The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-17-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J� MEETING DATE:1/17 /90 ORIGINATING DEPT.:Plannina AGENDA ITEM: FA CITY. MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: Violations at Tract 7770 - Chadwick /Cocciardi Location: Extensions of Chiquita & Old Oak Way Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council review the violations, take public testimony and adopt the attached resolution declaring Tract 7770 and surrounding lands a public nuisance. Report Summary: The purpose of the Council's meeting is to determine if a public nuisance exists on and around the Chadwick /Cocciardi subdivision. This report provides a lot by lot description of the specific violations as well as violations involving surrounding properties. Attached to this report are the technical recommendations of the City's consulting engineer, Willdan & Associates and the City Geologist. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: 1. Memo from City Manager dated 12/20/89 2. City Attorney correspondence dated 12/19/89 3. Chief Building Official correspondence dated 12/15/89 4. Preliminary engineering recommendations from John Carlson of Willdan & Assoc. 5. City Geologist correspondence dated 11/27/89 Motion and Vote: 0 �- 09U,ff oa 0&%ZU(M(5& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council DATE: 1/17/90 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director Joe Oncay, Chief Building Official SUBJECT: Declaration of Public Nuisance of Tract 7770 Subdividers: Chadwick /Cocciardi Location: Extension of Old Oak Way & Chiquita Way --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report Summary: The issue before the Council is the consideration of violations of the City Code which the City Council may find to be a public nuisance warranting abatement. Pursuant to Article 3 -15 of the City Code, the City Council is required to receive public testi- mony prior to declaring property to be a nuisance. Once the Council declares the property is a nuisance, the City Code ena- bles the owners the opportunity to respond at the Council's February 21, 1990 meeting. The City has performed numerous site inspections and undertaken aerial photography to determine the extent of violations on and adjacent to the development. In addition to City staff, both the City Geologist, and Willdan Associates have inspected the site and provided written recommendations which are attached for Council's reference. In addition to the technical reports from the City's consultants, the prior staff report from the City Manager, and correspondence from the Chief Building Official and City Attorney are attached to this report. Summary of Violations: The Council packet includes aerial photographs which graphically depict the extent and location of illegal activity. The follow- ing is a lot -by -lot description of the findings of the Chief Building Officisal made after review of engineered drawings and field inspections. 1 Violations in Tract 7770 Lot #1 Owner: Carolyn Cocciardi Tree Removal: 6 oaks; sizes 2 @ 3211, 3 @ 30" & 1 @ 20" Surface area graded: +/- 11,250 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: not determined Surface Vegetation Removed: +/- 2,000 sq. ft. Lot #2 Owner: Carolyn Cocciardi Tree Removal: 6 oaks; sizes 2 @ 3611, 2 @ 2011, 1 @ 16" & 1 @ 14" Surface area graded: +/- 15,000 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: not determined Surface Vegetation Removed: None Lot #3 Owner: M/M Phillip Williams Tree Removal: 2 oaks; sizes: 20" to 24" each Surface area graded: 18,000 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: not determined Surface Vegetation Removed: +/- 5,000 sq. ft. Lot #4 Owner: Allen Chadwick No Violations Lot #5 Owner: Allan Chadwick No Violations Lot #6 Owner: Allan Chadwick No Violations Lot #7 Owner: Allan Chadwick Tree Removal: None Grading: None Surface Vegetation Removed: +/- 22,500 sq. ft. Lot #8 Owner: Allan Chadwick Tree Removal: None Grading: None Surface Vegetation Removed: +/- 22,500 sq. ft. Lot #9 Owner: M/M Khan Tree Removal: 2 oaks; size: 20" to 24" each Surface area graded: +/- 10,000 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: Not determined Surface Vegetation Removed: +/- 25,000 sq. ft. Lot #10 Owner: Carolyn Cocciardi Tree Removal: 8 oaks; size: Range between 14" to 30" each Surface area graded: 22,500 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: Not determined Surface Vegetation Removed: +/- 50,000 sq. ft. Lot #11 Owner: Carolyn Cocciardi Tree Removal: 11 oaks; size: Range between 16" to 48" 2 each Surface area graded: +/- 15,000 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: Not determined; (est. 700 cu. yds. for vertical cut for unauthorized road.) Surface Vegetation Removed: 21,750 sq. ft. Violations Outside Tract 7770 Location: North of Subdivision Owner: Wong Tree Removal: 1 oak; size: 24" Surface area graded: +/- 2,500 sq. ft. Total Volume of Grading: Not determined Surface Vegetation Removed: 20,000 sq. ft. Location: West of Subdivision Owner: Anthony Cocciardi Tree Removal: 11 oaks; Sizes: Range Surface area graded: +/- 40,000 sq. Total Volume of Grading: +/- 20,000 Surface Vegetation Removed: 35,000 RECOMMENDATION: between 14" to 36" each ft. cu. yds. sq. ft. Staff recommends that the City Council review the violations, accept public testimony and adopt a resolution declaring the Tract 7770 and surrounding lands to be a public nuisance. Step n Ems e Planning Director - M 7 e Oncay ief Bui SE /dsc Attachments 3 �r �� CITY of SARATOGA 13777 FRUITV'ALE A%'ENUE • SARATOGA, (,ALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: December 20, 1989 Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles To: City Counc i l Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman From: City Manager Subject: Status Report - Tract 7770 Code Violations On December 6th notices of Intention to Record a Notice of Code Violation were sent to all of the owners of the eleven parcels of land which make up Tract 7770 (copy attached). Since November 15, when I first reported on this matter to the City Council, the City has had both the City Geologist and Special city Engineer review the site and prepare reports on measures to be taken to prevent further environmental damage. Based on this work a meeting with all of the owners, the City staff, consultants and City Attorney was held on December 14th to go ever the reports and recommended actions. Subsequent to the meeting, a letter detailing steps to be taken by the owners was sent to the developers (copy attached). Further, there has been a demand letter from the City Attorney in the amount of $220,000 in cash to be deposited with the City Manager by December 29, 1989, as surety for any remedial word: which ma-y- lie required by the City (copy attached). FinaiI- , under the recently enacted provisions of the Public Resources Code, the developers will be required to execute an agreement with the City assuring that all mitigation measures required by the project EIR and subdivision approval be monitored by the City and certified as being satisfied prior to succeeding approvals being granted, that a system of fines be levied for any violation of the agreement, and that all costs to monitor the project by the City be paid for by the developer. In this con- tent it may be determined that further environmental documents need to be prepared as the project site has now been significant- ly changed by the illegal activity. Legal action which the City may be contemplating against one or more of the parties to this problem needs to be discussed in closed session. Harry Peacock, City Manager Attachments (3) of saRq O R�:, �`9ljF'OR g OTTE o2 0&m ° 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. - SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RECORD Karen Anderson NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman TO: Allen Chadwick /Coociardi Corporation 13539 Mandarin Wav Saratoga CA 95070 Pursuant to Section 3- 10.030 of the Saratoga City Code, notice is hereby given of the intention of the Saratoga City Manager to record in the office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, California, a Notice of Code Violation affecting Lots 1 through 11, inclusive, of Tract No. 7770, commonly known as the Chadwick Place Subdivision. The violations for which notice is being recorded include the following: (a) Grading activity without a permit having been issued to authorize the same, in violation of Article 16 -55 of the Saratoga City Code. (b) Tree removal without a permit having been issued to authorize the same, in violation of Article 15 -50 of the Saratoga City Code. (c) Failure to comply with subdivision conditions requiring City approval prior to the performance of any site development work on individual lots, in violation of Section 3- 05.010 of the Saratoga City Code. (d) Failure to comply with the mitigation measures required by the Environmental Impact Report for the project, in violation of Section 3- 05.010 of the Saratoga City Code. You have the right to request a hearing before the City Manager concerning the intended recording of the Notice of Code Violation. Such request must be received by the City Manager within twenty (20) days from the date of this notice. The recording of a Notice of Code Violation does not limit any other rights and remedies available to the City by reason of the violations described above. Dated: 4 A4Ut e. P4AeOL H#PRY PEACOCK Sdeatoga City Manager 'TKI\ SON • FARASI A T T O Q N E Y S AT S A W 660 'ANA STREET _. -.. BOY 279 >I(W T: IN VIEW. CALIFORNIA (0'51 967 -694, December 19, 1989 Cocciardi Corporation c/o Mr. Robert Morton 191 East E1 Camino Real, Suite 132 Mountain View, CA 94040 Mr. Allen Chadwick 13539 Mandarin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Tract No. 7770 Gentlemen: As indicated durii City is requiring that immei environmental damage as a i removal activity performed We expect that a soil erc submitted to the City fo incorporate all of the engineering and geotechnic commenced immediately upon diligently to completion. affording the developers an winterization work, the Ci initiate appropriate crimi . developers and any other rl emphasized that no developm will be processed by the C] �. ..'. A- -NSON (.692- 962, �. �AFASVN :9 5 -1979, g our meeting on December 14, lyt5y, Lne liate steps be taken'to prevent further esult of the illegal grading and tree within the Chadwick Place Subdivision. ,sion and winterization plan will be approval and that such plan will recommendations made by the City's :onsultants. The remedial work must be approval of the plan and prosecuted It should be made clear that by opportunity to perform the remedial and ty is not waiving its legal right to ial and civil proceedings against the :sponsible parties. It should also be ant applications or permits of any kind ty for any lot within the subdivision. Moreover, the stop work order will remain in erre", except zor uIe remedial and protective measures specifically authorized by the City. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement executed between the developers and the City obviously does not include the additional remedial work now required to be performed as a result of the illegal grading and tree removal activity. Consequently, the security originally furnished to the City in accordance with the Improvement Agreement is now inadequate to secure the additional remedial work, together with the various costs and expenses the City has incurred and will continue to incur over and above the normal processing and inspection fees. Although the Cocciardi Corporation Mr. Allen Chadwick December 19, 1989 Page 2 exact cost of the remedial and restoration work has not yet been determined, nor has the City determined the total cost of staff time and professional services that may be required in connection therewith, a preliminary estimate of these costs has been made in the sum of $220,000. This figure represents the amount of security the City is willing to accept at this time, subject to later adjustment when the full nature and extent of the remediation and restoration work can be ascertained. Demand is hereby made for the immediate payment to the City of a cash deposit in the amount of $220,000. This deposit will secure the performance of the remedial and restoration work and also will be utilized for payment of all costs and expenses incurred by the City as a result of the illegal activities. Because of the nature and circumstances of this deposit, the City will not accept a performance bond, set aside letter, or any other form of security besides cash. However, we will agree to provide the developers with notice of each disbursement from the security deposit at the time such disbursement is made. If necessary, additional funds must be transferred by the developers to the City so that the amount on deposit will at all times represent 1500 of the estimated cost of performing all remedial and restoration work plus the estimated costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith. Please deliver the requested deposit to Harry Peacock within ten (10) days from the date of this letter. Your response to this request will determine the manner in which the City continues to deal with the present situation. Very truly yours, HAROLD S. TOPPEL Saratoga City Attorney HST /ns cc: Mr. Harry Peacock 'vy J� 1 90 o 13777FRL'IT%',- \LE, \\'ENL-'E ,(_\L1F0R \I.- \9507O (408) 867-3438 December 15, 1989 Mr. Allen Chadwick /Coccardi Corp. 13539 Mandarin Way Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Re: Tract 7770 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Movies Donald Peterson Francis Sturzman On December 13, 1989 the City conducted a meeting at Saratoga City Hall concerning the above mentioned property. The attendees of that meeting were: Allen Chadwick, owner of Tract 7770 Anthony Coccardi, owner of Tract 7770 Robert Morton, attorney representing Anthony Coccardi Philip Williams, owner of Lot 9, Tract 7770 Indad Kahn, owner of Lot 311, Tract 7770 Mrs. Indad Kahn, owner of Lot 3, Tract 7770 Harry Peacock, City Manager, City of Saratoga Steven Emsley, Planning Director, City of Saratoga Joseph Oncay, Chief Building Inspector, City of Saratoga William Cotton, Cotton & Associates, City Geotechnical Consultant William Kohl, Cotton & Associates, City Geotechnical Consultant John Carlson, Willdan & Associates, Special City Engineer Consultant Rod Hawkin , Willdan & Associates, Special City Engineer Consultant Hal Toppel, City Attorney, City of Saratoga Court Stenographer This letter is prepared to reiterate certain facts of that meeting and provide you with specifics concerning necessary erosion control measures. The City of Saratoga requires that you 1.) provide the City with an effective erosion control proposal for review and sub- sequently implement the City reviewed erosion control system(s). The installation of all erosion control shall be regularly inspected by City inspectors, Willdan and Associates, Cotton and Associates, and any other consultant deemed necessary by the City, 2.) restore the illegally graded areas to City speci- fication (restoration specifications will be provided upon completion of the City investigation concerning pre - grading site conditions). Installation of erosion control system(s) is a priority to ensure against possible non - engineered run -off diversions, landsliding, off -site adverse impacts and additional erosion. Page 2 Chadwick /Coccardi Meeting of 12/13/89 Plans and specifications for erosion control shall be prepared by a California licensed civil engineer and submitted to the City of Saratoga Engineering Department by December 26, 1989. Upon completion of the City's review, the installation of the erosion control system shall commence immediately. Failure to comply with these requirements will cause said work to be per- formed by the City and the property liened for incured costs. Your cooperation is essential in implementing an erosion control system in the required timely fashion. A particular necessity is a copy of the as -built grading plans prepared by Westfall Engineering, Saratoga, Ca.; the City hereby requests those plans. Failure to provide the as -built grading plans will cause the City to have as -built grading plans prepared and the costs incured will be levied against the property owners. Additionally, the cooperation of the civil and soils engineers for the tract is necessary to expedite the development and implementation of the erosion control system(s). Therefore, the City requests that you direct the civil and soils engineers to provide complete cooperation to the City. I have enclosed copies of reports prepared by Wildan and Associates and Cotton and Associates which embody many of the concerns which must be addressed when preparing the erosion control system(s). These rpeorts were created to provide you with guidelines for developing an erosion control plan. They are not intended to be an attempt by the City or it's consultants to design a erosion control system(s), nor do they imply that these concerns represent all appropriate consideration and mitigation measures. To minimize erosion, the City will allow the paving of the extension of Chiquita Court and Chadwick Way subject to the following condition: 1.) the appropriate soils engineering reports fo the road and landslide repair areas are provided for review by the City, 2.) that said reports comply with engineer- ing recommendation and appropriate City requirements, 3.) v -ditch drainage is installed at bench areas of the landslide repair area, 4.) approved storm drainage is provided, and 5.) adequate erosion controls are installed. Additionally, Mr. Chadwick has agreed to install gate at the entrance to the subdivision on Chiquita Court to minimize trespassing and provide limited access to City representatives. The City and its representatives shall be provided access to the subdivision from Old Oak Way. The City shall install a lock on the existing gate at Old Oak Way for the purpose of providing said access. The City agrees to notifying Mr. Morton, attorney representing Mr. Coccardi, at (415) 961 -4497, prior to entering the subdivision. If you have any questions concerning these reiterations or the City's position relating to this tract., contact me at (408) 867 -3438. Yours truly, Joe Onbay� Chief Building Inspector cc: Harry Peacock, P. Williams, I. Kahn, A. Coccardi, R. Morton JO /df 12/6/89 CITY OF SARATOGA John Carlson, Rod Hawkins Preliminary recommendations for existing improvements, Chadwick Subdivision Chiquita Way - Sta 0 +40 - construct standard construction entrance (left). - Sta 0 +40 - construct a sediment basin approximately 15'x20' with temporary stand pipe outlet to existing SD. - Grade Chiquita so drainage flows along easterly side. - Install temporary inlet at CB A -213 with sediment basin. - Locate straw bale check dams intermittently between inlets. - Possibly extend storm drain to intersection with Chadwick for sediment basin. Slide Area Concrete swales on benches with concrete Swale to Chiquita. Provide outfall structures for slide subdrains at: Sta 3 +83, Sta 4 +25 Chiquita, Sta 1 +73, and 2 +33 D/W for Lots 3 and 9. Chadwick Court Construct basin and temporary stand pipe at SDI C -1 (east side of bulb) Repair existing storm drain and add additional rip -rap to outfall. Provide rip-rap for the two subdrains just north of the bulb. Driveway to Lots 3 and 9 - Construct temporary sediment basin at the bottom of the driveway in intersection, approximately 30'x301. Direct drainage down Chiquita. - Grade driveway as to drain down west side. - Install temporary inlet at SDI - 7C. - Install straw bale check dams at the first bend and 112 way down driveway if no inlet is installed. Driveway, Lot 3 Grade to drain down east side locate straw bale dams at: pad, 1/2 down and intersection with Lot 9 Driveway, Lot 9 grade to drain along north slope install straw bale dams at pad entrance, mid -way down and at intersection with Lot 3 driveway. grade swale at the bottom of Lot 9 driveway to insure drainage by- passes utility box install at the intersection of the two driveways. Sanitary Sewer Near Lot 7 - Strongly recommend moving the manhole out of the creek bottom; for winter install pressure manhole. - Re -work south bank and install rip -rap approx. 150' long, 10' -20' up the bank. - Construct silt fence along top of creek bank approx. 200 ft. - Install two rows of straw bales along contours, the first row approx. 1/3 of the way down, contour 490, about 100 ft. long, the second row approx. 2/3 the way down the slope, contour 440, about 150 ft. long. - Remove approx. 5 -10 yards of debris from west side of slope. - Hydroseed entire slope. Old Oak - Standard construction entrance at entrance. - Install straw bales along ex- isting street except across construction entrance. - Construct sediment basin near existing storm drain - approx. 20'x401. - Berm around perimeter approx. 125' - Clean out creek bottom and install rip -rap at outfall of existing SD. - Grade to drain down south side of street. Water Main Area - Berm around perimeter approx. 7401. - Construct sediment basin at low pt. - Clean up debris along north side of clearing and construct a rip -rap spill way over the north side to drain basin. - Construct silt fence at bottom of clearing southern slope. Road Between Water Main and Offsite Rock spillways over edge at low points. Grade road to control flow. Recommendation for Pad Areas Lot 1 Construct basin at existing storm drain. Construct SDI E-1 C . Clear debris from creek bottom and construct suitable outfall structure. On east side of road, construct silt fence along the toe of slope and another one about 1/2 way - approx. 200 ft. (total), contour 750. Roll slope to firm up soil. - Berm around perimeter of pad approx. 2801. Construct permeable dam to allow slow sheet flow over westside. Dam should be high enough so that any emergency flow would go down Old Oak (approx. 3 -4 ft. tall) . Lot 2 Berm with swale north side, grade swale flat due to adverse grade, approx. 100 ft. - Berm south side approx. 180 ft. ( partial berm exists) . Install straw bale check dam just before road. Lot 3 Berm around pad perimeter approx. 225 ft. Grade to drain down driveway. Install straw bale check dam at driveway entrance. Construct silt fence at the bottom of the cleared slope on the south side of pad approx. 100 ft. Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Hydroseed pad. Remove dirt stock pile and debris. Berm and swale south side of pad approx. 200 ft. (10' back from top of bank). Start ditch approx. 75' south of 28" oak (most westerly tree) . No recommendation. Natural grass has come up substantially. Same as Lot 5. See Sanitary Sewer recommendations. Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Construct outfall for sub-drains. Increase size of outfall for existing storm drain. ? Does City want minor debris cleaned up ? Ask Cotton & Associates about loose fill on north side. Berm around perimeter approx. 290 ft. ? Possible silt fence on north east slope (250 ft. ) Drain to inside of curve and install straw bale check dam at entrance Consolidate "cat tracks" and re- hydroseed area. Three Alternatives: 1) drain eastern half of pad to Old Oak via swale or temporary 12" cmp. 2) drain eastern half to Lot 3 via plastic corrugated pipe. 3) Create sheet flow over northeast side hill. - Construct silt fence at toe of northeast slope approx. 500 ft. - Clean up debris along toe. - Berm pad perimeter approx. 500 ft. ( partial berm exists) . - Drain west side of pad to Old Oak. - Install straw bale check dam at entrance. Berm pad perimeter (partial berm exists) approx. 220 ft. Drain lot towards Lot 10 and down Old Oak. Note: Hydroseed all graded areas except street areas. ` William C it, _)n and Associates GEOTECNNICA' '9NSUITANTS 330 Village L...e Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 354 -5542 November 27, 1989 S1485E RlC IV TO: Joseph Oncay Chief Building Inspector NOV '), 1989 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 Fruitvale Avenue CITY OF SARAT04A Saratoga, California 95070 INSPECTION DIV_ISON SUBJECT: Preliminary Grading Evaluation RE: Chadwick Subdivision, SD -1368 At your request, we have performed a cursory examination of grading activities performed by the applicant at the Chadwick Subdivision. In addition to discussions with you and representatives from Willdan Associates, we have reviewed documents in our office files and performed a site inspection. •M In previous review reports concerning road grading and landslide repair, we recommended that the results of grading operations and modifications to site conditions be shown on an As -Built Grading Plan and described in a Final As -Built Geotechnical Report. It appears that widespread construction activities in the Chadwick Subdivision, including grading of roadways, lots and landslide areas, have been performed without the City's approval. Grading has also occurred outside tract boundaries. It is our understanding that the City has previously issued a permit for grading of subdivision streets and a related landslide repair. These streets are Chadwick Court and extensions of Chiquita Way and Old Oak Way. However, permits have not yet been issued for any grading activities outside of the approved road alignments. Indeed, plans for rough grading of lots and related improvements have not yet been reviewed by City staff. Consequently, the City Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to comment upon the subdivision plan. The recent grading activities were performed without the City's permission. In addition, the developer has performed grading activities outside tract boundaries and in geologically sensitive areas (e.g., Quarry Creek watershed and landslide areas) that could cause significant off -site impacts to downslope properties. On the basis of our preliminary site inspection, immediate remediation will be needed to prevent erosion, non - engineered runoff diversions, and landsliding. In addition hillslope stability evaluations will be needed to assess the potential for landsliding where existing landslides and steep slopes have been surcharged by fill materials. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING Joseph Oncay November 27, 1989 Page 2 In order to complete a preliminary evaluation of the scope of grading and associated potential hazards, we recommend that the applicants' geotechnical consultant submit all test data, observation reports and draft versions of as -built conditions to the City as soon as possible (i.e., within 2 days). The information should include the following items: 1. On -site and laboratory tests - Data and results from compaction, density, and other tests for material properties of all fill materials should be submitted by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. 2. Daily inspection reports - Copies of notes, sketches, daily grading inspection reports and other documentation of the locations and scope of construction activities should be submitted by the applicant's contractor and geotechnical consultant. 3. As -built grading plan - The grading plan used by the grading contractor, along with modifications to the plans, should be submitted by the applicant's geotechnical consultant. The plan should show the locations of compaction tests, cutslopes, fillslopes, trees removed during grading and other geotechnical concerns. The above information should be submitted to the City to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant prior to the continuation of grading activities. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WRC:WC:mjs �dt A, dl�� 1� / 7 'e, William F. Cole Senior Engineering Geologist CEG 1202 il� . 4, 01 William R. Cotton City Geotechnical Consultant CEG 882 William Cotton and Associates RESOLUTION NO. 2629 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE TO EXIST UPON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS TRACT 7770 AND THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 503 -12 -024 WHEREAS, evidence has been certain violations having been committed 7770 and upon the property identified as violations generally consisting of: presented to the City Council indicating within the subdivision identified as Tract Assessor's Parcel Number 503 -12 -024, such (a) Grading activity without a permit having been issued to authorize the same, in violation of Article 16 -55 of the City Code. (b) Tree removal without a permit having been issued to authorize the same, in violation of Article 15 -50 of the City Code. (c) Failure to comply with subdivision conditions for Tract 7770 requiring City approval prior to the performance of any site development work on individual lots, in violation of Section 3- 05.010 of the City Code. (d) Grading and tree removal activity within dedicated open space areas, in violation of the open space agreement between the subdividers of Tract 7770 and the City. (e) Grading and tree removal activity on APN 503 -12 -024 in violation of . the Williamson Act contract relating to said parcel. WHEREAS, the City's subdivision, zoning and grading ordinances provide that any violation thereof shall constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, Section 3- 15.020 of the City Code states that whenever the City Council has declared by resolution or ordinance that a nuisance exists upon a parcel of land, the City Council may utilize the provisions of Article 3 -15 of the City Code to abate such nuisance and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the parcels upon which the nuisance exists, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows: 1. Each of the violations described above is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance upon the respective parcel of land where such violation was committed, as indicated by the staff report and the supporting documentation presented to the City Council, which is incorporated herein by reference. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to utilize the provisions of Article 3 -15 of the City Code to effect the abatement of said nuisances and to make the costs of such abatement a special assessment against the property upon which the abatement work is performed. 3. The owner of any property upon which a public nuisance is herein -1- declared to exist may present objections to the proposed abatement at the regular meeting of the City Council to be held on Wednesday, February 21,1990, at 7:30 p.m., at which time such objections will be heard and given due consideration. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17th day January 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmenbers Anderson, Moyles, Stutm n and Mayor Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilmerber Peterson Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -2- 1 w .r E January 1, 1990 Martha Clevenger, Mayor City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mayor Clevenger. and Members of the City Council: We are highly distressed about the environmental destruction caused by Cocciardi and Chadwick in Saratoga's hills. Their behavior shows massive disrequard for following the city's rules, for belief in the preservation of our hillsides, and for neighborhood opinions. Truely, it is time for the City of Saratoga to make this massive violation an example which no other developer will want to emulate. No slap on the wrist will due. You must make Cocciardi and Chadwick's behavior not worth it. If they end up making money on the deal, they and other unscrupulous builders will continue to do the same behavior in the future. At the very least, they should buy and replant replacement oaks on the regraded hillsides. It can be done. The owner of Nab Hill Markets is doing just that on his own land in Morgan Hill. You cannot depend on the voluntary "good behavior" of people when so much money is at stake. This behavior of "damn the rules, I'll do what I want" appears over and over in owner's and builder's behavior in minor ways. This particular disaster just happens to be a very flagrant example of what takes place all too often. We think it is time Saratoga "s City Council and Planning Commission strictly enforce the City's laws and quidelines which protect our fragile hillsides. Saratoga should not be "easy pickings" for the subgroup of unscrupulous land developers. Sincerely, Ann and Rick Waltonsmith 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 21412 Sarahills Court Saratoga, CA 95070 December 3, 1989 Mayor Karen Anderson and the Saratoga City Council City Offices 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Anderson and Saratoga City Council: RA We were very disturbed to hear of the cavalier disregard on the part of the developer of the property on the hills above lower Pierce Road with regard to the hillside zoning regulations in our City. Frankly, living as we do in sight of the area under question, we find it very difficult to understand why the City Engineer was not cognizant of what was going on. The degree of stripping of the trees and earth was very apparent from any angle of view. In any event, we ask that the council insist that the proper restoration be made on the development and that the full damages due to the City be paid BEFORE any further development is permitted in that area. It may be our mistaken impression, but we get a definite feeling that the area does not get the same attention with regard to developers shortcuts, as do other areas in the City. We will be watching the papers for news of the Council's actions in this matter. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. E. A. Sack g +l PETITION TO SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL As a resident of Saratoga I demand strict enforcement of all regulations pertaining to hillside development and imposition of maximum penalties on those who are in violation. Failure to do so has led and will continue to lead to loss of the beauty of Saratoga, the destruction of our heritage oak trees, the denuding and subsequent erosion of our hillsides, and the silting and flooding of our creeks. NAME ADDRESS z V/ h L9 • To: Saratoga City Council From: Allen Chadwick Re: Subdivision, tract #7770 January 12, 1990 RECEHED JAN 12 1990 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE a I am requesting that the Saratoga City Council allow the Chiquita Way section (7 lots), be separated and disassociated from the Old Oak Way-section (4 lots), in tract #7770 in the city of Saratoga for the following reasons.. 1. None of the owners had any participation whatsoever in the illegal grading in question of the Old Oak Way section of the sub- division. The present owners are as follows; lot 3, Phil Williams, lots 4, 6, and 7, Allen Chadwick. Lot 5, Michael Oe La Cruz has an option to purchase. Lot 8, Tod and Nancy Chadwick. Lot S, Inded Kahn. Mr. Williams and Mr. Oe La Cruz have presented plans for de- sign review and both have been rejected. There is financing in- volved in both cases plus my own bank loan and the rejection will cause all of us to default on our loans with some very dire conse- quences. 2. All owners have agreed to fully cooperate with the city as they proceed to the building p.er.mit stage. 3. Erosion control requirements are negligable and all owners have agreed to do whatever is necessary to cure same. 4. I have submitted an erosion plan by Westfall Engineers to the city and emergency measures have been instituted pending app- roval by the city of permanent implementation. S. The Chiquita Way section is completely disconnected from Old Oak and can be completed in a matter of weeks, whereas Old Oak still lacks completion of retaining walls and installation of all utilities plus all remedial work. S. All owners have offered full cooperation at all times with the City of Saratoga. Time is'of the essence for many of the above reasons and I respect- fully request an affirmative answer on this issue. Please accept the enclosed documentation. Respectfully, e r� F TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ALLEN CHADWICK HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST OF ANY KIND IN LOTS 1,2,3,9,10 AND 11 AND I,ANTHONY COCCIARDI HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTERST IN LOTS 4,5,6,7 AND 8 OF TRACT NO. 7770 IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA. MR. CHADWICKS SIGNATURE IS NOT ON THE DEVELOPEMENT CONTRACT WITH STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC.ANO HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE WORK DONE ON THE OLD OAK WAY SECTION OF THE SUBDIVISION. ,,9NTHONY COCCIARDI A T E 0 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ALLEN CHADWICK HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF NOR ANY PARTICIPATION IN ANY OF THE ATTACHED ALLEGATIONS WHATSOEVER, BROUGHT UP AT THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON s NOVEMBER 15, 1 S8S . Oats STATE CAPITOL F-1 ft00M 4032 SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 445 -3104 102015TH ST.. SUITE B ❑ MODESTO. CA 95354 (209) 576-6231 4 NORTH SECOND STREET ICJ SUITE 590 SAN JOSE. CA 95113 (408) 277 -1470 January 11, 1990 I 1 O.WPON" #jenatP Tatifornin T,legtstaft e DAN MCCORQUODALE SENATOR TWELFTH DISTRICT The Honorable Karen P. Anderson, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Karen: g�A STANDING COMMITTEES: AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INSURANCE. CLAIMS AND CORPORATIONS NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE. CHAIR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT TRANSPORTATION. VICE CHAIR SELECT COMMITTEES: BORDER ISSUES. DRUG TRAFFICKING AND CONTRABAND CALIFORNIA'S WINE INDUSTRY CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT. CHAIR FOREST RE SOURCES MARITIME INDUSTRY MOBILEHOMES SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISES JOINT COMMITTEES: PUBLIC PENSION FUND INVESTMENTS STATE'S ECONOMY SUBCOMMITTEES: AGING AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE PRACTICES. CHAIR HEALTH CARE COST MANAGEMENT MENTAL HEALTH. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND GENETIC DISEASES. CHAIR SPORTS WATER MARKETING Over the past year the plight of California's native oaks has been receiving increasing attention by the State Legislature as well as many environmental groups and other concerned individuals. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife, I have been in a position to take action in addressing the continuing loss of the State's oak trees. Two encouraging developments have come about as a result of this threat to our state's oak heritage. The first is the establishment of the California Oak Foundation whose goal of restoring and preserving oak habitat is carried out through education, planting projects and support for appropriate legislation. The second is two pieces of legislation which I authored and were passed last year. SCR 17 urges all relevant State agencies to undertake to preserve and protect native oak woodland to the greatest extent possible. The other bill, SCR 60 declares 1990 to be the Year of the Oak. 'All this leads to the purpose of my letter. Because of my interest in the preservation of these stately trees, I was disturbed to learn about the destruction of a large number of oak trees at the Cocciardi and Chadwick development project in the City of Saratoga. My San Jose District Representative, Eileen Hodson, had a conversation with Steve Enslie about this problem. My understanding, from Eileen, as well as from reports in the San Jose Mercury News, is that the Saratoga City Council is negotiating with Cocciardi and Chadwick in an effort to work out a restoration plan which would cover over the scarred area and include r- The Honorable Karen P. Anderson Page Two January 11, 1990 replacing those trees which were destroyed. I encourage that effort. Perhaps the plan could include a financial contri- bution for the purpose of planting a large number of oak seedlings in other areas as well. I am currently working on an implementation plan for the Year of the Oak which will include such plantings. I appreciate your aggressiveness in pursuing a solution to this most unfortunate situation. I would appreciate being kept informed on the progress in resolving this problem. If there is anything I can do to assist, please do not hesitate to c 1. Co di lly, a McCorquodale Senator, 12th District DM/ eh SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I-L—D AGENDA ITEM 4 tr--�' MEETING DATE: January 17, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVALyW ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering SUBJECT: Transportation Development Act (TDA) Saratoga Avenue Sidewalk Project Recommended Action: Approve project and authorize the filing of of the TDA Article 3 Application. Report Summary: Under the Transportation Development Act - Article 3 there are funds available each year for Bicycle /Pedestrian Projects. We,are recommending that a three phase (3 year) project -be approved for the completion of pedestrian sidewalk on both sides of Saratoga Avenue between Cox Avenue and the City's northerly City limits. The total estimate for this project is $85,000 ($57,500 from TDA and $27,500 from City C.I.P.). Completion of pedestrian sidewalk between Fruitvale and Cox will be constructed along with the Saratoga Avenue Inter- change/Hwy. 85 Project. Fiscal Impacts: $27,500 (1990 -91 = $3,000; 1991 -92 = $3,000; 1992 -93 = $21,500). The above amount is recommended to be budgeted under the Capital Improvement Program. ��THTTIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN Attachments: 1. Application - TDA ArtiCreRYI ENT IS A TRUE AND CORRECT CO 2. Location Map. 'OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFI[ i 3. Engineer's Estimate. ATTEST 19 CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOi Motion and Vote: BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK Peterson /Stutzman moved approval of staff recomiendation. Passed 4-0 (Moyles absent). APPLICATION DOCUMENTS: TDA ARTICLE 3 Bicycle /Pedestrian Projects Claimant: Cit of Saratoga County: ----Santa Mara Prior Year Contact person: Erman Dorsey Name of project: Saratoga Ave_ idewa Pro1ectAmountofclaim: Telephone: S8511000 x Type and extent of project (check and complete requested information): 3 V 000 21r500 Bike Path (Class 1) Bike Lane (Class 11) (length) (length) Other Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Safety Education (type) Bicycle Route (Class 111) Bicycle Parking Facilities (length) (number/type) Pedestrian Walkway Other Pedestrian Facilities x (length) _ x_ HInclj trap ctype) Total Ramps Financial Plan: Please list project components such as planing, engineering, right -of -way, construction, contingences, etc.; total cost of project and other funding sources. If this is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for other segments. Project Components: Construction of concrete sidewalk in three phases along Saratoga Ave a major 1 oroug are (Use separate sheet if necAssarv► Funding: TDA Prior Year Application Year $18,000 2nd Year $18,000 3rd Year 21 500 Total Cost $57,500 *Others (specify) 3,000 3 V 000 21r500 27 500 Im r. Total A21,000 $21,000 $43,000 $85,000 I. Project Eligibility (If no, give approximate date of completion. in 'Comments.') YES NO A. Is the project approved by the governing agency (City Council or Board of Supervisors)? x B. If a bikeway, does the project meet Caltrans' mandatory minimum safety design criteria (Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California, 1983)? If not, please explain below in 'Comments.' C. Has the environmental impact documentation been completed? (See Appendix II in TDA section, MTC Fund Allocation Manual.) - x- EIR Negative Declaration Notice of Exemption D. Expected Completion Date of Project ALB . 1993 1. Right -of -way purchased? x 2. Agreement of all cities and other agencies involved? 3. Commitment of other necessary funds? �- 4. Preliminary design completed? S. Financial plan completed? 6. Final cost estimate completed?- - E. Provisions have been made to maintain the facility by claimant x other Comments: It. Evaluation Criteria (Answer questions, check as many lines as apply and include any additional information in Comments.) YES NO A. Does the project eliminate problem areas on routes which would provide relatively safe travel uses? x 1. Bridge or removal of barrier 4. Substandard grates or culverts 2. Narrow road segments 5. High traffic volume and speed x 3. Removal of parking 6. Other ennnpr Comments: existing pedestrian walkways YES NO B. Does the project provide access to or bicycle parking in high use activity centers? . x 1. Employment Access Parking (Please Identify) 2. Commercial 3. Educational 4. Public transportation interface 5. Governmental or social service centers 6. Cultural or recreational 7. Other YES NO C. Does the project provide for the improvement of bicycle/transit or pedestrian/transit commute use? x Comments: D. Does the project provide connection to and continuity of longer routes? x 1. On adopted county bicycle or pedestrian facilities plan? _ 2. On adopted local bicycle or pedestrian facilities plan? Comments: E. Is there demonstrated local support? _x 1. Initiated or supported by community or bicycling organizations? x 2. Initiated by local employers or employee groups? x 3. Public hearing held x 4. Local funding (amount: $ 27,500 ) 5. Local planning or engineering effort? _x Comments: F. Special circumstances (please explain). G. Additional materials required (attach or indicate when each will be provided to MTC): 1. Project location map. 2. Environmental document. See Appendix II in TDA Section. Please note that the copy of a Notice of Exemption or Negative Declaration which is sent to MTC must show a stamp of receipt for filing by the County Clerk or State Secretary of Resources. 3. Legal counsel's opinion that addresses three points (see TDA Application Document Section): (a) That the claimant is authorized to perform the project for which the funds are claimed. (b) That claimant is eligible to claim under PUC Section 99234. (c) That there is no legal impediment to the claimant applying for funds or there is no pending or threatened litigation which might adversely affect the project or the ability of the claimant to carry out the project. 4. Governing body resolution approving the project and authorizing the submittal of a claim. NOTE: References are to Fund Application Manual, MTC. 'R to cT rys PRORD.SED S1404CM 1. Ae CONSrR vc r10 N .3'ARA 71DS*4 AI/EN�/E w CEDE M*WMIREX /ST /Ncs CONC. _T1W look • • • • PROPOSED CoNC. S/W R:z G � 3 a '� 9 q� q�l g9ti k3, of`C,�� a �" oa A �Y 0 r M r I a v a cos L2 _ 4p IT yr SARATOGA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT" ENGINEER'S EST /NA TE 7:0.4 — .`9C77c4,-E 3 SARATOGA �t/�NU� .S,O�l.�/AG,K /�,ppJEcT Nome of Project Date: _1aAwar 9 B y; �o�sey ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT &in Sum L. S. 3 OGY�. Oc ZSO C. Y. is_ 3• C�mc�e�� Sd��va /,F 3, 750 . o� S /D, 200 S. F, 's S8, 4, Hid• ca �am� 1 £a. i Zae 00 0, 800. a SUB- TOTAL= 76 2oO,OC - /D•�= 7,6ZO -06 TOTAL= AC3 820,OC REMARKS: g5,00 0. 0 Sheet / of 9 SARATTOGA CITY COUNCIL T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM 4 J MEETING DATE: January 17, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's SUBJECT: Amendment to Government Buildings Handicapped Access Project to Provide Handicapped- Approved Toilets in Senior Center Restrooms Recommended Motion: Approve proposed amendment to expend balance remaining in current Handicapped Access Project to provide handi- capped- approved toilets in mens and womens restrooms in Senior Center. Report Summary: At the time that the Senior Wing of the Communi- ty Center was built, the restrooms were designed to meet handi- capped access standards as to space and accessibility. However, the toilets which were installed are standard size rather than the higher type designed for use by handicapped people. We have recently completed an HCD- funded government buildings access project which included restroom modifications to the Community Center, a wheelchair ramp at the Historical Museum, entrance modifications at the Library, and the installation of an automat- ic door opener at the Senior Center. There is a sufficient balance remaining in the project account to replace the two toilets in the Senior Center. Fiscal Impacts: Cost of project amendment approximately $1,000. HCD funds have previously been allocated to this project. Attachments: Project Proposal from Maintenance Director Motion and Vote: Peterson /Stutzman moved to approve staff reccnunsndation. Passed 4 -0 (Moyles absent). City of Saratoga Community Development Block Grant Program Amendment to Project SA 87 -41 Government Buildinqs Access PROJECT PROPOSAL COVER PAGE APPLICANT ORGANIZATION NAME City of Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission ADDRESS 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 NAME /TITLE OF PROPONENT Dan nid D ctor of Maintenance SIGNATURE arks & Recreation Secretary TELEPHONE NUMBER (408) 867 -3438 PROJECT NAME SARATOGA SENIOR CENTER BATHROOM REMODEL - LIMITED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CDBG FUNDS REQUESTED $ 1,000. PROJECT ABSTRACT (Limit statement to space provided.) Change two (2) toilets in the Senior Center Restroom to provide "handicapped approved" toilets. (Both the Mens' and Womens' restrooms already meet standards as to space and accessibility.) 1 . SARATOGA CITY COUXCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. /2(0%3 AGENDA ITEM7A MEETING DATE: January 17, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVALj1!!Vf:jj!!! ORIGINATING DEPT: FINANCE SUBJECT: ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT POLICY Reconlended Action: Review and approve the Investment Policy of the City of Saratoga in accordance with the provisions of Section 53646 of the Government Code. Report Su=mtry: It is the policy of the City to annually review and adopt its Investment Policy. This Amended Investment Policy includes a new clause (Section B.2.) regarding investment of the Reserve for Housing Assistance established by the city's Housing Assistance Policy for Department Directors. The policy also includes an amendment to Section III.0 requiring an annual update of the Broker - Dealer Request for Information. The Finance Advisory Committee met on January 10, 1990, to review and approve the policy as written. Your F.A.C. recommends adoption of the amended Investment Policy. Fiscal upatt: No significant impact. The required investment level for active deposits or inactive investments with a maturity of one year or less may have a minimal affect on average yield. �►ttaobfedlt 3 City of Saratoga, Investment Policy. Kotion and Vote: k, • Amended 1/17/90 CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY The basic intent and purpose of this policy statement is to describe the primary objectives and means by which the City handles various investment instruments for City funds. I. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The investment of the funds of the City of Saratoga is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity and high yield. The primary objective of the City's investment policy is safety. Our investments are placed in a variety of investment instruments and the balance between the various instruments may change from time -to -time in order to give the City the best combination of high yield, liquidity, safety and local investment. As a matter of policy, one of the secondary goals of this agency's investment program is related to local economic development by the placing of funds in local banks whenever possible (and in the best interests of the City of Saratoga). The City's investment program in local banks and savings and loans is accomplished to the extent that it does not sacrifice other goals of our investment policy, namely, safety, liquidity and high yield. These investments shall not exceed insurance requirements or collateralized securities within any institutions where the City places such investments. II. VARIED INVESTMENT PROGRAM Investments may be made in the following media: - Securities of the U. S. Government, or its agencies - Small Business Administration Loans - Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) placed with commercial banks and /or savings and loan companies - Negotiable Certificates of Deposits - Bankers Acceptances - Commercial Paper - Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits - Repurchase Agreements (Repos) - Passbook Savings Account Demand Deposits - Reverse Repurchase Agreements (requires Council approval) - Qualified Government Securities Mutual Funds (1/20/88) •' 1. � 1 ,i Amended 1/17/90 CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Page Two III. SARATOGA INVESTMENT PROGRAM A. Deposit of Active Funds - Money must be deposited in state or national banks or state or federal savings and loan associations or credit unions. Deposits cannot exceed the amount of the institution's paid up capital and surplus. Institutions must secure deposits either with insurance equal to 100% of the deposit or with eligible securities having a market value of 110% of the total amount of deposit. It is the policy of the City to keep active deposits to the minimum necessary to meet the City's near term cash flow requirements. (1/20/88) B. Investment of Inactive Funds - Saratoga operates its pooled inactive cash investments under the Prudent Man Rule. This affords a broad spectrum of investment opportunities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and other im- posed legal restrictions. It is required that each financial institution in which inactive funds are invested submit current financial statements to be evaluated by the Treasurer and Finance Director. No funds shall be invested in any institution which has not shown a net profit in each of the three preceding years of operation. In addition, investments in Sav- ings and Loans and Credit Unions shall be limited to institutions which have an asset -to- equity ratio of at least 3 to 1. Investments in reverse repurchase agree- ments and the terms and conditions thereof shall not be made without the prior approval of the City Council. (1/20/88) Investment in qualified government securities mutual funds shall not exceed $1,000,000. No more than 20% of the City's invested funds shall be placed with the same financial institution. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund shall be limited to $5,000,000. (1/20/88) 1. Investment_of Operating Reserve - It is the policy of Saratoga to retain a general operating reserve of at least six months based on the current oper- ating budget adopted by the City Council. In order to implement this policy, the amount of • is CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Page Three Amended 1/17/90 active deposits and inactive investments with a maturity of one year or less shall always be equal to or greater than the required general operating reserve. The monthly investment report of the Treasurer shall demonstrate this policy is in effect. (1/20/88) 2. Investment of Reserve for Housing Assistance - It is the policy of Saratoga to retain a $1,000,000 reserve to implement its Housing Assistance Policy for Department Directors. Any portion of the reserve which is uncommitted to loans may be invested in active deposits or inactive invest- ments with a maturity of one year or less. (1/17/90) 3. Investment of Funds in Excess of the Operating Reserve - Inactive Funds which exceed the minimum required reserve may be invested for a term not to exceed five years. (1/20/88) C. Relationship with Investment Brokers - For the sake of efficiency the City may wish to purchase Certificates of Deposit and /or other investments through a third - party intermediary. The selection of Broker - Dealers will be made by the City Treasurer upon a review of an RFI (Request for Information) submitted by prospective broker - dealers. The City will establish a list of qualified broker - dealers based on successful responses to the RFI ahi verifications of references. (1/18/89) The request for information will be updated annually in January. (1/17/90) IV. STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY The City Treasurer shall submit for City Council review and acceptance a monthly report on the status of all invested funds. The report shall be signed by the City Treasurer and shall certi- fy that all investments made are in accordance with the current adopted Investment Policy. The Investment Policy may be changed only with approval of the City Council and shall be reviewed by the City Council not less frequently than once a year as required by Section 53646 of the Government Code. (1/15/86) CITY OF SARATOGA INVESTMENT POLICY Amended 1/17/90 Page Four Adopted September Amended: January January January January January 18, 15, 21, 20, 18, 17, 1985 1986, September 13, 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 I certify that the above policy was duly adopted and amended as shown above by the City Council on the dates shown. Harry R. Peacock, City Clerk Date jm c: \ws5 \misc \invest.pol J R' SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. / / Ip AGENDA ITEM _76 MEETING DATE: January 17, 1990 CITY MGR. ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolutions required for Regular Municipal Election, June 1990 Recommended Motion: 1. Adopt resolution confirming decisions on candidate's statements. 2. Adopt resolution calling election, requesting consolidation and requesting services of Registrar of Voters. Report summary: At its regular meeting of January 3, 1990, the City Council made decisions on candidate's statements for the next election. These decisions are now being formalized in the form of two resolutions to be adopted at tonight's meeting. At the previous meeting, the most recent information was that the cost of a 400 -word candidate's statement was $175. Since then, the Registrar of Voters has updated the estimate to $250. The attached resolution reflects that change. Fiscal Impacts: As has been routine procedure since at least 1982, costs of the candidate's statements will be borne by the candidates. By law, any overpayment must be refunded to the candidate by July 31. Attachments: Resolutions. Motion and Vote: 6LL SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 17, 1990 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Services SUBJECT: Resolutions Authorizing Execution of Agreements Regarding Household Hazardous Waste Collection Recommendation: That the City Council adopt resolutions to authorize: 1) execution of an agreement between Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara County and Safety Specialists, Inc. to provide a household hazardous waste collec- tion day; and 2) execution of an agreement between the five agencies detailing terms of participation. Report Summary: The City's 1989 -90 budget contains $24,200 for household hazardous waste (HHW) collection services. The West Valley cities have developed a plan for a one -day HHW collection event to serve the four West Valley cities and surrounding unin- corporated County areas. Safety Specialists, Inc. is the recommended contractor based on the company's proposed prices and experience in conducting these events. The City of Campbell's Community Center has been chosen as the site for the HHW Collection Day, to be held Saturday, March 10, 1990. Materials will be collected from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 P.M. Two agreements have been drafted to implement the collection day services. The attached agreement with Safety Specialists, Inc. details the contractor's scope of services, project team, fixed and unit costs as well as various insurance requirements, etc. The attached agreement between the five agencies details the terms of participation of each agency and specifies the per capita cost allocation formula. The event has been publicized in the current issue of the City Newsletter and will also be publicized in local newspapers and on the City's local TV channel (K -SAR). Green Valley Disposal will mail postcards announcing the HHW collection day to its residen- tial customers. The attached report provides more detailed information about the HHW event, including background, operational information and in -kind contributions that will be made by Green Valley Disposal and Guadalupe Disposal. Fiscal Impacts: It is not possible to specify exact costs for the event as they are entirely dependent upon participation. Our best estimate at this point is that Saratoga's share of the costs will be in the neighborhood of $24,000, which would be within the existing budget allocation. 0 Attachments: 1. Report from Rate Review Committee to City Managers 2. Spreadsheet showing how other cities finance their HHW events in Santa Clara County 3. Resolution authorizing execution of agreement with Safety Specialists 4. Resolution authorizing execution of agreement with Campbell, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, and County 5. Agreement with Safety Specialists 6. Agreement with other HHW program participants 7. Original Green Valley Disposal HHW proposal Motion and Vote: .19 2 January 9, 1990 /9TrAcMi»ENT a4` j TO Kevin Duggan, City Manager, Campbell Deborah Acosta, Town Manager, Los Gatos Rosemary Pierce, Chief Administrative Officer, Monte Sereno Harry Peacock, City Manager, Saratoga FROM Barbara Lee, Assistant to the City Manager, Campbell Regina Falkner, Community Services Manager, Los Gatos Rosemary Pierce, Chief Administrative Officer, Monte Sereno Todd Argow, Community Services Director, Saratoga SUBJECT: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day RECOMMENDATION: That the four West Valley cities enter into an agreement with Safety Specialists, Inc. to provide a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day. BACKGROUND: Collection of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) has been identified as an objective of each of the four West Valley cities for 1989 -90. Each of the cities receives inquiries from residents regarding proper disposal of household hazardous wastes. Materials that are considered household hazardous waste include: aerosols, cleaning agents, solvents, paint and pesticides. Because residents have not had a means of easily disposing of the materials properly, we know that many times they are disposed of in the landfill or through sanitary or storm sewers. Town of Los Gatos staff researched methods used in other cities to address HHW collection and recommended a joint four cities approach to holding HHW collection days. Advantages include economies of scale and region wide uniform advertising. Each of the agencies included funding in its 1989 -90 budget for a HHW event. DISCUSSION: Initial research into a joint West Valley collection event was conducted by Green Valley Disposal staff. The firm obtained proposals from three firms that provide these services. Proposals were evaluated and Safety Specialists, Inc. was found to be the most appropriate contractor, based on price and their ability to recycle certain materials. Any material that can be recycled reduces the amount of materials that must be incinerated or "lab packed" for toxics disposal, thus costs are contained where possible. SITE SELECTION: The Campbell Community Center (Winchester Parking Lot) was selected as the site for the first joint HHW collection event because of its central location, ample area for staging and its proximity to major streets. The Winchester Lot is preferred because of its ingress /egress points (Latimer and Winchester). 03 Page 2 PARTICIPATION: In addition to Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos, the County of Santa Clara will also participate in sponsoring this event. Residents in the unincorporated areas surrounding the West Valley cities served by Green Valley Disposal and about 1,000 households served by Lexington Disposal will be eligible to participate. County Environmental Health Services staff have coordinated similar events and have provided very valuable assistance to the Rate Review Committee. Each jurisdiction will be responsible for paying for its "per capita" share of the HHW collection day costs based on the actual number of participants from each jurisdiction. AGREEMENTS: Two agreements have been drafted and are attached. The first is an agreement between the five jurisdictions and Safety Specialists, Inc. This agreement details scope of services, fixed costs (i.e. contractor's staff) and unit costs (i.e. costs per gallon of paint recycled or 55 gallon drum filled, etc.). The second agreement details the participation of each agency and specifies the per capita formula that will be used to determine each agency's portion of the total costs of the event. HHW COLLECTION DAY: Saturday, March 10 has been selected as the collection day. Household hazardous wastes will be collected between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Safety Specialists, Inc. will be on site at least two hours prior to the start time to prepare the parking lot area and set up its operation, including sealing storm drains and placing visqueen in areas that will be handling /sorting areas. Campbell Fire Department's Hazardous Materials Advisor will be in attendance to provide supervision of the contractor. Traffic control will be provided by Campbell Police Department. Central Fire District's Haz -Mat Unit will be staged at the Community Center March 10. The County will also provide a chemist to help the agencies supervise the event, as well as Environmental Health Services staff. Residents from the participating communities will bring household hazardous waste to the collection site. HHW from other communities will not be accepted. Residency will be verified by a drivers license and a brief questionnaire will be administered to each participant. These questionnaires will be used to determine each agency's total participants. Only household wastes will be accepted, not wastes generated by businesses. Materials that will not be accepted are radioactive wastes, explosives, compressed gas cylinders or water reactives. Page 3 GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL /GUADALUPE DISPOSAL CONTRIBUTIONS: In addition to conducting preliminary research, Green Valley Disposal will provide the following at no charge to the cities: coordination and payment for waste oil collection; coordination and payment,for lead battery collection; provision of labor, vehicles and debris boxes; coordination of volunteers (to assist with traffic flow on -site and administer questionnaires); preparation of and printing of questionnaire; preparation of volunteer information sheet. Guadalupe Disposal will provide: labor and street sweeper for clean up after the event; waiver of typing fees for any debris generated at the event; other equipment that HHW contractor could use (to contain costs). Lexington Disposal has also agreed to make an in -kind contribution and will coordinate with the other disposal companies. COSTS: Safety Specialists fixed costs include the 19 staff members (site manager, safety supervisor, chemists and technicians) and equal $4,750. Unit costs include a $40.00 per hour additional personnel cost and the "per drum" costs of disposing of various materials. The additional personnel costs would accrue if a large quantity of waste is received. Total costs are entirely dependent upon the number of people that participate and the quantity and composition of the wastes that they bring to the event. ESTIMATED COSTS: Town of Los Gatos staff researched HHW collection programs and provided a report last Spring that recommended that each City include funding in its 1989 -90 budget for a one -day collection site. According to that report, the cost of HHW collection varies widely depending on the number of people that participate. Numbers of participants will in turn be impacted by the degree to which the event is advertised. After reviewing recent one -day events in Mountain View, Los Altos and Cupertino, and using a participation guideline developed by ABAG (average of .8% of population participates), Los Gatos staff projected costs as follows: $77,100 Attached is a table that shows funding mechanisms used by cities in Santa Clara to finance HHW collection. Participation Estimated Cost Per Rate Population Participants Participant Total Campbell .8% 34,500 276 $100 $27,600 Los Gatos .8% 28,114 225 100 22,500 Monte Sereno .8% 3,461 28 100 2,800 Saratoga .8% 30,230 242 100 24,200 $77,100 Attached is a table that shows funding mechanisms used by cities in Santa Clara to finance HHW collection. Page 4 COUNTY -WIDE HHW MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: A Household Hazardous Materials working group has investigated the need for a County -wide household hazardous materials program. The committee made its recommendations in October, 1988. Those include a planning effort that will determine how to develop a County -wide program which will offer on -going collection sites and a County -wide public education program. The Rate Review Committee believes that ultimately a County -wide approach will best serve all our residents. However, at least for the current budget year, and most likely 1990 -91, a County -wide program will continue to be in the research /planning stages. CONCLUSION: Based on the demonstrated need for the service and current status of County -wide HHW management planning, the Rate Review Committee recommends that the Cities /Town enter into an agreement with Safety Specialists, Inc. to conduct a HHW Collection Day. f:HHWCollection Examples of HHW Collection Day Events in Santa Clara County: 1985 -1989 CITY DATE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PARTICI- PATION PART. RATE DRUMS" COLLECTED DRUMS RECYCLED COST PUBLICITY METHOD FUNDING SOURCE Cupertino 4/85 13,800 123 0.89% 43 65% $7,700 Media ity, HW Contractor Milpitas 4/89 12,000 350 2.00% 180 30% $63,322 Banners, Direct Mail, Flyers, and Media Morgan Hill/ Gilroy 9/86 14,670 100 0.68% 52 48% $13,000 Utility Bills City General Fund Morgan Hill 6/87 6,600 37 0.93% 1 10.5 70% $4,100 Flyers and Media City General Fund Mnt. View Los Altos 5/85 '38,380 389 1.01% 131 66% $33,000 Utility Bills City General Fund Mnt. View Los Altos/ Cupertino 11/86 1 42,650 1 244 1 0.57% 108 56% $22,000 Media City General Fund Palo Alto 6/85 23,440 180 0.77% 72 60% $14,542 Utility Bills Utility Surcharge Palo Alto 4/86 +23,600 306 1.30% 120 61% $23,832 Utill.ty Bills Utility Palo Alto 7/89 23,600 463 2.00% 166 42% $44,855 Utility Bills -Surcharge Utility Surcharge San Jose 6/89 253,000 2,300 0.90% 1,745 41% $331987 Flt ers and Media City General Fund Santa Clara 9/86 34,900 252 0.72% 123 51% $39,805 Utility Bills School Flyer & Media Utility Surcharge Santa Clara 4/89 42,000 812 1.90% 244 36% $53,044 utility Bills School FI er & Media Utility Surcharge Santa Clara 9/89 42,000 1,124 2.78% 241 47% $44,000 Utility i s, School Flyer &Media Utility Surcharge Sunnyvale 10/85 45,050 103 0.23% 45 56% $10,260 Utility Bills City General Fund Sunnyvale 5/86 46,000 120 0.26% 94 22% $26,826 Direct Mail City General Fund Sunnyvale . 5/87 1 46,000 464 1 1.00% 219 53% $23,250 1 Direct Mail I City General Fund • These figures may Include material that was recovered, reused, incinerated, or reclaimed. Drums or drum equivalents SOURCE: Proposal for Development of Countywide HHW Management Program October 1989 r� y a z y E a i �a N� a � s /4rr,9cvVME.v 7 N V4,( ~` Q�� < � GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. � �7 UN!VFRYTY AVENUE • PO F30X 1227 + LOS GATOS. CA 9503 1 -122 % PHONE ! -M,8) '54-2100 p/SppSP, HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROPOSAL We are pleased to present the following plan for the collection, transportation and disposal of household hazardous waste to Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga. Presently there is no formal mechanism in place for disposing of this type of material. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE (HHW) Household hazardous waste is defined as all items 1A) identified and listed by the EPA as hazardous waste (Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 USC Section 6901 etc.) OR 1B) defined by the California Health and Safety Code (Section 25110.02, 25115, and 25117) as hazardous waste, acutely hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste AND 2) generated at residential dwellings. Some of the more common household hazardous wastes that are accepted in these HHW programs are: latex paints, oil -based paints, pesticides, waste oil, thinners /solvents, automotive products, pool chemicals, cleaners, polishes, acids, hobby supplies, household and auto batteries, medicines, cosmetics, and aerosols. Items that have NOT been accepted in these programs include PCB wastes, radioactive materials, materials that react violently when subject to shock, pressurized gas cylinders, explosives (e.g. ammunition). ELIGIBILITY Since this is an HHW program, businesses would be excluded. It should be noted that in California, the amount of hazardous waste that can be transported in one trip by an unregistered hauler (which would be our residents) is 50 lbs. (maximum 10 lb. container size) or 5 gallons in 1- gallon container size. These contents of these containers must not be co- mingled. Naturally, our residents can make several trips if they will exceed the maximum. t e: �, :! Ita l, ••PY There is no provision in this program to turn away residential haulers with greater amounts. TYPE OF PROGRAM The most cost - effective method is the establishment of 1 -day drop -off programs as opposed to home pick -up service. We are proposing 1 -day drop -off programs. FREQUENCY OF DROP -OFF DAYS Convenience is important to the success of the program. Because of the spread of geography, the 1 -day events should be held 2 to 3 times a year at rotating sites to attract the greatest participation. Other HHW programs have found the greatest participation in the Springtime (April through June). The second most popular season is Fall (September - October) before the wet season arrives. Summer and Winter are okay when the program is held more than once a year. It would be ideal if the drop -off days can be fitted into the National Poison Prevention Week and the Fire Prevention Week. This proposal consists of a one time 1 -day event. Subsequent events are expected to cost the same amount. LOCATION FOR DROP -OFFS Suggested locations are city /town -owned parking lots, fire departments, industrial parking lots, and public works yards. Because we are suggesting 1 -day events, the locations must have ample area to stage the event, be able to accommodate a heavy flow of traffic, be near major streets, and have name recognition so residents do not get frustrated looking for the site. Based on the number of households in our service area, potential sites should be at least 1/2 acre in size. TYPES OF PRODUCTS BROUGHT IN The breakdown of the major waste components for two diverse cities in the Bay Area is presented below. These average percentages were used to generate the expected disposal costs. Oakland Sunnvvale Paint, latex & oil 70% 58% Oil products 7 10 Solvents /cleaners 11 6 Aerosols not sep 6 Putties not sep 5 Pesticides 5 4 Acids /bases 3 not sep Other 4 11 1000 100% Disposal is expected to consist of the following: 1. Forty(40) percent of the incoming latex paint is recyclable. The HHW contractor will recycle this paint. 2. The waste oil would be placed in a tank to be removed by an oil recycler. 3. Auto batteries would be recycled. 4. The majority of the remaining items would be placed into 55 gallon drums and taken to a hazardous waste landfill. PARTICIPATION RATE Participation rate among the various programs have ranged from 4 /10ths of 1% to 1.2% with the average around 8 /10ths of 1 %. The denominator for calculating participation rate is the total number of households in the city. Because this will be a 1st time event, the number of households that will participate may vary significantly. To cover a wide range of participation, we have provided estimates for 400, 500 and 600 participants. 7 HHW PER PARTICIPATING HOUSEHOLD The average volume of HHW per participating household takes up 4 /10ths of a 55 gallon drum that is packed with all the necessary shipping material. This is equal to 60 to 80 lbs or 7 to 10 full 1 gallon containers. Based upon the experience of others, we have used a disposal rate that is equivalent to 2 to 3 participating households per 1 drum of material that will be incinerated or landfilled. This drum excludes the useable latex paint and the waste oil that will be received from the households and be recycled. PUBLICITY The goal is to eliminate HHW in the waste stream going to the landfill. Additionally all households, regardless of single family, apartment complexes, mobile home parks, or condominiums, should be given the opportunity to participate. In other words, all residents, regardless if they receive residential or commercial service, should be notified and have the opportunity to participate. In our proposal, we have included a message on the quarterly residential billing; newspaper advertisement in the Saratoga News, the Campbell Monthly, the Los Gatos Weekly, and the Los Gatos Times Observer; and postcards by bulk mail to all ratepayers; inclusion in the City /Town newsletters; and Public Service Announcements (PSA) in the cable TV, TV and radio. WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE Unlike many of the cities with HHW programs that also have mandatory garbage service, e.g. Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto, and the residents pay a portion of the HHW program costs, our residents can choose to have or not to have garbage service. If part of the cost of the HHW program is assessed to the ratepayers, should non - ratepayers who are residents be allowed to participate? STAFFING AND VOLUNTEERS To reduce the cost of the program, many HHW programs use volunteers for various aspects of the operation. We are proposing the use of volunteers in the traffic and questionnaire functions. The functions that need to be filled are: 1. On -site supervisor /Program supervisor - general supervision; also has authority to turn away or remove people who threaten safety or security; takes care of site emergencies; handles people who bring in too much HHW. 2. Chemist - answers questions about specific products; supervises the sorting, manifesting and packaging of the HHW; classifies HHW; performs tests to identify characteristics (e.g. pH, PCB concentration, flammability) of HHW where needed. 3. Staff - there are normally at least 15 people who would take the completed questionnaires, remove the HHW from the vehicle, sort the HHW, manifest it, and package it. 4. Questionnaire personnel - At a HHW drop -off site, a questionnaire is given to each incoming vehicle. The questionnaire would ask for city /town of residence, the type of HHW being dropped off, and comments, suggestions and thoughts about the HHW program. Many times, volunteers can be used for this function. 5. Traffic directors - Have at least one person to guide cars to the multi -lane waiting area (like going into a car wash). Have another person to direct individual vehicles to the appropriate unloading zone. This is another function where volunteers can be utilized. . In this proposal, there will be 27 people involved of which 19 are paid individuals, and the remaining 8 are volunteers. The tasks of these individuals are as follows: 4 - traffic directors (community volunteers) 4 - questionnaire personnel (community volunteers) 5 - staff unloading materials from vehicles 6 - staff to handle paint and related products segregation and packing 2 - staff to handle solvents (vehicle anti - freeze is included in this category) segregation and packing 3 - staff to handle pesticides segregation and packing 2 - staff to handle corrosives and oxidizers segregation and packing 1 - staff to handle miscellaneous items such as non-pesti- cides poisons and lead -acid batteries 27 The on -site manager, safety supervisor, chemists and technicians are included in the 27 people. 7 OTHER EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES Fire extinguisher for Class A, B & C fires. Eyewash or shower station. Carts for moving HHW from vehicles to sorting tables. Attention - getters, e.g. banners, flags, balloons. Garbage bin for non -HHW. Communications equipment. Emergency response equipment. Gloves, safety glasses, and lab uniforms. First -aid kit. Tables and chairs. Pens, clipboards, questionnaires. Traffic cones, rope, etc. to mark off lanes and direct traffic. Signs indicating how to reach site. Signs that indicate "Restricted Area ", "No Smoking ", etc. Lab tests kit. Absorbent material for spills and lab packing. Ground and table covers. DISPOSAL COSTS, EXCLUDING ON -SITE LABOR AND EQUIPMENT The actual disposal cost per drum is $231. (Using the average of 150 to 200 lbs of HHW in a drum, this is equivalent to $2,310 to $3,080 per ton!) I TOTAL COST OF THE PROGRAM FOR ONE TIME 1 -DAY EVENT The cost of the program will vary significantly depending on the quantity of waste received. The turnkey costs for the proposed program are estimated based on the following assumptions: # of participants: # of drums: # of gal. of usable latex paint # of gal. of waste oil: cost of program 400 500 600 163 200 244 800 1,000 1,200 550 700 850 $71,000 $80,000 $91,000 TOTAL COST OF THE PROGRAM IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS EXCLUDING CITY - PROVIDED SUPPORT SERVICES AND HAULER SERVICES In Sunnyvale, Rich Gurney, the solid waste manager, says the last HHW event (May 1989) held in Sunnyvale cost $68,000. Sunnyvale has a total household base similar to the our 4 cities and town combined. Sunnyvale holds their HHW event twice a year, once in May, the other in October. In Mountain View, Mark Bowers, recycling coordinator, says their HHW program for the year cost $32,700. Their number of residential households (excluding apartments) is 13,000 vs. 29,000 for ours. Their HHW program is held 3 times a year but only once during the year is it held in Mountain View. Extrapolating the ratio of households to program costs, their 13,000 households : $32,700, than our 29,000 is $73,000. The $73,000 is close to Sunnyvale's $68,000. To compare these programs, several factors must be included to compare to the proposed West Valley cities /town program: 1. city personnel labor for putting the program together, soliciting HHW contractor bids, evaluating and awarding the bids, administering the program, performing the publicity and advertising, and being present on the day of the event (Mountain View and Sunnyvale have full -time personnel to work on recycling and HHW), 2. the refuse collector costs to haul the debris away and 3. waste oil contractor costs are added into the HHW contractor costs, the program would probably be costing another $20,000 to $30,000. If all costs are factored in, the true range of costs would be: Mountain View, extrapolated for West Valley - $93,000 - $103,000 Sunnyvale - $88,000 -$ 98,000 TOTAL COST OF THE PROGRAM IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS INCLUDING CITY - PROVIDED SUPPORT SERVICES AND HAULER SERVICES Salinas in Monterey County has 40,000 households. The population of Salinas and the immediate surrounding area is 120,000 - 125,000. This is the 4th year of the program. The cost of the program including advertising, trash hauling, set -up and preparation for the HHW contractor is $88,000. COST- SHARING The program is costly, but it is important for our environment. Green Valley Disposal and Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal are committed to keeping the environment clean. Green Valley Disposal will take responsibility for the following: 1. Solicit bids as needed for HHW contractor 2. Evaluate and select the HHW contractor 3. Prepare mailing labels from customer database 4. Buy postcards and print announcement of HHW day 5. Mail postcards 6. Prepare announcements and advertisements for local newspapers and local cable TV 7. Arrange and pay for collection of waste oil 8. Arrange for collection of lead -acid batteries 9. Provide labor for waste oil collection 10. Arrange and pay for labor, vehicles and debris boxes for disposal of debris, e.g. empty latex paint cans 11. Arrange for the volunteers 12. Prepare and print the questionnaire 13. Prepare volunteer information sheet, operating procedures and responsibilities sheet, and volunteer waiver sheet Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal will 1. Provide labor and street sweeper for clean -up after the event 2. No disposal /tipping fee charge for HHW event debris 3. Provide any equipment on -hand to offset HHW contractor charges These items will reduce the cost of the event to: # of participants: 400 500 600 cost of program $46,000 $55,000 $66,000 The Cities and Town will need to do the following: 1. finance the remaining cost of the program 2. identify potential sites. The HHW contractor will review the sites for the Cities and Town. 3. complete item 1 of the permit variance application form. 4. notify local emergency services, e.g. police, fire, HazMat and hospital. TIMETABLE After the site(s) have been decided, we need a minimum of 8 weeks advance notice prior to the date of the event. This time period would be used for: A. publicity and advertising B. obtaining state EH # (2 weeks) C. obtaining EPA ID # (1 day) D. submission of permit variance application to the State (30 days). 60