HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-1986 City Council Agenda packetV
a..
AGENDA BILL NO. /(7.5
DATE: 4 -15 -86 (4- 16 -86)
DEPT.: Engineering
Council Action
Approved.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY
OF REID LANE AND BEAUMONT AVENUE
Sunzary 0
The City received three bids on April 15, 1986 for the above
project. This project was approved in the 1985 --86 Capital
Improvement Budget and is part of the Street Management Program.
The 19west bid was O'Grady Paving, Inc. of Mountain View, with
a total bid of $282,291.10. The Engineer's estimate for this
work was $285,784.50.
Fiscal Impacts:
$177,924.22/from the General Fund (21)
$104,366.88 from Street Construction Subvention Fund (48)
$282,291.10 TOTAL
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Bid Summary
Recommended Action:
Award the contract for the Reconstruction and Overlay of. Reid
Lane and Beaumont Avenue project to the low bidder,. O'Grady
Paving Company.
DATE: April 15 ,198 6
TIME: 10: A.M.
15
16
Description
Paint double yellow line
Install marker double
yellow "D"
17 Install marker type "C"
18 Inst marker type "G"
19 Paint pavement markings
20 Paint yellow ped. cross
walk
21 j Adjust manhole and valve
?2 j Reset monument
?3f Install Detector Loops
TOTAL
Quantity
463
66
20
20
L.S.
1
5
3
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
IIID SUMMARY'
Engineer's Est.
Unit
Y1 ice
Unit
L.F. 0. 231.50
Each 5 1 330.00
Each 5.1 100.00
;Each, 5 1 100.00
L.S. 200.1 200.00
Each 100.' 100.00
Each
Each
Each
500.
Amount
150.1 750.00
100.1 300.00
3000.00
285,784.50
O'Grady Paving
f
Amount
Prig,
1.1 509.30
4.4 290.40
4.4 88.00
4.4 88.00
675. 675.00
200. 200.00
200. 1,000.00
150. 450.00
550. 3,300.00
282,291.10
Raisch Const.
Unit
RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY OF
REID LANE AND BEAUMI T AVENUE
330.00
100.00
100.00
800.00
150.00
750.00
1,050.00
3,000.00
97,926.70
Sheet
PROJECT
t
Price
DATE: April 15 ,1886
TIME: 10 00 A,M,
en-
1
2
0
Description
Road way excavation
Lime treat. sub base
deep
Install asphalt concrete
3/4"
4 Inst asphalt concrete
1/2"
Install asphalt concrete
1/4"
Install fabric mat
Install A.R. 4000 asphal
binder
Install 18" R.C.P.
Provide wedge cut
Install 12" R.C.P.
Construct manholes
Construct drop inlet
3- Construct roll curb
and gutter
Construct curb and
gutter V -24
Quantity
1399
64750
2024
2588
48
8501
2150
220
3300
456
4
4
50
190
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
BID SUMMAIiY
U
C.Y.
S.F.
n
Ton
S.Y.
Gal.
L.F,
Engineer's Est.
Unit
Price Amount
17.0 23,783.00
0.6
33.0
33.0
35.0
1.0
1.5
10.0
38,850.00
66,792.00 33.85
85,404.00 32.0
1,680.00 90.0
8,501.00 0.5
3,225.00
1,900.00
O'Grady Paving,
[rioe Ainountc.
12.00
0.55
1.3
12.0
16,788.00
35,612.50
68,512.40
82,816.00
4,320.00
4,250.50
2,795.00
L.F. 65.0 14,300.00 74.0 16,280.00
L.F. 1.5 4,950.00 1.6 5,280.00
L.F. 50.0 22,800.00 51.0 23,256.00
EacY:1000.) 4,000.00 2000. 8,000.00
Eac1 3,600.00 1200. 4,800.00
L.F. 10.0 500.00 14.0 700.00
2,280.00
Raisch Const.Co. Piazza Const.Go.
Price Amount Prig A mount
14.00 19,586.00 a 9.30 54,980.70
0.70 45,325.00 0.65 42,087.50
31.00 62,744.00 X0.0 60,720.00
31.00 80,228.00 30.0 77,640.00
120.0 5,760.00
0.75 6,375.75
1.70 3,655.00
65.0 14,300.00 60.0 13,200.00
1.25 4,125.00 1.15 3,795.00
56.00 25,536.00 X0.00 18,240.00
1250. 5,000.00 400. 5,600.00
1350 5,400.00 :75.0 3,900.00
40,0 2,000.00 '3.25 667.50
30.0 5,700.00 '3.25 2,517.50
Sheet i
PROJECT
RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY OF
REID LANE AND BEAUMDNT AVENUE
1,440.00
4,250.50
2,150.00
Price
Amount
0
AGENDA BILL NO. 10S'Y CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA ITEM rd/
DATE:
DEPT.: Community Services
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Disposal Property Liens: Quarterly Periods:
Sept.-Nov. 1985 Renotifications and December February 1986
Su
In the Spring of 1984, the City Council adopted Section 7 of the
Saratoga Municipal Code which included the mandatory refuse collection
requirements for all Saratoga addresses. Section 7 also indicated
that each Saratoga homeowner who failed to pay for the service would
be turned over to the City for collection. The City, in turn, would
achieve collection through the filing of a lien against the owner
of the property. The lien would include the amount of the original
bill, interest and late charges added by Green Valley as authorized
by ordinance, and a $40 administrative charge imposed by the City
to recover the costs associated with the processing of the lien. The
list of delinquent accounts attached to this report is for the
September through November, 1985, quarter, and is comprised of names
of property owners whose' addresses were not known when the first
list of delinquent accounts for this quarter was presented to Council
on February 5, 1986. Also attached is a list of delinquent accounts for the
December, 1985, January and February, 1986, quarter.
Recommendation: I
In accordance with Section 7 of the Municipal Code, the attached
list of individuals are eligible to have liens placed on their
properties for the amounts indicated due to either the non payment
of their refuse bill or non compliance with the City's mandatory
refuse collection ordinance. The appropriate Council action
should be the confirmation of the report by the Community Services
Director.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Lists of candidates for property liens.
Council Action:
Approved.
April 16, 1986
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
For Council confirmation and authorization to file a property lien for,the purpose
of collection. Council Meeting April 16, 1986
Name
Robert Kavale
William Knight
William Blinn
DeBois
Terrence J. Rose
Nelson Keys
John R. Pappalardo
Alger Nusbaum
_David Evjen
Todd B. Johnson
Nancy Shapiro, et al
Harry 0. lAienberg
Jan Hurko
Nina Lee Templeton
J. Michael Welch
Mary Penny Smith
REFUSE COLLECTION DELINQUENCE LIST
September through November, 1985, Billing Quarter
Renotifications
Service Address
12775 Bach Court
13511 Bonnett Way
11860 Brookglen Drive
18901 Devon Avenue
19743 Glen Brae Drive
20590 Leonard Road
13178 MCDole Avenue
20141 Mendelsohn Lane
18491 Montpere Way
13103 Montrose Street
13526 Myren Drive
13571 Myren Drive
14755 Oak Street
Mailing Address
same
same
1175 Rome Avenue
Sunnyvale 94087
18565 Buc]mall Road sane
14595 Carnelian Glen Court 21311 Milford Drive
Cupertino 95014
same
P. O. Box 28085
San Jose 95195
415 Bay Avenue
Capitola 95010
same
P. 0. Box 2357
Saratoga 95071
same
18951 Easton Place
Saratoga 95070
same
same
same
Amount
$71.82
40.00
102.57
41.67
71.82
71.82
71.82
62.12
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
88.43
71.82
September- November, 1985, Billing Quarter
Stephen Delta
C W Associates
Nidia Hanson
Stanley Klein
Roger Mathews
John Denny
Service Address
Beatrice M. Diesner, et al
c/o Home Equity Loan Plan 13280 Paramount Drive
Peggy Y. Patterson 12964 Paseo Presada
14226 Paul Avenue
13744 Quito Road
19094 Saratoga Glen Place
14467 Sobey Road
18427 Purdue Drive
13250 Via Arriba Drive
Harold A. Beaudoin 20760 Wildwood Way
Thomas E. Loeffler 12295 Woodside Drive
Renotifications Page, 2
Mailing Address
1860 So. Bascom, Unit 4
Campbell 95008
sane
18581 Blythswood Drive
Los Gatos 95030
11650 Dawson Drive
Los Altos Hills 94022
sane
same
same
1220 Sabal Drive
San Jose 95132
P. 0. Box 55
Saratoga 95070
10600 Story Lane
San Jose 95127
Amount
$71.81
80::66
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
57.05
71.82
71.82
REFUSE COLLECTION DELINQUENCY LIST
December through February, 1986, Billing ouF.r t;:r
For Council confirmation and authorization to file a property lien for the purpose of
collection. Council Meeting April 16, 1986.
Name
Walter Hiliblom
John W. Walker
Robert Kavale
W. J. Miller
Tom Mann
Ray F. Grist
Waldon G. Carlson
Terrence J. Rose
Hortense Rozman
Mm K. Lee
Bill McKay
Rachel Tifffin
D. Mark, L.T.D.
Janes Day
John A. Buchanan
Frank Shepherd
Thomas J. Berg
Tim Prowse
Betsy Williams
James Craig
Carol Howerton
Leroy Murray
Nancy Vicari
John Zabielski
Property Address
15131 Alondra Lane
12251 Atrium Circle
12775 Bach Court
19190 Bellwood Dr.
20344 Blauer Dr.
11860 Brookglen Dr.
12234 Brookglen Dr.
14595 Carnelian Glen Ct.
20341 Chateau Dr.
21142 Chiquita Way
19245 DeHavilland Dr.
18901 Devon Ave.
14101 Douglas Lane
14 415 Evans Lane
12771 Glen Arbor Ct.
19743 Glen Brae Dr.
12347 Julie Lane
20590 Leonard Rd.
14093 Lomb Rio Dr.
20524 Manor Dr.
18693 McFarland Ave.
19466 Miller Ct.
18491 Montpere Way
21777 Mt. Eden Rd.
Mailing Address
(if different)
P. O. Box 517
Los Gatos 95031
P. O. Box 296
Saratoga 95071
P. O. Box 2387
Saratoga 95071
Amount
$71.82
72.85
71.82
71.82
46.94
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
64.66
71.82
71.82
70.41
71.82
59.49
71.82
77.83
71.82
82.43
71.82
67.93
71.82
71.82
61.92
Refuse Collection Delinquency List
December February 1986, Billing Quarter
Council Meeting April 16, 1986
Name
Steve Griswold
Dave Sorenson
Silina Gonzales
Cory's Place
Rudy Ortiz
J. C. Lindberg
Lester DeBar
Richard Jordan
Mark Tiernan
Leroy Davidson
Dave Smith
Author Sylvia
M. M. Laine
Kurt McIntosh
Marie Denny
Sidhartha Maitra
Peter Chisam
G. Jacks
Mi1ka Kralj
John Denny
Rex Rasmussen
Suzanne Given
Beverly Rafaty
Robert Orosco
Flena Zelayeta
Marge Pagan
Property Address
13518 Myren Dr.
14493 Oak St.
14550 Oak St.
18613 Paseo Lado
14226
13050
12451
12639
13005
13033
13675
Paul Ave.
Pierce Rd.
Quito Rd.
Quito Rd.
Quito Rd.
Quito Rd.
Quito Rd.
18663 San Palo Ct.
19540 Scotland Dr.
14650 Sixth St.
13501 Sousa Ln. #A
13750 Surry Ln.
12400 Ted Ave.
20333.elma Ave.
20423 Thelma Ave.
13250 Via Arriba Dr.
19302 Via Crecente Ct.
13459 Ward Way
18925 Westview Dr.
14005 Wildwood Way
20431 Williams Ave.
18427 Purdue Dr.
Mailing Address
(if different)
P. 0. Box 2142
Saratoga 95071
P. 0. Box 9564
San Jose 95157
Page 2
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
96.94
71.82
71.34
71.82
71S
71.82
54.77
71.82
69.70
71.82
71.82
71.82
71.82
57.05
71.82
71.82
167.59
11195
71.82
71.82
AGENDA BILL NO. 1/
DATE: April 16, 1986
DEPT.: Community Services
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Impacts:
None
CITY OF SARATOGA
Background Recycling Report
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Summary:
Last year, when Council approved a rate adjustment with regard to solid waste
disposal, Council asked Green Valley Disposal Company to draft a report out-
lining various recycling options which could be implemented in Saratoga.
Green Valley engaged_.ithe services of Resource Management Associates (RMA) to
draft the report. the report analyzes drop -off centers, buy back centers,
curbside recycling, and yard wastes recovery. The report outlines the potential
benefits and fiscal impacts of the various recycling options. Since partici-
pation levels have the most significant impact on the cost effectiveness of
recycling programs, the report concludes by recommending a survey be conducted
to assess the level of community support. The report also identifies scene of
the issues..which should be addressed in the survey.
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Background Recycling Report prepared by RMA for Green Valley, dated 4/4/86.
Recommended Action:
Direct staff to explore the feasibility and cost of doing a survey to assess
community support for recycling and report back to. Council with recommendations.
Council Action
BACKGROUND RECYCLING REPORT
FOR
DENNIS VARNI, GENERAL MANAGER
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED BY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 4, 1986
BACKGROUND RECYCLING REPORT
Introduction
The City of Saratoga has requested their franchised refuse
hauler, Green Valley Disposal, to prepare a review of recycling
alternatives for City consideration in their solid waste planning.
To aid in their report, Green Valley Disposal requested Resource
Management Associates to prepare a background report describing
various recycling alternatives, potential impacts on the waste
system, and a general cost benefit analysis for possible recycling
scenarios.
This background-. report describes several recycling alternatives
which may be considered for City implementation. Although some
detailed description is given for each recycling option, this re-
port is not a study to determine the feasibility of any particular
recycling scenario for the City of Saratoga. Should a recycling
program be implemented, it is recommended that a feasibility analy-
sis be completed first in order to better determine the program
requirements and the potential savings and benefits for the community.
After describing recycling options, the potential fiscal impacts
are discussed and several factors involved in implementing recy-
cling programs are reviewed. The report concludes with some recom-
mendations for further action and consideration.
Recycling Alternatives
Over a dozen different waste reduction, and materials recovery
and recycling alternatives can be identified, not including combina-
tions of various forms, or recycling support activities such as
technical assistance and public awareness programs.
These recycling program options can be grouped into several
categories which target various sectors of the waste stream. By
selecting recycling options which target high proportions of the
waste stream, more effective waste diversion and materials recovery
programs can be designed and implemented. Five categories of recy-
cling options are listed in Table I.
I. RESIDENTIAL WASTE RECOVERY PROGRAMS
Drop -off Recycling Centers
Buyback Recycling Centers
Residential Collection
II. ORGANIC WASTE RECOVERY
Yard Waste and Leaf Composting
Recovery of Other Organic Wastes
III. COMMERCIAL WASTE RECOVERY
Office Paper Recycling Programs
Corrugated Container Recovery
IV. SPECIAL WASTE RECOVERY PROGRAM
Used Tire Recycling and Re -use
Motor Oil Recycling
Building Materials Recycling and Re -use
Waste Plastic Recycling
V. RECOVERY AT WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Salvaging Programs
Site Separation Programs
VI. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES•
Waste Reduction and Re -use
Market Development
Education and Public Awareness
Technical Assistance
Incentive and Financing Programs
Table I.
RECYCLING OPTIONS
The feasibility of implementing any of the recycling program
options depends on a number of conditions which must be analyzed
and evaluated for a specific location. Concentrations of recy-
clables in the waste stream, current recycling and waste manage-
ment practices, recycling markets, and level'of community commit
ment_are important factors in determining both economic feasibility
and implementation potential.
Also important for the ongoing success of a recycling program
is how it is designed and managed. Municipal recycling programs
that have achieved high recovery levels employ several options
which are carefully integrated with the existing refuse collection
and disposal practices. The City of Palo Alto's Materials Recovery
Program, discussed later, is a good example of effective integra-
tion of recycling with the curbside collection and landfill dis-
posal of residential wastes.
High levels of public participation are key to the success
of any recycling program. Some communities require participation
through mandatory ordinances, but for voluntary recycling programs,
active educational and public awareness programs are essential
for maintaining high public participation levels.
Three factors are important in the development and operation
of effective and successful recycling programs. These can be sum-
marized as follows:
Good planning and design to maximize
cost effectiveness.
Strong community support generated by
active educational and awareness programs.
Dedicated program management to monitor
and maintain optimum operation.
Without these ingredients achieving a program's recycling goals
becomes a more difficult task.
Three Recycling Options'
In general, the most effective recycling programs targeting
residential wastes are the drop -off centers (usually in rural,
low- density areas), curbside collection from residences, and yard
waste collection (and composting or mulching) from curbside or
at landfill locations. A combination of all three of these, as
some communities have done, can maximize their impact on the waste
stream and improve overall cost effectiveness.
DROP -OFF CENTERS
Recycling drop -off centers are particularly suitable in rural
and lower populated -,areas where more'sophisticated collection-pro-
grams are not cost effective. Drop -off centers are easily estab-
lished, usually on public lands or landfill sites, operate at
relatively low cost, and can recover a modest portion of the waste
stream, particularly the residential segment.
Drop -off centers can accept a broad range of materials and
can be designed to suit a wide variety of locations. One larger
center may collect and process thousands of tons of material each
year and serve smaller, satellite centers in the region. Mobile,
temporary centers can be established to extend convenience and
provide service to a greater portion of the community.
Diversion Potential
Successful, volunteer- oriented centers can recover about one
to two percent of a community's waste stream. Although this total
waste stream reduction is generally small, significant recovery
of targeted materials can be attained by drop -off centers. In
cases where centers are located near landfills or at transfer sta-
tions where citizens must deliver their own garbage, newspaper
and glass recycling can reach 40 to 50 percent of the available
materials. In cases where local ordinance prohibit dumping of
recyclables, recovery of these materials can reach 90 percent or
more.
Where drop -off centers are integrated with buyback and curbside
collection, the recycling center portion of the program's total
volume generally accounts for only five to ten percent according
to the California Waste Management Board. In other cases where
special incentives have been instituted, drop -off volumes can account
for over half of the integrated program's volume. In Palo Alto,
California,.for example, free entry into the municipality's landfill
was given to residents who stopped by the nearby drop -off center
before using the disposal site.
This dump pass system resulted in a significant increase in
recycling, reducing Palo Alto's waste stream by six to eight percent
before citywide recycling collection was initiated.
Drop -off centers often expand by setting up and servicing smaller
satellite sites which increase convenience and total tonnages
recovered. If permanent sites cannot be located, another way to
extend service is to organize temporary or mobile centers at shop-
ping centers or on corner parking lots. Mobile centers usually
are trucks or vans which are parked for portions of one day each
month, often on a Saturday, for the collection of materials. Or
sometimes labelled containers are dropped off at a temporary site
by a truck from the main center which then returns at the end of
the day to collect the materials and clean up the site.
Program Economics
Economics for recycling drop -off centers are generally favorable
depending on the particular circumstances of each center. Typically._
centers have free use of land and operate solely on revenues from
the sale of their material, although some centers receive subsidy
funding from local municipalities based on the amount of material
the center collects and diverts from landfill disposal.
Capital improvement costs for centers vary to a large extent
depending on the condition of the available site. Ideal facilities
are fenced, paved, and have an enclosed structure with power and
utilities for processing and storing materials.
Most centers get their revenues only from the sale of materials.
Some centers receive landfill diversion credits, while others may
5
operate in conjunction with handicapped training or other social
programs which provide another funding or labor source.
Expenses for drop -off centers are almost entirely for labor,
with smaller portions usually covering hauling and transportation
costs. Daily operational costs, small tools; maintenance and upkeep
are minimal unless the center is fairly large over 100'TPM.
Then utilities and maintenance on forklifts, trucks, balers and
other equipment can become a significant portion of the costs.
But a drop -off center, if all labor is-charged at an equitable,
full rate, is likely to cost money, generally about $5 per ton
for small, one material operations and up to $35 or $40 per ton
for those handling five or more items.
BUYBACK RECYCLING
Recycling buyback centers operate similarly to drop -off centers
except that recyclables, normally given to the center, are instead
purchased from the customer. The purchased materials, generally
the same as those collected in other forms of residential recycling
programs, are then processed, stored, and marketed.
Buyback recycling might be considered in some parts of the
Green Valley Disposal service area, but more analysis would be
needed to determine its feasibility.
CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION
Curbside recycling offers perhaps the greatest convenience
to the resident and hence the greatest potential for materials
recovery, but it does so at a higher cost than other options.
Because curbside service is labor intensive, operational costs
exceed revenues generated solely from the sale of collected materials.
Although some forms of curbside recycling can generate profits
in some cases, such as newspaper -only service tied to garbage col-
lection, these programs sacrifice the goals of high rates of recovery
and waste diversion.
However, curbside collection can be a cost effective form of
recycling in urban and suburban areas if avoided costs in waste
6
collection and disposal are credited to the program. Curbside
collection is not as effective in either rural or in dense, multi-
unit housing situations.
Diversion Potential
Curbside collection targets only the residential waste stream
and as such an effective means for recovering up to 15 to 20
percent of residential discards, depending upon waste composition
and the number of recyclables collected.
The volumes of recyclables available in the waste stream varies
considerably depending upon type of community and the relative
proportion of business and industry in the community. Table 2
shows how recyclable waste quantity data can vary in two cases.
There could be significant variations in MSW composition within
Green Valley Disposal's service area, but the residential waste
stream concentrations probably do not vary as much.
Material
RECYCLABLE QUANTITIES IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES
Newspaper 5.0 8.4
Glass containers 10.0 5.7
Steel cans 3.0 3.5
Aluminum cans 1.0 0.9
Corrugated cartons 7.0 23.7
Plastic wastes 2.0 9.3
Yard wastes 19.0 11.3
Office papers 3.0 NA
TOTALS:
Table 2
National Average Santa Clara County
50.0 62.8
Sources: 1. Solid Waste Data; U.S. EPA; 1981.
2. North Santa Clara County Waste Characterization
Study; Solid Waste Authority; 1984.
Generally multi material curbside programs with varying levels
of citizen participation will achieve from two to 14 percent municipal
waste stream diversion (see Table 3).
Program Type
Table 3
Percent of
MSW Targeted Recovery Rates from RSW (in%) at
(Santa Clara Co.) Various Participation Levels
News -Only 8.4 4 8 12
Standard Curbside 18.2 7 14. 21
Complete Curbside 29.3 8 16 24
In this example, "standard curbside: refers to the collection
of newspaper, glass bottles and cans, while "complete curbside"
refers to the above materials plus residential cardboard cartons,
waste oil and small scrap metals, but no yard wastes.
General Procedures
For separate collection ..of recyclables, residents set out
for recycling materials they have put aside from their trash.
These materials, usually old newspaper, glass bottles and metal
cans, are generally kept in separate containers and placed on the
curb, alley or area where normal refuse is collected.
Newspapers are generally tied or bundled in paper sacks and
left on or near the garbage can and /or other separated recyclables.
Most often all glass bottles are placed in one container, color mixed;
sometimes lids must be removed. Metal cans are placed in a second
container.
A growing number of programs require residents to separate
their secondary materials into only one or two categories to encourage
participation by snaking separation less troublesome. These mixed
or co- mingled recyclables are collected in a similar fashion but
may incur higher processing costs.
In many multi material programs, the materials are taken to
a processing yard which may also house drop -off and buyback operations.
20% 40% 60%
At the processing yard bins are removed and dumped into larger hop-
pers or containers (some collection vehicles are equipped with
self dumping bins).
Depending upon the market requirements for each commodity,
the various materials are further sorted, cleaned, baled or crushed
and then stored for bulk shipment to or collection by the buyer.
Curbside Collection Economics
Curbside collection of secondary materials can be a cost effective
means of waste management and landfill abatement. However, because
curbside collection is more labor intensive than most other forms
of residential waste recycling, it tends to be more costly and
difficult to manage efficiently. Offsetting the higher operation
costs are generally-higher recovered volumes which generate more
program revenues.
Evaluation of the economics of curbside recycling depends
on how costs, revenues and benefits are defined and what they include.
Since recycling is a waste management tool, analysis of its economics
should be done similarly to that for other forms of waste management
When examined in this manner, curbside recycling often fares very
well when compared with landfill disposal, resource recovery and
other waste management options.
Recycling collection programs generate revenues from the sale
of the collected materials and credits from the saving of landfill
disposal and refuse collection costs. In some communities, disposal
or waste collection surcharges are assessed and these monies are
assigned to the collection program.
Program costs are usually divided into start -up costs for
equipment and facilities, including amortization; operational costs;
and publicity and promotion costs.
In -kind services, grants or donations can be considered revenues
or costs depending on how they are viewed in analyzing each program.
For example, the value of city land used by a curbside program
can be negligible if the municipality has no other use for it.
Cash grants can be considered costs of operation in that other
funds would be needed to operate the program in lieu of the grant.
Revenues and costs can be expressed in terms of total tonnage
recovered from the waste stream or total households served. A
number of curbside programs have been analyzed in this fashion
and are shown in Table 4. The listed programs show that collecting
materials for recycling costs less than disposing of the same materials
in landfill.
Table 4
COST ANALYSIS OF FOUR
BAY AREA CURBSIDE RECYCLING PRGRAMS
FISCAL YEAR 1980 -81
Population Volume Waste 1 Per -Ton Oper.
Community Served TPM Diversion Profit /(Cost)
Davis 38,000 210 10.5 ($7.14)
El Cerrito 23,000 110 12.2 ($13.98)
Palo A1tLf 57,000 228 9.9 ($10.96)
Santa Rosa 83,000 213 5.2 ($9.26)
1 As a percent of municipal solid waste.
2 Curbside only portion of program. Total Drop -off and Curbside;
El Cerrito 230 TPM and Palo Alto 415 TPM.
YARD WASTES RECOVERY
Yard wastes can be recycled in a variety of ways. Leaves and
grass clippings can be spread as mulch in gardens. Woody branches
can be chipped for applications similar to those of bark dust.
The most common method for recycling yard wastes is composting.
Composting is the natural process of decay of vegetative matter
where microorganisms break down the material into a soil -like
substance.
A variety of activities can be undertaken to recover yard wastes.
Seattle and MinneapolisSolid waste management programs encourage
residents to compost yard trimmings in their own backyards. Numer-
ous communities remove leaves from city streets and parks in the
fall and compost the leaves into a mulch for use in public places
or by citizens. Comprehensive yard -waste composting programs for
10
leaves, brush, grass and tree trimmings are relatively new, but
growing.
Similar to other recycling programs, citizens either haul their
yard wastes to a central site or a collection service picks up
the debris from residences. For example in Palo Alto, residents
may deliver at no charge contaminant -free plant wastes to a desig-
nated area at the local landfill. This inducement helps the city
recover about eight percent of the total municipal solid waste.
Collecting yard wastes from residences on a regular basis yields
greater recovery. In Davis, California, a two person crew collects
over 400 tons of plant debris monthly using a specially designed
loader and rear loading packer truck.
Chippers are used to process yard debris in some programs,
but they are not generally suitable for large -scale operations.
Many communities use tub grinders to process mixed residential
brush. Large quanitites of brush are loaded into a rotating cylin-
der tub that feeds the brush into a hammermill. Processed materials
are stacked into rows that are watered and turned.
When the decomposition is complete, the material is ready for
distribution or sale. In some locales, gardeners who bring in
yard wastes receive credits towards receipt of finished compost.
In other programs, the material is used on municipal parks or as
landfill cover. The commercial sale of composed yard wastes is
still in the developmental stages.
Economics
The cost of operating a yard waste recycling program varies
greatly depending on the type of materials handled, method of col-
lection, amount of processing and markets for the finished product.
Program costs range from $20 to $60 per ton of material received.
Diversion Potential
In a number of communities, yard waste can account for as much
as 20 percent of municipal solid waste. Leaves alone can make
up to 10 percent of the waste stream. The seasonal nature of yard,
waste generation allows communities to target types of plant debris,
recovering larger percentages of the specific material. Successful
programs have diverted two to 18 percent of their municipal solid
waste by recycling yard debris.
The "three recycling options described are potentially viable
programs that could be integrated with refuse collection in the
Green Valley Disposal service area. Drop -off centers, although
less expensive to establish, offer some recycling opportunity,
but probably will have negligible impact on the waste stream.
For more substantial waste stream impact curbside recycling
collection including yard wastes promises a significant waste reduc-
tion in a short implementation period. Cost impacts are discussed
in the next section.
SUMMARY
Potential Fiscal Impacts
In order to determine more precise economic impacts of a parti-
cular recycling program, a detailed feasibility analysis is needed
which incorporates the size of the program, equipment needs, labor
and operation costs, and the projected revenues from sale of the
recyclables. collected. Potential savings from avoided collection
and disposal `costs also need to be included in the analysis.
When all of these cost factors are weighed against the revenues,
savings and credits, a net balance figure is derived for the recy-
cling program or the recycling component of the total waste disposal
system. Most of the discussion in the section concerns primarily
curbside collection recycling programs.
Economic Analysis Model
An example of this cost analysis is shown in Table 5 for Palo
Alto's total recycling program and in Table 6 for just the curbside
collection portion. In these anlyses, three net costs are calcu-
lated, "A "B and "C which weigh only certain revenue figures
(Part I) against various expense figures (Part II). The "A" net
cost calculation is "cost- biased" in that all of the program's
expenses including in -kind services are balanced by only the direct
revenues received from the sale of materials. Indirect revenues
and credits (Part Ic) are omitted from consideration.
The "B" net -cost calculation is "revenue- biased but often
is the method used to evaluate program costs when a municipality
does not want to burden a program with costs for their in -kind
services. The "C" net cost calculation weighs all revenues and
credits against all expenses.
Comparison of net costs of Palo Alto's total recycling program
(Table 5) with those of the curbside only portion (Table 6) demon-
strate the benefits of including other recycling opportunities
in addition to curbside only collection.
Table 5
EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS MODEL
AV
PALO ALTO TOTAL RECYCLING PROGRAM FINANCES
(1980 -1981 Figures: Rounded)
PART I. REVENUES CREDITS
A. Sale of Materials
Aluminum
Newspaper
Glass
Ferrous Cans
Other Materials
PART III. NET BALANCE OF PROGRAM
A. Direct Revenues vs. Total Costs
Revenues (IA only): $258,600
Expenses (IIA -D): 459,870
Net Cost: $201,270
B. Total Revenues vs. Direct Costs
Revenues (IA -C): $491,800
Expenses (IIA only): 254,390
Net Profit: $237,410
C. Total Revenues vs. Selected Costs
Revenues (IA -C): $491,800
Expenses (IIA -C): 395,790
Net Profit: 96,010
Tons /Month
4
230
126
16
69
Annual
36,000
131,930
30,240
8,220
52,210
Sub Total: 445 $258,600
B. Grant (SSWMB $151,910 over 5 years) 30,400
C. Indirect Revenues Credits
1. Landfill Diversion 445 TPM $3.25
2. Reduced Collection Costs
3. In -Kind Services (City of Palo Alto)
Total Indirect Revenues:
TOTAL REVENUES:
PART II. EXPENSES AND COSTS
A. Operation Expenses
1. Labor plus Fixed Overhead ($24,400)
2. Variable Expenses (0 M)
3. Public Awareness
Total Operation Expenses:
B. Amortization ($151,910 over 5 years
C. In -Kind Services
1. City Staff and Overhead
2. Site and Improvements
3. Dump Passes
Total Indirect Expenses:
D. CAR Newspaper Revenue Return
TOTAL EXPENSES:
17,350
74,450
111,000
$202,800
$491,800
$203,690
40,700
10,000
$254,390
30,400
42,000
15,000
54,000
$111,000
64,080
S459,870
Net Cost /Household: i
$12.99/yr.
Net Profit /Household:,
$15.32/yr.
Net Profit /Household:
6.19 /yr.
14
Table 6
EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS MODEL
PALO ALTO CURBSIDE RECYCLING FINANCES
(1980 -1981 Figures: Rounded)
PART I. REVENUES 4 CREDITS
A. Sale of Materials Tons /Month Annual
Aluminum 3 27,000
Newspaper 122 69,980
Glass 80 19,200
Ferrous Cans 12 6,200
Other Materials 11 5,460
Sub- Total: 228 5127,840
B. Grant (SSWMB 5151,910 over 5 years) 30,400
C. Indirect Revenues i Credits
1. Landfill Diversion 228 TPM $3.25 8,890
2. Reduced Collection Costs 37,500
3. In -Kind Services (City of Palo Alto) 111,000
Total Indirect Revenues: 5157,390
TOTAL REVENUES CREDITS: 5315,630
PART II. EXPENSES AND COSTS
A. Operation Expenses
1. Labor Fixed Overhead ($24,400; 5158,400
2. Variable Expenses (0 M) 40,700
3. Public Awareness 10,000
Total Operation Expenses: $210,000
B. Amortization (5151,910 over 5 years) 30,400
C. In -Kind Services
1. City Staff and Overhead
2. Site and Improvements
3. Dump Passes
Total Indirect Expenses:
D. CAR Newspaper Revenue Return
Net Profit: 5105,630
C. Total Revenues vs. Selected Costs
Revenues (IA -C): 5315,630
Costs (IIA -C): 351,400
Net Cost: 35,770
42,000
15,000
54,000
$111,000
34,000
5385,400
TOTAL EXPENSES:
PART III. NET PROFIT /LOSS OF PROGRAM
A. Sale Revenues (only) vs. Total Costs
Revenues (IA): 5127,840 Net Cost /Household:
Expenses (IIA -D): 385,400
$16.60 /yr.
Net Cost: 5257,560
B. Total Revenues vs. Operational Costs (only)
Revenues (IA -C): $315,630 Net Profit /Household:
Expenses (IIA): 210,000
6.81 /yr.
Net Cost /Household:
2.31'(r
Comparing Recycling Costs
Another important consideration in evaluating the fiscal impacts
of recycling is to not isolate recycling apart from the usual refuse
disposal system.
Materials recovery from solid wastes is another form of solid
waste management which is as equally valid as landfill disposal
or waste incineration. Each waste management alternative has its
own costs, economic and environmental, as well as benefits. When
assessing the need for a transfer station or an incinerator plant,
landfill disposal costs are always incorporated. Likewise, recy-
cling assessment also requires comparison of its costs and benefits
with those of other waste management tools.
Recycling programs, especially ones in more suburban areas
being considered in this report, generally compare favorably with
the costs for refuse collection, hauling and disposal. Certain
thresholdsin population, waste generation and program duration
need to be reached before the more cost intensive recycling forms,
such as curbside collection, can fully accrue savings from avoided
refuse collection costs.
Total refuse disposal costs include costs for collection and
hauling of refuse as well as the additional costs for disposing
of the wastes in a landfill. Landfill disposal costs are usually
incorporated in a "tipping" fee charged on the basis of the volume
or tonnage of refuse being landfiiled.
Total curbside recycling costs also include costs for collection
and hauling of recyclable materials as well as costs for processing
and hauling the recyclables to a market. In a fully developed
curbside recycling program the collection and hauling costs are
generally similar to those for refuse collection.
Recycling processing and marketing costs are still generally
higher than tipping fee costs on a per ton basis, but a portion
of the recycling costs is offset by the revenues from the sale
of materials. Also, savings in tipping fees and refuse collection
costs also reduce the net cost of a recycling program.
The overall net impact is that although curbside recycling
generally incurs net operation costs, those costs are often less
1 6
r SC
than those incurred for collection and disposal of wastes at a
landfill.
In fact, in California the average refuse collection and disposal
costs ranged from "$60 to $70 per ton" according to a recent
California Waste Management Board report while curbside recycling
programs are averaging $35 to $45 per ton without incorporating
indirect savings or credits.
Thus it i`s generally not only less expensive to recycle wastes
than to landfill them, but recycling can also generate additional
cost savings and environmental benefits.
Incorporating other recycling options and economic incentives
into a curbside recycling program can, in some cases, improve the
fiscal impact. Table 7 compares the 1981 costs of six recycling
programs with refuse. disposal costs for the same communities.
For some communities the recycling program does cost more than
landfilling, but in others, recycling costs are much lower. In
fact, some programs which have used economic incentives such as
buyback (El Cerrito) or free dump passes (Palo Alto), have shown
a net cost savings for their programs. These incentives are not
always as effective in other communities, but should be explored
for their potential benefits.
Financing Options
Implementing full scale recycling programs generally requires
additional sources of revenues. These sources have been generated
in a wide variety of ways in various programs around the country.
In California additional funding has largely come from several
sources. These are:
California State Recycling Grants (now discontinued)
Municipal or County General Funds
Municipal waste management accounts (usually funded
from household user fees)
Specially imposed recycling surcharges on landfill
disposal or household refuse fees.
17
Notes
Table 7
OPERATIONAL COSTS OF RECYCLING
AND REFUSE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
FOR SIX CALIFORNIA CITIES (1981)
Recovered Refuse Adjustment of
MSW Stream Recyclables Operation Profit Disposal User Feewith
Community (TPY) (TPY) (Cost) /Ton Cost /Ton Recycling (X)
1. E1 Cerrito 9,600 2,880 4.87 $56.00 2.6%
2. Palo Alto 27,720 5,520 6.58 47.00 2.8%
3. Downey 58,080 860 44.82) 34.00 2.0%
4. Santa Rosa 49,800 2,550 9.26 44.00 1.0%
5. Fresno 188,400 1,980 ($123.89) 50.00 2.6%
6. Davis 24,000 2,520 7.14) 40.00 1.9%
The programs of El Cerrito, Palo Alto, and Davis include curbside, drop -off, buyback and
other recycling forms.
Operation Profit (Cost) per Ton includes all revenues and credits as well as operational
and in -kind costs.
User Fee adjustment is the percent difference of total recycling costs (TPY x /Ton)
and total refuse costs ((TPY x /ton).
Source: Recycling in California; Resource Management Associates Report to Oregon
Recycling Conference, October, 1982.
Funding grants from state or federal sources have been discon-
tinued, although in some special cases some foundation monies have
been given to non profit organizations for recycling. Likewise
in California it continues to be difficult to obtain assistance
from local government general funds without some special or over-
riding need.
fiowever.a growing number of communities such as Berkeley, El
Cerrito, and`Fresno, California, have established special accounts
for financing waste management alternatives (usually transfer sta-
tion or incinerator plant construction). In a number of cases
recycling programs have qualified for partial funding from these
accounts.
Another funding mechanism gaining wider use is the placement
of special recycling surcharges on either the tipping fees at land-
fills or on the residential garbage fees charged to each household.
Monthly household recycling fees have been imposed in a number
of California communities' garbage bills including El Cerrito (40
cents), Livermore (90 cents), Marin County (46 cents), Fresno (6
cents) and Modesto (ten cents per can).
Another funding system which has been instituted in many com-
munities in Minnesota, New Jersey and Canada is the direct funding
of recycling programs based upon a diversion credit calculated
by the municipality. The City of Minneapolis for example pays
$12 to $15 per ton to 5 different recycling firms who collect mater-
ials curbside from City residences. It costs the City about $26
per ton to dispose of wastes at their local transfer station.
Through recycling the City saves the tipping fee costs and passes
a portion of the savings on to the recyclers.
Municipalities who receive franchise fees from hauler contracts
may set aside a portion of those fees to assist directly or indirectly
various recycling activities. The City of Concord for example
has ear marked 2% of the franchise fee to 'provide educational and
promotional support for their planned curbside program to be operated
by their refuse collector.
19
There are a wide variety of ways a recycling program could
be implemented in the Green Valley Disposal service area. Two
of the first steps needed are to better assess community support
and to prepare a detailed feasibility study to define costs and
to decide what form of recycling would be best suited.
Some of tte'questions to be answered are:
Is a drop -off center (or centers) the best method at
this time, or is curbside collection the most feasible
alternative?
Should a pilot program be tried, and if so, should
it serve just one community or part of the entire ser-
vice area?
Implementation Strategies
Should a buyback recycling center be included?
Is a yard waste collection and composting program
feasible?
What are the local market impacts on the program?
What are the projected costs and how would they best
be funded?
What kind of educational and promotional program would
be needed?
What would be the best way to operate and manage the
program?
Where would be the best location for a collection and
processing, center?
Would it be possible to integrate a recycling program
with an existing one in a nearby city (Sunnyvale)?
How would a recycling program be integrated into the
existing district management contract?
One additional question is who should cover the costs for per-
forming a possible feasibility analysis. Possible sources are
general funds from one or more of the four -city service area; the
franchised hauler; or through a portion of fees which might be
assessed through the four -city franchise agreement.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This background report is intended to provide some information
on possible forms of recycling, their potential economic impacts
and some recommendations for further action. This report does
not analyze the feasibility of any specific recycling program,
but indicate that because of the success of recycling, in
particular curbside recycling, in other nearby cities, that the
communities in the four -city service area _should seriously consider
its incorporation into their short -term solid waste planning.
Some other conclusions from this report include the following:
Community support should be assessed. This could take
the form of a widely circulated questionaire and survey
to obtain citizen opinion on desirability of having
a recycling program, and the level of their commitment
for financial support.
A thorough feasibility analysis should be completed.
The analysis should provide answers to the questions
listed earlier and others raised by local officials.
From preliminary discussions with Green Valley Disposal,
City of Saratoga officials, and others .in the community,
there seems to be strong support for instituting a
larger level of recycling. Community demographics,
particularly in Saratoga and Los Gatos, indicate that
curbside recycling programs would have high citizen
support.
Implementation of a curbside recycling program would
appear to be feasible. This again is largely based
upon the success of nearby programs in Palo Alto, Los
Altos, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale and the recently implemented
pilot program in San Jose.
Economic assessment of recycling alternatives should
incorporate comparison of other solid waste management
systems. In so doing recycling and materials recovery
can be seen for its role in waste reduction and not
only as an isolated program which must pay for itself
through sales revenues.
Curbside recycling and yard waste composting programs
offer the greatest potential for diverting substantial
volumes of wastes from landfill. A regional recycling
program could provide a significant increase in landfill
life and lower future disposal costs.
21
In conclusion recycling programs are the most easily implemented
and least capital intensive of all waste management alternatives.
They therefore are capable of having the most immediate impact
on reduction of the waste stream.
For these reasons and others stated earlier, it is recommended
that further steps be taken to proceed with the initiatives already
taken, and to begin implementing the best recycling program appro-
priate for the service area community. For only with immediate
implementation can recycling have the maximum impact on the life
of the existing landfill.
22
AGENDA BILL NO. /06
DATE: April 16, 1986
Dom Community Services
SUBJECT:
Council Action
D.U.I. Grant
Voted not to participate 4- 0- (Clevenger absent).
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
Suamary
In behalf of the West Valley Cities, the Sheriff's Office applied
for a grant from State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to finance
a specially trained team of officers to enforce laws prohibiting
driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol. The Sheriff proposed
the program because a recent study revealed that 40% of the fatal
accidents occurring within the contract cities involved the use of
alcohol. The State awarded the County $258.908 to finance a three
officer team over two years. The County and the State would provide
100% of the funding for the first year of the program, and one half
the funding for the second year. The contract cities would pick up
the other half of the funding for the second year based on the
proportionate number of traffic accidents occurring in each
jurisdiction which involved alcohol. The contract cities would.be
responsible for all of the funding of the program over the third
year and thereafter if they chose to continue the program.-
Fiscal Impacts:
For the first year, there would be ,a very positive fiscal impact
since the City would receive 84% of the citation revenue (average
citation for DUI offense is $1,000) and bear none of the cost.
During the second year, the City would bear half the program cost
which will approximate $32,135.
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Correspondence from Capt. Thomas dated March 3, 1986 updating City
on grant status.
2. Correspondence from the State OTS dated January 17, 1986 approving
grant.
3. Report dated February 18, 1986 from the Sheriff to the County Board
of Supervisors.
4.. Cost summary,of program over three years.
5. Actual Grant Application
Recommended Action:
Approve the program as proposed by the Sheriff and commit to partici-
pating in it for two (2) years with the. County. Direct staff to
include funding to match the grant (during the second year of the
program) in the City's fiscal year 1987 -88 budget.
County of Santa Clara
California
MR. HARRY PEACOCK
SARATOGA CITY MANAGER
13777 SARATOGA AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 9507,0
DEAR MR. PEACOCK,
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Office of the Sheriff Marshal
180 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95115 -0020
Robert E. Winter, Sheriff Marshal
MARCH 3, 1986
I WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE YOU ON THE STATUS OF THE "DRIVING UNDER
THE INFLUENCE GRANT
THE CALIFORNIA "OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY" HAS PROVIDED A FINAL
REPORT FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND
RETURNED FOR REVIEW BY A COMMITTEE IN SACRAMENTO. FOLLOWING
APPROVAL OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED, THE WAY WILL BE CLEAR FOR
A BINDING AGREEMENT.
IN ADDITION TO THE 0.T.S. REQUIREMENT THERE IS A REVIEW COMMITTEE
WITHIN THE COUNTY, A PRE REQUISITE TO SUBMITTING THE TRANSMITTAL
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
IN ORDER FOR YOU AND THE CITY TO BE KEPT ABREAST OF WHAT HAS BEEN
PREPARED AND SUBMITTED I AM HAVING COPIES PERSONALLY DELIVERED.
IN AN EFFORT TO EQUITABLY ANCHOR DOWN THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION
OF D.U.I. TEAM HOURS FOR EACH CITY WE HAVE PROPOSED TO USE
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AS A BASE. p il)
WITHIN THE GRANT APPROVAL AND SUBSEQUENT WRITINGS DRUNK DRIVING
HAS BEEN STRESSED AS RELEVANT TO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RATE, SO
THIS SEEMED TO BE A RATIONAL PLACE TO START. FROM THIS PROCESS,
THE HOURS OF ASSIGNMENTS WOULD THEN BE BASED ON TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
RATIOS.
SINCE YEAR ONE IS FULLY FUNDED, PRESENT STATISTICS WOULD NOT
DIRECTLY DETERMINE THE DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS OR COST FOR YEAR
TWO, WHICH IS ONLY PARTIALLY REIMBURSED BY THE STATE.
PRIOR TO MY ARRIVAL AT THE WESTSIDE STATION APPROXIMATELY SIX
MONTHS AGO, CHIEF WILSON AND SGT. GARY MEDLIN CONTACTED THE CITY
MANAGERS AND COUNCILS WITH THE IDEA OF A D.U.I. GRANT. IT IS THE
MOST PRO— ACTIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE UNIFORM DIVISION THAT I CAN
RECALL.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SOME CREDIT FOR IT BUT THAT OVERWHELMINGLY
GOES TO SGT. MEDLIN WHO HAS INVESTED ALL IT TAKES FROM BUILDING
THE PACKAGE TO KEEPING THE IDEA ALIVE THIS LONG. I WHOLE
HEARTEDLY SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS AND THE GRANT.
I WOULD RESECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU AND THE COUNCIL REVIEW THE
GRANT ONCE AGAIN. IF THE DOCUMENT IS ACCEPTABLE I WOULD THEN ASK
FOR A FIRM COMMITTMENT IN WRITING, CONSIDERING ONE HAS NOT
ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED. IN THE EVENT SOMETHING HAS BEEN LEFT
UNDONE OR NOT TO YOUR LIKING WE SHOULD SEE ABOUT RESOLVING IT.
IF THE PROPOSAL IS UNACCEPTABLE, I WOULD REQUEST THAT IN WRITING
ALSO.
IN ORDER TO PROCEED, AS SUGGESTED BY O.T.S., WE ARE GOING TO
TRANSMIT THE MATERIALS AND ACTIVATE PROCEDURES. IF YOUR RESPONSE
ALTERS THE FORMAT WE SHALL MAKE THE PROPER CONTACTS FOR AMMENDING
THE GRANT.
YOUR CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION IN THIS MATTER ARE APPRECIATED
AND MOST IMPORTANT.
SINCERELY,
DARROLD THOMAS, CAPTAIN
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF
WESTSIDE STATION
14374 SARATOGA AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
(408) 867 -9715
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
7000 FRANKLIN BLVD. SUITE 330
SACRAMENTO, CA 95823•
January 17, 1986
Darrold Thomas
Captain
Santa Clara County Sheriff's Dept.
Westside Station
14374 Saratoga Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
Dear Captain Thomas:
Your proposal requesting funding assistance to implement a DUI
Enforcement Grant has been tentatively approved. Final approval
is continent upon the submission of an acceptable Project
Agreement.
As you are aware, I met and discussed the proposal with
Lieutenant Kirby, Sergeant Medlin and Sergeant Palling on
January 14, 1986. It was agreed that the following elements
will be included in the agreement.
The project duration will be two years. The Office of
Traffic Safety will provide 100% funding of the first project
year and 50% funding the second year. The Santa Clara County
Sheriff's Department will contribute the remaining 50%
necessary for second year funding.
Project personnel costs will consist of salaries, benefits
and overtime for three Patrol Deputies.
Travel and per diem expenses may be included for the deputies
to attend DUI enforcement training.
$5,500 may be included for the purchase of breath testing
equipment. Allowance for this equipment is with the
understanding that a booking facility will be established
within the City of Cupertino.
$4,000 will be allowed for publicity related to the project.
Indirect or overhead costs will not be allowed.
uarrold Thomas
1/17/96
Page 2
MFB:cs
As submitted in your proposal, the project will establish a DUI
Team whose sole purpose will be to detect and apprehend drivers
under the influence of alcohol /drugs before they are involved in
traffic accidents. The three man team will patrol the areas of
Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills and Monte Sereno. In
addition, it was discussed that during the project, consideration
would be given to conducting DUI checkpoints.
Two draft copies of the Agreement (copies enclosed) should be
submitted to this office as soon as possible. Signatures are not
required at this point in time.
If you have any questions or require assistance, please contact
me.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
MICHELE BAGWILL
Program Assistant
(916) 445 -9734
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:.
BOARD TRANSMITTAL
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: SHERIFF ROBERT E. WINTER
SUBJECT: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE ENFORCEMENT GRANT
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1986
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVE A DRIVING
UNDER THE INFLUENCE ENFORCEMENT GRANT THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY
SHERIFF'S PERSONNEL, PRESENTED TO THE STATE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC
SAFETY AND TENTATIVLY ACCEPTED. SUBMISSION OF BINDING DOCUMENTS
TO THE STATE RESPECTFULLY AWAIT YOUR CONCURENCE. THE AREAS
INVOLVED WITH THE D.U.I. ENFORCEMENT GRANT ARE THE FOUR CONTRACT
CITIES OF CUPERTINO, SARATOGA, LOS ALTOS HILLS AND MONTE SERENO.
THE PROJECT DURATION WILL BE TWO YEARS. THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC
SAFETY WILL PROVIDE 100% FUNDING OF THE FIRST PROJECT YEAR AND
50% FUNDING THE SECOND YEAR. THE FOUR CONTRACT CITIES WILL
CONTRIBUTE THE REMAINING 50% NECESSARY FOR SECOND YEAR FUNDING.
PROJECT PERSONNEL COSTS WILL CONSIST OF SALARIES, BENEFITS AND
OVERTIME FOR THREE PATROL DEPUTIES. $5,500 MAY BE INCLUDED FOR
THE PURCHASE OF BREATH TESTING EQUIPMENT. $4,000 WILL BE ALLOWED
FOR PUBLICITY RELATED TO THE PROJECT.
THE PROJECT WILL ESTABLISH A D.U.L. TEAM WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE WILL
BE TO DETECT AND APPREHEND DRIVERS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL
OR DRUGS BEFORE THEY ARE INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. THE
THREE PERSON TEAM WILL PATROL THE AREAS OF CUPERTINO, SARATOGA,
LOS ALTOS -HILLS AND MONTE SERENO.
THERE WERE FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY D.U.I. ARRESTS MADE BETWEEN
JANUARY 1985 AND DECEMBER 1985; THREE HUNDRED AND THIRY THREE
ARRESTS WERE MADE DURING THE SAME PERIOD IN 1984, AN INCREASE OF
21. Z.
D.U.I. RELATED ACCIDENTS IN 1985 DECREASED BY 7 AN INDICATOR
SUPPORTING PRO ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT. DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS,
CONTRACT CITIES HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES OF A
D.U.I. TEAM TO FACILITATE THE APPREHENSION OF DRUNK DRIVERS.
THERE ARE IN EXCESS OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY -SEVEN RETAIL LIQUOR
STORES IN THE CONCERNED AREA; ONE HUNDRED EIGHT OF WHICH ARE "ON
SALE" ESTABLISHMENTS. THIS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR AT LEAST TEN
ADDITIONAL LARGE NIGHTCLUBS ON THE CITIES FRINGE. IF ONLY TEN
CITIZENS PER ESTABLISHMENT LEFT UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN A TWENTY
FOUR HOUR PERIOD, THERE WOULD BE A PROJECTION OF MORE THAN 1,000
D.U.I. VIOLATONS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
BACKGROUND
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PROVIDES POLICE SERVICE TO THE FOUR
CONTRACT CITIES. CURRENT CRIMINAL STATISTICS ON DRUNK DRIVERS IS
THE SOLE PRODUCT OF GENERAL ENFORCEMENT PATROL UNITS. BECAUSE
THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE STAFFING TO INITIATE AN OFFENSIVE PROGRAM
TO COMBAT THE D.U.I. PROBLEM, THE ISSUE IS USUALLY ADDRESSED AT
THE ACCIDENT SCENE AND NOT NECESSARILY IN JUST THESE FOUR
JURISDICTIONS. THE SOCIAL CLIMATE IS SUCH THAT PEOPLE FROM ALL
PARTS OF THE COUNTY, AND OTHERS, PATRONIZE THE AREAS NIGHT SPOTS.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
THE WEST VALLEY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY IS A POPULAR PLACE NOT ONLY
TO WORK AND LIVE, BUT ALSO TO "PARTY THE AREA CONTINUES TO
GROW AND PART OF THE GROWTH IS IN ESTABLISHMENTS SERVING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. WITHOUT INCREASED ENFORCEMENT, SPECIFICALLY,
ADDRESSING THE D.U.I. PROBLEM, ENFORCEMENT CONTINUES TO BE OUT
DISTANCED. THE SPIN OFF FROM DRIVERS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
ALCOHOL /DRUGS FREQUENTING AND DRIVING FROM THE WEST VALLEY
DANGEROUSLY IMPACTS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL:
UPON APPROVAL, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SHALL MAKE FINAL
ARRANGMENrS WITH THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY AND CONTRACT CITIES
TO IMPLEMENT THE D.U.I. TEAM AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF TWO YEAR DUI PROJECT
YEAR ONE (1)
1. OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 1164,639
2. SANTA CLARA CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT. 60,571
3. CUPERTINO NONE
4. SARATOGA NONE
5. LOS ALTOS HILLS NONE
6. MONTE SERENO NONE
YEAR TWO (2)
1. OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 194,269
2. SANTA CLARA CO. SHERIFF'S DEPT 30,268
3. CUPERTINO (ONE HALF OF 56.7%) 70,622
4. SARATOGA (ONE HALF OF 25.8 32,135
5. LOS ALTOS HILLS (ONE HALF OF 6.2%) 7,722
6. MONTE SERENO(ONE HALF OF 11.3 14,075
1. CUPERTINO 8141,245
2. SARATOGA 64,270
3. LOS ALTOS HILLS 15,445
4. MONTE SERENO 28,149
YEAR THREE (3)
TOTAL 1249,109
THE PROJECTED PERCENTAGES FOR EACH CONTRACT CITY WERE BASED
ON THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF DUI RELATED ACCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED IN
EACH CONTRACT CITY DURING CALENDER YEAR 1985. THOSE PERCENTAGES
WILL BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY LEVELS OF THE DUI
TEAM IN EACH CONTRACT CITY DURING YEAR ONE (1) OF THE PROJECT.
CONTROLLER:
2. Does the grant application include the County -wide Cost Allocation?
Yes Vo y If yes, explain allocation procedure
If no, please explain O.T.S. WILL PAY 100% OF SALARIES, PLUS'BEJEFITS THE FIRST YEAR
501 OF 11 S I4 7}-F ?PD YEAR. CONTRACT CITIES WILL PAY COSTS NOT PAID BY GRANT.
3. Does the grant application include departmental indirect costs?
Yes X No If yes, please indicate how this was calculated mr rnsrrv
WILL ABSORB VEHICLE EOUIP. COSTS AT A RATE OF 100% THE 1ST YEAR 50% 21ND YEAR. C06T5 WILL BE
PA R Eo iTscr &T RE END CF GRANT.
4. Is a County match required? Yes No X If yes. please explain source
of matching funds
S. Have all appropriate County support services been advised of level of
effort required for expanded or new programs? Yes No x (Support
services include Audit, Controller, General Services, Insurance.,'
Personnel, Purchasing, and Seal !state.)
G. Please provide name and phone saber of County individual maintaining a
current copy of all governing laws and regulations pertaining to great
request.
Name DARROLD THOMAS Title CAPTAIN
7. Who is the State, Federal or private foundation contact person?
Name MARILYN SABIN Title PROJECT CO- ORDINATOR
ININIAMML
S. Are insurance costs being charged to the grant? Yes No If yes,
please indicate which costs are charged and allocation procedure. If no,
please explain GRANT PAYS ONLY SALARIES BENEFITS.
9. What additional exposure to loss will the County assume by operating the
grant? NONE
3294r
Agency OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY Pbon 916) 445 -9734
phone 867 -9715
10. Please describe how the County's exposure to loss will be minimised
N/A
11. Is a hold harmless agreement required? Yes No Y If yes, has it
been reviewed by County Counsel and Insurance? Yes No If not
reviewed, please attach copy.
12. Is a certificate of insurance agreement required? Yes 10 X If
yes, has it been requested from GSA Insurance? Yes No
PAGE 1 (To be Completed by Applicant Agency
I. PROJECT TITLE
WESTSIDE ALCOHOL INFLUENCE TEAM
NAME OF APPLICANT AGENCY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
AGENCY UNIT TO HANDLE PROJECT
SAME AS ABOVE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Summar me the project cover the ••jectives, me
of procedure, evaluation and end product in approximately 100 words)
AS THEIR CONTRACTING POLICE AGENCY, THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WILL
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A DRUNK DRIVING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITIES OF CUPERTINO,
SARATOGA, LOS ALTOS HILLS AND MONTE SERENO. THE PROGRAM WILL FOCUS ON ENFORCEMENT AND
COMMUNITY EDUCATION. THREE (3) DUI ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WILL MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT
TO INCREASE DRUNK DRIVING ARRESTS, REDUCE THE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF THOSE ARRESTED, AND
TO REDUCE "HIT RUN" ACCIDENTS. IN ADDITION, THE UNIT WILL PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
•IMED AT REDUCING DRINKING AND DRIVING TO SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, NIGHT CLUBS, BAR OWNERS
AND OTHER APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATIONS. (CONTINUED)
6 FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED
7. ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part
t
PROJECT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF APPLICANT AGENCY
CAPT. DARROLD THIMA of this
Name:DARROLD THOMAS Phone: (408)
Address: 867 -9715
14374 SARATOGA AVENUE
SARATOGA, CA 95070
Signature Signature
Title CAPT: WESTSIDE PATROL COMMANDER Title SHERIFF
D. OFFICE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS
FISCAL OR ACCOUNTING OFFICIAL
Name: MS NAOMI TSURUMOTO
Title: FISCAL OFFICER
Phone: (408) 299 -2P01
ATTACHMENTS
Project Description Schedule A
Adm. Support Contribution Schedule A -1
Detailed Budget Estimate Schedule B
Budget Narrative Schedule B -1
OTS 38 (Rev 10/83)
State of California
Business, Transportation Housing Agency
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECT AGREEMENT
PROJECT NUMBER
PSP N0.
REVISION NUMBER
DATE
PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE
Address: ACCOUNTING SECTION
180 W. HEDDING STREET
SANJOSE, CA 95110
CCS USE ONLY
Fiscal Yr. Amount
Total
4. PROJECT PERIOD
Month Day Year
From: 4 -1 -86
To 2 =28 -88
Name: ROBERT E. WINTER Phone: (408)
Address: 299 -2101
180 W. HEDDING STREET
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
Name: SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.
Initial Evaluation Data Form Schedule C
Certification, California
Traffic Safety Program (OTS -33)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 ITEM 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION)
A BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER COMPARISON WILL BE CONDUCTED TO EVALUATE THE
EXTENT PROJECT OBJECTIVES ARE ACCOMPLISHED. IT IS OUR INTENT TO MAKE THIS
AN ON -GOING PROGRAM FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, WITH EACH CONTRACT
CITY PAYING PROPORTIONATE COSTS BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVITY SUPPLIED
TO THEIR JURISDICTION.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 ITEM 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION)
A BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER COMPARISON WILL BE CONDUCTED TO EVALUATE THE
EXTENT PROJECT OBJECTIVES ARE ACCOMPLISHED. IT IS OUR INTENT TO MAKE THIS
AN ON -GOING PROGRAM FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, WITH EACH CONTRACT
CITY PAYING PROPORTIONATE COSTS BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVITY SUPPLIED
TO THEIR JURISDICTION.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
A. GENERAL CHARACTERISITCS
THE CITIES OF CUPERTINO, SARATOGA, LOS ALTOS HILLS AND MONTE SERENO
HAVE A COMBINED POPULATION OF APPROX. 78,800, WITH A DAYTIME AND EARLY
EVENING POPULATION INCREASING TO APPROX. 160,000 DUE TO MAJOR SHOPPING
CENTERS AND ELECTRONIC FIRMS ATTRACTING CITIZENS FROM SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES. THE CITIES, CONSISTING OF APPROX. 20 SQ. MILES OF LAND
AREA, IS LOCATED AT THE SMALL END OF A LARGE FUNNEL OF TRAFFIC NETWORKS
WHICH SERVE THE BAY AREA FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO SANTA CRUZ.
B. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
THE ROADWAY SYSTEMS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE ENFORCEMENT BOUNDARIES
OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RANGES FROM EXTREMELY MOUNTAINOUS, CURVED
ROADWAYS TO HIGHLY COMMERCIAL AND CONGESTED CITY STREETS. MOST ROADWAYS
INCLUDE BICYCLE LANES WHICH ARE HEAVILY USED BY COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO
ATTEND THE THREE JUNIOR COLLEGES AND FIVE HIGH SCHOOLS LOCATED WITHIN
OUR JURISDICTION.
C. EXISTING SYSTEMS
D.U.I. ENFORCEMENT IS DONE BY REGULAR PATROL AND TRAFFIC UNITS AS TIME
AND ACTIVITY PERMITS. DUI ARRESTEES ARE PROCESSED AT THE MAIN JAIL AND
HELD A MINIMUM OF SIX (6) HOURS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED. DATA PERTAINING
TO THE ARRESTS ARE PROCESSED INTO THE WESTSIDE COMPUTER PROCESSING
SYSTEM TO BE USED FOR COMPILING AND ANALYZING DUI RELATED STATISTICS.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF ITS.
TRAFFIC RECORDS THAT DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF
TRAFFIC RELATED INJURIES AND FATALITIES IN ITS JURISDICTIONS.
SINCE 1983 APPROX. 40% OF ALL INJURY AND FATAL ACCIDENTS INVESTIGATED BY
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN DUI RELATED. HIT RUN ACCIDENTS
NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH DUI HAS INCREASED FROM 251 IN CALENDER YEAR
1984 TO 295 IN CALENDER YEAR 1985 (15% INCREASE).
THE AVERAGE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF PERSONS ARRESTED BY PATROL DEPUTIES
SINCE 1983 IS .18 THIS INDICATES A LACK OF SKILL, TRAINING AND TIME
BY THE EXISTING PATROL STAFF TO APPREHEND THE DRIVER WHO IS LEGALLY
PRESUMED UNDER THE INFLUENCE AT A .10 BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL.
BASED ON THESE STATISTICS, IT IS FELT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF DUI RELATED
INJURY AND NON- INJURY ACCIDENTS GO UNDETECTED.
BASED ON A RECENT STUDY BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, IT WAS ESTIMATED
THAT AS MANY AS ONE THOUSAND (1000) DRIVERS CONSIDERED TO BE LEGALLY
UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL WILL DRIVE THROUGH OUR JURISDICTION
EVERY TWENTY -FOUR (24) HOURS. THESE FIGURES WERE CALCULATED ON•THE
BASIS OF THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITH "ON SALE" LIQUOR LICENSES
AND THE DAILY POPULATION OF THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE
CITY LIMITS OF THE CONTRACT CITIES.
(CONTINUED)
OTS -38b (Rev 5/82)
SCHEDULE A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROBLEM STATEMENT CONTINUED
WE ARE CURRENTLY AVERAGING ONLY APPROX. 35 DUI ARRESTS PER MOUTH.
THIS, WITH THE ADDITIONAL STATISTICS MENTIONED, STRONGLY INDICATE
A NEED FOR INCREASED ENFORCEMENT IN THE AREA OF DUI.
(CONTINUED)
ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE VARIOUS EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
TO DEAL WITH OUR DUI PROBLEM.
1. WE HAVE DEVELOPED A TRAFFIC PIN MAP THAT REFLECTS UP -TO -DATE
INFORMATION ON ALL ACCIDENTS INCLUDING DUI.
2. WE HAVE DEVELOPED A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM FOR THE STORAGE AND
ANALYSIS OF ALL TRAFFIC RELATED DATA. WITH THE AID OF COMPUTER
ANALYSIS AND PATROL SUPERVISORS SELECTED ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES
ARE BEING USED TO ENFORCE THOSE VIOLATIONS WHICH ARE CAUSING
ACCIDENTS. CONCERTED MEASURES ARE BEING MADE TO DIRECT THOSE
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS TO THOSE LOCATIONS WITH HIGH ACCIDENT LEVELS.
3. WE HAVE CONDUCTED ROLL -CALL TRAINING TO ACQUAINT PATROL DEPUTIES
WITH THE PROBLEM.
4. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC THROUGH ACTUAL PRESENTATIONS
TO AREA ORGANIZATIONS.
5. WE HAVE BECOME INVOLVED WITH NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS SUCH AS THE
"SAFE RIDES" AND "AVOID THE THIRTEEN" PROGRAMS.
6. WE HAVE ACQUIRED A FOUR (4) PERSON STREET MOTORCYCLE ENFORCEMENT
TEAM TO MORE ACTIVELY ENFORCE LAWS DURING COMMUTE PERIODS.
DESPITE OUR CONTINUED EFFORTS TOWARD CURTAILING THE DRINKING DRIVER AND
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, THE PROBLEM CONTINUES TO EXIST. EVEN THOUGH WE SAW
AN APPROXIMATE 7% DECREASE IN DUI ACCIDENTS DURING CALENDER YEAR 1985
WHEN COMPARED TO THE SAME PERIOD IN 1984, THERE WAS A 15% INCREASE IN
HIT RVN ACCIDENTS AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ALL ACCIDENTS IN OUR
JURISDICTIONS REMAINED THE SAME. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO
SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE INJURIES AND FATALITIES CAUSED BY DRIVERS UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ARE NECESSARY.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE PROJECT IS TO REDUCE FATAL AND INJURY ACCIDENTS
BY APPREHENDING DRINKING DRIVERS PRIOR TO THEIR INVOLVMENT IN INJURY
OR FATAL ACCIDENTS. THE OBJECTIVES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DUI ARRESTS BY AT LEAST 100%, FROM
AN AVERAGE OF 35 ARRESTS PER MONTH TO AN AVERAGE OF AT LEAST
70 PER MONTH BY 07/01/86 WITH THE INTENT TO IMPROVE THAT
AVERAGE DURING THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
OTS -38b (Rev 5/82)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT OBJECTIVES CONTINUED
(CONTINUED)
2. TO REDUCE THE AVERAGE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF ARRESTED DUI'S
FROM .18 TO .15 BY JUNE 1987.
3. TO IMPLEMENT A PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM AIMED AT DISCOURAGING
DRINKING AND DRIVING BY OCTOBER 1, 1986.
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
PHASE I PREPARATION STAGE (FEBRUARY 1986)
THE THREE DEPUTIES SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM WILL BE
RECRUITED FROM THE PRESENT COMPLIMENT OF SHERIFF' PATROL DIVISION.
THE COUNTY WILL HIRE THREE NEW DEPUTIES TO REPLACE THOSE POSITIONS.
DURING THIS PHASE, A TRAINING PROGRAM WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR TEAM MEMBERS.
ACCEPTABLE ENFORCEMENT AND RECORDS KEEPING TECHNIQUES WILL BE DEVELOPED
AND MAINTAINED.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PROJECT MEMBER WILL BE DEFINED AND PROJECT
DIRECTORS WILL BE CONTINUOUSLY APPRISED OF DETAILS CONCERNING OUR
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
PHASE II PRELIMINARY TRAINING (MARCH 1986)
DURING THIS PHASE WE WILL IMPLEMENT THE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR EACH
TEAM MEMBER. THEY WILL RECEIVE SPECIALIZED TRAINING IN THE
DETECTION AND APPREHENSION OF PEOPLE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
OF ALCOHOL. THIS WILL INCLUDE IN- SERVICE TRAINING WITH OTHER POLICE
AGENCIES AS WELL AS STRUCTURED TRAINING CLASSES.
PHASE III IMPLEMENT DUI PROGRAM (APRIL 1986)
IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE DONE BY DEPLOYING THE DUI TEAM DURING THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE HOURS AT HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATIONS WHERE DUI IS THE PRIMARY
COLLISION FACTOR. WE WILL COORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DUI TEAM
WITH THOSE OF THE REGULAR TRAFFIC UNIT.
PHASE IV 'COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (THROUGHOUT PROJECT DURATION)
WE WILL PROVIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION THROUGH SPECIALLY PREPARED LITERATURE
ON D.U.I. AS WELL AS PROVIDE TRAINING THROUGH LOCAL HIGH SCHOOLS AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. WE WILL CONDUCT A STRONG AWARENESS CAMPAIGN
THROUGH NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER AVAILABLE MEDIA INFORMING THE PUBLIC
OF OUR EFFORTS AND ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS WITH DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
PHASE V DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS (THROUGHOUT DURATION OF PROJECT)
THE PROGRAM WILL BE ANALYZED PERIODICALLY AND THE RESULTS WILL BE
INCORPORATED INTO TIMELY REPORTS. QUARTERLY PROJECT EVALUATION REPORTS
WILL BE PREPARED BY THE PROJECT TEAM AND REVIEWED AND SUBMITTED BY
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR. THESE REPORTS WILL COMPARE ACTUAL PROJECT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITH PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS. THEY WILL INCLUDE
INFORMATION CONCERNING ANY CHANGES MADE BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR IN
PLANNING OR GUIDING HIS PROJECT EFFORTS. THESE REPORTS WILL ALSO
INCLUDE BUDGETARY INFORMATION IN THE FORMAT SPECIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF
PUBLIC SAFETY.
OTS -38b (Rev S/82)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PHASE V CONTINUED
THE FOLLOWING ARE METHODS TO BE USED IN THE CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE
AND EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM.
A. COMPUTER PRINT -OUT INFORMATION
TO BE USED IN PROVIDING DATA FOR QUARTERLY REPORT AND PERSONNEL
DEPLOYMENT.
B. ACTIVITY LOGS
EACH TEAM MEMBER WILL MAINTAIN A DAILY ACTIVITY LOG DEPICTING
ALL ACTIVITIES PERFORMED DURING EACH SHIFT.
C. SUPERVISION
CLOSE SUPERVISION OF THE PROGRAM WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT AND SHIFT SUPERVISORS.
PHASE VI PREPARE FINAL PROJECT REPORT (MARCH 1988)
METHOD OF EVALUATION
USING THE DATA COMPILED IN PHASE V, THE PROJECT COORDINATOR WILL
EVALUATE HOW WELL THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES WERE ACCOMPLISHED AS
STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES INDICATED IN THIS
AGREEMENT, IT IS THE INTENT OF EACH OF THE PARTICIPATING CITIES TO
CONTINUE THE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE PROGRAM AND MAKING IT A PART
OF EACH OF THEIR COMMUNITIES' ON -GOING OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY BY ABSORBING
THEIR PRQPORTIONATE COST AMOUNTS.
OTS -38b (Rev 5/82)
SCHEDULE A -1
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT STATEMENT Explain what type of priority this
project has in your jurisdiction.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY HAS ENDORSED THIS PROJECT BY
RESOLUTION AND BY BUDGETING FUNDS AS SHOWN BELOW FOR SUPPORT OF THE PROGRAM.
THE SHERIFF AND TRAFFIC COMMANDER ARE DEDICATED TO THE GOAL OF ACCIDENT
REDUCTION AND FULLY INTEND TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT.
AGENCY CONTRIBUTION Explain what services or funds are being contrib-
uted by your agency in support of this project.
AGENCY CONTRIBUTION
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE ALL SERVICES NECESSARY FOR CO-
ORDINATION, SUPERVISION, ADMINISTRATION AND EVALUATION OF THIS PROJECT.
THE TWO'YEAR CONTRIBUTION WILL BE AS FOLLOWS:
DUI TEAM SALARIES DURING PREPARATION
PROJECT COORDINATOR /TRAFFIC COMMANDER
PROJECT SUPERVISOR /ADMIN. SERGEANT
CLERK TYPIST
TWO FULLY EQUIPPED PATROL CARS
COMMUNICATIONS COSTS
THREE (3) HAND TALKIES
MISC. SUPPLIES FORMS
SECOND YEAR COSTS 50%
100% 8,136.00
10% 8,127.00
15% 9,596.00
15% 3,900.00
100% 25,140.00
100% 2,222.00
100% 2,850.00
100% 600.00
60,571.00
30,286.00
9Q,857.00
PROGRAM INCOME GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT WILL REVERT TO EACH
PARTICIPATING CITIES GENERAL FUND AND WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR POLICE
SERVICES.
OTS -38c (Rev 5/82)
age
COST CATEGORY
FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATES
TOTAL COST
FY -1 1 FY -2 1 FY -3 1 FY -4
TO PROJECT
4 1 86 to 10 1 86 to 10 1 87 to
A. PERSONNEL COSTS 9_30_86, 9_211_A7 2 -2R -AR
Positions
$48,821.00
6,313.00
$24,557.00
51,756.00
25,875.00
6,692.00
3,346.00
39,048.00
27,423.00
3,781.00
$13,794.00
and Salaries
3 DEPUTY SHERIFF'S
6 MO. $2 12 100%
6 MO. $2,875 100%
6 MO. $2,875 50%
6 MO. $3,047 50%
COURT OVERTIME
234 HRS @26.98 @100%
234 HRS @28.60 @100%
234 HRS @28.60 50%
234 HRS @30.32 50%
•ploy.e Benefits
50.3
Total
Personnel Costs
$79,691.00
$126,717.00
$44,998
$251,406.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSE
Total.
Travel Expense
400.00
100.00
500.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Total Contractual
Services
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
SCHEDULE B
DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE
nvrc._la,4 loo.. c /A,1
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WILL REQUIRE $258,906.00 TO IMPLEMENT THE DUI PROGRAM.
PERSONNEL COSTS
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WILL HIRE AN ADDITIONAL THREE OFFICERS. THE NEW OFFICERS
WILL REPLACE THE THREE OFFICERS TAKEN FROM THE PRESENT PATROL COMPLIMENT TO
BECOME PART OF THE DUI TEAM. THE FUNDS WILL BE USED TO PAY 100% OF THE DUI TEAM'S
SALARIES FOR THE FIRST OPERATIONAL YEAR AND 50 OF THEIR SALARIES THE SECOND YEAR.
THE SALARY CATEGORY REPRESENTS THE THREE OFFICER'S BASE SALARIES, PLUS THE
ESTABLISHED COUNTY BENEFIT RATE OF 50.3
TRAVEL EXPENSE
THE TRAVEL PORTION OF THE BUDGET WILL BE UTILIZED FOR TRAVEL AND PER DIEM TO TRAIN
THE THREE DUI TEAM MEMBERS. THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY TRAVELING TO AREA POLICE
DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED SUCCESSFUL DRUNK DRIVING ENFORCEMENT TEAMS.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
SCHEDULE B -1
BUDGET NARRATIVE
THE PUBLICITY AND TRAINING FUNDS WILL BE UTILIZED TO TRAIN THE DUI TEAM MEMBERS
BY SENDING THEM TO DRUG ALCOHOL RECOGNITION TRAINING SEMINARS. WE WILL ALSO
UTILIZE THESE FUNDS TO PURCHASE AN INTOXILIZER TO BE INSTALLED IN A SECURE,
CENTRALIZED LOCATION WITHIN THE CONTRACT CITIES TO DECREASE "PROCESSING" TIME OF
ARRESTEES. PUBLIC INFORMATION MATERIALS FOR LOCAL RADIOS, T.V. AND NEWS PAPERS
WILL BE PURCHASED FROM THESE FUNDS.
nPC_.,ot loo.. t /il,l
Page 2
FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATES
TOTAL COST
TO PROJECT
•COST CATEGORY
FY -1 FY -2 1 FY -3 j FY -4
D. NON EXPENDABLE
PROPERTY
4 -1 -86 to 10 -1 -86 to 10 -1 -87 to
9 -30 -86 9 -30 -87 2 -28 -88
INTOXILIZER
Total
5,500.00
Non- Expendable
Property
5, 500.00
5,500.00
E. OTHER DIRECT
COSTS
Total
Other Direct Costs
1,100.00
400.00
1,500.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
Total
Indirect Costs
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATE
r
All Categories
$86,691.00
$127,217.00
$44,998.00
$258,906.00
..�r fln_
Ts-•. 1 (1 Q ,4
SCHEDULE B
DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE
PTS
L/
oTS -389 (Rev S/82) Instruction on Reverse
SCHEDULE C
INITIAL EVALUATION DATA TORN
3 Years Alpo
19133-
2 Yaara
19
Alpo
j
Lust Yu[
1ila
Jan 1
Mar 31
April 1
June 30
July 1
Sept 30,
Oct 1
Dec 31
Jan 1
Mar 31
April 1
June 30
July 1
Sept 30
Oct 1
Dec 31
Jan 1
,Mar 31
April 1
June 30
July 1
Sept 30
Oct 1
Dec 31
la 7 v+ .4 A. h N LI 2 h MI
Accidents
O
O
N
O
O
M
O O
0
1
O
Fatal,
DUI as PCP
All other
TOTAL
-1211.
DUI as Pcr
All other
TOTAL
16
110
12
103
14
129
143
9
111
8
111
MT
15
119
134"
15
140
11
133
14
92
12
107
10
119
LC)
126
115
12U
155
144
106
119
129
Property Damage only,
20
151
14
126
11
107
17
153
=Cr
15
133
6
139
11
132
7
179
12
120
11
140
'Mr
13
127
6
133
All as erF
All Other
TOTAL
-1/ 1
11
148
145
143
1§
132
1 40
139
1 ozzzE -1
Enforcement DUI
111
79
69
94
93
95
87
89
91
88
124
127
Patrol Misdemeanor i
Felony DUI Arrests
Averse RAC/DUI/Arrest
.17
r .17
.15
.18
.18
.21
.15
.19
.18
.17
.16
.21
P
T
5
C
R
A
N
T
0
N
L
Y
Enforcement PTS
Patrol Hazard Citations
Agency Enforcement Index
r
0. h
0
Miles of Patrolled Roadway
I
I
PTS
L/
oTS -389 (Rev S/82) Instruction on Reverse
SCHEDULE C
INITIAL EVALUATION DATA TORN
AGENDA BILL NO. /0
DATE:
4/2/86 (4/16/86)
DEPT.: Engineering
SUBJECT:
Suumary:
We have been requested by the Saratoga Parkside Homeowners Associ
ation to prohibit parking on portions of Saratoga Avenue in, front
of their complex. The requested prohibition would be two spaces,
each at the southwesterly side of both driveway approaches, This
prohibition would provide better sight distance for vehicles exit,
ing.the driveways and would make it safer for vehicles entering the
driveways. There is an existing fire hydrant adjacent to and south
westerly of the southwesterly.driveway which from time to time
vehicles park in front of.
Fiscal Impacts:
The cost for painting the 88' of curb red would be less than
$100.00, and would come from the Traffic Safety Budget -41 -70)
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Resolution No. MV
2. Sketch showing location
3. Letter from Saratoga Parkside Homeowners Association.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. MV
of Saratoga Avenue.
Council Action
4/16: Adopted MV 165.
CITY OF SARATOGA
NO PARKING PORTIONS OF SARATOGA AVENUE
AGENDA ITEM `f'"C
CITY MGR. APPROV
Prohibiting Parking on,POrtions
RES O L UT /ON PRO /S /7//1/G PAR/ //VG
ON A PORT /ON OF SARATOGA AVENUE
11
RES O L U ?"ION NO. MI?"
OCAT /ON
CO
PROS PeC
L OCAT /ON MA P
/1/07 TO S,'.4 F-•-
e/ /1
0/
'1
r
r'/
fi e
9/
oft i 4 4
4
r, 4� l// 4
t
SCALE:
_S/�
r
1,
�F� e
4" k
c
/,I/
3
R %/n/"// n/1 S,4R4 TOG,; /'1 RKS. IDE
/a/
R SARATOGA PARKSIDE
Homeowner's Association
RECEIVED
MAR 31 1986
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Robert S. Shook
Director of Community Development
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Shook:
March 28, 1986
This request is submitted, based on comments made by many of the
72 families residing in Saratoga Parkside, regarding a traffic
problem which can result in serious injury to individuals and
personal property damage.
Saratoga Parkside has two entrances on Saratoga Avenue where traffic
travels at a speed of 40 to 60 miles per hour. When cars of non-
residents are parked in the parking lane on Saratoga Avenue near an
entrance, many times encroaching into the entrance itself, it forces
the cars coming into the project to come to an almost complete stop
in order to make an entrance. This situation, with ever increasing
traffic and excessive speed, can conceivably cause a serious collision.
Attention is also directed to the fire hydrant located at the south
entrance to the project, a location where vehicles are frequently
parked. Residents leaving the project are also restricted in their
view of oncoming traffic.
To minimize a possible serious accident, it is requested that a dis-
tance of 44 feet, two parking spaces, be designated as a NO PARKING
ZONE at the southerly side of each entrance. Implementation of the
foregoing would allow any cars entering the project to pull into the
restricted zone and, without endangering themselves or other traffic,
make a safe entrance.
Your cooperation in this matter is deeply appreciated by the residents
and members of Saratoga Parkside Homeowners Association.
/hm
Enclosure: Map
$ilcerely,
Jerome J. /Lohr, President
18949 Sara Park Circle
Saratoga, CA 95070
408/257 -9060
AGENDA BILL NO. 1 04
DATE: 4/7/86 (4/16/86)
DEPT.: Engineering
SUBJECT: INN AT SARATOGA STORM DRAIN REIMBURSEMENT
Summary:
In 1974 the City obligated itself to install a storm drain extension
from the end of Third Street to Saratoga Creek.
The developers of the Inn at Saratoga have installed the. facilities
and are requesting to be reimbursed.
Fiscal Impacts:
CITY OF SARATOGA
1
$16,356.80 from the Storm Drain Fund
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Resolution Appropriating. Funds. from Storm_ Drain Fuxid
2. Staff Report
3. April 3, 1974 Agreement of Sale and Compromise Agreement
Recoumended Action:
1. Approve and add Third Street Drain to 1985-86 Capital
Improvement Budget
2. Adopt Resolution appropriating $16,356.80
3. Authorize payment to the Inn at Saratoga
Council Action
Approved and Adopted Appropriation Resolution 2241.22..
AGENDA ITEM -71°
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
INN AT SARATOGA STORM DRAIN REIMBURSEMENTS
DATE: 4
COUNCIL MEETING: 4
In 1974 the City entered into an "Agreement of Sale and Compromise
Agreement" with the Kochers and Tylers (copy attached) relative to
that property on which the Inn at Saratoga is being built. Incor-
porated in said agreement (Paragraph 4, Page 6) is the provision
for the City to extend the storm drain from its terminus on the
slope at the end of Third Street to Saratoga Creek.
While the agreement specified that the extension should be made
within a reasonable time, it was decided that to construct the
storm drain prior to the on -site improvements might require reloca-
tion. Therefore the system that the City was obligated to provide
has been incorporated into the construction of the Inn. The devel-
opers have requested reimbursement for that portion which is the
responsibility of the City. That amount is $16,356.80 and should
come from the Storm Drain Fund.
I would recommend that the Council add the Third Street Drain to
the 1985 -86 Capital Improvement Budget, appropriate $16,356.80
from the Storm Drain Fund and authorize payment of that amount to
the Inn at Saratoga.
RSS:cd
Attachment
Ro rt S. Shook
City Engineer
AGREEMENT OF SALE
AND
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 3rd day
of April 1974, by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
Municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CITY", and SAMUEL L.
TYLER, RUTH M. TYLER, GEORGE S. KOCHER and.RAISA R. KOCHER,
hereinafter collectively referred to asTYLER/KOCHER.
RECITALS:
A. Reference is made to that certain Preliminary Title
Report issued by First AMerican Title Guaranty Company under
date of March 15, 1974, and being Order No. SA 6-0564 WL, and
to Parcels 1, 2 and 4 therein-described. TYLER/KOCEEA are the
owners of all three of said parcels of real property, all of
which are generally located near Fourth Street and Big Basin
Way in the City of Saratoga, Parcel 1 being a triangular parcel
of some 500 sq. ft., Parcel 2 being a 1.22 acre parcel which
is traversed in part by Saratoga Creek, and which parcel is
bounded on the North by CITY's Wildwood Park, and Parcel 4
being some 4,950 sq. ft. in area. Parcel..2 therein referred-
to is the same parcel as is hereafter referred to as Parcel 13
of the Saratoga Village Parking District No. 1.
For many years the Santa Clara County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District.plan lines have and had shown
Saratoga Creek to the East of the' Fourth Street Bride as
having an ultimate realignment irOa Northerly direction generally
to the Northerly property line of Parcel No. 2, also being the
Southerly boundary line of Wildwood Park, which creek realign.7
ment is more particularly shown on that certain Record of Survey
recorded October 2, 1967 in Book 228 at' Page 50 of Maps,
-1-
Santa Clara County Official Records.
B. Saratoga Village' Parking District No. 1, formed
by the CITY on or about May 4, 1966 provided, inter alia,
fora total of some 200 off street vehicle parking spaces,
assessing some 14 separate parcels therefor for a total assess-
ment of some $320,043.00 ,and allocating and prorating such
assessments based upon the anticipated ultimate developed use
of each of said 14 parcels. Utilizing such method, Parcel No. 2
above- described (designated Parcel No. 13 under said assessment)
was assessed the sum of $50,846.52 for said off street parking
spaces, based upon 12,371 anticipated developable square feet
requiring 26 ofd- street vehicle parking spaces at 4732 sq. ft.
per space.
C. On or about May 17, 1972, CITY and Santa Clara County
Flood Control and Water District entered into a written contract
providing, inter alia, that Saratoga Creek East of the Fourth
Street Bridge would be so realigned in a Northerly direction
in accord with the hereinabbve referred to future realignment
plan line, so as to have the effect of increasing the amount
of usable land available to Parcel No. 2. Said agreement, in
sofar as it was to effect the moving of the Southeasterly top
of bank of said Saratoga Creek in a Northerly directioh is
concerned, constituted a continuation of a previous CITY DISTRICT
agreement of August 12, 1969. Said proposed creek re- channeliza-
tion in a Northerly direction was taken into consideration in
assessing Parcel No. 2 for its parking spaces.
D. CITY plans to seek a rescission or other termina-
tion of its said agreement of May 17,. :1972 with tha Santa Clara
County Flood Control and Water District, dons not plan to re-
align or otherwise change the channel of said creek nor move
-2-
E. A dispute and has arisen and presently
exists between TYLER /KOCHER and CITY, in that, inter alia,
TYLER KOCHER claims that it will be damaged by the failure to
relocate said creek as previously planned, both as to loss of
usable land and as to over assessment for off street parking
spaces, and CITY disputes all such claims. CITY, in turn, is
desirous of acquiring Parcels 1 and 4, and that portion of
Parcel 2 lying North of the Southeasterly top of the bank of
Saratoga Creek as it presently exists, to add all of said parcels
to its Wildwood Park, and to control said creek in the future,
and to split the assessment between CITY and TYLER KOCHER on
the Southeasterly top of the bank in a Northerly direction
as previously anticipated; such decision will decrease the
usability of'Parcel,No. 2 to such that 18 of the 26 vehicle
parking spaces will no longer be necessary, and will in fact
elitinate lands otherwise to be recovered.by such creek
relocation on which to place additional spaces, which spaces
have not yet been constructed.
a pro -rata basis. Both parties hereto are desirous of settling
any and all disputes relating to the foregoing transactions
and relating to all prior dealings between the parties hereto
relating to said lands and premises and the proposed
of said creek, and in consideration of the complete settlement
and compromise of all of said disputed claims, and for the
additional considerations as hereinafter set forth,
IT IS HERESY AGREED by and between the parties hereto
as follows:
1. TYLER KOCHER agrees to sell_ and convey to CITY
and CITY agrees to purchase, that portion of Parcel No. 2 which
lies Northerly of the existing Southeasterly top of bank of
5 .5 1:1=
i f
Saratoga Creek, consisting of soma 24,016 sq. ft. of area,
together Parcel 1 consisting of some 500 sq. ft., and
.Parcel 4 consisting of some 4,950 sq. ft., for the cash sum
and of $2.00 per sq. ft'. 'Said conveyance shall include
an easement for storm drainage purposes across the remainder
of said Parcel 2 not conveyed to CITY, 10 ft, in width and
running in a 'generally Northwesterly direction from the
termination of Third Street at the Southeasterly boundary
of Parcel 2, Northerly to the Southeasterly boundary line
of the portion of Parcel.2 being sold and conveyed to CITY.
CITY', at CITY's sole cost and expense, will cause
a survey to be made of the Southeasterly top of bank lire of
Saratoga Creek as it traverses the entire parcel, of the
storm drain easement, and of such other property lines as
may be necessary in order to determine the exact square footage
to be sold and conveyed and in order to compute the exact
purchase. price thereof.
Title shall be free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances, save and except for real property taxes a lien,
but not yet due or payable, and Exceptions 5 6 and 7, herein
above referred to Preliminary Title Report, and except Saratoga j.
Village Parking District No. 1 Assessment 13A, with a balance
of unpaid principal of not to exceed $30,654.00. Evidence of
title shall be a standard foram owner's Policy of-Title Insurance
insuring condition of title in CITY as hereinabove set forth,
in an amount equal to the purchase price thereof, and title
insurance premium, escrow costs and charges, assessment segre-
gation and any and all other costs and expenses of sale shall
be paid by CITY. Real property taxes be prorated on close
of escrow. All installments of Saratoga Village Parking District No. 1
assessment through the fiscal year 1973/74 shall be paid by
-4-
TYLER/KOCHER, without proration. Close of escrow shall
be within ten (10) days after completion of the assessment
split and division hereinafter referred to in Paragraph 2.
CITY representsIthat it is purchasing said parcel
to „add to its existing Wildwood Park, and is purchasing and
acquiring the same under the threat of.eminent domain.
2.: Immediately upon the effective date of this agree-
ment will initiate the requisite proceedings in connection
with Saratoga Village Parking District No. 1 to divide and
split the assessment between that portion of Parcel' No. 2
being purchased by CITY (hereafter called Parcel 13-A), and
that portion of Parcel 2 being retained by TYLER/KOCHER (here-
inafter referred to as Parcel 13-B), go that the assessment
applicable to Parcel 13-A will be 62.2% of the total, and
that applicable to Parcel 13-3 will be 31.8% ofthe total,
and the amounts remaining unpaid from and after July 1, 1974
after such division shall be no more than as follows:
PARCEL 13-A (CITY)
.PARCEL 13-B (TYLER/XOCHER)
Principal $30,653.76 Principal (parking) $14,274.02
Interest 16,928.72 Principal (sewer) 704.00
Interest 7,868.08
The net assessment reduction for Parcel 13-B is
such that the usable area will support construction of_ 3,800
plus or minus square feet of floor space and thus necessitate
eight (8) off-street parking spaces spaces are
4
credited to the site by the Off-Stree: Parkinz_Distric_t. In
the event that TYLER/KOCHER is legally able to and does con-
struct. buildings or other structures with floor space in excess
of 3,800 sq. ft., they agree to providc,such additional off-
street parking spaces as may then be-required according to the
same ratio originally imposed in the-establishment of Village Parking
District No. 1, and in accord with the ordinances of the City, and at
TYLER/KOCHER's sole cost and expense.
-5-
'3. Contemporaneously with close of escrow on the
sale to CITY in accord with Paragraph 1 hereof, CITY will
cause TYLER /KOCHER to be pro -rata reimbursed in cash for
that portion of the.assessment payments theretofore made by
TYLER /KOCHER under said parking district assessments, which
represent the 18 off street vehicle parking spaces of the
total of 26 for which said parcel was unable. to make any
use and did not make any use, from the institution of said
_assessment to and including all payments made through June 30,
1974.
Said sum is computed, and is, as follows:
18/26 x $22,402.00 $15,457.38
C
4. CITY, at CITY's sole cost and expense, will
install an underground store drain inthestorm drain, easement
granted CITY per Paragraph 1 hereof, connecting the existing
terminus of said stom drain at the Northerly terminus of
Third Street, to said Saratoga Creek, said construction to
be completed within a reasonable time after close of escrow.
5. Except for the obligations created under the terms
of this Agreement, each of the parties hereto does hereby r,
release and relieve the other from and against any and all
claims, actions, demands, suits or liability arising -or
resulting from any actual or claimed- previous understanding
or agreement between the partieshereto, or any actual or
claimed representations froth one party to the other, relating
to any of the subject matter of the within Agreement, includ-
ing, without limiting the foregoing, relating to any realignment
of, or- failure to realign, Saratoga Creek or constructing or
reconstructing the Fourth Street Bridge across said creek,
or relating to any actual or, alleged promises, representations
-6-
t
or agreements of Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water
District, or relating to any assessments for off street
parking or• condemnation of.any lands of TYLER /KOCHER and any
damages resulting therefrom in said assessment district
proceedings.
6. This Agreement is precedently conditional upon
the mutual rescission by CITY and-Santa Clara County Flood
Control and Water District of the hereinabove referred to
Agreement dated May 17, 1972 relating to the realignment of
Saratoga Creek, and the effective date of this Agreement
shall be the date of such rescission.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
A ment the day and year first above written.
A Ti
CITY is
A
APPROVED AS TO FORK:
t
.City Attorney.
(ity,, of Saratoga
CITY CF SARATOGA, a Xunic pal
corporation
CITY
ALL L L. lYI
i
RUTH M 'l Y 179!
c
S.
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 4/7/86 (4/16/86)
DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT: FINAL BUILDING SITE APPROVAL SDR -1610,
LOMA RIO DRIVE, BRIAN KELLY (1 lot)
Summary:
1. SDR 1610 is ready for Final Approval.
2. All requirements for City and other agencies have been met.
3. All fees have been paid.
Fiscal Impacts:
None
Council Action
Approved.
1 6
CITY OF SARATOGA
Exhibits /Attachments:
1. Resolution No. 1610-02
2. Report to Planning Commission
3. Location Map
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 1610 -02 attached.
AGENDA ITEM 4
SECTION 1:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO. 1610 -02
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING BUILDING SITE OF BRIAN KELLY
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as
follows:
Lot 2 of Tract 1636 recorded in Book 68 of Maps, Page 14
in the office of the County of Santa Clara and submitted
to the City Engineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as
one (1) individual building site.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro-
duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regular
meeting held on the 16th day of. April
by the following vote:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
19 86
EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residential
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential
PARCEL SIZE: .8,065 sq. ft.
Left Side: *8.5 Ft. Right Side:
*HEIGHT: *18.7 Ft. IMPERVIOUS COVERA E: *37%
OMET o4 c0 o C�
REPORT TO PLANNING Cliy of Sarato� *Revised: 12/11/85
APPROVED BYE
APN: 397 62
DATE{ *Revised: 11/26/85
25-
INITIALSI ALY Commt5..9.ion Meeting: 12/11/85
APPLICATION NO. LOCATION: SDR -1610, U -712, A -1134;
14101 Loma Rio Drive
APPLICANT: Brian Kelly OWNER: Brian Kelly Barbara Harris
ACTION REOUESTED: Building Site, Design Review and Variance Approvals for a
new, one -story single family residence to be constructed within 10.0 ft. of
the rear property line.
OTHER APPROVALS REOUIRED: Final Building Site Approval, Demolition Permits
for existing home and building permits for proposed home.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Categorically Exempt (This project was noticed
for a Negative Declaration but later determined to be exempt)
ZONING: R-1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential- Medium
Density Single Family
NATURAL' FEATURES VEGETATION: The lot is presently developed with a single
story residence. The building site is level but the lot slopes gradually
downward to the rear.
SLOPE AT BUILDING SITE: Level AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 6.3%
GRADING REOUIRED: Fill: 125 Cu. Yds Depth: 2.5 Ft.
*PROPOSED SETBACKS: Front: 25 Ft. Rear: 1 story 10.0 Ft.*
*9 Ft.
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1610, V -712, A -1134, Kelly /Harris
SIZE OF STRUCTURE:
1st Floor(including garage): 2,534 sq. ft.
Second Floor: -0-
TOTAL: 2,534 sq. ft.
11/26/35
Page 2
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: The project does not meet all the requirements and
standards of the zoning ordinance in that the required rear yard setback
in this zoning district is 25 ft. for a single story structure and the rear
setback proposed is 10.0 ft. for the one -story portion of the building.
MATERIALS COLORS PROPOSED: Horizontal 1 x 8 siding with stone veneer;
colors are doeskin with loam trim. Roof materials are brown medium shakes.
SDR -1610
The project proposal is to demolish an existing single -story 940 sq. ft.
home and replace it with a new, two -story residence. Building Site
Approval is required as this type of review has not been done on the
subject lot within the last 15 years.
In the review of the Tentative Map by outside agencies, one concern was
raised by the Sanitation District. Apparently the sewer line for the
subject parcel (Lot 1) comes across a portion of the lot to the right (Lot
2). Verification that an adequate sanitary sewer easement was recorded in
favor of Lot 1 will be required.
PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General
Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance of the
City of Saratoga.
The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced
against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
The demolition of the existing residence and construction of the new home
are categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1610
(Exhibit "B -1" filed 11/15/85) subject to the following conditions:
I. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance
No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of
Survey or parcel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and
re fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of
final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any
street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regu-
lations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements
Report to Planning Commission
SDR 1610, V -712, A 1134, Kelly /Harris, Lomo Rio
11/26/85
Page 3
of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance
for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance
with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other
Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply
with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and
set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60.
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. Pay storm drainage fee in effect at time of obtaining Final
Approval.
B. Construct standard driveway approaches.
C. Watercourses must be left free of obstacles which will change,
retard or prevent flow.
D. Obtain encroachment permit from Department of Community
Development.
III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES
A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional.
1. Soils
2. Foundation Investigation /Design
B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing:
1. Grading (limits of cuts, fills; slopes, cross sections,
existing and proposed elevations, earthwork quantities)
2. Drainage details (conduit type, slope, outfall, location,
etc.)
3. Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for
walls 3 ft. or higher.
4. All existing structures, with notes as to remain or be
be removed.
5. Erosion control measures.
6. Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using
record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's
name, etc.
C. If any existing 'structures will be removed during the rainy
season, care should be taken to minimize erosion and the lot
must be fully weatherized.
C C
Report to Planning Commission
SDR -1610, V-712, A -1134, Kelly /Harris, Loma Rio
IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4
A. The existing residence is connected to sanitary sewer.
B. District maps indicate probable location of connection at main
within adjacent Lot 2. Verification is required that an ade-
quate easement was recorded in favor of Lot 1.
V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT
A. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable.
VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
A. A sanitary sewer connection will be required.
B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works.
VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans
showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to
the SCVWD for review, certification, and registration.
B. Site grading is not to result in siltation of Saratoga Creek.
All cuts and side'slopes shall be planted with erosion resistant
vegetation.
VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PLANNING DIVISION
11/26/85
Page 4
A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of
permits.
B. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City
Ordinances.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, individual structures
shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to evaluate the
potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide,
to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities on /in the subdivision /building site.
*D. Variance approval is required for home location shown on site
development plan.
V -712, SDR -1610, A -1134, Kelly /Harris, Loma Rio
A variance is required for this application in that the home is to be
located within 10.0 ft. of the rear property line. The existing single
story home has a rear yard setback of 21 ft.
The lot is a substandard lot of record and has an unusual trapezoidal
shape. The angle of the rear property lines does pose problems in locating
a home on site so that rear yard setbacks may be met. Additionally, the
Planning Commission has given the direction to the applicant that a single
story home would be a more appropriate design for this lot. All these
issues make the variance findings for encroachment into the rear yard
setback easier to make.
Report to Planning Commission
V -712
Although there appears to be appropriate reasons for allowing an
encroachment into the rear yard setback, Staff has a concern about the
degree of encroachment. The 10 ft. rear yard setback requested is only
two fifths of the minimum rear yard setback-required. Even for lots which
are substandard in depth (which this lot is not), the exceptions section of
the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 20 ft. in the rear. The
applicant does have the right to build a reasonably sized home, but what
must also be considered is that the size of homes proposed on three of the
adjoining substandard lots are only about 2,000 sq. ft. in size. Because
of the unusual shape of the lot, Staff would recommend a minimum 15 ft.
rear yard setback. This setback will not unreasonably reduce the size of
the home, but will afford more open space and reduce privacy impacts to
the neighbor to the rear.
FINDINGS
1. Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Physical Hardship
The trapezoidal shape of this substandard lot, the angle of the rear
property line and the Planning Commission's decision that a single
story is a more appropriate design create practical difficulties in
placing a reasonably sized home on the lot which would meet required
rear yard setbacks.
Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
There are exceptional circumstances in this variance request in that
the rear property line of. this substandard lot has an unusual angle
which makes it unique from adjacent properties and creates a practical
difficulty in locating a reasonably sized home on the lot that meets
rear yard setbacks. In addition, the Planning Commission has stated
that a single story would be a more appropriate design for this lot.
This eliminates the option for a two story home which could maintain
setb'ac•ks.
3. Common Privilege
It is a common privilege to have a reasonably sized home which is
11/26/85
Page 5
ANALYSIS CONCERNS
Report to Planning Commission
V -712, SDR -1610, A -1134, Kelly /Harris, Lomo Rio
compatible in terms of bulk with those existing residences in the area.
In placing a single -story home on the lot, given the angle of the rear
property line from which rear setbacks are measured, the buildable
portion of the lot is significantly reduced, particularly in the
westerly corner.
4. Special Circumstances
5. Public Health. Safety and Welfare
11/26/85
Page 6
Because practical difficulties and exceptional circumstances exist
which would unreasonably limit the development of the lot, granting the
variance for the rear setback would not be considered a special
privilege.
Granting the variance to permit an encroachment into the rear yard
setback will not be detrimental the public health, safety or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance per the Staff
Report revised 11/26/85 and Exhibit "B -1 with the following conditions:
1. Any modification to the proposed site development plan shall require
Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
2. A minimum rear yard setback of 10 ft. shall be maintained.
A -1134 DESIGN REVIEW
The subject parcel is one of nine substandard lots which extend along the
northerly side of Loma Rio. All of these lots have single -story homes
which are much smaller than other houses in the neighborhood. Apparently,
these smaller residences were constructed originally as manual labor
housing for a developer in the area. Seven of the nine lots have been
purchased by another developer who has expressed the intention to redevelop
the lots. Plans for expanding the existing homes on Lots 3, 4 and 5 have
already been submitted for building permits, and exemptions from, the
Tentative Building Site Approval for 50% expansions have been applied for.
The new homes on these three lots will be single story and approximately
2,000 sq. ft. in area. However, these lots have smaller widths and are
longer in length than the subject lot.
On Squirrel Hollow Lane and Jerries Drive, many of the existing homes are
tall, two -story structures and are larger in area than the proposed home.
Therefore, the required finding on compatibility with existing residences
within 500 ft. of the property can be easily made.
The perception of bulk of the home in relationship to the lot area is
Report to Planning Commission
A-1134, Kelly /Harris, Lomo Rio
11/26/85
Page 7
reduced by the side yard setbacks proposed. Because this lot is
substandard in width, the exceptions section of the ordinance allows side
yard setbacks of 10% of lot width or 6 ft. whichever is less. For this
proposal, the applicant has maintained a 9 ft. setback on the right and
an 8.5 ft. setback to the breezeway on the left rather than the minimum 6
_ft. required. Exclusive of the breezeway, a 14.5 ft. setback to building
line is being maintained on the left. This allows for more open area
between adjacent homes as well as reduces the perception of size of the
structure.
The design of the home also helps to reduce the perception of bulk. The
home is to be single story and due to the orientation of the home on the
lot, the bulk of the home will not be as apparent as viewed from the
street. Because the lot is substandard in size, it has been a previous
policy to look at what percentage the lot area is of the zoning district's
minimum lot size requirement. This percentage has then been used to serve
as a comparison for what size the home on the substandard lot should be.
Since the size of the lot is 65% of the 12,500 sq. ft. required in this
zoning district, the floor area of the home should then be 65% of the 4,000
sq. ft. Design Review Standard, or 2,600 sq. ft. The applicants' proposal
is less than this figure.
Privacy does not appear to be a major concern of this application. The
home is single story and screened by a tall hedge along the southerly
property line. To the rear, tall pines on the adjoining lot, which is
lower in elevation, provide screening in this direction Little
landscaping exists along the northerly property line, therefore,
landscaping in this area as well as some additional landscaping along the
rear property line will mitigate any privacy concerns.
A variance approval would be required to allow the proposed rear yard
setbacks.
FINDINGS
1. Unreasonable Interference with Views or Privacy and Compatible
Infill Proiect
The height," elevation and placement of the project on the site does not
unreasonably interfere with views of the of the surrounding residences
in that the lot and surrounding parcels are level and the design of the
home is single story.
The project does not unreasonably interfere with the privacy of
surrounding residences in that the home is a single story design and
existing trees along the rear and hedge along the southerly property
line provide screening in these directions. Staff is recommending that
land"sc'aping be provided along the northerly and rear :property lines to
reduce privacy concerns.
Report to Planning Commission
A -1134, Kelly /Harris, Loma Rio
2. Preservation of the Natural Landscape
3. Perception of Excessive Bulk.
11/26/85
Page 8
The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal,
soil removal and grade changes in that the ordinance size tree on site
is to be retained and and no grading is proposed.
The project will minimize the perception ofexcessive bulk in relation
to the immediate neighborhood in that the design of the home is one
story and the size of the home is less than 65% of the Design Review
Standard for gross floor area, or 2,600 sq. ft.
4. Compatible Bulk and Height
The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes
within 500 ft. and in the same zoning district in that there are
several homes of comparable size and height within the area.
The project will not interfere with the light, air, and solar access of
adjacent properties in that adequate setbacks are being maintained and
the home is a single story design.
5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards
Minimal grading is proposed, but all City Standards shall be met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval per the Staff Report dated
11/26/85 and Exhibits "B -1, C -1 and D -1 subject to the following
conditions:
Height of structure, measured in accordance with Ordinance NS-3,
Section 14.8 shall not exceed 19 ft.
2. Total gross floor area for all structures on site shall not exceed
2,600 sq. ft.
3. No ordinance size tree shall be removed without first obtaining a Tree
Removal Permit.
4. Landscaping for screening along rear the rear and northerly property
lines shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
5. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant shall submit the
following for Planning Division review and approval:
A. tandscape plans for screening along the rear and northerly pro
perty lines.
B. Any modifications to the proposed development plan or elevations.
Report to Planning Commission
A -1134, Kelly /Harris, Loma Rio
6. Variance approval required for rear yard setbacks proposed in this
application.
_APPROVED:
P.C. Agenda: 12/11/85
DL /dsc
Diana Lewis
Planner
11/26/85
Page 9
A
C 4.
let
1
7
1
OFIMMINs
1
'0 •04n4111
•I
71..x.
.4.■ 401 re,*
p4
ftp7
41E4
Ai
M in
a.
rays .•11P.:fiTILSW
111111111 Mr II II M MINP I
I L U RuL
Ell
gW411•Mt•
Mk
II M
»•.yy
1111111MNii E.
AZIMilt
IAN UMW
dim WM
MI
O IMI
4 Wit
Ipe".
1/1 0 0 0
410 v*V•
I
5ARAT04A NIGH SCHOOL
cif i_O
•:r
R-1-12,500
141141a4.41.,
0
Ag lv
0
4.4as pioiiv
04
As 9-t- At• *t■ i t4
'4
r J
12,500
5Dn ItoIgV-7!2
Y'
1
2000(
AGENDA BILL Na G' O
DATE: April 4, 1986 (April 16, 1986)
DEPT.: Engineering
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA ITEM
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1, (Existing)
CITY MGR. APPROVAL te
Summary: For the past five years, the City of Saratoga has utilized the provisions
of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972" to raise the revenue necessary to fund
required maintenance and incidental costs within the Landscaping and Lighting
District LLA -1. Pursuant to the Act, proceedings are required for each fiscal
year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within the District.
Resolution No. directs the City Engineer to prepare a report describing the
improvements, the costs, the areas involved and the proposed assessments for each
parcel. Resolution No. appoints Wilson, Morton, Assaf. and McElligott as the
attorneys for the district. This district includes all previously existing light-
ing districts Azule, Azule annexed, .Quito and Saratoga Village, Arroyo de Saratoga,
Tricia Woods; three (3) Park Maintenance Districts, Manor Drive, Fredericksburg
Drive and Greenbrier; one.(1) Parking District, Village Parking District No. 1,
Meadow Brook, Saratoga Sunnyvale, Leuther Court, Bonnet Way, Brookview School Dis-
trict.
It is anticipated that the Engineer's Report will be ready for preliminary approval
at the May 7, 1986 meeting of the City Council. Also, at the May 7, 1986 meeting
the resolution of intention of fixing time and place of hearing (hearing should be
held on June 4, 1986) should be passed.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance servicing and lighting energy are
charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The
.Santa- Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the taxes
and, in turn, remit to the City.
Exhibits /Attachments
1. Resolution No. together with Exhibit "A"
2. Resolution No.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. a resolution describing improvements and directing
preparation of Engineer's Report for fiscal year 1986 -87. Adopt Resolution. No.
appointing Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott as attorneys for the district.
Council Action
Approved.
00? -36'
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
WMAM:JEB:cjw 03/27/86 12c
A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986 1987
-.CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows
1. This Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets
and Highways Code of the State of California, conduct proceedings for
the formation of the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1 and for the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year
1980 1981, and did, on June 18, 1980, pursuant to proceedings duly
had, adopt its Resolution No. 950 -D, A Resolution Overruling Protests
and Ordering the Formation of an Assessment .District and the
Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessment;
2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and
it is the intention of said Council to undertake proceedings for the
levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of
land in said District, for the construction or installation of
improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof
for the Fiscal Year 1986 1987.
3. The improvements to be constructed or installed, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly
described in'Exhibit AN hereto attached and by reference incorporated
0 herein.
4.. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable
upon said District, the exterior boundaries of which District are the
composite and consolidated area as more particularly shown on a map
thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the City to which
reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by
a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District
and of any zone thereof and shall govern for all details as to the
extent of the assessment district.
5. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to
prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the
assessment district by its distinctive designation, specifying the
fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year,
presenting the following:
a) plans and specifications of the existing
improvements and for proposed new
improvements, if any, to be made within
the assessment district or within any
zone thereof;
b) an estimate of the costs of said proposed
new improvements, if any, to be made, the
costs of maintenance or servicing, or
both, thereof, and of any existing
improvements, together with the
incidental expenses in connection
therewith;
-2-
c) a diagram showing the exterior boundaries
d)
of the assessment district and of any
zones within said district and the lines
and dimensions of each lot or parcel of
land within the district as such lot or
parcel of land is shown on the County
Assessor's map for the fiscal year to
which the report applies, each of which
lots or parcels of land shall be
identified by a distinctive
letter on said diagram; and
a proposed assessment of the total amount
of the estimated costs and expenses of
the proposed new improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, and of any existing improvements
upon the several lots or parcels of
land in said district in proportion to
the estimated benefits to be received by
such lots or parcels of land respectively
from said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both,
thereof, and of the expenses incidental
thereto.
number
or
6. The office of Community Development Regulation of said City
be, and is hereby, designated as the office to answer inquiries
regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted
during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408) 867 -3438, Extension 30.
-4-
b) The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 4, 5, 6 and 7,
as hereinafter described, of public lighting facilities for
the lighting of any public places, including ornamental
standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes,
vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs,
platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts,
switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits,
appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the
cost of repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part
thereof, electric current or energy, gas or other
illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or
for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zones 1, 2 and 3 as
hereinafter described, of landscaping, including trees,
shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary,
fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities,
including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all
or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health
and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for
disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish,
debris and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of
any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the
maintenance of any other improvements.
The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 8 as
hereinafter described, of landscaping, including trees,
shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary,
fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities
and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any
public places, including ornamental standards, luminaires,
poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits,
pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces,
transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors,
meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and
appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or
replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the
life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including
cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or
treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings,
rubbish, debris and other solid waste, electric current or
energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public
•lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any
other improvements, water for the irrigation of any
landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the
maintenance of any other improvements.
EXHIBIT "A"
-i-
d) The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 9 as
hereinafter described, of landscaping, including trees,
shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation, statuary,
fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities,
including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all
or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health
and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for
disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish,
debris and other solid waste, water for the irrigation of
any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the
maintenance of any other improvements.
e) The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 10 and 11 as
hereinafter described, of landscaping, including trees,
shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation, statuary,
fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities,
including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all
or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health
and beauty of landscaping, including" cultivation,
irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for
disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish,
debris and other solid waste, water for irrigation of any
landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the
maintenance of any other improvements.
f) The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, within Zone 12, 13, 14 and
15 as hereinafter described, of landscaping, including
trees, shrubs, grass, or other ornamental vegetation,
statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and
facilities, including the cost of repair, removal or
replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the
life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including
cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or
treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings,
rubbish, debris and other solid waste, water for irrigation
of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains or the
maintenance of any other improvements.
EXHIBIT' "A"
-ii-
O06 -36
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986 1987
WMAM:JEB:cjw 03/27/86 12c
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, that
WHEREAS, this Council has determined to undertake proceedings for
the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels
of land in City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the
construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof for the Fiscal Year 1986 1987; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served
by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct of
said proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows:
1. That the law firm of WILSON MORTON ASSAF McELLIGOTT, San
Mateo, California, be, and it is hereby, appointed and employed to do
and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said
proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it is hereby, fixed at
not to exceed $1,200.00.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA BILL NO. /0-57 AGENDA ITEM
DATE: 4/7/86 (4/16/86)
DEPT.: Engineering CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT:
Exhibits /Attachments
Council Action
Approved.
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA-1._ (Annexation)
5113
Summary:
We have been requested by Dividend Development Corporation for Tract 7736 along
Prospect Road to utilize the provision of the Landscape and Lighting District
LLA -1.
Fiscal Impacts
The costs for the administration, maintenance servicing and lighting energy are
charged to the zone within the District, based on benefit received. The Santa
Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amount through the taxes and, in
turn, remit to "the City.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. to undertake proceedings for the annexation of territory
to an existing assessment. Adopt Resolution No. appointing Wilson, Morton,
Assaf and McElligott as the attorneys for the annexation.
This would raise the revenue necessary to fund required maintenance and incidental,
costs of the landscape along Prospect Road. Pursuant to the Act, proceedings are
required for each fiscal year during which assessment is to be levied and collected
within the District.
Resolution No. determines to undertake proceedings for the annexation of
territory to an existing. assessment district, describes the improvements and directs
the City Engineer to prepare an Engineer's report. Resolution No, appoints
Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott as the attorneys for the annexation.
It is anticipated that the Engineer's report will be ready for .preliminary approval
at the May 7, 1986 meeting of the City Council. Also, at the May 1986 meeting
the. resolution of intention of fixing time and place of hearing (hearing should be
held on une 4, 19'86) should be passed.
1. Resolution No. together with Exhibits "A" and "B"
2. Resolution No.
,:604 -36
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO UNDERTAKE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS
"CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1"
PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
.ANNEXATION NO. 1986 -1
WMAM :JEB:cjw 03/27/86 12c
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, as follows:
1. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and
it is the desire of this Council to undertake proceedings for the
annexation of territory to an existing assessment district, known as
"City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 pursuant to
the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2,
Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California,
for the construction or installation therein of improvements, including
the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof.
2. The improvements to be constructed or installed, within the
territory proposed for annexation including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described in Exhibit
"A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein.
3. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable
upon the area to be annexed to said existing assessment district: The
territory which is proposed to be annexed to said existing assessment
district is composed of several parcels, the exterior boundaries of
which are more particularly described in Exhibit "B" hereto attached and
by reference made a part hereof. The annexation herein proposed shall
be known as, and is given the distinctive designation of "City of
Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation 1986 -1 A
map showing the territory proposed for annexation is on file in the
office of the City Clerk to which reference is hereby made for further
particulars.
4. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to
prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the
proposed annexation by its distinctive designation, specifying the
fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year,
presenting the following:
a) plans and specifications of the existing
improvements and for proposed improvements, if
any, to be made within the area proposed to be
annexed to the existing assessment district and
to be assessed herein;
b) an estimate of the costs of said improvements, if
any, to be made and of the costs of maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof and of any
existing improvements, together with the
incidental expenses in connection therewith;
a diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the
area to be annexed to the existing assessment
district, which is also the area proposed to be
assessed herein and the lines and dimensions of
each lot or parcel of land within said area as
such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County
Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which the
report applies, each of which lots or parcels of
lands shall be identified by a distinctive number
or letter on said diagram; and
d) a proposed assessment of the total amount of the
estimated costs and expenses of the proposed
improvements, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, upon the several
lots or parcels of land in said area proposed to
be annexed and assessed herein in proportion to
the estimated benefits to be received by such
lots or parcels of lands, respectively, from said
improvements, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses
incidental thereto.
5. The Office of the Director of Community Development
Regulation of said City be, and is hereby, designated as the office to
answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and
may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, California 95070, or by calling (408) 867 -3438,
Extension 30.
PARCEL ONE:
BEGINNING at a found granite monument at the quarter section corner
between Sections 25 and 26, Township 7 South, Range 2 West; thence
leaving said point of beginning along the 1/4 Section Line running East
and West through the center of said Section 25, North 29° 30' 30" East
315.61 feet to the intersection thereof with the Westerly line of that
certain 1.535 acre tract of land conveyed by Mary Jones and J. W Jones,
her husband to 0. A. Hale, by Deed recorded August 20, 1907 in Book 321
of Deeds, at page 450, Santa Clara County Records; thence along the
Westerly line of said 1.535 acre tract from a tangent bearing of South
26° 50' 36" East along a curve -to the left with a radius of 3859.75 feet,
through a central angle of 7° 38' 41" for an arc length of 514.99 feet to
a point in the Westerly line of that certain 30.36 acre tract of land
conveyed by Benjamin W. Hollenbeck to George F. Wakefield by Deed
recorded April 6, 1887 in Book 88 of Deeds, at page 529, Santa Clara
County Records; thence along said Westerly line of said land conveyed to
Wakefield South 0° 01' 49" West 2219.71 feet to a point in the South line
of said Section 25; thence along said South line of Section 25, South 89°
35' 30" West 565.42 feet to a found 3/4" iron pipe standing at the common
corner for Sections 25, 26 and 35, Township Seven (7) South, Range Two
(2) West and corner of the Quito Rancho; thence along the Section line
dividing said Sections 25 and 26, North 0 14' 50" West 2663.70 feet to
the point of beginning,
as surveyed in August, 1960 by MacKay Somps, Civil Engineers and
being a portion of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 25, Township
Seven (7) South, Range Two (2) West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
PARCEL TWO:
EXHIBIT "A"
193154 -A
BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the Easterly line of that
certain 35.0 acre tract of land conveyed by Mary Jones, et al, to George
J. Fisher and Helen M. Fisher, his wife, by Deed recorded May 25, 1917 in
Book 452 of Deeds, at page 595, Santa Clara County Records, with the
Southwesterly line of that certain 0.909 acre tract of land conveyed by
Andrew N. Buck, to San Jose -Los Gatos Inerurban Railway Co., a
corporation, by Deed recorded June 30, 1909 in Book 349 of Deeds, at page
22, Santa Clara County Records, said point of beginning being also
distant North 89° 30' 30" East 578.33 feet and South 0° 01' 49" West
444.90 feet from a found granite monument at the Quarter Section corner
between Sections 25 and 26, Township 7 South, Range 2 West; thence along
said Easterly line of said 37.0 acre tract South 0° 01' 49" West 2219.71
feet to the Southeasterly corner of said 37.00 acre tract being on the
South line of Section 25, Township 7 South, Range 2 West; thence along
(Cont'd on next page)
EXHIBIT "A"
193154 -A
said South line of Section 25, North 89° 35' 30" East 297.99 feet to a
found 3/4" iron pipe at the Southwesterly corner of that certain 12.24
acre tract of land conveyed by J. F. Thompson, et al, to Lawrence M.
Buck, by Deed recorded November 2, 1899 in Book 223 of Deeds, at. page
456, Santa Clara County Records; thence along the Westerly line of said
12.24 acre tract, North 0° 01' 49" East 1837.46 feet to the point of
intersection of said Westerly line with the Southwesterly line of the
hereinabove mentioned 0.909 acre tract; thence along said Southwesterly
line from a tangent bearing of North 41° 39' 39" West along a curve to
the right with a radius of 3859.75 feet through a central angle of 7° 10'.
22" for an arc length of 483 feet to the point of beginning,
as surveyed in August, 1960 by MacKay Somps, Civil Engineers, and
being a Portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 7 South,
Range 2 West, M. D. B. M.
N
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT p lit'GRAM] 1,C1 SA.RATOGA.
LAN SCAPING'-,AND% L4GHTING- DISTRICT LL A-I
1
CITY. OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Annexation 1986 -1
EXHIBIT "B"
a) The construction or installation, including the maintenance
or servicing both, thereof, within Zone 16 as hereinafter
described, of landscaping and street lights, including trees,
shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, foun-
tains and other ornamental structures and facilities and
public places, including ornamental standards, luminaires,
poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes,
wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers,
insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communica-
tion circuits, applicances, attachments and appurtenances,
including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, ferti-
lizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of .trim-
mings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, electric current
or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public
lighting facilities or for the lighting operation of any other
improvements, water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other
improvements.
.7003 -36 WMAM :JEB:cjw 03/27/86 12c
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
A RESOLUTION'APPOINTING ATTORNEYS TO CONDUCT
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 1986 -1 TO CITY OF
SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga,
California, that
WHEREAS, this Council has determined to undertake proceedings
for the annexation of territory to an existing assessment district
pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 and for the construction or installation of improvements in said
territory, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be
served by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and
conduct of said proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows:
1. That the law firm of WILSON MORTON ASSAF McELLIGOTT, San
Mateo, California, be, and it is hereby, appointed and employed to do
and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said
proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it is hereby, fixed at
not to exceed $2,000.00.