisdiction. It will be assumed for billing and reporting purposes that each participating jurisdiction is contributing to the waste stream in proportion to the number of its residents served. 1. Centers will be located at: Sunnyvale Recycling Center, 164 Carl Ave., Sunnyvale Tenth Street Center, 1600 10th Street, San Jose BFI Recyclery, 1601 Dixon Landing Road, Milpitas 2. Dates and hours of operation will be determined by the County, in coordination with participating cities. 2. Section 8A. Scheduling Options, is amended in full to read: The County shall operate a "Hotline" to schedule appointments for mobile Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) events and to screen for recyclable waste and redirect appropriate types of waste (including I batteries, motor oil, latex paint, and antifreeze) by appointment to the Centers for Recyclable Hazardous Waste (Centers). Two options are available for scheduling: 1. All applicants shall be screened by city representatives prior to scheduling a program appointment for the mobile HHW program; 2. An appointment is scheduled when residents call "Hotline." City is notified when indicated participation limit is approached. City elects option as its choice in utilizing the "Hotline" services. 3. Section 9, City Funding Commitment, is amended in full to read: A. City agrees to commit up to $ to the County -wide Program during FY'96 -97. The per vehicle costs for service are estimated at $100.00 for the full service HHW events and $45.00 per vehicle at the Centers. Payment shall be made as provided in Section 11. B. The estimated cost of $45.00 per vehicle for waste at the Centers assumes an average participation rate of 200 vehicles per week -end. These Centers can accept only recyclable HHW, and are not permitted to take corrosives, poisons, flammables and reactive waste. Participants with any of these wastes must attend the full service HHW events. 4. Section 10, Cost of Program, Paragraphs B and C are amended in full to read: B. Event Costs 1. Mobile Event Costs (permits, licenses, service and supplies, transportation, disposal, promotion, costs of providing insurance as required by the Program): The per - vehicle cost for the Mobile events will be determined by dividing the total Mobile Event costs by the number of vehicles served, regardless of the quantity, volume, quality, or character of the hazardous waste collected from a resident, within the limits set forth in the AGREEMENT. The jurisdiction represented by households who come to a mobile HHW event without an appointment will be charged the same per vehicle rate as regular appointments. 2. Costs of Permanent Center for Recyclable Hazardous Waste (service and supplies, disposal, transportation, recycling, promotion, lease, facility maintenance, and costs of providing insurance as required by the Program): Costs for operation of the Centers will be tracked separately from the HHW mobile events.The per - vehicle cost for operation of the Centers will be determined by dividing the total cost for the Centers by the total number of vehicles served, regardless of the quantity, volume, quality, or character of the hazardous waste collected from a resident, within the limits set forth in the Agreement. The jurisdiction represented by households who come to the Center without an appointment will be charged the same amount per vehicle rate as regular appointments. As indicated in Exhibit A, a portion of the CIWMB Oil Grant funds have been budgeted for subsidizing the costs of managing waste oil in '96 -97. 3. Abandoned Waste Costs. The County will take reasonable precautions to ensure that hazardous waste is not abandoned at HHW events or Centers. Such precautions shall include signage, locked storage buildings, security fencing, and weekly staff inspections of the Centers. In the event that waste is abandoned, the County will investigate the incident and attempt to identify the responsible party. If a responsible party cannot be determined or is nonresponsive, the waste will be packaged by technicians, and sent for treatment or disposal through the mobile HHW program.Costs for handling abandoned wastes will be included in the total costs for the Centers and the Mobile Events for purposes of calculating the per - vehicle costs under Paragraphs 1 and 2 above. C. Actual Average Cost: The County will provide City with interim participation reports within 30 days following each quarter. If the midyear cost estimates show per vehicle costs are greater than projected, the City may elect to increase its financial commitment to the Program or to serve fewer households. If the per vehicle cost estimates are less than projected, the City may elect to receive credit for a continuing program or a refund after final program costs have been computed. At the end of the fiscal year, program costs for the mobile HHW events and the Centers for Recyclable Waste will be calculated separately. The total cost for each program will be divided by the total number of vehicles served by that program to calculate the actual average cost. The City will receive a final statement with the number of vehicles served in each program billed at the actual average cost of service for each program. 5. Section 11. Payment to County. Paragraphs A and B are amended in full to read: 11 0 The City shall pay County for Mobile HHW Event and Center costs as follows: A. Payment for Mobile Events and Center Costs are due in four (4) equal installments. Billing for the first quarter will be included with the year end statement and cost reconciliation for FY'96. Any overpayments made to the County will be credited on the bill for the first quarter. Payment for the first quarter is due thirty days following receipt of the year -end statement and bill. The County will invoice the City 30 days before each of the subsequent quarters. Payment for subsequent quarters will be due on October 1, 1996, January 1, 1997, and April 1, 1997. No invoice will be issued if credit exceeds the anticipated cost of service for the next quarter. The final cost statement for each program will be issued by August 30, 1997 and will take into account previous payments by the City. If any balance is owed -to the County, it will be due on September 30, 1997. Two options are available to the City if payments exceed actual costs: 1. City may add credit balance to maximum commitment for FY'98 program costs. 2. City may use credit balance to offset invoice billing for FY'98 services. City elects option as its choice if payments exceed actual costs for FY'97. B. The County shall take steps to assure that the quarterly billings to City reflect the funds necessary to cover costs for City participation in services scheduled during the next quarter. Although the County will make every attempt to keep the costs allocated to each participating jurisdiction consistent with its dollar commitment, each participating jurisdiction is responsible for the actual average cost per vehicle (as defined in Section 10) multiplied by the number of vehicles from that participating jurisdiction served during the Fiscal Year (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 1997). 6. Section 13. Term of Agreement is amended as follows: The date in the fourth line shall read "June 30,1997" in lieu of "June 30, 1996 ". The remainder of the section is unchanged. 7. Section 14. Hold Harmless and Indemnification is amended as follows: The third word in the first paragraph shall read "indemnify" in lieu of "indemnity ". The third word in the second paragraph shall read "indemnify" in lieu of "indemnity ". The remainder of the section is unchanged. 8. Except as amended herein, all terms and conditions of said agreement and First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 9. This Second Amendment is effective on July 1, 1996. WHEREFORE the parties, through their duly authorized representative, have entered into this second amendment.to agreement on the dates shown below: CITY OF COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a a municipal corporation. political subdivision of the State of California. DATE DATE Title Attest: Title APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Attest: Clerk,. Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Deputy C unty Counsel EXHIBIT A - PRELIMINARY FY'96 -97 HHW BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY TOTAL MOBILE BOP GRANTS PROGRAM STAFF $ 290,000 $ 170,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Supervisor, Specialist, 2 Techs, 2 Clerks, incl. Salary & Benefits CONTRACT OFFICE STAFF $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 15,000 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 16,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 (Postage, Printing, Phone, Advertising, General Supplies) BOP ADVERTISING grant funded promotions $ 20,000 $ 20,000 SAFETY SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT. $ 60,000 $ 12,000 $ 18,000 $ 30,000 (Personal Protective Equipment, Small Tools, Monitoring Equipment) PROGRAM SUPPORT $ 12,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 (County Counsel, GSA Vehicle, Env. Consultant, Staff Training) WASTE CONTRACTS $ 408,000 $ 340,000 $ 60,000. $ 8,000 (Rollins, E -Coat, DTI, Evergreen) WASTE TECHNICIANS $ 57,000 $ 20,000 $ 7,000 $ 30,000 FIXED FACILITY COSTS (Leases, Utilities, Maintenance) $ 10,000 $ 10,000 COUNTY OVERHEAD $ 90,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 20,000 CONTINGENCY (5 %) $ 40,050 $ 29,700 $ 10,350 NOTE: This budget is based on best estimates of costs for an appointment based program with 10 Mobile HHW Events serving 6,000 residents, and 20 BOP week -ends serving 5,000 residents. Additional grant projects are not included in Exhibit A. Hazardous Materials Compliance Division - 5/15/96 i4tlachme#ct-I-- 1996/97 County -wide HAZARDOUS WASTE DROP -OFF SCHEDULE Mobile HHW Hours: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Schedule is subject to change. Dates with an asterisk t*) may change due to the holiday weekend.• --Call inziidvance to confirm dates and locations. Sane+ Clara Couniy, Deharlmcni of Environmental Health 5/16/96 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. -2-72- AGENDA ITEM �C) MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 CITY MGR ORIGINATING DEPT. City Attorney SUBJECT: Amending Municipal Code Relating to the Discharge of Weapons Recommended Motion(s): Introduce the ordinance by title only, waiving reading in full. Report Summary: The City Attorney's Office has learned that the Department of Fish and Game is issuing permits for the killing of deer on private property. Included in the permitted means is by the use of fire arms, consistent with local regulation. The current provision of the municipal code, Section 6 -15.00 allows discharge of a fire arm if, "a permit or license duly issued by the County Sheriff or other agency empowered by law to issue such permit or license." Since the Department of Fish and Game is issuing these permits over the counter, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the municipal code should be amended to limit authority to issue a permit or license to discharge a fire arm to the County Sheriff exclusively. Fiscal Impacts: None. Advertising. Noticing and Public Contact: This matter has been published on the regular meeting agenda and the agenda has been posted according to law. No other advertising, noticing or public contact has occurred. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Individuals who secure an over the counter permit from the Department of Fish and Game would be legally allowed to discharge fire arms in the City for the purpose of shooting deer, on the individual's private property. Follow Up Actions: Place the ordinance on the July 3rd agenda for second reading and adoption. Publish a summary of the ordinance as required by law. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance from the City Attorney 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 6� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 _72- -6 AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 19, 1996 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT.: FINANCE SUBJECT: 1996/97 & 1997/98 BUDGET Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolutions adopting the 1996/97 & 1997/98 Budget. Report Summary: Background- On May 17, 1996, the City Manager forwarded to the City Council the final draft budget for the fiscal years 1996/97 & 1997/98 for consideration. On June 5, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing for purposes of reviewing the proposed budget and to allow for the presentation of testimony on the subject. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the matter was continued to June 19, 1996 for final consideration. Since that time, staff has revised the proposed budget to reflect changes made up to the June 5, 1996 Council Meeting. Those changes have been enumerated in a cover letter sent with the revised budget materials. The affect of the revisions was to improve the fund balances of the General Fund by $31 thousand and the other funds by $142 thousand over the two year budget period. Discussion- On June 19, 1996, City Council will continue the public hearing on the proposed budget. At the conclusion of the hearing, five resolutions are to be considered in order to implement the 1996/97 & 1997/98 Budget.. The resolutions requiring passage and adoption are: 1) Resolution Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Years 1996/97 & 1997/98 Making Appropriations and Authorizing Carry -Overs Thereto and Expenditures Therefrom, 2) Resolution Establishing the 1996/97 Fiscal Year Appropriation (Gann) Limit, 3) Resolution Adding to Salary Classes and Permanent Position Classifications, 4) Resolution Authorizing Permanent Positions in City Service for Fiscal Year 1996/97 and 5) Resolution Establishing a Schedule of Fees. The fifth resolution, which establishes a schedule of fees, has been prepared to add new fees to implement Measure G - General Plan Election Costs and to update existing Public Works fees to recover the direct and indirect costs of providing the service, i.e. full cost recovery. The non - personnel related resolutions are attached. The personnel resolutions are included in a companion report. 1